Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
QuoteHow would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
In this scenario, it sounds like there's a disconnect between the player and the kind of game he wants to play. You should probably talk to him about that first. If this is really bumming him out, I might start the whole party out at level three or so to give them a little more survivability.
While I would never just blow it off, like "them's the breaks"; to a certain extent, I feel that the higher mortality rate should be acceptable. To lessen the blow, things like actually roleplaying the funerary process might help; as well as maybe a family member (eg the player's new character) could appear to inherit their gear and say to carry out vengeance or such, which would make for good character motivation.
I was 'brought up' with old school basic/expert D&D but these days I play a game without levels, where you usually finish with as many hit points as you started with.
It's a bracing experience that leads to a more thoughtful kind of gamer. You normally can't just bull your way through battles, tactics and strategies become vital tools in the players' skillset. The group working as a team is a prerequisite, and they quickly become a well oiled machine.
The focus also moves more to the character and character development. Achieving game, campaign, character and group goals is a key element in the enjoyment of such RPGs when there isn't a metagame level target to aim at.
So I guess what I'm saying is some of us prefer the low level experience and don't enjoy being medieval godlings.
Well, the answer is "talk to them." I make it clear what kind of game I run.
However, I also love curve balls. One thing that always happens when a new player group starts is that they see a bunch of peasants bringing a dead peasant to the temple to be buried. The Patriarch says, "One day... and this day may never come... the Temple of Cuthbert will need a favor." and then he raises the dead peasant.
So, the players know that even for a first level character, resurrection is possible... for a price.
One new player in amongst a bunch of experienced ones doesn't tend to be as much of a problem; my players are good at integrating, and we all convey the idea of "this is dangerous but we'll give you all the help we can, but there are no guarantees."
Also, my usual players have learned how to survive low levels pretty reliably after forty years.
Also also, the fact that I use 3d6 in order means it takes about 5 min. to make a character.
tl;dr It hasn't been much of a problem for me, but I would pay attention to the new player and talk to them as the game goes on.
Also, I did have a TPK developing with some new players with new 1st level characters all because I happened to roll surprise. So the director called "CUT" and we restaged the scene and ran it again. I did this because they were all new to D&D, and frankly I didn't want them to say "This game sucks!" and never play again. But we talked about it afterwards and I told them it was because I rolled surprise and half the party was dead before they had a chance to even react, and that they should not expect such mercy again.
But one other group got a TPK to kobolds in their first session and said "Let's roll new characters and get those little fuckers!" and did.
tl;dr Read the situation and act accordingly.
I think the issue is being able to lose through no fault of your own. The punishing computer games (Most recently Dark Souls and Monster Hunter, but also roguelikes and the recent spate of roguelikelikes) present fair challenges; they kill you for rushing in unprepared, they are incredibly harsh on players who play stupid, but you can get a long way by just using the basic defensive moves, taking your time, and observing what's going on. They're not trying to kill you, but presenting an environment where it is very easy to kill yourself.
There's a feature in Dark Souls that lets you see how other players have died. The amount of players I've seen who have died, walking off the stairs in the first area of the main game world, before they even meet a monster...
But in an RPG, you can't do that; you're at the whims of the dice, and there is only so much you can do to even the odds in your favour, especially when a fight starts.
I'd say just give 'em a WFRP fate point or two, or a couple of free "the blow leaves you at one hit point" advantages for the group (Never tell them how many)... or even just let them survive the first adventure automatically. The enemies happen to carry exactly enough healing potions to keep you all going! What joy. Gloves off next week.
I don't understand. Have these people never played a videogame?
Quote from: TristramEvans;699317I don't understand. Have these people never played a videogame?
You don't "lose" a character in the great majority of videogames, they just respawn, good as new, maybe minus a life or some XP or something. You don't mis-judge a Goomba and then
never get to play Mario again.
Quote from: TristramEvans;699317I don't understand. Have these people never played a videogame?
Videogames let you save and reload.
I think part of this issue can be linked to how long character generation takes in the system you are using.
I don't think high attrition is as big a deal in a game where you can make a replacement in 5-10 minutes and are allowed to rejoin the fray immediately.
High early mortality is a bigger turn off in games that have lengthier character generation systems. If I spend an hour or more looking through books for classes, feats, talents, etc. and/or rolling on a zillion tables for my random background, then I am much more likely to be ticked off if I die the first time a kobold gnaws on my ankle.
In my experience it is best to explain to the players the possibility of high mortality before the campaign begins. I did this last year when I introduced the group to the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. I told them about the zero level "character funnel" and the imbalanced nature of magic beforehand. This helped with the player's expectations.
Quote from: Ladybird;699315But in an RPG, you can't do that; you're at the whims of the dice, and there is only so much you can do to even the odds in your favour, especially when a fight starts.
Funny, I see it just the opposite way; in a computer game I'm limited to what's been programmed in, but in a RPG I can do everything I can think of to alter the odds in my favor.
However, I've found in recent years a lot of players just don't think of things like giving the second rank polearms so they can fight with the front ranks, using spears in the front rank so you can set vs charge or else throw them, if you know the enemy are coming putting a small detachment hidden to your own left to hit the enemy in the unshielded flank, and all the other stuff that we did.
Quote from: Ladybird;699319You don't "lose" a character in the great majority of videogames, they just respawn, good as new, maybe minus a life or some XP or something. You don't mis-judge a Goomba and then never get to play Mario again.
I'd probably, given the same stats, play Malio the Plumber, or the closest name the GM will vet.
How much of this is player expectation? I think a lot of people, especially those new to RPGs are expecting and wanting more "Fiction Emulation" than the old school gaming can deliver. I know one of the newest additions to our gaming group wants to emulate the D&D fiction (Forgotten Realms books) he's enamored with at the moment. That's why he doesn't like the older editions of D&D, because you really cant emulate Fiction very well with it.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699327Funny, I see it just the opposite way; in a computer game I'm limited to what's been programmed in, but in a RPG I can do everything I can think of to alter the odds in my favor.
However, I've found in recent years a lot of players just don't think of things like giving the second rank polearms so they can fight with the front ranks, using spears in the front rank so you can set vs charge or else throw them, if you know the enemy are coming putting a small detachment hidden to your own left to hit the enemy in the unshielded flank, and all the other stuff that we did.
I wonder if part of this has to do with the current generation of gamers having no wargaming background, for the most part anyway. It seems like that kind of thinking comes more naturally to players who have a wargaming background, kind of informing their expectation of combat. While most gamers I know now have their expectations informed by Final Fantasy and movies.
I could be way off base, just a thought.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699327Funny, I see it just the opposite way; in a computer game I'm limited to what's been programmed in, but in a RPG I can do everything I can think of to alter the odds in my favor.
I think they were referring to situations where they dice just screw you. Like the surprise you wrote about earlier where half the party members were dead before they even had a chance to react.
I don't mind getting killed because my character did something stupid, and I don't mind that death can occur due to bad dice rolls, but I'll be honest, I have no interest in games where I'm expected to lose multiple characters before I get one to even level.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699327Funny, I see it just the opposite way; in a computer game I'm limited to what's been programmed in, but in a RPG I can do everything I can think of to alter the odds in my favor.
However, I've found in recent years a lot of players just don't think of things like giving the second rank polearms so they can fight with the front ranks, using spears in the front rank so you can set vs charge or else throw them, if you know the enemy are coming putting a small detachment hidden to your own left to hit the enemy in the unshielded flank, and all the other stuff that we did.
I'm not certain that would occur to most
characters in a setting, either, who hadn't been trained in soldiering and small-unit tactics. And then they need the discipline to not break after the charge, and the skill to fight through a rank. Those are not casual skills to possess!
And
then, like Arkansan said, most players these days are not wargamers, and not used to looking for and exploiting the wargamey rules in combat mechanics.
(Personally, I'd consider using small-unit tactics without some logical reason why the character should know them, to kinda be poor play. But each to their own.)
Quote from: Ladybird;699333And then, like Arkansan said, most players these days are not wargamers, and not used to looking for and exploiting the wargamey rules in combat mechanics.
They are coming up with different ways to craftily defeat enemies though, like this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27980). That's something I really love and something you rarely get with high level play, which hasn't much to do with old school versus new school. Players start to use strange tactics and cunning usually only when pushed to it, which is why I prefer a more vulnerable level of play.
When the edge is that much closer, the dance is that much more refined.
Quote from: The Traveller;699336They are coming up with different ways to craftily defeat enemies though, like this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27980). That's something I really love and something you rarely get with high level play, which hasn't much to do with old school versus new school. Players start to use strange tactics and cunning usually only when pushed to it, which is why I prefer a more vulnerable level of play.
When the edge is that much closer, the dance is that much more refined.
Actually, so do I. If I'm playing a fighty character, I like playing smart, working with the environment, chewing on the scenary. But that sounds like an experienced party, who don't panic, and have a lot of resources they can draw on.
On the other hand, if I am playing an explicit non-combatant who finds their way into combat, I will play dumb, panic, and make poor decisions... because they are not a combatant. I've almost lost characters I liked that way, but I'd do it again the next time because it was the right choice.
Quote from: Shauncat;699328I'd probably, given the same stats, play Malio the Plumber, or the closest name the GM will vet.
This is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?
Quote from: Ladybird;699339Actually, so do I. If I'm playing a fighty character, I like playing smart, working with the environment, chewing on the scenary. But that sounds like an experienced party, who don't panic, and have a lot of resources they can draw on.
On the other hand, if I am playing an explicit non-combatant who finds their way into combat, I will play dumb, panic, and make poor decisions... because they are not a combatant. I've almost lost characters I liked that way, but I'd do it again the next time because it was the right choice.
You and Arkansan should probably remember, that I suspect a good number of those "wargames trained" players, back in the days, were a bit like CharOpers today, except they were optimising their formations & hirelings for the optimal amount of spears and bows in the second rank, rather than DPS.
When I play a mercenary, I'll play Fantasy Tactics General. If I play a berserker, I'll probably just charge ahead if I'm right now high on mushroo- in battle rage. If I'm a Ratcatcher freshly turned adventurer, I'll probably ask the mercenary what the hell to do.
As for the OP's question - personally, I'd just draw influence from Warhammer, and install Fate Points for the entire party, as bonus "lives" so the party gets the hang of mortality without being surprised and even perhaps a bit disheartened that first 2 Goombas they encounter jump on
them without warning.
Some video games do encourage out of the box thinking. Dark Souls, for instance, has a structure very much like a "megadungeon" module, with areas that are harder if you haven't leveled up for them appropriately, but allow you to gain overpowered gear for the level you're at if you can survive in them.
Other games though, like World of Warcraft... thinking of an "innovative" way to slay a boss gets you a temporary ban and being stripped of your world first kill (in the case of Ensidia's Lich King kill).
Quote from: Ladybird;699333I'm not certain that would occur to most characters in a setting, either, who hadn't been trained in soldiering and small-unit tactics. And then they need the discipline to not break after the charge, and the skill to fight through a rank. Those are not casual skills to possess!
In OD&D a first level fighter is a "Veteran." And pretty much "to be trained in fighting" in the Middle Ages meant to have SOME familiarity with small unit tactics.
Quote from: Ladybird;699339Actually, so do I. If I'm playing a fighty character, I like playing smart, working with the environment, chewing on the scenary. But that sounds like an experienced party, who don't panic, and have a lot of resources they can draw on.
On the other hand, if I am playing an explicit non-combatant who finds their way into combat, I will play dumb, panic, and make poor decisions... because they are not a combatant. I've almost lost characters I liked that way, but I'd do it again the next time because it was the right choice.
Oddly enough, in my experience characters who are panicky and out of options will invent and create their own options, players too. Some of my favourite scenarios are ones which I, as GM, can't readily see a way out of - the group never fails to amaze me with their innovation. Nobody throws up their hands and says, man this is a bullshit kobayashi maru situation, they take any tiny crack and force a wedge into it.
It's really hard to get that kind of effect in higher level D&D games.
Quote from: The Traveller;699345Oddly enough, in my experience characters who are panicky and out of options will invent and create their own options, players too. Some of my favourite scenarios are ones which I, as GM, can't readily see a way out of - the group never fails to amaze me with their innovation. Nobody throws up their hands and says, man this is a bullshit kobayashi maru situation, they take any tiny crack and force a wedge into it.
It's really hard to get that kind of effect in higher level D&D games.
I've paniced and hidden in the pit that we were about to trap and banish a cthulhoid entity in before now. It made sense at the time, after a few failed SAN checks and being surrounded by (Evil) imps.
I don't know that I would so much call using basic small unit tactics CharOping. Like Geezer said l would assume any fighting man in setting to have at least some familiarity with tactics. Also I consider it less exploitative considering that the dungeon as an environment kinda suits a pseudo shield wall/phalanx approach, at least in a stand up fight anyway. Though I would consider it pretty gamey of a group of all magic users or the like.
I was more commenting on the fact that I think gaming culture has changed quite a bit since back in the day. I think it is a lot more self informed now than it was in the beginning, now most players draw from D&D itself or video games that are to some degree or another also drawing from D&D.
An aside, I have always thought that od&d in regards to bit points is really detached from the literature that inspired it. From what I have read, Conan, Kull, Fafhrd etc, all start their careers pretty competent and resilient. Where as pcs start pretty damn fragile and unskilled. I don't think this is a bad thing per say, just a thing. It's also why I use Akrasia's HP house rule for my od&d games now.
Quote from: Arkansan;699351I don't know that I would so much call using basic small unit tactics CharOping. Like Geezer said l would assume any fighting man in setting to have at least some familiarity with tactics. Also I consider it less exploitative considering that the dungeon as an environment kinda suits a pseudo shield wall/phalanx approach, at least in a stand up fight anyway. Though I would consider it pretty gamey of a group of all magic users or the like.
I was more commenting on the fact that I think gaming culture has changed quite a bit since back in the day. I think it is a lot more self informed now than it was in the beginning, now most players draw from D&D itself or video games that are to some degree or another also drawing from D&D.
An aside, I have always thought that od&d in regards to bit points is really detached from the literature that inspired it. From what I have read, Conan, Kull, Fafhrd etc, all start their careers pretty competent and resilient. Where as pcs start pretty damn fragile and unskilled. I don't think this is a bad thing per say, just a thing. It's also why I use Akrasia's HP house rule for my od&d games now.
Well, it's also important that Conan and Fafhrd have narrative imperative on their side, as well as the imperative of pecunia non olet* ;). And I'm myself not accusing someone who'd use basic tactics of CharOping, but when it's suddenly revolving around numbers of minions with bows, numbers of minions with crossbows, and numbers of minions with spears, it starts to not only be a be odd, it starts to be gamey - except someone's not calculating their own damage output, but entire team's, so to speak.
*what, if they'd die, the author'd have to, heavens forgive, invent another popular character!
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
In D&D, the easy answer to this problem is to start the PC at a more "heroic" level. For example, instead of a 1st level Fighter, start with a 4th level Fighter.
However, when you're talking about an entire group, you need to consider the desires of the group. If it's just one player who is complaining, and the rest of the group *likes* the tough and unforgiving model of low-level D&D play, then you've got a tougher problem, and maybe just a disconnect between the desires of one player and the desires of the rest of group. I'd bring it up for discussion:
"Do you guys want to just all start PCs at 4th level, or so? Or, if you want to play 1st level PCs and work them up, would you mind Shirley, here, playing a 4th level PC? Or if you *really* want some powerful characters, we could play a different game, like
Lords of Olympus..." ;)
Yeah I would agree that there is a point where tactics could go too far and be pretty gamey. As to the original question I am ok with something like a fate point or two that allows the character a pass, but I would give a set amount at creation that were not regained. Typically though I just treat CON as true HP and HP as fatigue, still pretty deadly at low levels but gives just enough cushion. I also have a chart I use of serious injuries that are suffered when dipping into CON, some of which have permanent effects.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer ... in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
If its an old school game on offer, "them's the breaks." I'd go so far as to say if someone asks me to make a change, or even if they don't ask but aren't having fun in the game, I'll suggest they simply not play.
But I'm not actually an old school D&D only gamer; I play and run other games. The background to the above is I no longer do "group first, game second" games. I got in a meetup group some years back, where GM's pitch games, and interested people sign up. And I've got some of the best game sessions of my life out of that, now that I'm no longer trying to find compromise positions between essentially random or opposed play styles.
Well from experience it depends alot on the players and the GM. As usual.
But there are options that dont involve re-rolling a character.
A: The surviving characters haul the dead character back to a temple and ask for a raise dead or even gamble on a resurrect. If they lack the funds then the GM can provide some friendly druids or travelling priest who does it for free. But sets them on a quest as repayment. Or even a temple that sets the body in stasis and wont raise the character untill the group performs a quest. The last is the least usefull option as it sidelines the dead character. But the GM could have them roll up an NPC to tag along and help. Any XP accured would go to the deceased. Whatever the DM or players can come up with to salvage the situation.
B: For whatever reason the character rises as a Skeleton or ghost-like being. And things proceed from there to finding the spectre a new body or raise.
C: A mad scientist or alchemist offers to "fix" the character.
D: mysterious figure wanders by and raises the character. But tells the group that the effect is not permanent and they have only XYZ days to get to location like a moon pool and perform a ritual to complete the effect. Are they telling the truth? Or is it a trick for some greater scheme?
E: The group soon after finds a scroll or artifact that can do the job. Perhaps something else wants to stop them from completing the process which might be lengthy.
F: The character wasnt really dead! Some heirloom or trinket that seemed totally useless saved them. Or even raised them.
Depends on how harsh the setting. I mean Dark Sun tells you flat out to make an extra character to play if/when the first dies.
But personally I prefer options to bring back a fallen character. But the players have to work for it one way or another. Or it leads to plot hooks that can be sprung later.
Of course sometimes the end is the end for that character. Especially if they did something monumentally and deliberately stupid as the player to get the character dead. If they asked the dragon to blast em then that it. Sweep up the ashes and roll a new character. Also I feel really heroic deaths should be final. Especially if the player is ok with it. Of course the rest of the group may still set off to raise them. Maybee the ghost wont want to come back?
Games where death happens a little too much will conversely cheapen and deaden interest in keeping a character. "Why bother. Hes doomed like the last six?" mentality can set in.
Some players can roll with it. Others absolutely cannot. The DM needs to look at where the line crosses and act accordingly. Just dont retcon/rewind events to undo it. The players will tend to be more appriciative if the tale of the characters recovery is suitably impressive.
And it builds good group cohesion when they work together to bring back a companion.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level . . . is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
No - they're whiny little cunts.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely?
I don't wait until it happens to explain the 'facts of life and death' to them; from the giddyup I explain how roleplaying games are different from books and novels, that it's a game with dice and odds and good and bad luck, and that losing a character is neither uncommon nor a showstopper, as a new character can be created and introduced to the game.
If they're still having a hard time with it after that, then they're a poor fit for the campaign I'm running and are welcome to excuse themselves, no harm, no foul.
Quote from: Ladybird;699319You don't mis-judge a Goomba and then never get to play Mario again.
You don't misjudge a Cardinal's Guard and never get to play
Flashing Blades again, either.
Quote from: Arkansan;699331I wonder if part of this has to do with the current generation of gamers having no wargaming background, for the most part anyway.
I think it has a fair amount to do with it.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699440No - they're whiny little cunts.
I love when people get stupidly macho about pretending to be fantasy characters. You are playing a game of make believe. Feeling the need to emasculate people who play make believe in a different way than you is almost embarrassing to even watch.
And this is coming from a person who doesn't mind a character death or two.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699448I love when people get stupidly macho about pretending to be fantasy characters. You are playing a game of make believe. Feeling the need to emasculate people who play make believe in a different way than you is almost embarrassing to even watch.
Did you read the rest of my post, or did you just stop with me saying something to get a rise out of the first self-righteous idiot to happen along?
That would be you, by the way.
The part where you say "RPGs are like this" not "My campaigns are like this"?
Or the part where you misinterpret what someone said to mock them? They meant you don't get to play MARIO the character, not the game.
Nothing in the entire post amended anything you said in the first sentence, you just explained how you would approach a "whiny little cunt" being in your game. Just because you are polite to them in person doesn't mean you don't think they are a whiny little cunt.
And even if what you said afterwords did amend it, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let it stand that you intended for it to, baiting people intentionally is juvenile.
Lately I feel like the odd man out, complaining that no one in our games EVER dies. Our Deadlands GM responded with 'It's bad for the story'.
Luckily our Pathfinder group had a TPK last week and that warmed my heart.
When I run a game I state my aesthetics up front. Death is a real consequence and there is pretty much no way to come back from it. If a player balks at losing a PC then he can find some other group to play with. It's not a 'tough guy' stance... it's just a matter of taste.
I'm thinking these days it's far easier to find a low-mortality group than it is one where you go through a couple characters before you hit 5th level.
Really, I think it has a lot to do with the aforementioned lack of wargaming crossbreeding with the soft-touch most modern computer games put on character death. At most it's a minor inconvenience as you have to run back through the current level/area and collect the mcguffin again.
Most settings are rather explicitly hostile environments. Some moreso that others. Death should be a threat, even when it is potentially circumventable.
But eh. Some players and groups are really into the death factor. Others are the exact opposite. And the rest of us plod the sane middle.
From a game design and gameplay viewpoint you really dont want the players characters dropping like flies at the start. That can give a negative first impression to new players. You want them to be attracted to the game and not turned off because they just died six times before even hitting level 2.
There isnt any good workaround short of beefing up the starter characters in HP or level, which can be unsatisfying. Or the DM tweaking a few rolls to make sure the character doesnt get offed right off the bat. Which is also unsatisfying.
I still lean to the "give recovery options" stance. That way those who want to recover can, and those who are fine with re-rolling can get on with it. Talk it over with the group before starting and see where everyone stands on the issue.
I change HPs
Everyone starts with Wounds (you can actually modify this number if you want to be precise with a fully grown man having 6hp and a child 1).
Then the PCs who are trained get HPs. these are the ability to turn a slash into a nick or a crushing blow into a bruise. You know liek HPs are described in D&D.
At first level they either get to roll a dice or they get maximum for first level.
Wounds heal 1 per week + a Con check for an extra one if you have full rest.
HPs cure quickly in hours.
Now you have a wizard with 4 HP and 6 wounds. Or a fighter with 10/6
They are unlikely to die for a single mistep. Yes they might, but outside someone snipping them and getting a double damage hit its unlikely and unless that is another PC you the DM chose for that to occur so you need to own the consequence.
However when they get hit they will loose most of their hit points. They will realise that life is short. When they first get wounded chances are they will fuck off somewhere safe and return wiser and cannier.
In my current strontium Dog game no one has died yet but they have all come really close to dying and either hid or run away. A while back the party hard man who has 16 HP took on a bloke with a Big Hammer the hammer was doing 2d6 +5 (from Strength) damage. The hammer hit him one and took away all his hit points so he ran .....
If you use this mechanism not only do HPs make a bit more sense but your first level parties only die when they fuck up not when they forget to duck whilst walking through a door.
As an aside I think D&D should have a much more formal mechanism for making up PCs of different levels. Some sort of psuedo lifepath model with a year of adventuring giving you stuff, backstory and XP as well as risk.
I don't play MongTrav or MongRQ, but are the mortality rates significantly less than original Traveller and original RuneQuest?
Also, I fully agree with Omega that there are legitimate options to PC death that sometimes works great.
I run lots of one-shots at conventions and I've had dungeon itself resurrect the dead PC...but at the end, the PC found that he could not leave the dungeon, or at the end with the Big Boss, I take the player aside and reveal that his "rebirth" was actually just a possession by the Big Boss's minion and now its time to reveal and slay.
Even though old D&D is designed for a kind of game with (by current RPG standards) a high rate of character mortality, much of the system can be adapted to another kind. For that matter, I know old hands who have no patience for playing low levels any more, while people completely new to RPGs often have no problem with the need to replace casualties. It's in my experience mainly longtime gamers, accustomed to different games, who balk even at death with resurrection.
Mechanically, a big chunk of the problem is easily solved by giving PCs more HP, especially if monsters are left as is. The Runes of Doom (Arduin Grimoire III) presented a system that greatly reduced the HP significance of class levels. Hackmaster, IIRC, gave a "kicker" to characters and monsters alike.
"Save or die" (or "go straight to dying") effects require a bit more work to temper mechanically, but GMs can be mindful of what players consider fair warning.
Investment in laborious builds rather than quick roll-ups is certainly a factor in making sudden death undesirable, but it is itself often firstly a response to a desire for more extensive commitment to a given character than quick generation satisfies.
I've seen a sudden burst of high, frequent turnover hurt a group's overall investment in one campaign recently. As it is now, only one character still has a realistic investment in the hook that kicked the campaign off.
It's been feeling a bit like going through the motions lately in that game.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699327Funny, I see it just the opposite way; in a computer game I'm limited to what's been programmed in, but in a RPG I can do everything I can think of to alter the odds in my favor.
However, I've found in recent years a lot of players just don't think of things like giving the second rank polearms so they can fight with the front ranks, using spears in the front rank so you can set vs charge or else throw them, if you know the enemy are coming putting a small detachment hidden to your own left to hit the enemy in the unshielded flank, and all the other stuff that we did.
AD&D even gives explicit advantages for an advance guard of Elves and Halflings -- surprise those monsters for a change! -- but it's amazing how people neglect that.
Quote from: Omega;699476There isnt any good workaround short of beefing up the starter characters in HP or level, which can be unsatisfying. Or the DM tweaking a few rolls to make sure the character doesnt get offed right off the bat. Which is also unsatisfying.
My 'workaround' is that I usually provide plenty of 'safe' stuff for the PCs to do, adventures hooks that don't necessitate violence.
In my BRP homebrew the newly-minted PCs went off to recover some missing library books. Except for one wandering monster (that THEY chose to track down and fight) there was no violence thrust upon them.
It was all on them that they chose to go after the local bandit tribe, pick a fight with the town's religious leaders and pretty much started a war. If they'd just gone straight after the books they would have had plenty to do, locks to pick, mysteries to solve, but nothing that could have outright killed them.
Still, only one of them ended up dead (kinda) and he was really really pushing his luck.
Quote from: Rincewind1;699340This is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?
Agree 100%, though this is a symptom of something more fundamental. If some players expect to be able to invest in a character and have them survive no matter what, you haven't managed their expectations.
Any game where you roll up a character fit for X and it turns out to be Y can be off-putting -- happened to me in my first ever CoC game where I took my character (and their death) way more seriously than the other (experienced) players did. Once that was over and I realised the disposable nature of PCs in that game I had a better time.
The worst thing that comes of PC death in OSR (or any) game is when death means the player can no longer participate for a chunk of the session (because the party is down a dungeon, and the GM lacks a creative way to bring another PC in). That more than anything will put a player off. I have seen some games where the GM has said it's a high mortality game and if you die, you won't get another character. That hurt sign ups.
Quote from: smiorgan;699497Any game where you roll up a character fit for X and it turns out to be Y can be off-putting -- happened to me in my first ever CoC game where I took my character (and their death) way more seriously than the other (experienced) players did. Once that was over I had a better time.
That's why it's important to have a chat beforehand so everyone is at least kindasorta on the same page.
As a player I asked rude questions just prior to starting our Shadowrun campaign last Saturday... 'OK, I've never played this. What's the assumption here, it's not going to be just D&D with guns and cyberwear, right? Not random wandering with interludes of violence and then a quick trip to town to sell the loot?' (that's how they claim D&D ALWAYS plays and despite their assurances otherwise it looks like that's how Shadowrun is going to go too)
QuoteThe worst thing that comes of PC death in OSR (or any) game is when death means the player can no longer participate for a chunk of the session (because the party is down a dungeon, and the GM lacks a creative way to bring another PC in). That more than anything will put a player off.
Yeah, I've been on the receiving and giving (gm) end of that one... but I've learned my lesson. Monsters take hostages and PCs have hirelings and if nothing else 'Hey, this dog can talk!'
In the game I'm currently running, a knight with a longspear decided to go in front of the shield wall. He gotheld and murdered. The show is going on.
However, if half the party got ganked, things would be a bit weird. I listened to a podcast of people playing the Kingmaker adventure series. Things got crazy lethal in the mid to high levels, and the party went from "guys who founded a kingdom together" to "random dudes in charge of a kingdom for no discernible reason." When the last few founders died off, you could really feel everyone lose interest.
Quote from: Simlasa;699494My 'workaround' is that I usually provide plenty of 'safe' stuff for the PCs to do, adventures hooks that don't necessitate violence.
In my BRP homebrew the newly-minted PCs went off to recover some missing library books. Except for one wandering monster (that THEY chose to track down and fight) there was no violence thrust upon them.
It was all on them that they chose to go after the local bandit tribe, pick a fight with the town's religious leaders and pretty much started a war. If they'd just gone straight after the books they would have had plenty to do, locks to pick, mysteries to solve, but nothing that could have outright killed them.
Still, only one of them ended up dead (kinda) and he was really really pushing his luck.
True. Safe areas are a option too as long as they have non-com things to garner EXP off of.
And yeah, if they charge off headlong into trouble despite efforts to eas them into it. Well. Let the bodies fall where they may.
Quote from: Omega;699507And yeah, if they charge off headlong into trouble despite efforts to eas them into it. Well. Let the bodies fall where they may.
Hold the fucking phone.
What happened to new players becoming discouraged from their characters getting killed early in the game? Aren't
new players the ones
most likely to "charge off headlong into trouble" due to their lack of experience?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699511Hold the fucking phone.
What happened to new players becoming discouraged from their characters getting killed early in the game? Aren't new players the ones most likely to "charge off headlong into trouble" due to their lack of experience?
When you specifically give them a safe area and they insist on going off and getting their heads handed to them... well. yeah. Smack em around a bit and hope no one shuffles off the mortal coil.
Example. Was running a Mars RP and the characters were told very plainly on disembarking the transport that there were very clearly marked off zones where the police force could hang out and hunt anyone who stepped foot in the area. What does one of them do? Yep. Walks right into the first zone he sees and is eaten after one of the officers gave him ample warning he should beat it. The other characters, from a safe distance, persuaded her to cough the not very bright character up.
A little hand holding is fine for a new player. But theres a limit. And as said. There are options to a DOA start character that can lead to more adventures.
Case by case issue of course. I like to get a handle on player personality before starting a session with new people. Sometimes it gives clues where to hand hold this one and where to bury that one.
Quote from: Omega;699507True. Safe areas are a option too as long as they have non-com things to garner EXP off of.
Right or wrong my OSR yardstick is LotFP, which specifically only rewards (a) getting treasure from dangerous places and (b) killing stuff. That's what the game is about -- nutters doing dangerous jobs.
More power to you if you want to reward roleplaying with townies, but that's a different game, surely?
I can dig high lethality if charge is fast and easy, but I'm not going to get emotionally invested or attached to any of my characters, and I'm probably not going to be engaged in what's going on in the game beyond "how dead / rich am I? How much money is that thing worth?" I'll be engaging with the game at a mechanical level more than an imaginary level.
If chargen is involved or takes ages, I probably won't be back for session 2.
Quote from: Adric;699527I can dig high lethality if charge is fast and easy, but I'm not going to get emotionally invested or attached to any of my characters, and I'm probably not going to be engaged in what's going on in the game beyond "how dead / rich am I? How much money is that thing worth?" I'll be engaging with the game at a mechanical level more than an imaginary level.
Ah then you're missing out on the best bits. Not so much in comically high lethality games like some CoC sessions I've played in, but in games where if you foolishly charge and get shot by three guys with pistols you probably aren't getting back up.
Deadly isn't fun, deadly if you're stupid is, because it encourages clever gaming and out of the box thinking. Victory actually means something far more than treading the well worn "beat a level appropriate monster at the appropriate level" path. Yeah it stings more when you die too, but the higher the emotional risk, the higher the reward.
Quote from: The Traveller;699530Deadly isn't fun, deadly if you're stupid is, because it encourages clever gaming and out of the box thinking. Victory actually means something far more than treading the well worn "beat a level appropriate monster at the appropriate level" path. Yeah it stings more when you die too, but the higher the emotional risk, the higher the reward.
Yeah, exactly my sentiments on it. I don't need 5 pages of stats to feel connected to a PC, all it takes is a name and the couple of things I write under 'notes'. I like/want/need the real possibility of death in the game but that doesn't mean I get off on the dying... or seeing other PCs whacked. I just like the kind of play it encourages... and dislike the sort of play where players can trade bennies for re-rolls all day long because that's how goes down in the movies.
Quote from: smiorgan;699526Right or wrong my OSR yardstick is LotFP, which specifically only rewards (a) getting treasure from dangerous places and (b) killing stuff. That's what the game is about -- nutters doing dangerous jobs.
More power to you if you want to reward roleplaying with townies, but that's a different game, surely?
Surely, if you can sneak your way into the back door of the dungeon and make off with the loot without raising the alarm, fighting or getting fought, that must be worth something... right? The job is still dangerous... but there's are options besides kicking in the door and going in full bore.
Two of my favorite video games are Deus Ex and Postal 2... in part because they're set up so a player can pretty much make it through without killing anyone (though I've never managed it in P2), if he really wants to.
I'm not a pacifist but I like to have options and I don't like playing with folks who just want to attack everything and refuse to make plans... especially when it's because they know the rules/GM will pull its punches and let them off easy no matter how dumb they go.
Combat wise, I think Classic Traveller does an excellent job for a game that's not about fantastic battling superheroes. It ranges from impossible to very unlikely that a single hit from most weapons will kill an average character, but a shotgun blast will almost certainly send you to hospital. The consequences (barring putting yourself at the mercy of a killer determined to finish you off) are significant enough to deter rash violence, yet usually allow continued character development.
Call of Cthulhu is pretty similar.
I'm currently working on a Hackmaster campaign, as my Novus game imploded from player's complaining about one player's "uber build" (amongst other things, but this was the straw...). I chose Hackmaster because the combat system looks amazing AND (more importantly) it looks more complicated to actually CharOp. My hope is that some "old school" gaming will focus my group on actual play (versus CharOp), teamwork and experiencing real risk versus the silly "appropriate level encounter" stuff.
The subject of mortality and the random nature of character creation has become a sore point for two players. One of the reasons I chose Hackmaster was because I was super tired of arguing and complaining. I had a long talk with both players and stood my ground;
"I appreciate you feel this game doesn't offer you all the options you want or the ability to choose the best options. I chose it specifically so you couldn't optimize your characters. Instead I just want you to roll them up, elaborate on their backgrounds, and just play them. I'm not interested in debating the merits of Hackmaster, or changing the rules to better fit your demands, or entertaining myriad options to make everyone happy. We're playing this game as written. No exceptions. You understand fully where I'm coming from. I've explained how I GM, what I want from a game, and what I expect from you. You don't have to play in my game. If you can't let go of all your angst, and complaining, and bitterness you have to go. I don't want the negative whiny crap disrupting my game every week. If you can stop throwing temper tantrums, embrace the idiosyncrasies of old school gaming, and just GET INTO IT, you're welcome at my table." {footnote}
One player was going to leave and then changed his mind; the other calmed down and should be a problem no more. My other 4 players are happy as punch with my choice in Hackmaster so I think we're off to a good start (if a somewhat bumpy one...).
Quote from: Evansheer;699485I've seen a sudden burst of high, frequent turnover hurt a group's overall investment in one campaign recently. As it is now, only one character still has a realistic investment in the hook that kicked the campaign off.
It's been feeling a bit like going through the motions lately in that game.
Quote from: Arturick;699504... I listened to a podcast of people playing the Kingmaker adventure series. Things got crazy lethal in the mid to high levels, and the party went from "guys who founded a kingdom together" to "random dudes in charge of a kingdom for no discernible reason." When the last few founders died off, you could really feel everyone lose interest.
These posts intrigue me. I think it's fairly easy to discuss character mortality before a game and set expectations. It may not always go over well, but you can forewarn. However, what about long term play? How do old school games handle the potential lethality/mortality and still maintain continuity? When I was a younger chap, we just made new characters and kept playing. We weren't too interested in kingdom building until Birthright came about. That had some options IIRC where you are playing the ruler at a high level and the characters who serve that ruler in some capacity. If a character died, you could just make a new character that works for one of the rulers (yourself or another player). How do you folks handle this?
Footnote: I do not share my problem player's opinions on Hackmaster's "lack of customization". It's not a game you can CharOp to make the most capable uber-something. However, it has PILES of options in Talents, Skills, Proficiencies, classes, races and a long list of quirks/flaws. There are 14 types of clerics depending on the god you worship (and there's more due to come out in another book...). It's filled with options. You just have to take the good with the bad. You are not super heroes, your just a spark of a potential hero. You become heroes IN PLAY. Which is what I'm looking for right now in my fantasy game.
Quote from: Simlasa;699533Surely, if you can sneak your way into the back door of the dungeon and make off with the loot without raising the alarm, fighting or getting fought, that must be worth something... right? The job is still dangerous... but there's are options besides kicking in the door and going in full bore.
That counts as recovering treasure from dangerous places; how you recover treasure doesn't matter. Killing things is a secondary goal with much lower yeild of XP and higher risk -- so your sneaky strategy is arguably the preferred option according to the reward mechanisms.
My reply was to the idea of safe spaces and getting XP for social interaction in those spaces. That's a perfectly legitimate game, but it's not this game.
Quote from: trechriron;699556However, what about long term play? How do old school games handle the potential lethality/mortality and still maintain continuity?
Like, if we had a World War Two situation, and Roosevelt, Mussolini and Hitler all died? Hey, it's a fantasy game, man! History can roll on somehow.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699448I love when people get stupidly macho about pretending to be fantasy characters. You are playing a game of make believe. Feeling the need to emasculate people who play make believe in a different way than you is almost embarrassing to even watch.
And this is coming from a person who doesn't mind a character death or two.
It's classic (Grognard) Internet Tough Guy routine.
I would tell the player that the game system can be unforgiving and dangerous things can kill you.
The real issue here in my opinion, is how often does a character die when NOT doing somehting stupid or taking a known risk. (Entering a dragon cave?)
If the lethality is too frequent and or arbitrary, I can see many, many players not enjoying the game.
Rate of death is a delicate dance the gm has to learn based on what the players enjoy.
That being said, I personally feel real danger is much more engaging than 'You can't die no matter what'
Quote from: Bill;699574Rate of death is a delicate dance the gm has to learn based on what the players enjoy.
Really, pretty much all of the "Pundit starts a discussion point, A or B" topics could be answered "depends on the table".
Depends on how you define old skool.
If you define it solely as Fantasy Fucking Vietnam where players must risk their lives spelunking in veritable hornets nests to tomb raid, then yes, the expectation of high lethality to accomplish anything should be impressed upon the players from the get-go.
My definition for old skool is nowhere near as narrow, and I utilize far more XP methods.
Lethality is as relevant to the pre-game table conversation as is the campaign's premise and scope. Some games do not presume new PCs need to run through the gauntlet (or shredder) to progress. Lethality becomes a PC choice like anything else; risky choices have consequences, true, but also a spectrum. The game is said to be open and free and I have adhered to that since the start.
So I've run a game of Riddle of Steel-- don't do it, the game's shit, but the combat system has a lock on being lethal without being arbitrary. It works like this: you get a pool of dice dependent on your skill level, decide if you're attacking or defending, and roll a chosen amount of dice. I've had fights end with single shot insta-kills, and I've had two trained fighters grapple on the ground over a single dagger for thirty minutes of real time. The players accepted the death because they knew there were alternative courses of action available to them.
For lethality to matter, the player's moment to moment choices must matter. When the character dies, the player has to be able to look back and say 'if I'd only stayed on the defensive, I could have made it', or 'if I'd only kept my spear handy instead of throwing it, I might still be alive.'
The problem I've run into in D&D is just how incredibly random combat encounters are at a lower level. Even at higher levels, the wrong roll on the wandering monster chart and it's boom, squish, dead. Just last week, I got a TPK on my whole party of 8th level characters with a single Beholder. A couple failed saves and they were locked down. It was a great story, and the player's were fine with the results, but largely because they were sort of done with the characters and knew they'd scraped by a few too many death traps purely by luck.
It's fun, but only for certain groups. I've lost two of the best role players I've ever played with in that campaign because they didn't want to die from a single random bad roll, which nearly happened. They'd accept death if they'd, say, used up some resource they had conscious control over and chose to push on, or if they'd ignored warning signs, but they just weren't interested in being random Gnoll-kebob.
If the players don't all understand and accept that old school play is a contact sport and characters can die, fairly easily, then we can play something else.
Not all people like the same kind of games. There is nothing wrong with not enjoying a particular style of play, just don't show up and expect to change the nature of the game to match your own preferences.
Not participating in old school style games doesn't make one a whiny cunt. Playing in one then bitching when things don't go your way DOES.
Quote from: JonWake;699581The problem I've run into in D&D is just how incredibly random combat encounters are at a lower level. Even at higher levels, the wrong roll on the wandering monster chart and it's boom, squish, dead. Just last week, I got a TPK on my whole party of 8th level characters with a single Beholder. A couple failed saves and they were locked down. It was a great story, and the player's were fine with the results, but largely because they were sort of done with the characters and knew they'd scraped by a few too many death traps purely by luck.
It's fun, but only for certain groups. I've lost two of the best role players I've ever played with in that campaign because they didn't want to die from a single random bad roll, which nearly happened. They'd accept death if they'd, say, used up some resource they had conscious control over and chose to push on, or if they'd ignored warning signs, but they just weren't interested in being random Gnoll-kebob.
The problems I hear about in D&D seem to come largely from player choice. An "encounter" with a large number of monsters doesn't always need to mean a combat encounter. Are the players trying to kill everything they meet just because it is encountered?
Player choice in this instance includes the DM. If the DM decides that every random monster WILL attack on sight and WILL fight to the death then a great deal of gameplay has been taken away from the players. The decision to risk combat is an important one and it isn't fair for the DM to make that decision for them all of the time.
Low level classic D&D characters are fragile and the reaction and morale rules help to mitigate that. It why undead are so scary. They are terminators that will always attack the living, never break, and are relentless. All monsters shouldn't behave like undead.
Thus not every random encounter should be an automatic combat with a creature that behaves like an undead.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699593The problems I hear about in D&D seem to come largely from player choice. An "encounter" with a large number of monsters doesn't always need to mean a combat encounter. Are the players trying to kill everything they meet just because it is encountered?
Player choice in this instance includes the DM. If the DM decides that every random monster WILL attack on sight and WILL fight to the death then a great deal of gameplay has been taken away from the players. The decision to risk combat is an important one and it isn't fair for the DM to make that decision for them all of the time.
Low level classic D&D characters are fragile and the reaction and morale rules help to mitigate that. It why undead are so scary. They are terminators that will always attack the living, never break, and are relentless. All monsters shouldn't behave like undead.
Thus not every random encounter should be an automatic combat with a creature that behaves like an undead.
This may explain why I have not had 'too many' character deaths in my dnd games.
I don't force combat unless it makes a ton of sense, and i love it when characters talk to potential enemies and either outwit or befriend them; etc...
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699593An "encounter" with a large number of monsters doesn't always need to mean a combat encounter.
It need mean it just one time with surprise (or superior strength, or position, or magic, or however else the PCs accomplish
their countless slaughters) to be a massacre.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699593Thus not every random encounter should be an automatic combat with a creature that behaves like an undead.
Bad luck with the dice, I'm afraid. Rolled for encounter, brought up the Beholder that was a couple of rooms over, rolled for reactions, pulled a snake-eyes, and a single round with me rolling in the open and Bob's yer Uncle, the fighter goes down. It's worth noting that I was playing 5e, and a couple party members simply couldn't be surprised. That's what kept it from being a complete ass-stomping.
Mortality isn't an issue, high or low, when it's part of the premise of the game and the consequences of game play. When you are predicating the game's activity on exploring the unknown, with a constant threat of failure looming around the corner, and your wits and powers and equipment and friends to guard you against that eventuality, high mortality may happen as a result of poor strategic and tactical choices.
Considering high mortality to be a "problem" ipso facto construes the game differently. It might become, for instance, about developing an avatar hero in the setting, about a series of plots unfolding which dramatically speaking make more sense when a majority of the characters/protagonists survive throughout to see their conclusions, or whatever else, and this or that may or may not be fun to play in its own right, but the premise of the first paragraph has been fundamentally changed.
What I do when I run a game is to explain in the clearest terms possible what its premise actually is right out of the gate, during the pre-game session Zero, whether it fits the description of the first paragraph (which I would identify as "old school D&D", to me), or something else. From there, the players know what to expect, and are free to play or not play, to their heart's content.
If mortality is repeatedly final, it slows or potentially halts exploration of higher-level goodies unless people start characters at higher level. That's a matter of interest from a purely "gamer" standpoint.
Quote from: Phillip;699639If mortality is repeatedly final, it slows or potentially halts exploration of higher-level goodies unless people start characters at higher level.
OR the players adapt and learn how to better survive with their next characters, which can be a lot of fun as well.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
Make up several characters at start. One of them will likely make it to level 3. And we were doing this 30 years before Goodman put the funnel into Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Discourage heavy backstories. Tell the player that their characters will develop in play.
Not play a system that take three hours to make up a PC. Use a system where you can make up three characters in an hour and Bob's your uncle.
Quote from: Phillip;699639If mortality is repeatedly final, it slows or potentially halts exploration of higher-level goodies unless people start characters at higher level. That's a matter of interest from a purely "gamer" standpoint.
That is a genuine issue. Hall of the Fire Giant King was one of the first modules I bought. Despite playing D&D several times a week from age 11 to age 16, and a couple times a month for years more, we never had PCs high enough levels to play it. That made me sad.
Quote from: Benoist;699641OR the players adapt and learn how to better survive with their next characters, which can be a lot of fun as well.
Some people have the patience for that, and some don't. In the field of competitive boardgames, it's not generally regarded as a moral failure on the part of players if they lose interest in a horribly unbalanced design. Either they hack it into more acceptable shape, or they let it gather dust on a shelf.
In the case of an RPG, the GM is not at all an opponent on a level playing field. The role is more like that of the designer of a computer game, seeking to provide an entertaining challenge for players -- but with more direct feedback from them.
What's fun to the players in question is a really sensible standard, not some ivory tower ideology.
The low investment time in character creation I think does make it easier for players to accept death. I think what this is really going to boil down to is setting player expectations up front. If everyone is on the same page, they all get that shit is dangerous out there and the weather is cloudy with a chance of horrendous death, then a high moratlity rate should not be a problem.
I get that alot of people here are saying that part of it is on the PC's, play smarter not harder so to speak. Which I agree with by and large, but there times at my table where we all are kind of like "fuck, that seemed random". I have found that a couple of simple HP tweaks helped fix that without removing the element of danger.
On the whole though I tend to agree that the real problem is one of expectations rather than mechanics. I don't think there is a right answer here, just right for a given group.
Quote from: Phillip;699648Some people have the patience for that, and some don't. In the field of competitive boardgames, it's not generally regarded as a moral failure on the part of players if they lose interest in a horribly unbalanced design. Either they hack it into more acceptable shape, or they let it gather dust on a shelf.
You seem to be making the assumption the design is unbalanced to begin with. That somehow you should have "patience" to keep interest in "an horribly unbalanced design." Whether the environment is balanced and ripe for successful exploration can be managed in any number of ways, and a number of them are not predicted on shielding the players from their own failings, or reducing the potential for mortality in the game.
Quote from: Phillip;699648In the case of an RPG, the GM is not at all an opponent on a level playing field. The role is more like that of the designer of a computer game, seeking to provide an entertaining challenge for players -- but with more direct feedback from them. What's fun to the players in question is a really sensible standard, not some ivory tower ideology.
I don't care for comparisons with films, computer games, board games and the like.
Let's talk about RPGs.
The GM prepares an environment ripe for adventure. A consideration of the overall danger involved in exploring the environment is useful, and making sure that the setup doesn't result in a "no possible win" scenario is important (no possible wins can actually be interesting to GM when the players are really good and become jaded, since they are likely to come up with inventive solutions and could take a no-win scenario into all kinds of crazy directions, but I wouldn't start a campaign with that, obviously).
From there, the players explore the environment. They may use okay tactics, good tactics, or abysmal tactics. All things being equal, assuming the GM DOES care about creating a significant challenge the PCs CAN manage and win using their brains and resources to beat it, if you keep dying at the table and that mortality becomes a "sludge", then something is amiss. You can try to keep doing what you're doing expecting different results, and we know what that is, or you could try different tactics and come at the challenge in different ways.
I have no doubt that there are some people who don't want this from their role playing game time, and these people probably should play other games. Nothing wrong with that. But there are people out there who start playing the game, eat the wall of mortality, learn, and become more skilled as players. It can be tough, and proportionally rewarding. This learning process is part of the fun of the game, to them. I'm actually one of those.
Quote from: Phillip;699648In the case of an RPG, the GM is not at all an opponent on a level playing field. The role is more like that of the designer of a computer game, seeking to provide an entertaining challenge for players -- but with more direct feedback from them. What's fun to the players in question is a really sensible standard, not some ivory tower ideology.
Yup. Players that don't think old school play is any fun shouldn't play those games.
We're basically talking about D&D, which has been tremendously popular because -- unlike some "new school" games -- it is very adaptable to a wide variety of game styles. Since adjusting the deadliness is pretty trivial in light of all the rest of what's on offer, I see no need to get huffy and insist that everyone must "lump it or leave it."
Was it an abominable heresy that Gygax gave pretty much everyone except MUs an average of +1 HP per level in AD&D? I would say that it was a well considered response to the increase in deadliness introduced in Supplement I (despite the HD changes therein). The heavy revision of such things as spell descriptions and numbers castable by level likewise reflected a sense of desired game balance.
I'm not sure what argument you're making, Phillip, but it doesn't address what I said. What I'm saying is that for some players "old-school mortality" isn't a "problem", it's a feature of the game. And these people, who are actually more numerous I suspect than 'modern role players' with their drama classes would have us believe, have a right to say as much.
If people have a problem with "old school mortality" at the game table, then I don't see why it is a problem to play a modern version of D&D instead, or if the players are a minority in the group but you care about them, to house rule your game, or play some middle-of-the-road version of the game, like C&C with healing surges or whatnot.
The point remains, some people like "old school mortality" and consider it a feature of the game, not a bug.
I don't think you ladies getting vapors over people house-ruling D&D have a high horse to get on at all, and the only thing sillier is the notion that anyone's going to give a shit. If you're afraid that somewhere someone is having fun playing differently than you and I do, I'm pretty sure you're right, and I'll bet they'll keep shamelessly doing so because they've never even heard of our puddle of pedantic punditry!
Quote from: Phillip;699661I don't think you ladies getting vapors over people house-ruling D&D have a high horse to get on at all, and the only thing sillier is the notion that anyone's going to give a shit. If you're afraid that somewhere someone is having fun playing differently than you and I do, I'm pretty sure you're right, and I'll bet they'll keep shamelessly doing so because they've never even heard of our puddle of pedantic punditry!
Sure. Which is neither here nor there of course, since I pointed out I don't actually see the problem in playing D&D differently, modern version and otherwise.
Are you arguing with a muppet in your head?
Love it or hate it, permanant level draining by undead is freakin' scary!
'Your wizard is going to fireball himself and his allies to make sure the wraiths are destroyed' scary.
Quote from: Phillip;699657We're basically talking about D&D, which has been tremendously popular because -- unlike some "new school" games -- it is very adaptable to a wide variety of game styles. Since adjusting the deadliness is pretty trivial in light of all the rest of what's on offer, I see no need to get huffy and insist that everyone must "lump it or leave it."
Was it an abominable heresy that Gygax gave pretty much everyone except MUs an average of +1 HP per level in AD&D? I would say that it was a well considered response to the increase in deadliness introduced in Supplement I (despite the HD changes therein). The heavy revision of such things as spell descriptions and numbers castable by level likewise reflected a sense of desired game balance.
D&D was designed to require players to think in order to succeed and survive. Looking purely at the mechanical engine, if the game is approached strictly by the numbers, no character makes it to level 2 period. This is intentional. I personally have no interest in playing a game that can be won 9 out of 10 times on autopilot.
When learning what works and what doesn't, there will be a number of losses as with any game. If D&D is approached as a game this isn't a big deal. You learn what not to do and get better. If you are approaching D&D as story time of some kind of wish fulfillment then the learning process will be frustrating.
Step 1 is being honest with yourself. Are you there to play a game? If the answer is yes then character death should upset you about as much as going bankrupt in Monopoly, only D&D is more forgiving because you can roll up another playing piece and get back into the same ongoing game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699667D&D was designed to require players to think in order to succeed and survive. Looking purely at the mechanical engine, if the game is approached strictly by the numbers, no character makes it to level 2 period. This is intentional. I personally have no interest in playing a game that can be won 9 out of 10 times on autopilot.
When learning what works and what doesn't, there will be a number of losses as with any game. If D&D is approached as a game this isn't a big deal. You learn what not to do and get better. If you are approaching D&D as story time of some kind of wish fulfillment then the learning process will be frustrating.
Step 1 is being honest with yourself. Are you there to play a game? If the answer is yes then character death should upset you about as much as going bankrupt in Monopoly, only D&D is more forgiving because you can roll up another playing piece and get back into the same ongoing game.
Allthough I agree low hp characters are frightengly mortal in add and older versions, careful and clever can help a lot.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699452And even if what you said afterwords did amend it, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let it stand that you intended for it to . . .
I don't want or need your fucking "benefit of the doubt."
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699452. . . baiting people intentionally is juvenile.
I threw a banana peel on the floor; don't get shitty with me because you're the one who landed on his ass.
Quote from: Omega;699518When you specifically give them a safe area and they insist on going off and getting their heads handed to them... well. yeah.
And if, instead, you sit down at the outset and explain that there are no 'safe areas?' That they need to play smart and skew the odds in their favor as much as they can?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699667. . .[Roleplaying games are] more forgiving because you can roll up another playing piece and get back into the same ongoing game.
Unless your referee is dragoner, in which case everything prepped goes in the shitter immediately, apparently.
Quote from: Benoist;699665Sure. Which is neither here nor there of course, since I pointed out I don't actually see the problem in playing D&D differently, modern version and otherwise.
Are you arguing with a muppet in your head?
You're the one who insists on arguing against something I never said, for reasons you can blame on nobody but yourself. I just keep saying consistently what I have said all along, and if you don't disagree with it, then I reckon you can figure out for yourself what the heck you're up to because your backpedaling seems just incoherent to me.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699676Unless your referee is dragoner, in which case everything prepped goes in the shitter immediately, apparently.
:rolleyes:
OK. lol
In trav, you never level up, so the mortality rate never falls.
Quote from: dragoner;699680In trav, you never level up, so the mortality rate never falls.
It doesn't? Your characters don't upgrade their ships with better defenses or acquire better ships altogether, purchase better armor and weapons, acquire robots for security and scouting, recruit mercenaries to act as guards?
Quote from: Phillip;699678You're the one who insists on arguing against something I never said, for reasons you can blame on nobody but yourself. I just keep saying consistently what I have said all along, and if you don't disagree with it, then I reckon you can figure out for yourself what the heck you're up to because your backpedaling seems just incoherent to me.
You are definitely arguing with a muppet, man.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699667I personally have no interest in playing a game that can be won 9 out of 10 times on autopilot.
So don't, if you can find one in the first place. There's a LOT of territory between that and a 58% chance of getting killed by the first hit -- and I've heard a lot of things about Dave Hargrave's Arduin campaign, but "pushover" ain't among them!
Quote from: Bill;699671Allthough I agree low hp characters are frightengly mortal in add and older versions, careful and clever can help a lot.
More than that, careful and clever are virtually required. Doing the simplest of math, a character has a d6 hp on average and nearly all attacks do a d6 of damage. Each attack has about a 50% chance to drop a character in one hit.
Using that as an eyeball estimate and assuming a monster will hit nearly as often as it gets hit, how many straight encounters using only this simple interaction of numbers can a character survive? Not many.
The game clearly intended the intangible contributions of the players to be the focus of play. Playing purely by the numbers results in wham bam re-roll a character man, 95% or more of the time.
That level of autopilot death rate strangely enough was designed (unless I am interpreting this all wrong) to increase and maintain interest in the game instead of the opposite. The more "forgiving" a game is in terms of just running the numbers, the less significant the player contribution is to victory.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699686It doesn't? Your characters don't upgrade their ships with better defenses or acquire better ships altogether, purchase better armor and weapons, acquire robots for security and scouting, recruit mercenaries to act as guards?
At which point the opfor changes as well, if you don't learn to use the lethality of planning and intelligence, you are screwed. If anything, the lethality of the game increases, as do the challenges, but for the greater reward; and as with the real military - if you are in a fair fight, you are doing something wrong.
Quote from: dragoner;699696At which point the opfor changes as well, if you don't learn to use the lethality of planning and intelligence, you are screwed.
My point being, increased capability isn't measured solely in levels and hit points.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699710My point being, increased capability isn't measured solely in levels and hit points.
That is true enough.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699676And if, instead, you sit down at the outset and explain that there are no 'safe areas?' That they need to play smart and skew the odds in their favor as much as they can?
I try to give players non-violent options, though they might be trading difficulty for danger. That doesn't mean there are 'safe' areas. Just because they're not being confronted and attacked doesn't make the area 'safe'. Like the thing with the wandering monster that might not go straight in to attack mode, there are loads of dangerous folks around them that won't attack until they fuck with them somehow.
I can walk down the street where I live with fair certainty I won't be attacked, but if I start kicking in doors demanding pie there's gonna be trouble.
There are parts of town where I can walk without worry as long as I don't look at anyone wrong and avoid flashing cash and cameras.
There are places I can go where I WILL be physically challenged... IF I choose to go there (and the particular place I'm thinking of actually has big flashing lights in front of it and bouncers who will try to discourage you if you're the wrong ethnicity... so you really have to want be looking for that trouble).
The mortality thing is a reality for the NPCs as well and they have other modes of operation in addition to 'FIGHT!'
If the only way to ever interact with the bad guys is to stab them in the face that just ends up feeling like a wargame/video game.
I don't think 'Old School' necessitates playing like a sociopath... I don't think it negates the value of non-violent solutions.
Still, there are only so many ways to steal treasure from a dragon.
Quote from: dragoner;699696...and as with the real military - if you are in a fair fight, you are doing something wrong.
Though that's only encouraged if the game/GM is willing to punish you for just barging in blindly with guns drawn.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699710My point being, increased capability isn't measured solely in levels and hit points.
That's always been one of my favorite takeaways from Traveller. Not that players always appreciate that... there's no 'DING!' for going up a level but, hey! Now you know some guys who can get you that PGMP you'd been wanting.
Quote from: Simlasa;699724Though that only happens if the game/GM is willing to punish you for just barging in blindly with guns drawn.
Then I am that willing GM ... abandon ye all hope; I like a sense of realism to the whole deal. Though I also understand the difference with Heroic Fantasy, eg Conan doesn't get killed by a mook. Different games are different though, with Traveller, it is often "Thieves Like Us" as the general unspoken trope; D&D you get more of the "Heroic Adventurer" type trope.
Quote from: Simlasa;699724I try to give players non-violent options, though they might be trading difficulty for danger. That doesn't mean there are 'safe' areas. Just because they're not being confronted and attacked doesn't make the area 'safe'. Like the thing with the wandering monster that might not go straight in to attack mode, there are loads of dangerous folks around them that won't attack until they fuck with them somehow.
Which is true of how I run my campaign as well (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/level-appropriate.html), but it's also missing the point.
Omega, like a number of others, wants to make his campaign 'newbie friendly,' whatever the fuck that is; at first that meant fudging the dice when something
too bad - in Omega's judgement - happened in the game, but now that also means creating 'safe areas' outside of which Omega claims that the hammer may drop if they ignore his neon-sign warnings of 'you're not tall enough to ride this ride.'
My question is, why go to so much fucking manipulation when you can look the players in the eye before the game begins and say, 'We play the dice where they lay, which means your character may take a foot of rapier blade in the eye, and the world is full of dangerous people with rapiers in hand. Play smart and remember that if your character dies, the game's not over; you can make a new character and keep playing.'
Is it really that fucking hard to talk with adults as adults and not expect them to respond like children?
Let me add one thing: the players I've seen most upset about character death and an impersonal game-world are not newbies, but experienced players with mismatched expectations about how the campaign is going to be run. If you come into my campaign expecting to be d'Artagnan from
The Musketeer, you may be unhappy to discover that you're d'Artagnan from Richard Lester's
The Three Muskteers, who gets beaten up and his sword broken by lackeys then ends up face down in the mud after a failed rope swing, or that you're not d'Artagnan at all, but one of the Musketeers who ends up with two handspans of rapier in his gut after an ambush by the Cardinal's Guards.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Let me add one thing: the players I've seen most upset about character death and an impersonal game-world are not newbies, but experienced players with mismatched expectations about how the campaign is going to be run.
I have observed this as well. The whining and wailing about character death comes almost exclusively from "experienced" role players IME. I have not seen a newbie whine after his or her character got killed for decades. I still introduce newbies to RPGs regularly.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699590If the players don't all understand and accept that old school play is a contact sport and characters can die, fairly easily, then we can play something else.
That's the thing to me - understanding and agreeing on appropriate expectations in the game.
And if you don't want to play that type of game, play a different one. And that's not dismissive, either - if I don't like ice skating, I'm not going to play ice hockey.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Which is true of how I run my campaign as well (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/level-appropriate.html), but it's also missing the point.
Really, I should have quoted Omega rather than you... because his mention of 'Safe Areas' came up in response to something I'd written and that really wasn't what I meant.
I certainly didn't think I was telling you anything new...
QuoteIs it really that fucking hard to talk with adults as adults and not expect them to respond like children?
You'd think... but sometimes... some people... plus, the players I've been running games for lately actually are children and yet they're nowhere near the complainers/arguers the adults I play with are (they argue with each other but hardly at all with my rulings).
QuoteLet me add one thing: the players I've seen most upset about character death and an impersonal game-world are not newbies, but experienced players with mismatched expectations about how the campaign is going to be run.
Yes, it seems to be the guys who settled into a certain style of D&D and insist that's the only way it should ever be played. Meanwhile one of the newbie kids had his PC die in our Sunday game and he actually seemed excited about it... he told his brother that it proved he was really playing the game... vs. standing back and watching (his brother is MUCH more cautious).
Hrm. The OP doesn't particularly apply to me: I've always had a low-mortality rate in my campaign, from the mid-70s on forward, because:
(a) I've always prized the ability of players to develop and grow their characters, and to wrap themselves around their creations;
(b) I strongly believe in the Tasha Yar Rule -- people ought to die only doing something heroic, not because some mook orc had awesome dice luck; and
(c) I GM GURPS, which is a system in which it's relatively easy in low-tech to incapacitate a PC, but pretty hard to kill one short of falling into a lava pit, jumping off of a 500' cliff, or a NPC slitting the throats of the unconscious. Very few weapons do enough damage to mortally wound an otherwise moderately-armored, active PC in one shot.
But without going through a hundred posts of what (from the last page) looks like screaming at one another, this seems a basic situation of expectations. There's nothing wrong with a high-mortality campaign. There's nothing wrong with a player wanting a low-mortality campaign. That player should find a different campaign, one more in line with his own preferences, is all. And that's the constructive answer.
Quote from: Evansheer;699485I've seen a sudden burst of high, frequent turnover hurt a group's overall investment in one campaign recently. As it is now, only one character still has a realistic investment in the hook that kicked the campaign off.
It's been feeling a bit like going through the motions lately in that game.
Old school gaming isn't designed for "a hook that kicked the campaign off." OD&D is explicitly designed for "twenty players who may be doing twenty utterly different things on different nights of the week."
Quote from: JonWake;699581So I've run a game of Riddle of Steel-- don't do it, the game's shit, but the combat system has a lock on being lethal without being arbitrary. It works like this: you get a pool of dice dependent on your skill level, decide if you're attacking or defending, and roll a chosen amount of dice. I've had fights end with single shot insta-kills, and I've had two trained fighters grapple on the ground over a single dagger for thirty minutes of real time. The players accepted the death because they knew there were alternative courses of action available to them.
For lethality to matter, the player's moment to moment choices must matter. When the character dies, the player has to be able to look back and say 'if I'd only stayed on the defensive, I could have made it', or 'if I'd only kept my spear handy instead of throwing it, I might still be alive.'
The problem I've run into in D&D is just how incredibly random combat encounters are at a lower level. Even at higher levels, the wrong roll on the wandering monster chart and it's boom, squish, dead. Just last week, I got a TPK on my whole party of 8th level characters with a single Beholder. A couple failed saves and they were locked down. It was a great story, and the player's were fine with the results, but largely because they were sort of done with the characters and knew they'd scraped by a few too many death traps purely by luck.
It's fun, but only for certain groups. I've lost two of the best role players I've ever played with in that campaign because they didn't want to die from a single random bad roll, which nearly happened. They'd accept death if they'd, say, used up some resource they had conscious control over and chose to push on, or if they'd ignored warning signs, but they just weren't interested in being random Gnoll-kebob.
I tell people, "Go read 'The Seven Geases' by Clark Ashton Smith. If you're not OK with the ending to that story, you won't have fun in my game."
Quote from: Phillip;699639If mortality is repeatedly final, it slows or potentially halts exploration of higher-level goodies unless people start characters at higher level. That's a matter of interest from a purely "gamer" standpoint.
Horseshit. "Learn 2 play n00b" as the kids say.
Rob Kuntz played in fucking Greyhawk castle and made it to 14th level without Robilar every dying A SINGLE FUCKING TIME. He made it through Tomb of Horrors and looted the shit out of the place. For that matter Ernie Gygax made it through ToH also and killed the lich as well.
If a sixteen year old kid can do that, I have NO sympathy.
Quote from: Phillip;699648Some people have the patience for that, and some don't. In the field of competitive boardgames, it's not generally regarded as a moral failure on the part of players if they lose interest in a horribly unbalanced design. Either they hack it into more acceptable shape, or they let it gather dust on a shelf.
In the case of an RPG, the GM is not at all an opponent on a level playing field. The role is more like that of the designer of a computer game, seeking to provide an entertaining challenge for players -- but with more direct feedback from them. What's fun to the players in question is a really sensible standard, not some ivory tower ideology.
First, "high lethality" is not "horribly unbalanced design," it's "different assumptions."
Second, it's not "ivory tower ideology," it's "This is the game I'm running, do you want to play?"
Third, show us on the doll where referee touched your character in a bad way.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;699693More than that, careful and clever are virtually required. Doing the simplest of math, a character has a d6 hp on average and nearly all attacks do a d6 of damage. Each attack has about a 50% chance to drop a character in one hit.
Using that as an eyeball estimate and assuming a monster will hit nearly as often as it gets hit, how many straight encounters using only this simple interaction of numbers can a character survive? Not many.
The game clearly intended the intangible contributions of the players to be the focus of play. Playing purely by the numbers results in wham bam re-roll a character man, 95% or more of the time.
That level of autopilot death rate strangely enough was designed (unless I am interpreting this all wrong) to increase and maintain interest in the game instead of the opposite. The more "forgiving" a game is in terms of just running the numbers, the less significant the player contribution is to victory.
Just like any wargame. You can play CHAINMAIL by lining up all your troops and rolling them straight ahead, but if your opponent is smart enough to shit unassisted she will hand you your ass in a bucket.
OD&D was written under the same assumption. You can play with your head up your ass, but your character will die. Then, some of the people who played that way got put in charge of later editions.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699795You can play with your head up your ass, but your character will die. Then, some of the people who played that way got put in charge of later editions.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Old Geezer;699794First, "high lethality" is not "horribly unbalanced design," it's "different assumptions."
Yup. High lethality doesn't *inherently* mean "unbalanced" any more than low lethality means "you can't lose." Just depends on the game and the underlying assumptions.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Is it really that fucking hard to talk with adults as adults and not expect them to respond like children?
Apparently, and my response is not just in response to this thread.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739d'Artagnan from Richard Lester's The Three Muskteers,
I remember the first fight where the Cardinal's Guard interrupt the duel between Athos and d'Artagnan, and Aramis says "There are three of us and five of them." They are the fucking THREE MUSKETEERS and they're afraid of 3:5 odds.
Quote from: Simlasa;699750he told his brother that it proved he was really playing the game... vs. standing back and watching (his brother is MUCH more cautious).
In a Star Wars d20 game I was in, I was the PC with the poorest stats. But because I played my Jedi like he was Qui-Gon Jinn, at the end of the game I was the most famous Jedi in the galaxy and the other Jedi player who hated to ever take a single hit was thought by most people to be my apprentice, despite the fact that his stats were way better.
There are no bad characters. There are only bad players.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699797:rotfl:
I agree, but it's actually true. "Protect your player character from arbitrary whims of the DM" actually means "I'm still sulking because I got killed because I played stupid in Greyhawk when I was in high school."
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
Nope.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699794First, "high lethality" is not "horribly unbalanced design," it's "different assumptions."
Second, it's not "ivory tower ideology," it's "This is the game I'm running, do you want to play?"
Third, show us on the doll where referee touched your character in a bad way.
Shove your doll back where that bullshit spews from. "Horribly unbalanced design" is a fucking opinion, so of course it's a matter of "different assumptions." Maybe you assume you "ought to" have some kind of chance to get a figure to some level, but I can say screw that just as easily as any GM. If you get bored and wander off, though, I won't indulge in the kind of "Look how big my imaginary elf wang is!" posturing that seems to make you feel so manly.
Quote from: Phillip;699808Shove your doll back where that bullshit spews from. "Horribly unbalanced design" is a fucking opinion, so of course it's a matter of "different assumptions." Maybe you assume you "ought to" have some kind of chance to get a figure to some level, but I can say screw that just as easily as any GM. If you get bored and wander off, though, I won't indulge in the kind of "Look how big my imaginary elf wang is!" posturing that seems to make you feel so manly.
I think there's a disconnect here. Mostly I think that Old Geezer thinks that even in old-school AD&D, characters *do* have a good chance of getting to high levels. Yeah, your first level characters have a good chance of dying if you wade into combat with a tribe of orcs, but that means that you don't wade into combat with a tribe of orcs. You split them up, ambush them, sneak in and get the treasure, or do other things. He's also assuming a GM that will allow and even encourage those types of tactics.
An assumption that if the combat system gives you bad odds, you're screwed, kind of rests on the idea that the players have no choice on whether to engage in that combat or not, and that tactics like those described above aren't really available. Either that, or that players really just want to wade into combat, and aren't interested in the types of tactics described above.
Different games. High lethality combat systems don't work well with the second type of game.
Quote from: Simlasa;699533Yeah, exactly my sentiments on it. I don't need 5 pages of stats to feel connected to a PC, all it takes is a name and the couple of things I write under 'notes'. I like/want/need the real possibility of death in the game but that doesn't mean I get off on the dying... or seeing other PCs whacked. I just like the kind of play it encourages... and dislike the sort of play where players can trade bennies for re-rolls all day long because that's how goes down in the movies.
I love reading about real life tactical situations and maneuvers, like this (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Tactical.htm) for example:
QuoteWe had already divided into two teams and given group combat a try; now, John invited everyone in the group to be on one side while he alone comprised the other. Such opportunities present themselves rarely. In the controlled environment of the classroom, the instructor always has the advantage, but against a dozen highly motivated (albeit novice) swordsmen, there would be no mercy. As they say, John would have to put up, or shut up.
I played this one smart. While a good number of students rushed forward to attack John immediately, I fell back into the second wave hoping that once he was engaged with the others, I could take him on the flank. The only problem with my approach was that John didn't "engage" with anyone. The moment the combat began, he was running.
At first he seemed to be beating a retreat—sensible move, under the circumstances—but once a sufficient gap opened in our ranks, he suddenly reversed course, passing through the gap like a needle through fabric, cutting and thrusting as he ran. On the first pass, he struck one or two students without stopping. Those who slowed down and assumed a "guard" position he simply bypassed, often cutting them on the back of the leg for their trouble. He never stopped to cross swords with anyone.
If I could have witnessed the whole thing from above, a pattern would have emerged. Although we were twelve men against one, the individual was controlling the group. When we closed on him, he circled and ran around our flank. When we stopped to catch a breath, he was suddenly upon us. More than once I had to desperately fend off his seemingly random blows as he buzzed past me.
On the next pass, with half our number already wounded and out of the game, I put everything I had into a diagonal cut at John's passing form—only to strike empty space and receive an incapacitating slice on the back of my knee in return. I was out of the fight.
...
To be honest, the need for tactical swordsmanship did not occur to me until I began to re-read Benvenuto Cellini's Autobiography. I recalled that the Italian sculptor had described a number of melees and I wanted to draw on his first-hand accounts for a paper that I was researching. Much to my surprise, duels are quite rare in this quarrelsome narrative. In fact, the one duel I managed to locate never came to fruition, as Benvenuto's opponent failed to show up—no doubt cowed by Cellini's reputation as a brawler!
Instead, the combats in the Autobiography are down and dirty fighting, often initiated with the dagger and resembling nothing so much as assassinations. The fights are frequently lopsided, with Cellini facing a number of men on his own, or a handful of his friends standing up to fifty men of the city watch. With the advent of firearms, we are accustomed to fights ending in a matter of seconds, but in the days of hand-to-hand, they could go on and on, and a small group of determined swordsmen could hold their own against a much greater number. And well-dressed gentlemen of Cellini's day, like narcotics agents of our own time, never left home without their body armor—in this case, a discreet mail shirt worn under the doublet.
The more I read of Cellini's exploits, the more I realized that despite my study of the sixteenth century fencing treatises, I was completely unprepared for a humid Roman night at the tavern. There was a whole level of combat reality that had passed me by: the realm of tactics.
If your combats are looking like
that rather than the group standing there soaking up the steel, you're doing it right. In games with higher level medieval superheroes or low levels of risk, there's no incentive to come up with interesting tactics. Why bother, thousands will perish beneath your blade anyway.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699676And if, instead, you sit down at the outset and explain that there are no 'safe areas?' That they need to play smart and skew the odds in their favor as much as they can?
I've never provided a "safe zone" for starter players as a DM. I do explain that death is likely final for a character unless they think and do something about it. And I make it very clear that if they do something patently stupid - I am not going to pull punches. In fact Im likely to ramp up the lethality.
But if I did provide a safe zone then the players would know and would be warned that crossing the red line or picking a fight with the NPC is begging to get to roll up a new character. Especially if they ASKED for a safe zone in the first place. I went to the trouble of working it out for you so expect no mercy if you then ignore what you requested.
Play smart. Play S-mart.
On the other hand when running Call of Cthulhu I explain the absurd lethality of the setting. And not necessarily physical lethality. A character locked off in an asylum because they lost their last marble staring at a zoog is effectively gone and dead. Same for Dark Sun.
Then you have weird games like Paranoia where you not only are expected to die, you are encouraged to. First mission and we didnt even make it to the assigned site.
Which brings up one problem. There are now so many games with sometimes wildly varied levels of lethality. Players can end up used to one type of lethality and then be dismayed by another games very different approach. Or be attracted.
Quote from: Phillip;699808Shove your doll back where that bullshit spews from. "Horribly unbalanced design" is a fucking opinion, so of course it's a matter of "different assumptions." Maybe you assume you "ought to" have some kind of chance to get a figure to some level, but I can say screw that just as easily as any GM. If you get bored and wander off, though, I won't indulge in the kind of "Look how big my imaginary elf wang is!" posturing that seems to make you feel so manly.
My, aren't WE fierce.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699799I remember the first fight where the Cardinal's Guard interrupt the duel between Athos and d'Artagnan, and Aramis says "There are three of us and five of them." They are the fucking THREE MUSKETEERS and they're afraid of 3:5 odds.
they were feeling pity. The Cardinal's team could have used a few more guys. :D
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Omega, like a number of others, wants to make his campaign 'newbie friendly,' whatever the fuck that is; at first that meant fudging the dice when something too bad - in Omega's judgement - happened in the game, but now that also means creating 'safe areas' outside of which Omega claims that the hammer may drop if they ignore his neon-sign warnings of 'you're not tall enough to ride this ride.'
Sorry there sport. You are 100% wrong.
I said
QuoteTrue. Safe areas are a option too as long as they have non-com things to garner EXP off of.
And yeah, if they charge off headlong into trouble despite efforts to ease them into it. Well. Let the bodies fall where they may.
As for fudging dice rolls. Sorry. Wrong again. As I've stated before. I use many methods when and where I deem needed. If I had a safe zone, and as stated, I dont. And the players picked needless fights. Im probably going to let the dice roll where they lay. If they were spectacularly willfully stupid then Im more likely to tweak rolls in the opponents favour. And I might even tell em I did afterwards.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Is it really that fucking hard to talk with adults as adults and not expect them to respond like children?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699440No - they're whiny little cunts.
I'm not sure why you should expect anyone else should act mature if you aren't.
EDIT: I'm going to add a bit more: When people say things like: "No- they're whiny little cunts" "Where on the doll did the bad GM touch you" or calling people who don't like high lethality games "drama students"... You don't get to claim the high road, sorry. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699834I'm not sure why you should expect anyone else should act mature if you aren't.
Still butthurt about that banana peel, I see.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699834I'm not sure why you should expect anyone else should act mature if you aren't.
EDIT: I'm going to add a bit more: When people say things like: "No- they're whiny little cunts" "Where on the doll did the bad GM touch you" or calling people who don't like high lethality games "drama students"... You don't get to claim the high road, sorry.
You'd think we were French Foreign Legions veterans forum, discussing the Playstation Generation training methods, rather than 20s to 50s, mostly white collar workers, eh?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699837Still butthurt about that banana peel, I see.
You were the one to throw a claim that your opponents are acting like children, while acting like a child yourself. I just call it as I see it.
Quote from: Omega;699828Sorry there sport. You are 100% wrong.
Really?
Quote from: Omega;698875I dont fudge combat rolls unless it serves a purpose.
Good example is if the villain has used some sort of trick to appear more wounded than they really are, Or in one actual play session case, was actually faking taking damaging hits via magic armour. I rolled out in the open. But what the players saw and what was really happening were not the same thing. At key points through the battle they had to make wisdom and intelligence checks. But did not know the reason.
And to answer the recurring question of "Why roll if you arent going to accept the roll" the answer is simple. "So the players dont know."
They do not need to know that the orc would have actually missed the fighter in that battle if it had been left to the dice. They do not need to know that the temple healer rolled straight 1s when they needed healing for a big fight upcomming.
Sometimes I just say, "That entry didnt work, Im rerolling it" and reroll. Or "This doesnt feel right. What do you guys and gals think?"
And sometimes I just take what happened and run like crazy with it.
Are you still sure I'm 100% wrong?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699839You were the one to throw a claim that your opponents are acting like children, while acting like a child yourself.
Well, I know of one person who's acting like a child in this thread.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;699839I just call it as I see it.
Then perhaps you should open your eyes more often.
What sort of weird settings are these where everything goes aggro at the players upon sight, including the towns, farm fields, livestock, etc.? Most settings have civilization, and though civil areas carry their own risks, it can only be as lethal as can be sustainable within a productive population. Even resource gathering (forestry, grazing, mining, etc.) has to be rather stable to maintain functional societies in settings. Otherwise ideas of food, money, weaponry, treasure and such goes right out the window.
There is a wide spectrum of risk within an old skool game. There has to be wide swaths of relative safety to give any contextual meaning to the setting if it has any societies, and their trappings, at all.
And this is from a GM who has already killed PCs with an exaltation of larks (angels are a lot more frightening than given credit :p).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;699840Really?
Are you still sure I'm 100% wrong?
Hey. Good. You took my comment for a totally different subject and inserted something else from me. We can now totally see how possibly considering having a save zone at start - and tweaking rolls are the same thing. Way to go proving your point there sport.
You are now at 200% wrong. Keep going. Or better yet.
Try having a meaningful argument next time instead of spin doctoring worse than a four year old. You have other posts here that show you can put fourth cognitive discussions. What possesses you to keep making yourself look the village idiot?
Good song for this thread -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7FQeFOBtBk
"I'll Never Get Out Of This World Alive"
Quote from: Opaopajr;699847What sort of weird settings are these where everything goes aggro at the players upon sight, including the towns, farm fields, livestock, etc.? Most settings have civilization, and though civil areas carry their own risks, it can only be as lethal as can be sustainable within a productive population.
I think sometimes its the players that are the problem rather than the setting.
Even way back there were players who saw everything as EXP on legs. Hence the tales of slaughtering whole villages and murdering children for a measly exp point or two.
Sometimes they get away with it. Which then becomes the DMs fault for letting this go on unchecked.
More often it can lead to a-lot of dead characters.
Some players see only combat. Diplomacy and interaction are deadly boring.
I had one player like that in a session. The minute negotiations with NPCs opened up. That one player would head off and pick a fight with someone. Twice he actually interrupted negotiations and deliberately antagonized the NPC. This was not fun for the other players and talking with the problem player did not work. I even specifically had good combat oriented encounters to accommodate this person. But it had to be kill-kill-kill every moment. Soooooo. Eventually he tried to off a kid who turned out to be a halfling fighter of slightly lower level who proceeded to take the character apart. Then the local temple refused to raise him because of his reputation.
I set him up for that encounter, gave him other targets that were actually viable. And he went after the kid. That was it. Better yet. The player was dead sure I was fudging rolls left and right. I was not. And for that encounter I rolled it all out in the open and just trounced him with tactics and planning. "Roll new character." (This was another case of I couldnt just kick the player out without impacting other players ability to attend.)
But I think in most of the instances mentioned of high mortality sessions. Its from adventuring. When you have say 3HP at start then even a dagger or club can be lethal in the hands of a 1hp kobold.
Think of it like some Roguelikes where you tend to die a-lot untill you get "that one character" who somehow lives past level 1. In fact Rogue-likes are based on D&Ds lethality pattern.
As others have stated. Some are fine with it. Some aren't. Different gaming styles.
To go back to the OP, I think my ultimate conclusion on musing over the thread's title question, is that this is purely a matter of player expectation vs GM expectation, which is an overall problem in all aspects of roleplaying not just mortality, and is easily solved by communication. As a GM I do a "pitch" of the sort of game I want to run to all players. I layout the general mood I'm trying to capture, genre I'm playing with, setting of the game, and system Im using. Included in that I'd discuss if I was planning on making the game exceptionally gritty or deadly. My players know that my Call of Cthulhu games are more than likely to end up in player death if not tpk, whereas my Tribe 8 game hasn't had a player fatality in 2 years.
The pitch also helps with chargen. I'll usually to point to some media to watch/read for inspiration.
The point I guess is just to make sure everyone's on the same page from the beginning. I don't need this in the actual rules of a game, and I feel like vomiting when I hear the term "social contract" applied to game prep, but the underlying assumption of a decent level of communication between everyone playing seems to me would avoid the possible problem of the thread title altogether.
I don't mind playing an old school game with high mortality just as long as the dm runs the game in an old school way. The problem I encounter frequently is when a dm tries to run high mortality d&d with a severe nerfing of old school tactics like not allowing us hirelings or dogs, nerfing spells like sleep and charm, removing gp for xp, and then expecting us to actually worry about backstories and shit when our life expectancy is effectively one encounter.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699799I remember the first fight where the Cardinal's Guard interrupt the duel between Athos and d'Artagnan, and Aramis says "There are three of us and five of them." They are the fucking THREE MUSKETEERS and they're afraid of 3:5 odds.
I believe Porthios response is "Yeah, that's not fair odds. We should give them a chance to surrender first..."
I do not believe they were afraid of the Cardinal's Men. Quite the contrary.
Quote from: Novastar;699877I believe Porthios response is "Yeah, that's not fair odds. We should give them a chance to surrender first..."
I do not believe they were afraid of the Cardinal's Men. Quite the contrary.
Go re-watch that scene. They are obviously quite worried, which is their rationale for welcoming d'Artagnan into their company.
Quote from: Novastar;699877I believe Porthios response is "Yeah, that's not fair odds. We should give them a chance to surrender first..."
That's Porthos' reply the Stephen Herek movie, not the Richard Lester movie.
Lester's
TTM is closer to the book, at least in that scene.
Quote from: mhensley;699876I don't mind playing an old school game with high mortality just as long as the dm runs the game in an old school way. The problem I encounter frequently is when a dm tries to run high mortality d&d with a severe nerfing of old school tactics like not allowing us hirelings or dogs, nerfing spells like sleep and charm, removing gp for xp, and then expecting us to actually worry about backstories and shit when our life expectancy is effectively one encounter.
Player: Well Im done with my MU's backstory and chargen as you requested. Lets get adventuring."
DM: "An irate squirrel bites your ankle. Take 1d3 damage... oop, 3 damage.
Player: "Nooo! I have only 2 HP."
DM: "Thems the breaks kid. Now roll up a new character and come up with a longer backstory."
Player: "Thats the 5th one this morning... darn..."
DM: "Well I did warn you the land was harsh and cruel..."
Now some groups play their characters as a blank slate. No backstory - just the tale of their adventures from there. A high mortality session will not impact them as much as the character has not yet come to life as it were.
On the other hand I've heard players comment that Keep on the Borderlands was a meatgrinder for starter characters...
Quote from: robiswrong;699812I think there's a disconnect here. Mostly I think that Old Geezer thinks that even in old-school AD&D, characters *do* have a good chance of getting to high levels.
Yes, there's a disconnect between the reality that everyone has an opinion, even people who don't insist on being assholes, and the imaginary universe in which OG is The Privileged Frame of Reference that uniquely and magically turns "good" into a quantitative fact. Maybe he'll show us where the Cheshire Cat replaced his logic with hairballs.
QuoteAn assumption that if the combat system gives you bad odds, you're screwed, kind of rests on the idea that the players have no choice on whether to engage in that combat or not, and that tactics like those described above aren't really available.
Your assumption kind of rests on sheer speculation.
QuoteEither that, or that players really just want to wade into combat, and aren't interested in the types of tactics described above.
Or something else, such as, hmmm, maybe they want not to have such a high chance of their figures getting whacked with one hit.
But no, people can't possibly mean what they actually say, can they?
Since OG is at least half a badass, he could donate all those spare HP to charity and have a real chance to brag about his generalship versus hobgoblins. I think it's tax deductible in Munchkinland.
Quote from: Omega;699901Player: Well Im done with my MU's backstory and chargen as you requested. Lets get adventuring."
DM: "An irate squirrel bites your ankle. Take 1d3 damage... oop, 3 damage.
Player: "Nooo! I have only 2 HP."
DM: "Thems the breaks kid. Now roll up a new character and come up with a longer backstory."
As if that DM would give one damn about some stupid backstory.
I run SWN which is an OSR based Scifi RPG.
For me, I consider the first couple of levels more training levels to and I don't throw much that's that dangerous at the characters.
They'd level up pretty quickly to level 3 over a few sessions.
I see it more as Players settling into and adjusting their characters to get used to the system and how their characters fit in.
Sort of like a drawn out character gen but via actual Roleplaying.
That way they end up with a well rounded character that's been tested out for where it doesn't meet their expectations or generally tweaked.
The extra HPs improves things dramatically, so any unlucky dice rolls on their part (or really good dice rolls on my part) don't have such a dramatic impact.
Didnt Dark Sun give players an extra HD at start due to the lethality of the setting and the fact the people were all adapted to the harshness? Or did they just start you at level 2 or somesuch?
Quote from: Omega;699919Didnt Dark Sun give players an extra HD at start due to the lethality of the setting and the fact the people were all adapted to the harshness? Or did they just start you at level 2 or somesuch?
Started at level 3 and had a character tree where you could roll up three or four guys for spares (and one of them gained a level when your main did). Also had a more relaxed rolling method for stats (5d4? can't remember).
It should all be horribly lethal and unforgiving.
Quote from: mhensley;699876I don't mind playing an old school game with high mortality just as long as the dm runs the game in an old school way. The problem I encounter frequently is when a dm tries to run high mortality d&d with a severe nerfing of old school tactics like not allowing us hirelings or dogs, nerfing spells like sleep and charm, removing gp for xp, and then expecting us to actually worry about backstories and shit when our life expectancy is effectively one encounter.
That's another example of narrow old skool interpretation. Except I agree it is even worse because it deliberately cripples the old skool range of choices in some sort of bastardized new skool + old skool mash up. If everyone involved is down for that, fine, but I don't find it representative at all (and even a bit disingenuous, personally).
Old skool prides itself on flexibility, of both GM campaign presentation, player choice, and so on. Assuming high lethality meat grinders as the norm is about as annoying as assuming magical tea party fellatio orgies as the norm. It's a modern argument premise criticizing the past that i reject on its face. To engage it is to take the red herring bait, in my opinion. (Not to insinuate Pundit takes this position himself and is baiting us, but I assume there is a strain of this argument floating around in WotC development circles.)
Quote from: Old Geezer;699799I remember the first fight where the Cardinal's Guard interrupt the duel between Athos and d'Artagnan, and Aramis says "There are three of us and five of them." They are the fucking THREE MUSKETEERS and they're afraid of 3:5 odds.
Heh. I ought to borrow that anecdote the next time someone bitches to me that GURPS combat mechanics aren't "heroic" just because a 150-pt character can't dust a dozen mooks with his bare hands..
Quote from: The Traveller;699816I love reading about real life tactical situations and maneuvers, like this (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Tactical.htm) for example ... (snip)
The problem of that as an illustration of one-vs-many is pretty basic: we're not talking about low-level mooks, we're talking about a bunch of fighters
in their first few hours of picking up a weapon. I've seen the same syndrome in combat boffer fighting. In their first major battle, newbies freak out easily, they clutch their weapons closely to themselves rather than assume a proper guard position, they huddle together shoulder-to-shoulder like sheep in a rainstorm, and they often suffer from stab fright. I once told a pack of
seven newbies that I could kill them all in ten seconds, and proved I could do it -- mostly because they were huddled up so tightly, I did for the first four in about four seconds flat, at which point the other three were thoroughly intimidated and ready to break.
But if they'd had so much as a month's training? No, of course not. They'd have that much more confidence, and have enough experience to understand that I wasn't a terrible engine of destruction, but simply a better-than-average fighter who was good at intimidation and bluff.
Quote from: Omega;699862Think of it like some Roguelikes where you tend to die a-lot untill you get "that one character" who somehow lives past level 1. In fact Rogue-likes are based on D&Ds lethality pattern.
Though survivability in most roguelikes increases dramatically once you start to figure out the game.
While even experienced players won't beat the game every playthrough, they'll generally get much further, on average, than new players.
Quote from: Phillip;699904Yes, there's a disconnect between the reality that everyone has an opinion, even people who don't insist on being assholes, and the imaginary universe in which OG is The Privileged Frame of Reference that uniquely and magically turns "good" into a quantitative fact. Maybe he'll show us where the Cheshire Cat replaced his logic with hairballs.
Dude, you're the one that said the game was "horribly unbalanced". That's not exactly a statement of "not my cup of tea".
Quote from: Phillip;699904Your assumption kind of rests on sheer speculation.
Well, OG seems to think players have a reasonable chance of leveling. Since we know that the math on that is pretty bad if you just engage the combat mechanics directly, he must have something else in mind.
If you know that you can't win a fair fight, you don't fight fair. You use ambushes, enlist allies, get your enemies to fight each other, use the terrain to remove the majority of their advantage, or just sneak past them to the goodies - I'm pretty sure this is the baseline of tactics that OG would suggest.
So, either you're saying that you don't want to engage in that type of gameplay (which is fine - you'll notice I haven't lobbed any pejoratives at *anybody*), or you're claiming that he's lying about characters having a decent chance to level.
Quote from: Phillip;699904Or something else, such as, hmmm, maybe they want not to have such a high chance of their figures getting whacked with one hit.
That's pretty much what I said. Some people would prefer to heroically go into combat than sneak around thinking of ambushes and crap because they're afraid of getting one-shotted. Some people like the thrill of overcoming overwhelming challenges.
Again, I'm not claiming either group is superior. But (old) D&D mechanics work fine if you like skulking about and figuring out how to fight dirty, and they kinda suck if you want to heroically wade into combat. That doesn't make them "horribly unbalanced". It means that they're balanced with a specific type of play in mind that's not what some people are interested in.
Quote from: trechriron;699556These posts intrigue me. I think it's fairly easy to discuss character mortality before a game and set expectations. It may not always go over well, but you can forewarn. However, what about long term play? How do old school games handle the potential lethality/mortality and still maintain continuity? When I was a younger chap, we just made new characters and kept playing. We weren't too interested in kingdom building until Birthright came about. That had some options IIRC where you are playing the ruler at a high level and the characters who serve that ruler in some capacity. If a character died, you could just make a new character that works for one of the rulers (yourself or another player). How do you folks handle this?
Not very well in this campaign. It's not an old-school game, but the issues could carry over. All of our characters were unified by a motivation for revenge right from the start, but sudden turnover has left only one of those original characters alive. Even the replacement characters that finally got a chance to develop and buy back into that revenge motivation have been recently cut down to one. Location isn't helpful at the moment either.
It's mainly frustrating because everyone was so excited about that initial feel in the campaign. We're going to have to find some way to get a new set of characters back on board and fully invested, which I'm pretty sure we can manage, but it probably won't be death-proofed given how the lethality has ramped up.
It's just sad to see a campaign go from excited and energetic to a slog.
Quote from: smiorgan;699526Right or wrong my OSR yardstick is LotFP, which specifically only rewards (a) getting treasure from dangerous places and (b) killing stuff. That's what the game is about -- nutters doing dangerous jobs.
More power to you if you want to reward roleplaying with townies, but that's a different game, surely?
I tend to give XP for non-dangerous activity that still advances the PCs/is significant (eg politics, romance, exploration), but less than for killing monsters & getting treasure. With pre-3e D&D the awards for non-dangerous stuff get less and less significant over time; eg the group might get 300 XP for a three hour session which is great for the 1st level Thief but not a big deal for the 5th level Fighter. This is a different game than one where significant XP only comes from treasure acquired (pre-3e) or killing monsters (3e), but at least when running online games I find it works better. Moldvay suggests that normally at least one PC should have levelled up after three sessions, but if you play BX online strictly by RAW, IME it'd be more like 30-50 sessions to level.
4e D&D by default gives XP for 'quests' and 'skill challenges' (which I don't use) so it's already baked in there. Though acquiring a dragon's hoard can certainly count as a 'quest'.
Quote from: S'mon;699971With pre-3e D&D the awards for non-dangerous stuff get less and less significant over time; eg the group might get 300 XP for a three hour session which is great for the 1st level Thief but not a big deal for the 5th level Fighter. This is a different game than one where significant XP only comes from treasure acquired (pre-3e) or killing monsters (3e), but at least when running online games I find it works better.
Having "safe space" rewards grow linearly but the exploration/fighting rewards grow logarithmically is a neat solution (if I read you correctly), and something that can "ease newbies into the game" if you feel that's needed to attract new players (per the OP).
I wonder if that's just prolonging the inevitable, however -- the party gain a couple of levels from swanning around town doing errands, then finally feel they're ready for an adventure. They go out and the game is as lethal as ever, and some of them die. To the GM the game was always supposed to be like this, but to the players the game's just jumped the shark.
I'm on the "no safe spaces" side of the fence -- LotFP fills a very specific niche for me where the entire game happens in inhospitable places. If I wanted a more rounded game (or a less lethal game) I'd use a different system. Cinematic Unisystem, probably.
Quote from: Ravenswing;699944The problem of that as an illustration of one-vs-many is pretty basic: we're not talking about low-level mooks, we're talking about a bunch of fighters in their first few hours of picking up a weapon.
What?
Heres an example of somewhat low level mortality when its fun.
I was in a rare double blind event that pitted two groups of adventurers against eachother cross country and finally amidst some ruins. Two GMs moderated between the groups so neither side was exactly sure what the other was up to.
I was the magic user of the group and we were all around level 5 I believe on both sides. I had about 12hp (only 1 at level 1!!!) We were tasked with delivering a magic McGuppin to some temple and the other group was tasked with stopping us. Our group consisted of me, the MU, a druid, a paladin and a bard. The other group we learned later had a thief, a ranger and a fighter. Not sure what the 4th member was. Think another fighter.
We were plodding along and doing fairly well on making it to the ruins when the other groups ranger and thief ambushed us while we were camping and getting our bearings. Needless to say they deemed the MU the biggest threat and filled me full of arrows. I went down and to negative 10 in just 2 rounds. ow...
That would have been it for me had not our druid been hanging onto a Reincarnate scroll. Something like a 35% chance of failure. Druid makes the roll and the DM has him roll on a modified table based on the locale. Fairly standard, Badger Bear, Elf, Human etc with only a few tweaks. I came back as an... otter... meep... Could not memorize spells, but at least could still cast. 6 hp.
We continue on and then come to a big confrontation with the enemy group. I zapped their warrior with magic missile then went invisible as they were focusing on trying to take me out. We learned after the event that the other group, through spying, had seen this otter wandering around with the group. They did not know what it was and assumed it was the magic users familliar and did not know what that was capable of. The thief and ranger were all over me even invisible. But being small I was in and out of holes and nooks in the ruins walls. Finally the rest of the group was down and they had me cornered so I snapped off my one fireball spell point blank. The last they saw was a very irate little otter. heh... Thief got toasted and think the ranger or fighter went down too. The rest were singed pretty good. Think they were able to drag the fighter off to a temple for a raise.
So I was dead again. But it was alot of fun. Don't mess with the otter.
Had the druid not had the scroll or succeeded the use I'd have been down and out of the game for the rest of the session. Which would have been a bit boring. But we knew the event would allmost certainly have a high body count unless we were really good at avoiding the others. We were not. In fact the other group had all the sneaky characters... But did not have any spellcasters.
So there is an example of mortality in action and applied ways to mitigate it. I survived level 1 and 2 against all odds by sheer tenacity and lots of bandages from the other characters. The Druid was on character number 3 or 4.
Which is something occasionally forgotten. you can stabilize a character at negative if someone tends to them in time.
I've had a lot of fun with D&D although it took me something like ten characters to reach 2nd level the first time.
Although "Zeros to Heroes" is one of the basic paradigms of OSR gaming - and I like it- I feel that OSR games may need slightly tougher 1st level characters.
I go around it this way:
Maximum Hit Points at first level
Thieves may wear all kinds of armor but suffer penalties to thief skills, they have access to an expanded list of weapons.
If playing B/X-like games I add these:
Death at -10
Improved Backstab for Thieves (x3 at 5th level, x4 at 9th, x5 at 13th)
Thief skills get to add ability modifiers a la AD&D
Some kind of specialization/mastery for Fighters
I never felt that Clerics and Magic-users needed fixing in the HP/Combat department but bonus spells for High Int are another fix I used.
Quote from: Omega;699862I had one player like that in a session. The minute negotiations with NPCs opened up. That one player would head off and pick a fight with someone. Twice he actually interrupted negotiations and deliberately antagonized the NPC. This was not fun for the other players and talking with the problem player did not work. I even specifically had good combat oriented encounters to accommodate this person. But it had to be kill-kill-kill every moment. Soooooo. Eventually he tried to off a kid who turned out to be a halfling fighter of slightly lower level who proceeded to take the character apart. Then the local temple refused to raise him because of his reputation.
And the party (ie, the characters) would let him get away with that?
That's a thing the party's team leader should have solved in-game, potentially up to kicking the character out or just cutting them down where they stand. It's not a problem that the GM should have had stick his hands into the setting to solve.
If I am leading the team, then the first time you cause a problem in a situation you're not suited for, you generally won't get to come next time unless I've got no choice, you're willing to sit at the back and not get in the way, or you've genuinely improved (In which case, you get another chance). I
will and
do split the party, and I
expect the team leader to assign their team to their own specialties.
(I've actually had to deal with a character recently who wanted to set fire to, and pillage, everything she came across, and my jarl would have been very disappointed with my leadership if I'd just killed her. So I talked her out of the sillier ideas, kept her too busy with assignments to cause problems, and didn't send her on a mission on her own. Our group's leadership role switched between myself - in combat - and our diplomat out of it, because I trusted the diplomat to be able to take the lead, despite my technically outranking them.)
Quote from: smiorgan;699990Having "safe space" rewards grow linearly but the exploration/fighting rewards grow logarithmically is a neat solution (if I read you correctly), and something that can "ease newbies into the game" if you feel that's needed to attract new players (per the OP).
I wonder if that's just prolonging the inevitable, however -- the party gain a couple of levels from swanning around town doing errands, then finally feel they're ready for an adventure. They go out and the game is as lethal as ever, and some of them die.
Well, no, I've never seen PCs level up purely from roleplay XP. Even at 1st level my PCs rarely go a session without combat, and the risk of death. It's more that you might get your PC to 2nd level after four combats and doing a bunch of other stuff, rather than needing the dozens of combats it could take RAW if you don't get a lucky treasure find.
I don't award XP to PCs who do nothing significant, and I'll often have combat and the threat of combat, at least as much as in typical adventure fiction.
Quote from: S'mon;700039Well, no, I've never seen PCs level up purely from roleplay XP. Even at 1st level my PCs rarely go a session without combat, and the risk of death. It's more that you might get your PC to 2nd level after four combats and doing a bunch of other stuff, rather than needing the dozens of combats it could take RAW if you don't get a lucky treasure find.
I don't award XP to PCs who do nothing significant, and I'll often have combat and the threat of combat, at least as much as in typical adventure fiction.
Combat usually happens in most campaigns, but I don't give xp for combat.
If I am dming a 1E dnd game, it is possible to gain levels without combat.
If a character built a keep and plotted to replace the rightful king and was doing all sorts of cool roleplay things, he would get xp.
I give out group xp at intervals during a campaign.
I don't give xp for directly killing monsters or finding treasure.
Quote from: Bill;700046Combat usually happens in most campaigns, but I don't give xp for combat.
Survival is it's own reward.
Quote from: GrumpyReviews;699923It should all be horribly lethal and unforgiving.
Like marriage.
Quote from: trechriron;699556These posts intrigue me. I think it’s fairly easy to discuss character mortality before a game and set expectations. It may not always go over well, but you can forewarn. However, what about long term play? How do old school games handle the potential lethality/mortality and still maintain continuity?
Through the setting.
If you approach the game not under an "it's like a movie or TV series" rationale but with the idea there is a world and the player characters just happen to be some of the people doing stuff in it, characters live and die and are replaced, whereas the setting lives on.
This means that the sense of continuity comes from the living setting. A band of adventurers who is partially wiped out in the dungeon might seek replacements at their home village, or city. Some characters (PCs or NPCs) might have heard of what happened to them after some talked at the inn, and come to see if they can scrounge a few coins of their own out of their operations. Some of the characters might have relatives claiming the lost character's will (Erac's Cousin, if that rings a bell). A party completely wiped out may just be replaced by a completely different group of adventurers who will go about its own adventures, choose its own objectives, and if it comes to tread the same roads the previous group adventured in, they might find traces of their passage, witness how the setting evolved after their passing, and the consequences of their deaths.
At higher levels it becomes all the easier, and potentially all the more meaningful, because the campaign is established by now. Everybody knows who these blue guys living by the mountains are, what Count Whatsisface is up to on his side of the plains, and coming up with replacement PCs and acting the natural consequences of the PCs' actions becomes a no-brainer, the setting representing a font of possibilities to choose from.
And that's not even talking about henchmen and hirelings which could be upgraded to PCs, nor the other characters you also play in the campaign as PCs to switch back and forth depending on adventure levels, opportunities in the setting, particular objectives and whatnot. The idea is that you have a number of characters adventuring in the world, in and around the party, forming sub-parties and so on depending on who makes it at the game table this week, and these make for alternate characters when your main higher level one is doing stuff like magic research or building a keep, or of course when this or that other of your character dies adventuring, also ensuring you can adventure at all levels of the campaign continuously using a variety of PCs.
If say a fighter Lord (name level) fails at his attempt to save his life in a magical assassination performed by demons who materialized from the shadows to kill him, Elric in Bakshaan style, then the next character may be the Wizard who summoned the monster and works for the bad guys, a noble that is named as a replacement for the deceased Lord who will be warned about his predecessor's fate and will have to find out what happened before it happens to him too, the Archbishop or Nuncio from the Church who has come to bury the corpse of the Lord and investigate the crime like Cadfael at a much higher rank of priesthood, his trusted aid (henchman) on so many adventures who witnesses his replacement by a shoddy incompetent character, a high-ranking member of the thieves' guild posing as another character wanting to find out who dared hire assassins to kill the Lord on the guilds' own turf, and so on, so forth.
The setting provides the continuity.
Quote from: Ladybird;700018And the party (ie, the characters) would let him get away with that?
That's a thing the party's team leader should have solved in-game, potentially up to kicking the character out or just cutting them down where they stand. It's not a problem that the GM should have had stick his hands into the setting to solve.
The age old problem of... "He has the car"
I am NOT going to kick out the problem player who is the only transportation for the handicapped player and two other players without cars.
I did though apply pressure where I could. Tried talking, yadda yadda.
The other players just tended to roll with it. They were used to it.
To the problem players credit. While being a nuisance on the one front, he was curbing other behavior that would have had me kick him out on the spot. Handicapped player or no. But as was. He bent some so I bent some and the other players bent some.
And about 8 years later I get a new group and end up with about the exact same situation. argh!
Quote from: Benoist;700101The setting provides the continuity.
QFT Good post.
The biggest issue now is that the role of setting in later iterations of the game has been reduced to a flimsy 2D backdrop that only exists as a blue screen against which awesome egos do kewl stuff.
In a game model where the setting is largely irrelevant you either "fix" things to ensure continuity ( i.e. cheat) or whine endlessly about how the campaign has no purpose because a few knuckleheads bite it every few months.
Bring setting back to its rightful place as the center of the game and so many "problems" fix themselves.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;700120QFT Good post.
The biggest issue now is that the role of setting in later iterations of the game has been reduced to a flimsy 2D backdrop that only exists as a blue screen against which awesome egos do kewl stuff.
In a game model where the setting is largely irrelevant you either "fix" things to ensure continuity ( i.e. cheat) or whine endlessly about how the campaign has no purpose because a few knuckleheads bite it every few months.
Bring setting back to its rightful place as the center of the game and so many "problems" fix themselves.
Yeah, I agree, although the flimsy 2D backdrop goes back to people running campaigns consisting of TSR modules in nominally-Greyhawk in the late '70s. Running GDQ has similar issues to running Rise of the Runelords.
Quote from: S'mon;700141Yeah, I agree, although the flimsy 2D backdrop goes back to people running campaigns consisting of TSR modules in nominally-Greyhawk in the late '70s. Running GDQ has similar issues to running Rise of the Runelords.
I agree. Some of the TSR modules, like GDQ, are way too easy to construe under the 2D backdrops that took over precedence in the game's design. It is assumed that the G series are part of a greater setting of course, and that the adventure sites are dynamic et al, but if you don't know what you're doing, that the DMG advice flies over your head and that you construe the modules as scripts, as opposed to settings, and there is a part of that fault that befalls to the way the modules are linked to each other in the text itself, let's be clear, then it becomes all too easy to run them as 2D hackfests where problems of "story continuity" creep in.
The A series suffers from the same issues, though I somehow feel they are worse in that context. It would take me a serious amount of retooling before feeling comfortable running these modules, personally (and I'd do it, for the record).
Quote from: Benoist;700101If you approach the game not under an "it's like a movie or TV series" rationale but with the idea there is a world and the player characters just happen to be some of the people doing stuff in it, characters live and die and are replaced, whereas the setting lives on.
This means that the sense of continuity comes from the living setting.
Ben, I started to write this same post a couple of days ago, and I decided I wanted to make it a blog post instead. Very well said, and I plan to link this with attribution when my post goes up.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;700150Ben, I started to write this same post a couple of days ago, and I decided I wanted to make it a blog post instead. Very well said, and I plan to link this with attribution when my post goes up.
Thanks! Let me know when it goes up. I'll link it on my facebook page.
Quote from: Benoist;700101If you approach the game not under an "it's like a movie or TV series" rationale but with the idea there is a world and the player characters just happen to be some of the people doing stuff in it, characters live and die and are replaced, whereas the setting lives on.
There was a Greyhawk FAQ at one time (may still exist) that summed it up nicely to me:
Quote from: Greyhawk FAQGreyhawk is bigger than any character, but any character can become as big as Greyhawk.
I like this way of looking at it. It directly states that your characters aren't the center of the world, but by virtue of providing a world that is larger than the characters, the potential impact of the characters increases.
Quote from: Ladybird;700050Survival is it's own reward.
In fact, there are actually no rules for winning the game; the winning is in the playing and the staying alive.-Understanding Traveller
;)
Quote from: Omega;700116The age old problem of... "He has the car"
I am NOT going to kick out the problem player who is the only transportation for the handicapped player and two other players without cars.
I did say character, not player; make them come back with someone more appropriate, if that character can't tone it down. But if they're the type of player who would be a shit about it, that really sucks.
When joining an already-established SLA Industries ops team, the team wanted to interview for their new hire. So I had to create a couple of character concepts and actually play out interview scenes with them, and then detail out the winner. It was fun! It was
appropriate.
Quote from: S'mon;700141Yeah, I agree, although the flimsy 2D backdrop goes back to people running campaigns consisting of TSR modules in nominally-Greyhawk in the late '70s. Running GDQ has similar issues to running Rise of the Runelords.
That's because "modules" were never conceived of in the original creation of the game, and neither were "convention tournaments."
The G modules are published versions of convention tournaments. Of COURSE they have fuckall to do with D&D.
Quote from: Old Geezer;700232That's because "modules" were never conceived of in the original creation of the game, and neither were "convention tournaments."
The G modules are published versions of convention tournaments. Of COURSE they have fuckall to do with D&D.
And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?
Quote from: Haffrung;700234And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?
It wasn't until one of my groups got their hands on a DMG that we did other things than wander around and kill things for xp. It was fun, but it wasn't so easy to pry people away from that style of play. I thought that GDQ series was great, but we retired our characters afterwards, they were just too powerful.
Quote from: Haffrung;700234And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?
Huh. I disagree with you violently often enough that it seems like the thing to do to say "Well said" when I don't.
Well said.
Quote from: Ladybird;700228I did say character, not player; make them come back with someone more appropriate, if that character can't tone it down. But if they're the type of player who would be a shit about it, that really sucks.
When joining an already-established SLA Industries ops team, the team wanted to interview for their new hire. So I had to create a couple of character concepts and actually play out interview scenes with them, and then detail out the winner. It was fun! It was appropriate.
The player couldnt tone it down, didnt matter what character or RPG he was in. He was aggressive and had no patience for negotiations or town interactions. He wasnt quite the "NPCs = EXP on legs" sort. But he'd be disruptive no matter sooner or later once the group got in town or started chatting up someone on the road for info.
The other characters were as hogtied as the players were. They could push but couldnt risk pushing too much. and they were used to it so it didnt impact them as much. And they were really desperate to get to RP.
Once I saw how things were I made the call to roll with it for the group. Im not going to risk people being stranded upwards of 20 miles from home with no viable way home. I doubt he would have stranded anyone. But Im not going to risk it.
And thats the DMs call to roll or not. In the other instance I finally got fed up and just rolled the campaign to a conclusion and let it go.
But that is perhaps a discussion for its own thread sometime.
Quote from: Haffrung;700234And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?
Well, sure, it's entirely predictable that that's what would happen, especially once it became clear that for several years modules were Money On Ye Hoof. But that doesn't alter the fact that the game was created with no such idea in mind and that modules were crammed in. The monetization of D&D changed a LOT of shit about the game.
Remember, when Gary and Don Kaye printed a thousand copies, we thought they were insane to print that many.
Quote from: Old Geezer;700308Well, sure, it's entirely predictable that that's what would happen, especially once it became clear that for several years modules were Money On Ye Hoof. But that doesn't alter the fact that the game was created with no such idea in mind and that modules were crammed in. The monetization of D&D changed a LOT of shit about the game.
Remember, when Gary and Don Kaye printed a thousand copies, we thought they were insane to print that many.
When lightning strikes you grab the pot of gold revealed and run with it.
Modules were a logical step. Ready made adventures that you did not have to spend hours or days pondering. And best of all. Usually lots of new monsters and magic items. Players eat that stuff up like candy.
And it gave a feeling of being in a larger world perhaps, or a sense of unity.
Sure wasnt for the safety feeling. Alot of modules were lethal un sometimes unexpected ways. Keep on the Borderlands still being my favorite for a starter setting that was absurdly dangerous.
Hilariously one of my former players was an anti-module type and for some reason was allways convinced I was allways running modules. So Id bring in a module and say we are playing so-n-so adventure today and at the end I'd point out that I'd made the whole adventure up on the spot on the fly. I thought he'd explode. He was near neon red trying to parse it. Closest I've cone to causing someone to fail a real world sanity check... heh-heh...
Other times I'd really run modules, but with players who were fine with modules. and they knew I was tweaking things on the fly as needed when they went directions the module could not cover.
WOTC had an anti module mentality for a little bit. No clue why. Probably some exec did a poll that said no one buys modules.
Quote from: Rincewind1;699340This is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?
First of all, if you waste time writing a background for a newly-created PC that is more than two or three sentences long, then you are a wanker plain and simple.
Quote from: Haffrung;699644Make up several characters at start. One of them will likely make it to level 3. And we were doing this 30 years before Goodman put the funnel into Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Discourage heavy backstories. Tell the player that their characters will develop in play.
Not play a system that take three hours to make up a PC. Use a system where you can make up three characters in an hour and Bob's your uncle.
My sentiments exactly.
When I kick off a campaign, I allow each player to choose from the following:
- one 2nd-level character
- two 1st-level characters
- one 1st-level and two men-at-arms (d6+1 hp, skilled with 2-3 weapons, THAC0 21)
- one 1st-level and three lackeys (d6 hp, skilled with 1-2 weapons*, THAC0 22)
* one of the two must be club, knife, hand axe or dagger
Lackeys who gain experience may become men-at-arms or possibly 1st-level PCs. Men-at-arms who gain experience may become 1st-level fighter-types.
I also allow 5 re-rolls that may be used at any time, from rolling stats, combat, saving throws, etc, etc.
Between the options of having backup PCs on hand, and getting five "do-overs", there has never been whining about the deadliness of the setting I run -and even with those bonuses, it's deadly.
Quote from: Old Geezer;699795Just like any wargame. You can play CHAINMAIL by lining up all your troops and rolling them straight ahead, but if your opponent is smart enough to shit unassisted she will hand you your ass in a bucket.
OD&D was written under the same assumption. You can play with your head up your ass, but your character will die. Then, some of the people who played that way got put in charge of later editions.
I think I'll sig that. :rotfl:
Quote from: mhensley;699876I don't mind playing an old school game with high mortality just as long as the dm runs the game in an old school way. The problem I encounter frequently is when a dm tries to run high mortality d&d with a severe nerfing of old school tactics like not allowing us hirelings or dogs, nerfing spells like sleep and charm, removing gp for xp, and then expecting us to actually worry about backstories and shit when our life expectancy is effectively one encounter.
If you had to play for that kind of a cocksmith DM, you have my sympathy.
Quote from: Elfdart;700339First of all, if you waste time writing a background for a newly-created PC that is more than two or three sentences long, then you are a wanker plain and simple.
I'm not talking about writing a bloody novel, but whatever, screw you too and the rest of "Internet tough guys" brigade.
Oh, won't someone think of those poor poor back stories and all the precious creativity lovingly poured into them...
Don't let me get the icky roleplaying into your wargaming.
Story story story story.
Oh there's plenty of roleplaying when I play, to the hilt even. But I let backstory emerge in play as opposed to jerking off to my special creativity coming up with some precious background for my PC. But you're not one for subtleties... ...or taste... ...anyways.
Benoist has only seen me DM, but I'm sure he'll back me up on me not being some pawn moving wargamer.
Quote from: Planet Algol;700378Oh there's plenty of roleplaying when I play, to the hilt even. But I let backstory emerge in play as opposed to jerking off to my special creativity coming up with some precious background for my PC. But you're not one for subtleties... ...or taste... ...anyways.
Benoist has only seen me DM, but I'm sure he'll back me up on me not being some pawn moving wargamer.
Save me the weak - limped attacks about my "subtlety" or "taste", especially after pulling the Internet Tough Guy routine. So far I haven't seen anything that makes you Brummel yourself.
I'm okay with "emergent backstory" as well, I don't really require character backstories. But so far this thread made one huge point for existence of Grognards.txt, which is pretty sad.
One does not have to be an internet tough guy to think that back story fetishization is for wankers. But you're not the brightest bulb in the fridge anyways.
Are you experiencing some educational regress tonight, or have you stopped at primary school invectives' wit? Though judging by the lack of usual swears, I suspect it's simply sobriety hitting hard. So what'll we next, going the "Oh I'm adjusting my level to yours" routine or "My my, swear words cause you to pearl clutch"?
Also I didn't know that
QuoteThis is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?
is an overfetishisation of backstories. But apparently, if you invest at start more into your character than encumbrance, level and attributes, you are a wanker.
The only wankers I see in this thread are those who are trying to prove how tough they are by playing RPGs like Real Men (TM).
I have absolutely no problem playing a PC with personality regardless of their level or expectations of mortality.
When they die, I roll up another set of stats, look at them, and a distinct PC emerges.
I don't waste others, or my own, time with their biography. That is improvised via in-game banter.
To claim that old school mortality precludes personality/backstory until level x is a binary, and false, argument.
I don't think anyone can prove how tough they are by rolling dice for their imaginary hobbit's attack rolls.
And yet, I've seen a fair amount of anecdotes, on this very forum in fact, about having 4 different characters ready, or even with people not bothering to name their characters before reaching 2nd level. Of course it's not an issue with everyone, but some people take the mortality to the extreme and there is an issue of "Warrior Bob, Warrior Rob, Warrior Sod, Warrior Dod", whose distinctive features are that they wear full plate, use battle axes and have 16 STR until one of them reaches a level where they won't be killed by a first stray arrow. And yes, perhaps the people who'd get upset that their Fighter Charles died so fast, and they didn't even get a chance to visit home village, perhaps simply shouldn't play Old School D&D - but that is indeed a legitimate issue with old school mortality, something that can off put some players (without them being "wankers" or "whiny cunts", but simply people who invest too much into their character where perhaps they shouldn't do so due to the nature of the game). Because they come to a game, try to prepare as best for this whole "role - playing" schindig as they can, and then suddenly need to invent a new character 10 minutes into the game...if they play again this session at all.
And no, I don't have an issue with high mortality/danger of combat myself - hells, I'm mostly a Warhammer/BRP player after all.
Quote from: Planet Algol;700405I have absolutely no problem playing a PC with personality regardless of their level or expectations of mortality. . . . To claim that old school mortality precludes personality/backstory until level x is a binary, and false, argument.
A-fuckin'-men (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/o-death-where-is-thy-sting.html).
Quote from: Planet Algol;700378... pawn moving wargamer.
I am, not ashamed of it one bit, and I usually do a lot more than 2-3 sentences backstory.
Quote from: Rincewind1;700411And yet, I've seen a fair amount of anecdotes, on this very forum in fact, about having 4 different characters ready, or even with people not bothering to name their characters before reaching 2nd level. Of course it's not an issue with everyone, but some people take the mortality to the extreme and there is an issue of "Warrior Bob, Warrior Rob, Warrior Sod, Warrior Dod", whose distinctive features are that they wear full plate, use battle axes and have 16 STR until one of them reaches a level where they won't be killed by a first stray arrow. And yes, perhaps the people who'd get upset that their Fighter Charles died so fast, and they didn't even get a chance to visit home village, perhaps simply shouldn't play Old School D&D - but that is indeed a legitimate issue with old school mortality, something that can off put some players (without them being "wankers" or "whiny cunts", but simply people who invest too much into their character where perhaps they shouldn't do so due to the nature of the game). Because they come to a game, try to prepare as best for this whole "role - playing" schindig as they can, and then suddenly need to invent a new character 10 minutes into the game...if they play again this session at all.
And no, I don't have an issue with high mortality/danger of combat myself - hells, I'm mostly a Warhammer/BRP player after all.
I agree 100% with the above post.
Quote from: dragoner;700419I am, not ashamed of it one bit, and I usually do a lot more than 2-3 sentences backstory.
For some reason now I want a rule in my next RPG book that goes along the lines of.
"Create a character background of one sentence. Add one sentence for each of your characters deaths and one sentence per 5 character levels achieved collectively amongst your DOA characters. Add one sentence for every character you have created that was killed by a 1hp kobold. Suicide deaths do not count."
This will at least eventually keep the player busy during the downtime of being dead... again...
Quote from: Omega;700425For some reason now I want a rule in my next RPG book that goes along the lines of.
"Create a character background of one sentence. Add one sentence for each of your characters deaths and one sentence per 5 character levels achieved collectively amongst your DOA characters. Add one sentence for every character you have created that was killed by a 1hp kobold. Suicide deaths do not count."
This will at least eventually keep the player busy during the downtime of being dead... again...
I would add "if a wizard all deaths by cats must be included" given they are the MOST dangerous thing alive to a typical wizard.:)
Quote from: Rincewind1;700411And yet, I've seen a fair amount of anecdotes, on this very forum in fact, about having 4 different characters ready, or even with people not bothering to name their characters before reaching 2nd level. Of course it's not an issue with everyone, but some people take the mortality to the extreme and there is an issue of "Warrior Bob, Warrior Rob, Warrior Sod, Warrior Dod", whose distinctive features are that they wear full plate, use battle axes and have 16 STR until one of them reaches a level where they won't be killed by a first stray arrow. And yes, perhaps the people who'd get upset that their Fighter Charles died so fast, and they didn't even get a chance to visit home village, perhaps simply shouldn't play Old School D&D - but that is indeed a legitimate issue with old school mortality, something that can off put some players (without them being "wankers" or "whiny cunts", but simply people who invest too much into their character where perhaps they shouldn't do so due to the nature of the game). Because they come to a game, try to prepare as best for this whole "role - playing" schindig as they can, and then suddenly need to invent a new character 10 minutes into the game...if they play again this session at all.
And no, I don't have an issue with high mortality/danger of combat myself - hells, I'm mostly a Warhammer/BRP player after all.
I agree 100% with the above post.
Quote from: Rincewind1;700341I'm not talking about writing a bloody novel, but whatever, screw you too and the rest of "Internet tough guys" brigade.
Being practical means posing as a "tough guy"?
Quote from: Rincewind1;700392Are you experiencing some educational regress tonight, or have you stopped at primary school invectives' wit? Though judging by the lack of usual swears, I suspect it's simply sobriety hitting hard. So what'll we next, going the "Oh I'm adjusting my level to yours" routine or "My my, swear words cause you to pearl clutch"?
Also I didn't know that
This is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?
is an overfetishisation of backstories.
It sure is, considering the absurd strawman you've set up. I never said "Don't create a backstory for a new PC", I said keep it short and simple.
QuoteBut apparently, if you invest at start more into your character than encumbrance, level and attributes, you are a wanker.
If the greasy palm fits, wank it.
QuoteThe only wankers I see in this thread are those who are trying to prove how tough they are by playing RPGs like Real Men (TM).
Did someone just rub sand in your pussy or something? Does it still hurt?
Quote from: Omega;700425For some reason now I want a rule in my next RPG book that goes along the lines of.
This will at least eventually keep the player busy during the downtime of being dead... again...
I just don't get the hate towards wargamers; as far as pc backstories, sure I don't want to read a novella, but there is nothing wrong with a page to give me motivations, or ideas on how to torture them if they are players ... muahaha
/evil GM laugh
NPC's as well, I'll often copy parts of the roleplay dialog into their sheets, like when the party bought an android that was a steward, but just a re-skinned warbot:
... so basically the rich players bought an obstinate, lethal npc?That still makes me laugh.
Quote from: Elfdart;700431Being practical means posing as a "tough guy"?
It sure is, considering the absurd strawman you've set up. I never said "Don't create a backstory for a new PC", I said keep it short and simple.
Quote from: Elfdart;700339First of all, if you waste time writing a background for a newly-created PC that is more than two or three sentences long, then you are a wanker plain and simple.
:rolleyes:
If you are that "practical", go learn carpentry rather than play pretend games. Also I never wrote that you wrote that you don't want backstories at all, so as far as strawmen go - physician, heal thyself.
QuoteDid someone just rub sand in your pussy or something? Does it still hurt?
Actually it doesn't, but how's the head up your arse? Because if you took it out of it for a moment, you'd perhaps notice that this "practicality" is exactly what I meant could be a legitimate issue for some players, as per OP's note.
Quote from: dragoner;700434I just don't get the hate towards wargamers; as far as pc backstories, sure I don't want to read a novella, but there is nothing wrong with a page to give me motivations, or ideas on how to torture them if they are players ... muahaha
/evil GM laugh
NPC's as well, I'll often copy parts of the roleplay dialog into their sheets, like when the party bought an android that was a steward, but just a re-skinned warbot:
... so basically the rich players bought an obstinate, lethal npc?
That still makes me laugh.
The longest backstory I've ever seen as a GM was 5 pages long, and I admit - I didn't read it at all. If my players make one at all, I expect it to be page long tops, and better have adventuring hooks/NPCs there, or I'll probably not read it as well. And I've never demanded a backstory from players (the last ones I received were about a year - two ago, when my last true CoC campaign started).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;700083Like marriage.
Well, I cannot top that response. I'm off to have a drink and go to bed.
Quote from: Elfdart;700431Being practical means posing as a "tough guy"?
It sure is, considering the absurd strawman you've set up. I never said "Don't create a backstory for a new PC", I said keep it short and simple.
If the greasy palm fits, wank it.
Did someone just rub sand in your pussy or something? Does it still hurt?
I assume this tripe was your poor attempt at a joke? If not, how pathetic.
Quote from: Rincewind1;700437The longest backstory I've ever seen as a GM was 5 pages long, and I admit - I didn't read it at all. If my players make one at all, I expect it to be page long tops, and better have adventuring hooks/NPCs there, or I'll probably not read it as well.
Five pages is too long, but usually it is a paragraph or three; but it grows, GM notes, reasons for this or that. I think even in the first RPG's I played, it was almost always a paragraph at least; but hell, if someone can't put a paragraph together ... scary. How are they going to role play?
Backstory =/= Personality.
A character can have one without the other.
Quote from: dragoner;700419I am, not ashamed of it one bit, and I usually do a lot more than 2-3 sentences backstory.
My typical limit is a paragraph, maybe 3 paragraphs if I am playing Mage or Lot5R. Regardless I like your idea upthread.
If I set up at a table at the games shop, someone "old school" to the extent of playing 1E AD&D might think the original Men & Magic rules too harsh. A serious debate would involve factors from Monsters & Treasure and The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, but I'm not interested in getting into that debate with him. He can find another game, or start his own; I'm still likely to have plenty of eager players.
My regular "game night" group is first and last a social engagement of friends. I already know such things as that 3E D&D has been tried and found wanting, and that a superhero game is a non-starter. There are many things they would give a chance, but if they weren't in the groove after two or three sessions, then it would be time to set it aside.
It's really no different with RPGs than with board or card games.
Quote from: Haffrung;700442Backstory =/= Personality.
A character can have one without the other.
Agreed but seriously 3-4 sentences with a couple of story hooks can't be more than 5 minutes of thought?
The backstory is there mostly for the player so the GM might give an opportunity for the player to attempt to go after her intended concept without GM wankery. Secondarily it gives the GM easy hooks to get the player immersed in the world without being obvious or stilted.
Quote from: dragoner;700441Five pages is too long, but usually it is a paragraph or three; but it grows, GM notes, reasons for this or that. I think even in the first RPG's I played, it was almost always a paragraph at least; but hell, if someone can't put a paragraph together ... scary. How are they going to role play?
Well, to be fair - from what I've seen, pretty well ;). Too long of a backstory can be a sign of a "starlet player" as well. Personally, I can usually scribble a paragraph pretty quickly, usually focusing on relationships with some backstory NPCs, as it's something I as a GM mostly look for, and I suspect GMs also mostly look for that, because it's stuff you can use very directly in actual game.
Quote from: Haffrung;700442Backstory =/= Personality.
A character can have one without the other.
True - as I edited in, the last backstories I've read were about 2 years ago, and I did regularly game since then (though now as I set up for some Pendragon/Crusader Kings - style politics game, I'll probably demand at least a family tree). For me though, a backstory helps with personality. Just how I roll. Then again, I usually shamelessly steal backstories from literature.
Quote from: Marleycat;700444My typical limit is a paragraph, maybe 3 paragraphs if I am playing Mage or Lot5R. Regardless I like your idea up thread.
I usually do a paragraph as well. As a GM I like to be able to connect the character with the adventure, it gives more depth to the game.
Quote from: Benoistwith the idea there is a world and the player characters just happen to be some of the people doing stuff in it, characters live and die and are replaced, whereas the setting lives on.
That's the old meaning of "campaign" in the RPG context. The shift in what that means, along with what "adventure" means, between 1978 and today, perhaps sums up a whole broad trend.
Quote from: Rincewind1;700447Well, to be fair - from what I've seen, pretty well ;). Too long of a backstory can be a sign of a "starlet player" as well. Personally, I can usually scribble a paragraph pretty quickly, usually focusing on relationships with some backstory NPCs, as it's something I as a GM mostly look for, and I suspect GMs also mostly look for that, because it's stuff you can use very directly in actual game.
True about the starlet player, that can be annoying. When I interview people, often I require a written paragraph which it is surprising how terrible some of them can be, so it isn't surprising people can't do it. Then again I can whip up a six page report for work pretty quick, and I know it is to be taken to meetings with higher ups who will use it like a GM in a game - doesn't hurt to be able to create catchy sound bites as well.
Quote from: Phillip;700450That's the old meaning of "campaign" in the RPG context. The shift in what that means, along with what "adventure" means, between 1978 and today, perhaps sums up a whole broad trend.
Agreed. If you tell me my character is just some "shlub" doing stuff in your made up "real" world you deserve the contempt MY "shlub" will treat YOUR "real" world as it deserves.
Remember it's all make believe.
Quote from: Benoist;700148It is assumed that the G series are part of a greater setting of course, and that the adventure sites are dynamic et al, but if you don't know what you're doing, that the DMG advice flies over your head and that you construe the modules as scripts, as opposed to settings, and there is a part of that fault that befalls to the way the modules are linked to each other in the text itself, let's be clear, then it becomes all too easy to run them as 2D hackfests where problems of "story continuity" creep in.
The A series suffers from the same issues, though I somehow feel they are worse in that context.
The original Slavelords tournament round structure meant that advancing players automatically ended up in the next scheduled scenario. The modules were expanded a bit, but more in the way of adding to the locales than in providing guidance for integrating them into an ongoing campaign.
I've met a number of DMs who would have used some "fiat" to prevent the kind of spree Rob Kuntz went on in the ToEE. In recent years, the disparity in PC levels that may have left Gary less than fully thrilled with that, and the opposition among PCs that led to the eventual intervention of other parties, are often simply not allowed to come into existence in the first place.
Quote from: Marleycat;700427I would add "if a wizard all deaths by cats must be included" given they are the MOST dangerous thing alive to a typical wizard.:)
In one session a MU was in some wizards lab with a few potions laying around. Theyd offed the owner of the tower and the "former" familliar, a cat, was skulking around.
The MU, (who was not me for once, I was the bard that time,) had been reading the DMG and saw the potion miscibility section... sooooooo...
He mixes two potions of four... First was miscible... (DM was rolling in secret for obvious reasons) Think it was a combo healing and Treasure finding potion.
Emboldened the MU tried the next two. I do not know what the result really was. But the effect was the MU was polymorphed into a mouse and the familliar zipped out and ate him... "gulp" roll new character...
I took the cat as my familliar.
"But you cant have a familliar! You are a bard!"
"Are you going to argue with a cat that eats wizards in one gulp?"
"well.... no..."
(personal guess was the result was lethal poison and the DM got creative with the death.)
Quote from: Marleycat;700455Agreed. If you tell me my character is just some "shlub" doing stuff in your made up "real" world you deserve the contempt MY "shlub" will treat YOUR "real" world as it deserves.
Remember it's all make believe.
Yes, I don't want players to be shlubs, my world is more like the forest where they are the wolves running free. The only problem is sometimes when they become too powerful, then it can be hard to keep them all going in the same direction.
Quote from: Old Geezer;700232The G modules are published versions of convention tournaments. Of COURSE they have fuckall to do with D&D.
I reckon Gary Gygax was in a better position to decide the official denotation of D&D, and in that case he in fact did. The tournament game form is essentially a subset of the full-scale form, and much the same could be said of other variations that have become normative while that fell into obscurity.
O
Quote from: Omega;700458In one session a MU was in some wizards lab with a few potions laying around. Theyd offed the owner of the tower and the "former" familliar, a cat, was skulking around.
The MU, (who was not me for once, I was the bard that time,) had been reading the DMG and saw the potion miscibility section... sooooooo...
He mixes two potions of four... First was miscible... (DM was rolling in secret forobvious reasons) Think it was a combo healing and Treasure finding potion.
Emboldened the MU tried the next two. I do not know what the result really was. But the effect was the MU was polymorphed into a mouse and the familliar zipped out and ate him... "gulp" roll new character...
I took the cat as my familliar.
"But you cant have a familliar! You are a bard!"
"Are you going to argue with a cat that eats wizards in one gulp?"
"well.... no..."
(personal guess was the result was lethal poison and the DM got creative with the death.)
That is something 3/4e got wrong. Potion mishaps and wizard killing cats.
Quote from: dragoner;700434I just don't get the hate towards wargamers; as far as pc backstories, sure I don't want to read a novella, but there is nothing wrong with a page to give me motivations, or ideas on how to torture them if they are players ... muahaha
/evil GM laugh
NPC's as well, I'll often copy parts of the roleplay dialog into their sheets, like when the party bought an android that was a steward, but just a re-skinned warbot:
... so basically the rich players bought an obstinate, lethal npc?
That still makes me laugh.
I was more poking fun at the whole low level lethality of some RPGs. Hence the closing comment of... again. Downtime while dead is not fun. Unless the DM lets you haunt the survivors...
I like a good backstory. In fact for my main RPG project way back it was mandatory as I absolutely needed to get into the characters heads.
Some would submit a page or two of prose. Two TSR book authors who opted in sent in about 4 pages of background each. Others would send in maybee a paragraph at best. Those tended to be the "develop as I adventure" sorts which is fine with me.
Quote from: dragoner;700459Yes, I don't want players to be shlubs, my world is more like the forest where they are the wolves running free. The only problem is sometimes when they become too powerful, then it can be hard to keep them all going in the same direction.
Agreed but there must be a balance and it isn't that hard to achieve, seriously. I think Ben would be a great DM to play under but remember he is OSR Taliban so has to keep to a certain line regardless.
(When I do Dnd I use FantasyCraft which flat out doesn't allow these abuses, other than that; I run or play Mage the Awakening mostly) so this is largely a non-issue to me.
Quote from: Rincewind1This is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?
I don't recall Simbalist and Backhaus explicitly drawing that connection in Chivalry & Sorcery (1977), but it makes some sense from the perspective that sees "lack" where other gamers see "enough." Another factor was that, without computer assistance, simply generating stats was more labor intensive than rolling up a figure for D&D or T&T.
There would seem to be some synergy among these things.
There's a notable difference between those whose priority is simply discovering whatever emerges in play -- whether death or glory -- and those to whom a backstory is an essential predictor of an unfolding story. If there's sufficient interest in the present state of figure X, then previous states can be of little importance.
Going the other way, it was Darth Vader's activity in the original Star Wars trilogy that inspired whatever interest there was in his back story.
Quote from: Phillip;700471There's a notable difference between those whose priority is simply discovering whatever emerges in play -- whether death or glory -- and those to whom a backstory is an essential predictor of an unfolding story. If there's sufficient interest in the present state of figure X, then previous states can be of little importance.
Going the other way, it was Darth Vader's activity in the original Star Wars trilogy that inspired whatever interest there was in his back story.
The crux of the shift/split nicely stated. Very impressive even.:)
I prefer for my characters the "blank slate upon which the history is written." approach. Partially because of the mortality rate and partially because I view most of what the character was doing up untill adventuring to likely be alot of boring training and study to get to this point of start.
Aside from the Greyhawk revival event with the TSR staff, I havent ever written up a big character background. Character background was required for that one.
In my experience, D&D characters are typically introduced much as Robert E. Howard would introduce Conan in one of his tales. A few lines suffice to sketch the figure and his attitude toward the present situation. Character gets further expression in his deeds as events proceed.
One thing I have not encountered lately that used to be common was an initial solo adventure. In D&D, that would usually start with the new character at the gate of a town, and get him or her established with potential contacts for expeditions in the pipeline.
The custom of having sessions only for the undertakings of a "monolithic party" has a profound effect on the integration of new PCs.
Again DO NOT ask me to write more than a half page (college ruled) that is only for Mage any Dnd game gets a paragraph at best. For Dnd it's likely 3-4 lines at best because I prefer party interaction beyond said lines to fill in the gaps. Dnd just works like that.
I have only rarely seen players make their characters mere ciphers on account of uncertainty as to the future extent of their careers. That's not usual practice in fiction either; a figure headed for a grisly death is not therefore deprived of personality. It's the personality after all that makes the death significant! It's a desire to make a character's fate not significant that motivates such de-personalization.
The fact that D&D and such are inspired by "pulp fiction," rather than by the modern "slice of life" or introspective portrait of a psyche, may at least partly account for dissatisfaction with such games on the part of people whose tastes run more to Philip Roth than Edgar Rice Burroughs. The dependence upon an enthusiasm for some kinds of fiction was alluded to in the foreword to the original D&D booklets.
Quote from: Omega;700475I prefer for my characters the "blank slate upon which the history is written." approach. Partially because of the mortality rate and partially because I view most of what the character was doing up untill adventuring to likely be alot of boring training and study to get to this point of start.
Aside from the Greyhawk revival event with the TSR staff, I havent ever written up a big character background. Character background was required for that one.
And that's cool - but I can understand why someone doesn't want to play A Man With No Name, especially if they feel they'll probably make him more like Nobody.
Quote from: Marleycat;700466... there must be a balance ...
Which is sometimes achieved by wildly swinging from one extreme to another. ;)
I just had a good adventure idea: Imagine a tontine between players who are powerful people like a CEO of Megacorp, Fleet Admiral, Subsector Duke or Duchess, etc. Very old with stats reduced, but super rich and such. Then simultaneously run a campaign where they are young; the trick would be to dovetail the two timelines, but without actually knowing the ending at the adventure start.
I don't need more than five minutes to come up with a background, personality and be ready to roll. It usually is done at the same time as rolling the dice and choosing race, class, equipment and the like.
Likewise, I come up with backgrounds and personalities for NPCs on the spot all the time.
I think the idea that you can't have a BG and/or personality until level X is bullshit.
Plain, total bullshit.
The actual issue is way more likely to be that some people want their one character with that one particular faux-Baudelaire background story to be a special snowflake in the campaign and can't take it if the character dies in the first few game sessions, whereas other people just play for the sake of determining which of these personalities will actually make it, and how far, with many other people besides being able to enjoy -GASP- BOTH approaches depending on the game and session they are playing at the time. Weird! I know. . .
Quote from: dragoner;700488Which is sometimes achieved by wildly swinging from one extreme to another. ;)
I just had a good adventure idea: Imagine a tontine between players who are powerful people like a CEO of Megacorp, Fleet Admiral, Subsector Duke or Duchess, etc. Very old with stats reduced, but super rich and such. Then simultaneously run a campaign where they are young; the trick would be to dovetail the two timelines, but without actually knowing the ending at the adventure start.
I had a plan to try to do something like that, not the being old part though, with a war that they were on the losing side of, and switching back and forth from their experienced versions who were dealing with a east/west germany type situation in their country, and their younger versions dealing with a failing war effort.
The idea was to use the people they meet in the younger version adventures to then appear in the older version adventures as allies/enemies etc. The problem was trying to prevent railroading in the younger version part.
Quote from: dragoner;700488Which is sometimes achieved by wildly swinging from one extreme to another. ;)
I just had a good adventure idea: Imagine a tontine between players who are powerful people like a CEO of Megacorp, Fleet Admiral, Subsector Duke or Duchess, etc. Very old with stats reduced, but super rich and such. Then simultaneously run a campaign where they are young; the trick would be to dovetail the two timelines, but without actually knowing the ending at the adventure start.
Sounds like either a typical....
a. Mage the Ascension game
b. Mage the Awakening Archmage game or with a hidden master as a npc.
:)
Hll
Quote from: Benoist;700489I don't need more than five minutes to come up with a background, personality and be ready to roll. It usually is done at the same time as rolling the dice and choosing race, class, equipment and the like.
Likewise, I come up with backgrounds and personalities for NPCs on the spot all the time.
I think the idea that you can't have a BG and/or personality until level X is bullshit.
Plain, total bullshit.
The actual issue is way more likely to be that some people want their one character with that one particular faux-Baudelaire background story to be a special snowflake in the campaign and can't take it if the character dies in the first few game sessions, whereas other people just play for the sake of determining which of these personalities will actually make it, and how far, with many other people besides being able to enjoy -GASP- BOTH approaches depending on the game and session they are playing at the time. Weird! I know. . .
I enjoy both but prefer one and lower my expectations and risk take to the extreme with NO investment in the other. Both are fun but I assume you're intelligent enough to figure out which one I prefer and will be invested in?
io my first Dnd game is 1e 3d6 straight. I roll only good enough for a fighter because I wasn't ready for a wizard. I hate fighters....so I go gonzo not giving a shit as I successful wishing I would die making up backup characters all the time. Thank God that fighter died and 2e came out 2-3 months later. Fact is I prefer something YOU may call special snowflake but isn't. But can't be arsed to explain to someone so behind the curve given it doesn't affect
you.
That's not meant as an insult given we prefer to run and play completely different versions of Dnd.
Quote from: Benoist;700489The actual issue is way more likely to be that some people want their one character with that one particular faux-Baudelaire background story to be a special snowflake in the campaign and can't take it if the character dies in the first few game sessions, whereas other people just play for the sake of determining which of these personalities will actually make it, and how far, with many other people besides being able to enjoy -GASP- BOTH approaches depending on the game and session they are playing at the time.
I think that is quite right. One reponse I've seen is players who turn one figure after another into Snowflake Baudelaire #N until at last one survives long enough to satisfy what they want from that.
Quote from: Marleycat;700491Sounds like either a typical....
a. Mage the Ascension game
b. Mage the Awakening Archmage game or with a hidden master as a npc.
:)
Interesting. :)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;700490I had a plan to try to do something like that, not the being old part though, with a war that they were on the losing side of, and switching back and forth from their experienced versions who were dealing with a east/west germany type situation in their country, and their younger versions dealing with a failing war effort.
The idea was to use the people they meet in the younger version adventures to then appear in the older version adventures as allies/enemies etc. The problem was trying to prevent railroading in the younger version part.
I was thinking the actions of the older group would be more of an influence, but one would still probably have to drop clues, both adventures would play into each other in an open way. Random encounter tables would be especially fun here, so you could watch the game unfold on the roll of a die as well.
Quote from: Rincewind1;700486And that's cool - but I can understand why someone doesn't want to play A Man With No Name, especially if they feel they'll probably make him more like Nobody.
Certainly.
If I know a RPG or setting isnt instantly lethal or a longer backstory is asked for. I am fine with providing it. I just personally lean to the idea of the story starting with the first adventure.
Tekumel was one of the rare diversions into an in depth background since the Adventures set gave you the option to really flesh out your characters backstory. And you could easily die before you made it out of chargen since the solo adventures were part of chargen if you so desired to brave them rather than continuing school and training.
I can't have a character without a backstory.
The act of creating a character generates a backstory. It's all part of the same process.
I probably won't write it down and I sure as shit wouldn't expect anyone else to have any interest in it or to read it if I did write it down but there is Always a backstory.
Like I said in another post D&D needs a psuedo lifepath model for generating higher level PCs in a more systemic way whilst providing for unique and interesting backstory generation.
So you could generate a 3rd level PC and you woudl get 2 or 3 years of adventuring some idea of the foes they have faced, the dangers encountered, enemies made, friends lost as well as giving a balance of wealth, treasure magic or whatever.
Quote from: dragoner;700497Interesting. :)
I was thinking the actions of the older group would be more of an influence, but one would still probably have to drop clues, both adventures would play into each other in an open way. Random encounter tables would be especially fun here, so you could watch the game unfold on the roll of a die as well.
White Wolf, especially the Blue Books and MtAw is perfect for that no heavy lifting required.
Quote from: jibbajibba;700501I can't have a character without a backstory.
The act of creating a character generates a backstory. It's all part of the same process.
I probably won't write it down and I sure as shit wouldn't expect anyone else to have any interest in it or to read it if I did write it down but there is Always a backstory.
Like I said in another post D&D needs a psuedo lifepath model for generating higher level PCs in a more systemic way whilst providing for unique and interesting backstory generation.
So you could generate a 3rd level PC and you woudl get 2 or 3 years of adventuring some idea of the foes they have faced, the dangers encountered, enemies made, friends lost as well as giving a balance of wealth, treasure magic or whatever.
Jibba I love lifepaths like Traveller or Swords and Sorcery but it's more work generating a character.....maybe a balance is possible?
First and foremost Dnd must be newbie friendly.
Quote from: Marleycat;700502White Wolf, especially the Blue Books and MtAw is perfect for that no heavy lifting required.
Cool, I will have to check them out.
Quote from: Marleycat;700504First and foremost Dnd must be newbie friendly.
Not so much newby friendly as adaptable to a desired level of lethality at the start. IE: You might want a Dark Sun or Tekumel sort of instant lethality style, or you might want a more courtly drama and intrigue style play with little initial physical threat untill things heat up.
Interesting note as I read through the D&DNext playtest pack. Mages now use a d6 for HP. MUs/Wizards are called Mages now...
Did 3 or 4e have that? I dont recall it. But been a while and my friends 3e books are not availible till morning.
Quote from: Omega;700513Mages now use a d6 for HP.
If fire balls and lightning bolts are still d6 per level, that makes them more "save or die" than "just die."
Quote from: Omega;700513Not so much newby friendly as adaptable to a desired level of lethality at the start. IE: You might want a Dark Sun or Tekumel sort of instant lethality style, or you might want a more courtly drama and intrigue style play with little initial physical threat untill things heat up.
Interesting note as I read through the D&DNext playtest pack. Mages now use a d6 for HP. MUs/Wizards are called Mages now...
Did 3 or 4e have that? I dont recall it. But been a while and my friends 3e books are not availible till morning.
Pretty sure 4e Wizards were d6. Can't confirm it though I traded my 4e books away 2-3 years ago. Question do you gain hit dice every level like 3;4e or is it capped like 1/2e?
Quote from: dragoner;700508Cool, I will have to check them out.
Focus on the blue books since it's the baseline and download the rule update for the blueline.:)
Mage is an acquired taste okay?
Quote from: Marleycat;700504Jibba I love lifepaths like Traveller or Swords and Sorcery but it's more work generating a character.....maybe a balance is possible?
First and foremost Dnd must be newbie friendly.
This woudl only be for higher level PCs so not really the newbie game.
I would just have it year by year roll range of XP gained, roll on a complications table, roll on an injury (or even die) table, etc etc
Quote from: Phillip;700460I reckon Gary Gygax was in a better position to decide the official denotation of D&D, and in that case he in fact did. The tournament game form is essentially a subset of the full-scale form, and much the same could be said of other variations that have become normative while that fell into obscurity.
...whut?:huhsign:
Quote from: Planet Algol;700405I have absolutely no problem playing a PC with personality regardless of their level or expectations of mortality.
When they die, I roll up another set of stats, look at them, and a distinct PC emerges.
I don't waste others, or my own, time with their biography. That is improvised via in-game banter.
To claim that old school mortality precludes personality/backstory until level x is a binary, and false, argument.
I don't think anyone can prove how tough they are by rolling dice for their imaginary hobbit's attack rolls.
Bazinga! Home Run.
I roll the stats and choose fighter. What kind of fighting man will this be? Perhaps he is a former lumberjack who got drafted into serving his lord? Now a veteran fighter with a big axe, he has a taste for wild adventure but he is still an easy going country boy at heart.
DONE. Lets play.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;700573Bazinga! Home Run.
I roll the stats and choose fighter. What kind of fighting man will this be? Perhaps he is a former lumberjack who got drafted into serving his lord? Now a veteran fighter with a big axe, he has a taste for wild adventure but he is still an easy going country boy at heart.
DONE. Lets play.
I tend to make very short biographies.
For example, my current pathfinder wizard character, now level 13. started of f with a bio like this:
Stavros was born to a poor farming family, and at the age of 10, being a large boy escaped a life of farming by becoming an apprentice blacksmith.
He loved working metal, and excelled at metal smithing. at the age of 15 he was discovered to have a natural talent for magic by a wizard, and he was sent to a town where a few wizards had sent up an informal school for wizardry. His first love remains metalworking, and he considers himself a warrior as much as a wizard. He crafted himself a great sword as a magic focus, scorning the wooden staves of his peers.
I like to have a short bio and then let he game play develop naturally.
Quote from: dragoner;700448I usually do a paragraph as well. As a GM I like to be able to connect the character with the adventure, it gives more depth to the game.
Depends on the length of the paragraph, doesn't it?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;700573Bazinga! Home Run.
I roll the stats and choose fighter. What kind of fighting man will this be? Perhaps he is a former lumberjack who got drafted into serving his lord? Now a veteran fighter with a big axe, he has a taste for wild adventure but he is still an easy going country boy at heart.
DONE. Lets play.
Exactly. Two sentences of description for our new PC.
When I do create a background for a PC/NPC I sometimes write it as a few bullet points:
- Hates ogres -they killed his family
- Wants to gather wealth/followers and set up his own stronghold.
- Fond of strong drink.
Anything much more elaborate and you're setting yourself up for a fall.
Quote from: jibbajibba;700501I can't have a character without a backstory.
The act of creating a character generates a backstory. It's all part of the same process.
I probably won't write it down and I sure as shit wouldn't expect anyone else to have any interest in it or to read it if I did write it down but there is Always a backstory.
Like I said in another post D&D needs a psuedo lifepath model for generating higher level PCs in a more systemic way whilst providing for unique and interesting backstory generation.
So you could generate a 3rd level PC and you woudl get 2 or 3 years of adventuring some idea of the foes they have faced, the dangers encountered, enemies made, friends lost as well as giving a balance of wealth, treasure magic or whatever.
Add one sentence/bullet point per level. Done.
Quote from: Benoist;700489I don't need more than five minutes to come up with a background, personality and be ready to roll. It usually is done at the same time as rolling the dice and choosing race, class, equipment and the like.
Likewise, I come up with backgrounds and personalities for NPCs on the spot all the time.
I think the idea that you can't have a BG and/or personality until level X is bullshit.
Plain, total bullshit.
The actual issue is way more likely to be that some people want their one character with that one particular faux-Baudelaire background story to be a special snowflake in the campaign and can't take it if the character dies in the first few game sessions, whereas other people just play for the sake of determining which of these personalities will actually make it, and how far, with many other people besides being able to enjoy -GASP- BOTH approaches depending on the game and session they are playing at the time. Weird! I know. . .
Now that you mention it, there's a symbiotic relationship between the special snowflake PC (complete with elaborate background) and the preference for railroading, since the latter is the only sure way to accommodate the former.
It's hard to engage in a circlejerk about Olric of Emo, the long lost son of Lord Slappy, whose favorite color is orange, cries at weddings and barn-raisings, hates gnomes because he was fondled by one, seeks to avenge Lord Slappy's death at the hands of a dragon (who is really a god in disguise), and so on and so forth for a full page...
Who, in his first encounter, is beaten to death by a goblin.
The DM could tell the player it's a waste of time to write more than a few lines of background for a PC who stands a good chance of getting killed. Or he could take the easy way out, ignore the 20 rolled by the goblin and declare that Olric of Emo didn't get killed after all, because of story and all.
Quote from: Elfdart;700597The DM could tell the player it's a waste of time to write more than a few lines of background for a PC who stands a good chance of getting killed. Or he could take the easy way out, ignore the 20 rolled by the goblin and declare that Olric of Emo didn't get killed after all, because of story and all.
Just tell the player Olric of Emo is actually in a George R.R. Martin story.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;700628Just tell the player Olric of Emo is actually in a George R.R. Martin story.
George's a Viking Hat Storyteller. :D
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;699325Videogames let you save and reload.
This is why I have been an advocate of a perma death in MMO's, you only live once, you screw up and get yourself killed, too fuckin' bad, make a new toon and start over just like in life.
Quote from: flyingcircus;700638This is why I have been an advocate of a perma death in MMO's, you only live once, you screw up and get yourself killed, too fuckin' bad, make a new toon and start over just like in life.
:jaw-dropping:
You mean if I happen to get hit by a bus today I can just re-roll?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;700641:jaw-dropping:
You mean if I happen to get hit by a bus today I can just re-roll?
Sure WTF not! As long as you survive, make sure you roll good...:rotfl:
I have to say, the success of a certain show has made Old School D&D easier to explain to new players. I tell them to think of D&D, not as WoW, Skyrim, or their favorite fantasy novel/movie, but more as Game of Thrones, where no character has plot protection and can seemingly die at any time. In addition, the characters that do survive (to 9th level) can then play the eponymous Game of Thrones with their very own domains.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
I agree. It's 100% OK not to like that. It is OK to like it, too.
QuoteHow would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
I explain before the chargen how the game works (or seem to work) as thoroughly as possible, including lethality. Everyone needs to have realistic expectations.
For example, my Aquelarre game will be very different from the Star Wars game, and that is something I insisted upon.
Quote from: Spinachcat;699480I don't play MongTrav or MongRQ, but are the mortality rates significantly less than original Traveller and original RuneQuest?
Nope, they're more or less the same.
Quote from: Marleycat;700463O
That is something 3/4e got wrong. Potion mishaps and wizard killing cats.
Cats can still mangle wizards in 3.x.
Feline wizard-slayers were an example of what 3e did wrong: assuming everything needed a combat block. It's a fuckin' cat. It doesn't need to make attack rolls.
Quote from: Marleycat;700539Pretty sure 4e Wizards were d6. Can't confirm it though I traded my 4e books away 2-3 years ago. Question do you gain hit dice every level like 3;4e or is it capped like 1/2e?
ooooh. I totally misread how Next HP works...
You have a set amount of HP. And your Hit Dice are used for rest recovery?
Mage starts off with 6 HP + CON modifiers. Gains 1d6 (or 4) + CON modifier per level thereafter.
The (or 4) is the HP max limit addition. So at level 5 the mage cannot have more than 22 hp (+ con mod). 6 + whatever they rolled each level (+ con mods). anything over the HP cap is discarded.
Uses 1d6 HD equal to level for resting. IE: You roll 5d6 HD at level 5 and recover that much HP during a rest.
It took a few readings to puzzle that out.
That is awfully convoluted at first glance but simple once you get the hang of it. That is one step more math for what gain? Balance?
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;700704Feline wizard-slayers were an example of what 3e did wrong: assuming everything needed a combat block. It's a fuckin' cat. It doesn't need to make attack rolls.
My cat didnt.
You'd be sitting there petting her and WHAMMO! shed go into an epileptic fit and lock bite down on the first thing availible with appalling force. I've still got the scar where she penetrated to the bone.
Oh, and she could leap 5ft straight up from a standing position and so a back flip in mid air...
Vorpal Seizure Kitty.
Quote from: Phillip;700520If fire balls and lightning bolts are still d6 per level, that makes them more "save or die" than "just die."
Fireball does 6d6 damage. DEX save to take half.
Blowing a higher level slot adds 1d6 per spell level slot above 3. So you can blow a level 6 slot and cast a 9d6 fireball.
Caster level is no longer a factor.
Lightning bolt works the exact same.
So you can get fireball at level 5 (Assuming you can find it and add it to your spellbook) and cast it like a level 6 AD&D MU. BUT the fireball never really advances. You cannot cast a 7d fireball untill level 7, 8 till level 9, 9 till level 11, 10 till level 13, etc.
But yeebus you can fling fireballs left and right now. That level 11 mage can chuck nine 9d6 fireballs as fast as he or she can cast them.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;700641:jaw-dropping:
You mean if I happen to get hit by a bus today I can just re-roll?
Next time you jump in front of a bus, you can tell us for sure.
Quote from: Omega;700513Interesting note as I read through the D&DNext playtest pack. Mages now use a d6 for HP. MUs/Wizards are called Mages now...
Did 3 or 4e have that? I dont recall it. But been a while and my friends 3e books are not availible till morning.
3.0: d4. (you can get a toad for +2 Con :) )
3.5: d4 (you can still get a toad but its a fixed +3 HP ).
Pathfinder: d6. You also get +1 per level if Wizard is your favoured class.
4E: Con score + some bonus. Googled it and seems to be CON score (not modifier, full score) +10, +3 per level advanced. (so average 20-ish HP at L1).
Dying is a lot like living. The more you do it, the more you get used to the idea...
Quote from: Omega;700715Fireball does 6d6 damage. DEX save to take half.
Blowing a higher level slot adds 1d6 per spell level slot above 3. So you can blow a level 6 slot and cast a 9d6 fireball.
Caster level is no longer a factor.
Lightning bolt works the exact same.
So you can get fireball at level 5 (Assuming you can find it and add it to your spellbook) and cast it like a level 6 AD&D MU. BUT the fireball never really advances. You cannot cast a 7d fireball untill level 7, 8 till level 9, 9 till level 11, 10 till level 13, etc.
But yeebus you can fling fireballs left and right now. That level 11 mage can chuck nine 9d6 fireballs as fast as he or she can cast them.
Last bit is confusing.....
11th level mage has so many spell slots say a:b:c:d:e:f:g (of levels 1:2:3:4:5:6) now I would assume that they get 0 6th elvel spells as traditionally you get them at 12 the level .
Are you saying that an 11th level mage has 9 3rd level spells + 9 sixth level spells they can discard to pump the fireball to 9d6 ???? seems incorrect based on your previous description.
I like fireball not growing it was crazy that a 3rd level spell could be more powerful than a 7th level spell if cast by the same 20th level caster.
Quote from: jibbajibba;700821Last bit is confusing.....
11th level mage has so many spell slots say a:b:c:d:e:f:g (of levels 1:2:3:4:5:6) now I would assume that they get 0 6th elvel spells as traditionally you get them at 12 the level .
Are you saying that an 11th level mage has 9 3rd level spells + 9 sixth level spells they can discard to pump the fireball to 9d6 ???? seems incorrect based on your previous description.
I like fireball not growing it was crazy that a 3rd level spell could be more powerful than a 7th level spell if cast by the same 20th level caster.
ook, I goofed math totally at a point. Thats 1 9die fireball, 2 8die fireballs, 3 7die fireballs and 3 6die fireballs. Or lightning. Oh and youd have say 7 magic missile castings on top of that.
That is still quite a bit of oomph. Yes it sacrifices other potential spells/slots to do that. But you CAN do that.
Quote from: Omega;700824ook, I goofed math totally at a point. Thats 1 9die fireball, 2 8die fireballs, 3 7die fireballs and 3 6die fireballs. Or lightning. Oh and youd have say 7 magic missile castings on top of that.
That is still quite a bit of oomph. Yes it sacrifices other potential spells/slots to do that. But you CAN do that.
Okay :)
but don't they need a 3rd level slot with fireball memorised + a highter level spell to sacrifice?
so even from your follow up they would need 5 3rd level slots + 1 6th , 2 5th, 3 4th and 6 3rd level ......
no idea about the new spell slots , I thought they were lower than 1e/2e, but 1e/2e was 4:4:4:3:3
so that would mean they could cast 3 8d6 and 1 7d6 and then be left with 4:4:0:2:0. wereas obviously a 1 e MU could cast 4 11d6 and a 2e 4 10d6 (caps at 10d6 in 2e) and both would have 4:4:0:3:3 left. so Next is quite a bit weaker (unless they have massively tweaked spell slots)
Quote from: jibbajibba;700828Okay :)
but don't they need a 3rd level slot with fireball memorised + a highter level spell to sacrifice?
so even from your follow up they would need 5 3rd level slots + 1 6th , 2 5th, 3 4th and 6 3rd level ......
no idea about the new spell slots , I thought they were lower than 1e/2e, but 1e/2e was 4:4:4:3:3
so that would mean they could cast 3 8d6 and 1 7d6 and then be left with 4:4:0:2:0. wereas obviously a 1 e MU could cast 4 11d6 and a 2e 4 10d6 (caps at 10d6 in 2e) and both would have 4:4:0:3:3 left. so Next is quite a bit weaker (unless they have massively tweaked spell slots)
It says that you blow the higher spell slot without expending the original slot slot in the process.
The example was magic missile, you could cast level 1 MM and some level 2 spell later, or cast MM twice. using the level 1 and the level 2 slots.
Using the same example of the level 11 mage. you could cast Magic missile 16 times. and those higher level slots add more missiles.
Quote from: Elfdart;700597When I do create a background for a PC/NPC I sometimes write it as a few bullet points:
(...)
Add one sentence/bullet point per level. Done.
That's probably my most favorite
skill system.
In my Albion game part of what I did was to allow everyone to have two PCs, and choose which one they play at the start of each adventure. At least that way, the ones who choose to always play the same guy can't complain that they have to "start again at level 1" if he dies; because its their own damn fault for min-maxing who got all the XP.
In a broader sense, I think that its certainly understandable that someone wouldn't want their character that they like to die, whatever the system or game. I don't think the "answer" to that is to not have characters die, but to give the players a clear sense of how mortality levels work in a game from the get-go.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
Looking at it empirically, the most explosive market growth was when that rule set reigned and PC's died like flies. So, it would be likely that we are dealing with 'whining little pussies'. :D
Quote from: Arduin;703368Looking at it empirically, the most explosive market growth was when that rule set reigned and PC's died like flies. So, it would be likely that we are dealing with 'whining little pussies'. :D
AFAICT the most explosive market growth was 1981-83 or 84; with mostly people buying Moldvay or Mentzer Basic and upgrading to AD&D, or straight to AD&D. I don't know to what extent they were running 'die like flies' games, though, at that time. My first AD&D games were I think 1985, maybe late 84. As far as I can recall the PCs were pretty high powered; though they did die frequently, they also killed huge numbers of monsters. It wasn't very "Fantasy Fuckin Vietnam".
Quote from: flyingcircus;700638...you screw up and get yourself killed, too fuckin' bad, make a new toon and start over just like in life.
Well, in real life you only get to play once and no do-overs.
I take that back, the Hindu get to replay - and their new characters are based upon the score achieved by their old characters - but they are the exception. No one else gets a second go. Atheists might at some point in the future, if they can get a handle on cloning.
I like the idea of a player having to leave a group when their character dies, at least until an entirely new campaign is begin. But that might work best in theory, rather than practice.
Quote from: RPGPundit;703333In my Albion game part of what I did was to allow everyone to have two PCs, and choose which one they play at the start of each adventure. At least that way, the ones who choose to always play the same guy can't complain that they have to "start again at level 1" if he dies; because its their own damn fault for min-maxing who got all the XP.
Having a "bullpen" of characters was SOP in my experience back in the day. Typically, after a year or two of play, someone would have not only a Name level figure but also a selection of lower-level ones. This was convenient for continuing to have the kinds of adventures undertaken at lower levels.
It was also key to the "ACCURATE TIME RECORD" aspect of the original campaign form. An adventure might come up at a time or place that does not permit Grue the Glorious to particate because he's off on another expedition, or recovering hit points, or doing magical research, or what have you. Taran the Terrific, however, happens to be available!
Quote from: Phillip;703409Having a "bullpen" of characters was SOP in my experience back in the day. Typically, after a year or two of play, someone would have not only a Name level figure but also a selection of lower-level ones. This was convenient for continuing to have the kinds of adventures undertaken at lower levels.
It was also key to the "ACCURATE TIME RECORD" aspect of the original campaign form. An adventure might come up at a time or place that does not permit Grue the Glorious to particate because he's off on another expedition, or recovering hit points, or doing magical research, or what have you. Taran the Terrific, however, happens to be available!
I wish I'd known about this when I started running D&D back in the mid '80s, my games would have been very different. I definitely like the idea of players maintaining a stable of PCs. The games I run on Dragonsfoot these days are a bit like this, but I haven't really seen it in tabletop play at all.
Quote from: S'mon;703400AFAICT the most explosive market growth was 1981-83 or 84; with mostly people buying Moldvay or Mentzer Basic and upgrading to AD&D, or straight to AD&D. I don't know to what extent they were running 'die like flies' games, though, at that time. My first AD&D games were I think 1985, maybe late 84. As far as I can recall the PCs were pretty high powered; though they did die frequently, they also killed huge numbers of monsters. It wasn't very "Fantasy Fuckin Vietnam".
"FFV" is really a thing in the first three or so levels. A 4th-level Hero pretty well lives up to the title; an 8th-level Superhero can act pretty much like John Carter, Conan, or Fafhrd and Gray Mouser.
NOTE: The ist edition
Dungeon Masters Guide recommends that experienced players should have experienced characters, even if they aren't bringing those in from another campaign. They should get figures of around the average level among PCs in the campaign, and generally at least 4th.
The business of perpetually starting over with
only a 1st-level character is quite eccentric compared with how the game was actually intended to be played! It's at least partly an artifact of the demise of true "campaigns" in the old sense.
It's part of the designed balance that MUs are hard to keep alive, and even if you keep getting successfully resurrected, you get only so many chances. The biggest killers are rival MUs, vulnerability to which keeps in key ways increasing (rather than falling) after attaining Wizard level.
A D&D-land Paul Simon, though, singing "There Must Be 50 Ways to Reave a Wizard," might include outfitting a company of archer men at arms with magic arrows (among the commonest of treasures) that are poisoned.
One failed save = scratch one caster, and take his stuff!
Quote from: S'mon;703400AFAICT the most explosive market growth was 1981-83 or 84; with mostly people buying Moldvay or Mentzer Basic and upgrading to AD&D, or straight to AD&D.
No. The explosive growth started in '77 with AD&D. Moldvay's edition came in '81. A good friend of mine worked in the Channel during that time. It was during the quick kill early days of AD&D when it happened.
Quote from: Phillip;703413NOTE: The ist edition Dungeon Masters Guide recommends that experienced players should have experienced characters, even if they aren't bringing those in from another campaign. They should get figures of around the average level among PCs in the campaign, and generally at least 4th.
REALLY? I just read pg. 110-11 where this topic is covered. It doesn't say that. What are you talking about?
Quote from: Arduin;703424No. The explosive growth started in '77 with AD&D. Moldvay's edition came in '81. A good friend of mine worked in the Channel during that time. It was during the quick kill early days of AD&D when it happened.
In 1977, "AD&D" consisted only of a book of monsters written up in OD&D terms. The Players Handbook came out in 1978, the Dungeon Masters Guide not until 1979 (and months overdue, IIRC).
Meanwhile, the Holmes edition of Basic had hit the stores even before the Monster Manual.
Quote from: Arduin;703425REALLY? I just read pg. 110-11 where this topic is covered. It doesn't say that. What are you talking about?
Read it again, Sam. I don't have the book at hand to give a verbatim quote, but besides the essential import I stated (along with a suggested dice roll for varying the new characters' levels, IIRC) there's also the rationale: The experienced players aren't missing out on anything by not repeating the low levels.
If you read it carefully and still have specific nits to pick, then you can state them. If you disagree with the general sense, then perhaps the section you read was not the one I have in mind.
Here we are:
Quote from: DMG p. 111, 3rd paragraphExperienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters. If the average is 4th level, far example, an "average" die or d4+1 can be rolled to find a level between 2 and 5. This actually works well even if the average experience level of the campaign is 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th, especially when the "averaging" die is used. If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles else-where, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent Characters in your campaign, as you give them a substantial level to begin with - 4th, 5th, or 6th for instance.
Quote from: Arduin;703425REALLY? I just read pg. 110-11 where this topic is covered. It doesn't say that. What are you talking about?
Page 111, paragraph 3. "Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters."
aha! simultaneous!
Quote from: Phillip;703429In 1977, "AD&D" consisted only of a book of monsters written up in OD&D terms. The Players Handbook came out in 1978, the Dungeon Masters Guide not until 1979 (and months overdue, IIRC).
Yeah, in terms of D&D as a big popular thing with widespread penetration, it was only when AD&D became available in the three hardbacks 1979+, and especially when Moldvay gave an easy access point in 1981.
However it's certainly possible that in terms of annual % increase in sales the biggest relative growth was in the mid to late '70s, but the absolute numbers buying and playing were far fewer.
Quote from: Phillip;703432Here we are:
FWIW, my experience has been that after everyone has been playing awhile, for pre-3e it works best to have a set XP tally for all new PCs. Eg in my Yggsburgh AD&D game which has had 45 online sessions of about 3 hours, I've used 5,001 starting XP for a long time. It's just enough to just hit 3rd level as an M-U. The actual PC level range is 3rd to 5th.
Most new PCs are replacements for dead or lost characters, something which EGG doesn't seem to address. An alternative I used to use for replacement PCs is to give them half the XP of the character they're replacing, which equates to -1 level in the same class, if below Name level. I think for long term play I like the single tally better, though. Basically I look at the XP spread in the party, and when every current PC hits a milestone I'll raise the starting XP tally, the exact level set according to the campaign power level. A high powered dungeon crawl game might encourage a high tally, whereas one with a lower threat level might work best with lower level starting PCs.
Quote from: Phillip;703430Read it again, Sam.
I just read it again. It doesn't say that. Nice try but, that is why you can't quote it. It doesn't exist. (And NO, it isn't my duty to prove a NEGATIVE!)
Quote from: Phillip;703432Here we are:
Quote from: DMG p. 111, 3rd paragraphExperienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters. If the average is 4th level, far example, an "average" die or d4+1 can be rolled to find a level between 2 and 5. This actually works well even if the average experience level of the campaign is 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th, especially when the "averaging" die is used. If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles else-where, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent Characters in your campaign, as you give them a substantial level to begin with - 4th, 5th, or 6th for instance.
Yup. The reason - as you noted - is that 4th level is heroic (most primary heroes you'd read about in fantasy novels) and 8th level is superheroic (Conan, John Carter and other absolute paragons in their respective settings).
The experience of the first levels in the game is important. It is advised people who start playing the game for the first time shouldn't be robbed of this experience (because it matters a lot, in a formative way, to actually play the game with skill later on).
If the players are experimented, then you ought to consider having new characters start in the ballpark of the group's average capabilities. I like the average die method quite a bit, actually.
For parties beyond superheroic capabilities, then new characters should at least start at heroic levels. It doesn't mean they are started at superheroic levels themselves, mind you. Just that they are started at heroic levels, or higher, to skip the rookie stage of the game and have a chance to kick ass and catch up with the rest of the group through play.
Quote from: S'mon;703400AFAICT the most explosive market growth was 1981-83 or 84; with mostly people buying Moldvay or Mentzer Basic and upgrading to AD&D, or straight to AD&D. I don't know to what extent they were running 'die like flies' games, though, at that time. My first AD&D games were I think 1985, maybe late 84. As far as I can recall the PCs were pretty high powered; though they did die frequently, they also killed huge numbers of monsters. It wasn't very "Fantasy Fuckin Vietnam".
I think Fantasy Fucking Vietnam, like most expressions born in the last few years on blogs and/or message boards (*cough* OSR *cough*) are next to meaningless if you don't define them in the context you're using them. Here's a discussion about it on this board, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25684) though you're right that the original, derisive use of the phrase was directly correlated to [low level] "4 HP mooks". (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?399100-Traditional-D-amp-D-D-amp-D-is-all-about-taking-their-stuff-Killing-them-not-so-much&p=8987631#post8987631)
For me, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=627550#post627550) level is pretty much irrelevant to a FFV feel. Sure, it's going to be more marked at low levels, simply because if you play TSR D&D rules and actually explore dungeons and wilderness and don't fudge dice all the time and whatnot it's a
lethal game and you are going to play in that range for a while, in the first place, unless the players are skilled and have been through the meat grinder a few times and learned previously with another FFV type DM.
But things like save or die and level drain and the like really hurt you all the more when you reach heroic and superheroic levels. These elements help retain a part of that lethal, dangerous feel of the game up there at high level play. It means that you will very much have occasions to kick ass like John Carter once you've reached superheroic levels in my AD&D games, but in others you better watch out or it's going to be your ass that's handed out to you.
I for one very much like the game that way.
"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters."
Right. So if the average player is 1st level, you come in at 1st level. NOT 4th level. Like I said, you were wrong.
QuoteThe ist edition Dungeon Masters Guide recommends that experienced players should have experienced characters, even if they aren't bringing those in from another campaign. They should get figures of around the average level among PCs in the campaign, and generally at least 4th."
Quote from: RPGPundit;703333In my Albion game part of what I did was to allow everyone to have two PCs, and choose which one they play at the start of each adventure. At least that way, the ones who choose to always play the same guy can't complain that they have to "start again at level 1" if he dies; because its their own damn fault for min-maxing who got all the XP.
In a broader sense, I think that its certainly understandable that someone wouldn't want their character that they like to die, whatever the system or game. I don't think the "answer" to that is to not have characters die, but to give the players a clear sense of how mortality levels work in a game from the get-go.
RPGPundit
We used to do the same thing with 1e and 2E D&D.
Each player would maintain a "character stable" of three characters, and Experience Points were placed into a shared bin per player. That player would then make the decision to assign EXP to whichever character they had favored at the time. Some players fully vested all of their EXP into one character, whereas others would spread it evenly across all three. Fortunately, it kept the player characters within 3 levels of one another.
One thing that the "low level meatgrinder" used to do was make players more competitive with each other. Survival and advancement depend on the rest of the group, but resources are scarce and one less party member is one less person to include in the split.
(We tried just giving xp to the person who gave the killing blow for a while. Yikes)
One of the problems with frequent mortality at the start is it can lead to a gradually or even rapidly diminishing investment in the character and the game.
First character could be well thought out and presented... dead
Second could be well thought out... dead
Fifth could be down to just rolling dice and counting the seconds untill dead.
Others never invest anything in the character in the first place so the impact might be nil. Or just mild annoyance at having to trot out another replacement. Pre-rolled or on the spot.
Too much PC death can kill the threat impact of potential death. Or lead to possible detatchment from the character.
Others of course get off on the dead dead dead cycle.
Quote from: Omega;703785One of the problems with frequent mortality at the start is it can lead to a gradually or even rapidly diminishing investment in the character and the game.
First character could be well thought out and presented... dead
Second could be well thought out... dead
Fifth could be down to just rolling dice and counting the seconds untill dead.
Others never invest anything in the character in the first place so the impact might be nil. Or just mild annoyance at having to trot out another replacement. Pre-rolled or on the spot.
Too much PC death can kill the threat impact of potential death. Or lead to possible detatchment from the character.
Others of course get off on the dead dead dead cycle.
Agreed.
I want my players to care about their PCs I want them to get pissed off when they die and to be invested in them. Loosing 4 PCs in a single session becuase of bad luck, bad tactics or an impossible DM railroad just dilutes the investment.
I much prefer to kill a PC after its been played for a few months and risen to mid level and really been invested in by the player. It's a bit like making NPCs rounded and believable and trying to find a way they can engage with the players so when they die the player experiences some of that loss.
Quote from: Omega;703785One of the problems with frequent mortality at the start is it can lead to a gradually or even rapidly diminishing investment in the character and the game.
Not really, in my experience. Investment in the character takes but a split second to happen. What matters is some key element that helps that happen. It could be the likeness of your PC, the shield and arms he's holding, the name, anything like this. Then actual role playing works its magic.
And if you get invested in your character early on - as is the norm by my count, and I do mean within a few hours of the first game sessions, not several sessions - it sucks to lose and get your character killed. Then there are two basic responses: you give up, in which case you aren't made for the D&D game, better play FATE or whatnot, OR you DON'T give up and learn, in which case you will become a valuable D&D player, sooner rather than later.
There's always some moron that cries for "elitism" when such a thing is formulated. It's a dumb argument, between, "either you are not elitist and you let whatever bad player level up just because they sit at the table and demand you level them up" and "this is a meat grinder that only the precious few who are sucking the DM's cock get to get past off."
Such bullshit reeks of so much dysfunctional players-DM relationship I'd just advise people singing that tune to just, you know, play games with some friends they can trust for a while, and see how that goes.
I've always thought that a good player was one that was fun to have at the table, not the one who can solve the dungeon the best.
Maybe that is why I don't see killing characters until they "learn" or quit to be an ideal.
That does bring up the issue of NPC mortality.
Sometimes its not the characters death that hits the players best. It is the NPC henchmen, that one barkeep, or someone else the PCs deal with and happen to become attatched to. Those losses can have defining impacts.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;703791I've always thought that a good player was one that was fun to have at the table, not the one who can solve the dungeon the best.
Maybe that is why I don't see killing characters until they "learn" or quit to be an ideal.
A good player is different than a player who makes the team of adventurers survive and win the day. The D&D game is partly predicated on the latter, while the former might not mean that at all, we do agree.
Quote from: Omega;703792That does bring up the issue of NPC mortality.
Sometimes its not the characters death that hits the players best. It is the NPC henchmen, that one barkeep, or someone else the PCs deal with and happen to become attatched to. Those losses can have defining impacts.
Absolutely and its here that the GM needs to really hone their roleplay and how they present the world to the players.
Quote from: BenoistThen there are two basic responses: you give up, in which case you aren't made for the D&D game, better play FATE or whatnot, OR you DON'T give up and learn, in which case you will become a valuable D&D player, sooner rather than later.
I think this is kind of a false dichotomy that might obscure the actual problem. I know lots of players who wouldn't just give up, they'd soldier on (and maybe learn - or not), but they might not be having very much
fun doing so. The goal here isn't to make someone a "valuable" player but for everyone to have fun. If a person doesn't enjoy a game, that isn't their choice. They can choose to keep playing or not, of course, and the other pleasures the game offers may compensate for their frustration, but they can't really choose what they enjoy and don't enjoy. They may adopt a style of play that makes the game more fun for them in the long run - and lethality may facilitate that process - but this isn't guaranteed. I think it's just as possible that a frustrated player whose character died and who's not having very much fun as a result may gradually detach from the game, fiddle with their laptop/phone, have side conversations, disrupt the game, or start being belligerent with their character's actions.
There are other options to the ones you state as well - not everyone who dislikes an old-school lethal game needs to abandon D&D for FATE and other games of the same ilk entirely. They can play in the later editions of D&D (or a house-ruled version of an older edition) that aren't as viciously lethal and which afford more opportunities for resurrection/raise dead. That's a legitimate middle-ground option that doesn't require abandoning D&D while allowing the frustrated player to play the game without the suckiness of losing your character and getting killed early on.
I actually enjoy playing more lethal games where character mortality is commonplace, but I definitely recognize that not everyone feels that way. My point is that such people can still play a version of D&D that is just as "authentically D&D" without being lethal. These players are not lesser or inferior, their tastes are just different.
Quote from: Omega;703785Too much PC death can kill the threat impact of potential death. Or lead to possible detatchment from the character.
If I find that PCs are dying too much, and the players are incapable of Stepping On Up and playing smarter/better (or they really like playing Fighters in high level 3e), I'll generally seek to lower the threat level, eg by presenting less deadly adventures or encouraging exploration of less dangerous areas. Lowered threat level also means lowered reward level, slower advancement - but that is ok and gives players a chance to get used to their PC abilities.
I've only really found the meatgrinder effect to be a problem in high level 3e D&D though, not in old school D&D - even the RAW Labyrinth Lord game I'm playing currently. In a sandbox campaign the players can choose where to go and unless they're idiots, or the GM is terrible, they should be able to choose the threat level they face. eg in that LL game our 1st level PCs spent a lot of time in town gathering info and making contacts, rather than heading straight into the wilds/dungeons. If we felt too weak to cut it we'd recruit henchmen, look for the less dangerous seeming missions, etc.
Meatgrinder effect in linear 3e/PF adventures with 'combat as sport' design is a terrible problem though, you can end up stuck throwing endless PCs against the brick wall of an overpowered boss fight.
I've had times where its been lethal left and right, and had times where it wasnt. Sometimes through no fault of the players or GM. Things just happened to roll against us. I tend to play the fragile mages and so Im a bit used to going down early.
But as a player an DM I try to drill into the groups head that there are things you can do to save someone. But sometimes thats not an option and down is down.
Quote from: Steerpike;703813I actually enjoy playing more lethal games where character mortality is commonplace, but I definitely recognize that not everyone feels that way. My point is that such people can still play a version of D&D that is just as "authentically D&D" without being lethal. These players are not lesser or inferior, their tastes are just different.
Yes. They want to play D&D but not really. There are other fantasy games besides D&D that might suit their tastes better.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;703854Yes. They want to play D&D but not really. There are other fantasy games besides D&D that might suit their tastes better.
Not really. Few systems are as fast and easy with an awesome spread of settings with extra resources. Just because my D&D world has dungeons and dragons doesn't mean my players feel compelled to beeline for them.
Quote from: Opaopajr;703866Not really. Few systems are as fast and easy with an awesome spread of settings with extra resources. Just because my D&D world has dungeons and dragons doesn't mean my players feel compelled to beeline for them.
Perhaps not your players. I was speaking of those who desire to "play stupid" ( err....heroic) yet still feel entitled to have their characters survive. Thus D&D but not really D&D.
Its no different than those who claim to love D&D but hate classes, the magic system, alignments, etc. They like the idea of the game but not the actual game.
I'm confused. Couldn't any of these problems be solved by just starting PCs at level 3? I can't see why this would be an issue at all.
Quote from: TristramEvans;703871I'm confused. Couldn't any of these problems be solved by just starting PCs at level 3? I can't see why this would be an issue at all.
If you combined that with facing an evironment meant for 1st level play then you would get the desired effect.
Quote from: TristramEvans;703871I'm confused. Couldn't any of these problems be solved by just starting PCs at level 3? I can't see why this would be an issue at all.
Some DMs or players cant accept that. It has to be lethal out the gate and when you die its back to start, re-roll. die, re-roll repeat.
I mean we have people who cant accept that D&D can be non-combat oriented.
People who think the DM has to be their personal little bitch.
etc.
Others just have a preferred play style. But cant seem to grasp that there are other play styles.
And the rest are the normal players who play lethal, or play safe or play some hybrid and fuck off everyone who disagrees because its their group and their style.
An environment meant for 1st level play? I don't understand that at all. We're talking about old school play not D&D 4th right? I mean if there are going to be environments designated by level, then mortality shouldn't be an issue I would think. "This dungeon is safe, it's just for 1st level. A few kobolds and a giant crayfish is all you have to worry about"
Quote from: Omega;703876Some DMs or players cant accept that. It has to be lethal out the gate and when you die its back to start, re-roll. die, re-roll repeat.
I mean we have people who cant accept that D&D can be non-combat oriented.
People who think the DM has to be their personal little bitch.
etc.
Others just have a preferred play style. But cant seem to grasp that there are other play styles.
And the rest are the normal players who play lethal, or play safe or play some hybrid and fuck off everyone who disagrees because its their group and their style.
I guess the only problem I see arising with that is if the DM isn't open and communicative with the players about the type of game they want to run.
Honestly, sometimes Im baffled by the storiesth I hear on forums. Are there that many incompetent DMs? How does one not discuss the game with players beforehand? And if not, how do they sell players on a game? I mean is it like "Hey want to play D&D?", and when the players show up for the game "Surprise! Tomb of Horrors!You're all frelled!"?
And what kind of players are these that they can't just say to the DM "hey, we don't really want to play that type of game, would you consider running something else?" And even if the DM we as adamant about high mortality Dungeoncrawling, its not like the PCs have to engage that unless the game is a giant railroad.
Quote from: TristramEvans;703877An environment meant for 1st level play? I don't understand that at all. We're talking about old school play not D&D 4th right? I mean if there are going to be environments designated by level, then mortality shouldn't be an issue I would think. "This dungeon is safe, it's just for 1st level. A few kobolds and a giant crayfish is all you have to worry about"
Even at 3rd level a kobold and a crayfish can be hazards.
I think he was saying that 3rd level characters vs 3hd monsters will be facing the same lethality out the gate as the first levelers vs 1hd monsters. But that Level 3 characters aren't in as much threat vs 1hd monsters. I say as much because a level 3 fighter for example might have around 15hp. That is only about 5 dagger hits from a kobold and the fighter is down. The MU will be about 2 hits from being fitted for a coffin. Using average hp and damage as an example.
Quote from: TristramEvans;703877An environment meant for 1st level play? I don't understand that at all. We're talking about old school play not D&D 4th right? I mean if there are going to be environments designated by level, then mortality shouldn't be an issue I would think. "This dungeon is safe, it's just for 1st level. A few kobolds and a giant crayfish is all you have to worry about"
There was the concept of dungeon level long before there was a CR or anything. Higher level kick-your-ass monsters could appear on the 1st dungeon level but they were rarer and fewer in number than on deeper levels.
A 1st level dungeon isn't "safe", especially for 1st level characters. A few kobolds in the right set of circumstances could still result in a TPK. Old school "survivable for your level" assumed intelligent play. The modern definition of survivable means being able to potentially handle anything in a straight up fight, thus the disconnect.
If players desire a playstyle that involves just bashing down doors and kicking ass without having to think about it too much then they need to adventure on dungeon levels a few levels lower than their own.
Quote from: TristramEvans;703880I guess the only problem I see arising with that is if the DM isn't open and communicative with the players about the type of game they want to run.
Honestly, sometimes Im baffled by the storiesth I hear on forums. Are there that many incompetent DMs? How does one not discuss the game with players beforehand? And if not, how do they sell players on a game? I mean is it like "Hey want to play D&D?", and when the players show up for the game "Surprise! Tomb of Horrors!You're all frelled!"?
And what kind of players are these that they can't just say to the DM "hey, we don't really want to play that type of game, would you consider running something else?" And even if the DM we as adamant about high mortality Dungeoncrawling, its not like the PCs have to engage that unless the game is a giant railroad.
Apparently there are DMs who dont tell players the lethality. Sometimes deliberately. Sometimes because it just doesnt occur to them that it should be discussed. Playstyle can really skew things one way or another on the dead scale.
As for the players. Lots of reasons not to resist. They might not realize that there even is another way to play. Simmilar to the discussion on players being effectively isolated from any other data to make a choice. The DM has the books. If you do not know, you aren't very likely to resist. Or there might not be any other DMs or games around. Leaving or risking getting licked out = no play at all. Some players get pretty desperate and will put up with fairly poor play.
etc.
How about:
Player: "Ok, my mighty fighter is ready to scout that kobold cave!"
GM: "Before we get in character, you know you have 6 HP, and a kobold with a spear can hit you 1 out of 4 and do 1-6 damage? And there could be many sneaky kobolds lurking inside?"
Player: "I charge inside the cave!"
GM: "Torches are handy......"
(http://cache23.indulgy.net/R5/y6/s7/1151233341941831312sbx68ybc.jpg)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;703870Perhaps not your players. I was speaking of those who desire to "play stupid" ( err....heroic) yet still feel entitled to have their characters survive. Thus D&D but not really D&D.
Its no different than those who claim to love D&D but hate classes, the magic system, alignments, etc. They like the idea of the game but not the actual game.
Ah, I know the type. Like the type who starts playing a video game with Game Shark invincibility codes, skippable text, and a strategy guide. Enjoys the idea of playing a video game, but doesn't want to be bothered with any of the challenge.
Like bowling with kid bumpers in the gutters, just want something mindless and reassuring. Sometimes I don't want to be challenged either, but RPGs aren't my goto activity for that.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;703791I've always thought that a good player was one that was fun to have at the table, not the one who can solve the dungeon the best.
Maybe that is why I don't see killing characters until they "learn" or quit to be an ideal.
D&D was written by wargamers for wargamers.
If you go into a CHAINMAIL battle and play with your head up your ass, you will get handed your own nuts in a bucket.
I expect D&D to be no different.
Challenge? Pfft. Videogames aren't challenging these days. Nintendo. THAT was challenging. None of the kids I know who regularly take home and beat the new hotness in a week could make it past the second level of Battletoads! :)
Quote from: Benoist;703789Not really, in my experience. Investment in the character takes but a split second to happen. What matters is some key element that helps that happen. It could be the likeness of your PC, the shield and arms he's holding, the name, anything like this. Then actual role playing works its magic.
The first time I ran D&D at the U of MN in fall of 1973, there was a TPK after about an hour... four kobolds killed 9 PCs, and one kobold took 3 of 4 HP. All dice were rolled in the open.
There was about a 5 second pause... then somebody said, "Let's roll new characters and get those little fuckers!!!"
And they did. And they did. And boy, were they invested in THOSE new characters!
Revenge is sweet, and fuck serving it cold.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;703870Perhaps not your players. I was speaking of those who desire to "play stupid" ( err....heroic) yet still feel entitled to have their characters survive.
Oh, fuck.
Fuck fuck fuck.
Fuck fuck fucking fuckitty fuck fuck fuck with fuck sauce on fuck.
Fuck.
I fucking HATE those kinds of players. "We're the player characters, CHARGE!" is NOT a viable tactic in my world.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
And grown men and women have no business whining about it.
"Heroic" is not the same as "stupid."
Quote from: TristramEvans;703880I guess the only problem I see arising with that is if the DM isn't open and communicative with the players about the type of game they want to run.
Honestly, sometimes Im baffled by the storiesth I hear on forums. Are there that many incompetent DMs? How does one not discuss the game with players beforehand? And if not, how do they sell players on a game? I mean is it like "Hey want to play D&D?", and when the players show up for the game "Surprise! Tomb of Horrors!You're all frelled!"?
And what kind of players are these that they can't just say to the DM "hey, we don't really want to play that type of game, would you consider running something else?" And even if the DM we as adamant about high mortality Dungeoncrawling, its not like the PCs have to engage that unless the game is a giant railroad.
Apparently people can't actually talk to each other. Many times over on various sites (not just Purple People Eaters) I've said, "Talk to each other, it's just that easy," I've had numerous responses of "NO IT'S NOT!!!"
I mean... the fuck?
I think people in the past have been poor about communicating stuff, but I simply say "it's brown-box OD&D with supplements, by the book. It's a wargame, and you cannot play a wargame without losing troops."
Also, I think Geek Social Fallacy #5 enters into it; for a long time there was an unspoken mindset that if EVERYBODY didn't like your game, you were doing it wrong.
"This is my game. There are many like it, but this one is mine."
Quote from: Opaopajr;703908Ah, I know the type. Like the type who starts playing a video game with Game Shark invincibility codes, skippable text, and a strategy guide. Enjoys the idea of playing a video game, but doesn't want to be bothered with any of the challenge.
Like bowling with kid bumpers in the gutters, just want something mindless and reassuring. Sometimes I don't want to be challenged either, but RPGs aren't my goto activity for that.
That's when I go fishing in WoW, myself.
Actually, for a while at least, there was a fish in Moonglade that sold for ridiculous money, so one low level character could supply gold for all my characters.
Quote from: Old Geezer;703918I think people in the past have been poor about communicating stuff, but I simply say "it's brown-box OD&D with supplements, by the book. It's a wargame, and you cannot play a wargame without losing troops."
Also, I think Geek Social Fallacy #5 enters into it; for a long time there was an unspoken mindset that if EVERYBODY didn't like your game, you were doing it wrong.
"This is my game. There are many like it, but this one is mine."
Agreed. I tell people I'm going to run A C&C or D&D 1st sandbox game. Start at 1st level. Coordinate your group composition so y'all don't start with 5 MU's.
Pretty simple.
Quote from: Steerpike;703813I think this is kind of a false dichotomy that might obscure the actual problem. I know lots of players who wouldn't just give up, they'd soldier on (and maybe learn - or not), but they might not be having very much fun doing so.
We agree there. And for some people, myself included, the actual challenge of surviving in the game is fun in and of itself. I went through at least half a dozen, if not a dozen, characters before I made it to level 2 when I was 11 years old, and I had a BLAST doing so. That 2nd level character (a cleric I believe) died at 3rd or 4th level, and I restarted another character. I kept going at it, and I liked the challenge. I made it beyond with a later character, a thief, of all things.
Now yes, some people might not have fun playing in a game where survival actually is a challenge, but that is not my case, nor the case of other players I know.
Quote from: Steerpike;703813The goal here isn't to make someone a "valuable" player but for everyone to have fun.
That's where you are losing me. Some people's fun might not be into actually improving at playing a game, we agree on that. But these two things, "having fun" and "improving while playing a game," aren't necessarily different: one thing (improving) is part of that second thing (having fun playing) for other people. This too is a false dichotomy, my friend.
Quote from: Steerpike;703813If a person doesn't enjoy a game, that isn't their choice.
WOWwowowow.
That is just bizarre to say. I'll agree that some aspects of what people enjoy and don't enjoy might be the fruit of experiences, upbringing, etc they have not chosen themselves, but the idea that people have no control whatsoever over what they like and don't like and how they choose to approach a game, say, sounds faulty to me.
Yes, sometimes, people will play the game and not like it. It happens. There's nothing wrong with that, and if they want to move on to some other game or version or past time, that's cool with me. But sometimes, perseverance does change your mind about something that didn't seem fun or enjoyable at first.
I remember hating oysters when I was a kid. Which kind of annoyed me because I kept seeing my parents loving them and I wanted in on the enjoyment. So every year, once a year, I would eat ONE oyster. And I would go "yuuuuck." And then that one day, about ten years ago, I did the same thing while visiting my parents back in France, turned to the waiter in that restaurant in French Bretagne and went "I'll take a dozen, please." I can't explain what happened: I wasn't forced into it, I didn't convince myself one way or another, it just "clicked" on me suddenly. Perseverance does change one's mind, sometime. Some time it won't, some time it will. But the idea that one doesn't ever have a choice in what one likes or doesn't like, that's BS, to me.
Quote from: Steerpike;703813They can choose to keep playing or not, of course, and the other pleasures the game offers may compensate for their frustration, but they can't really choose what they enjoy and don't enjoy. They may adopt a style of play that makes the game more fun for them in the long run - and lethality may facilitate that process - but this isn't guaranteed. I think it's just as possible that a frustrated player whose character died and who's not having very much fun as a result may gradually detach from the game, fiddle with their laptop/phone, have side conversations, disrupt the game, or start being belligerent with their character's actions.
Why didn't the DM and players talk about this BEFORE playing the game?
But hey. Mistakes do happen. I hope the DM will talk about this before the game next time. Now, in the present situation, people who are really that frustrated should mention it to the DM. And the DM should listen to them. Then maybe there's a way to have more fun in the game, or maybe the table can play another game instead.
The point really is that yes, sure, there are people who really won't like the survival challenge of the D&D game, and that's cool, but there's nothing wrong whatsoever and actually liking it EITHER.
Quote from: Steerpike;703813There are other options to the ones you state as well - not everyone who dislikes an old-school lethal game needs to abandon D&D for FATE and other games of the same ilk entirely. They can play in the later editions of D&D (or a house-ruled version of an older edition) that aren't as viciously lethal and which afford more opportunities for resurrection/raise dead. That's a legitimate middle-ground option that doesn't require abandoning D&D while allowing the frustrated player to play the game without the suckiness of losing your character and getting killed early on.
Sure. It wasn't meant literally, "D&D, FATE or don't game." It's kind of why I included "or whatnot." I like tons of other role playing games besides D&D, like Vampire the Masquerade, Call of Cthulhu, Cyberpunk 2020, Eclipse Phase, WEG Star Wars, RuneQuest 6, Shadowrun, and on and on.
Quote from: Steerpike;703813I actually enjoy playing more lethal games where character mortality is commonplace, but I definitely recognize that not everyone feels that way. My point is that such people can still play a version of D&D that is just as "authentically D&D" without being lethal. These players are not lesser or inferior, their tastes are just different.
Who's talking of lesser or inferior? I certainly didn't talk about "valuable players" to intimate something like this. I meant it like you're talking about players in a football team or whatnot. You're reading WAY too much into what I said here.
People can play whatever they want with D&D. Or other games. And have fun doing so. But playing challenging games where survival actually isn't a given can be fun to some people. And these people don't see the lethality of the game as a problem. And that should be okay TOO.
Quote from: Arduin;703920Agreed. I tell people I'm going to run A C&C or D&D 1st sandbox game. Start at 1st level. Coordinate your group composition so y'all don't start with 5 MU's.
Pretty simple.
A 5 MU party would be Epic.
Short lived, but Epic.
Good discussion.
Quote from: BenositThat's where you are losing me. Some people's fun might not be into actually improving at playing a game, we agree on that. But these two things, "having fun" and "improving while playing a game," aren't necessarily different: one thing (improving) is part of that second thing (having fun playing) for other people. This too is a false dichotomy, my friend.
All I mean here is that the
goal is fun. Becoming a "valuable player" or improving playing the game may be necessary prerequisites for fun - they may be the vehicle for fun, the means by which fun is attained. But, in my opinion, they aren't (or shouldn't be) ends in and of themselves; fun should always be the end-goal, the overriding objective. Some people don't find a lethal game fun and may nor may not be the sort of player who's motivated to improve their game (and thereby, potentially, have more fun) by character death.
Quote from: BenoistThat is just bizarre to say. I'll agree that some aspects of what people enjoy and don't enjoy might be the fruit of experiences, upbringing, etc they have not chosen themselves, but the idea that people have no control whatsoever over what they like and don't like and how they choose to approach a game, say, sounds faulty to me.
Maybe I should clarify - I just mean it's not really possible, in a sense, to alter one's own tastes consciously. If someone doesn't enjoy horror movies, for example, they can't will themselves to enjoy them. I can't force myself to find
The Phantom Menace a pleasurable movie. I would never find F.A.T.A.L. fun. These aren't arbitrary tastes. I don't think I can just suddenly start finding them enjoyable as you did with the oysters (good on you for that; raw oysters are amazing). That's all I mean.
I don't mean that players can't influence the amount of fun they have by adopting a good attitude or staying open to new experiences etc. Just that some players don't enjoy certain types of games, and that personal subjective taste isn't necessarily something they can control. They might not have given a type of game enough of a chance, of course, and there are acquired tastes like oysters or wine (as you point out), but not everyone's tastes are the same. Asking players to keep playing a game they aren't enjoying after they've given it a proper try doesn't seem fair to me.
I should maybe add that I'm a bit of a determinist so in a metaphysical sense I don't think anyone's "free" to choose what they like and don't like, but that's a bit of a tangent and might not be a fruitful line of discussion.
QuoteWhy didn't the DM and players talk about this BEFORE playing the game?
Oh, they totally should! Absolutely.
Quote from: BenoistThe point really is that yes, sure, there are people who really won't like the survival challenge of the D&D game, and that's cool, but there's nothing wrong whatsoever and actually liking it EITHER.
I completely agree - I actually really enjoy the "survival mode" of a more lethal D&D.
Quote from: BenoistIt's kind of why I included "or whatnot."
Fair enough - my mistake. It seemed to me you were leaving out the less lethal editions of D&D as legitimate options and/or claiming they were somehow less authentically D&D than the earlier, more lethal editions. If this wasn't your intention, my bad!
Quote from: BenoistWho's talking of lesser or inferior? I certainly didn't talk about "valuable players" to intimate something like this. I meant it like you're talking about players in a football team or whatnot. You're reading WAY too much into what I said here.
Cool, cool, I'm just used to discussions like this getting dogmatic so I may have been reading more into your opinion than there actually was.
QuotePeople can play whatever they want with D&D. Or other games. And have fun doing so. But playing challenging games where survival actually isn't a given can be fun to some people. And these people don't see the lethality of the game as a problem. And that should be okay TOO.
Yeah, I agree here, definitely: there's nothing
intrinsically wrong or unfun about a lethal/survival-oriented game, nor with its opposite.
Quote from: Bill;703937A 5 MU party would be Epic.
Short lived, but Epic.
True. What I meant was that I tell the players to discuss it so they don't surprise each other. Not that I would ever dictate the group composition.
That would be an interesting 1st level group though...
Quote from: Benoist;703923We agree there. And for some people, myself included, the actual challenge of surviving in the game is fun in and of itself. I went through at least half a dozen, if not a dozen, characters before I made it to level 2 when I was 11 years old, and I had a BLAST doing so.
My first PC lasted 10 minutes into the dungeon. Great fun. So many dead PC's that the few who lived and rose in level were really special.
Quote from: Phillip;700450Who's talking of lesser or inferior? I certainly didn't talk about "valuable players" to intimate something like this. I meant it like you're talking about players in a football team or whatnot. You're reading WAY too much into what I said here.
People can play whatever they want with D&D. Or other games. And have fun doing so. But playing challenging games where survival actually isn't a given can be fun to some people. And these people don't see the lethality of the game as a problem. And that should be okay TOO.
The two games I'm mostly likely to run at this point are Fate, and older versions of D&D (usually B/X or 1e, I'm not quite as old school as OG).
I personally don't take it as an insult. Fate does low-lethality games *very* well, and provides mechanisms that are *very* well designed to have challenging, tension-filled, low-lethality games where the players determine the course of the game.
Of course, it kind of sucks for the types of games that D&D excels at. Which is probably why I like both.
Quote from: Arduin;703940My first PC lasted 10 minutes into the dungeon. Great fun. So many dead PC's that the few who lived and rose in level were really special.
The beer-and-pretzels, meatgrinder of blank slate characters is a totally legitimate way to play the game that doesn't make you any better or worse than anybody else who plays the game.
I don't usually care for it.
I didn't really see this thread as being a soapbox for people to say that Old-School Mortality is an intrinsically BAD thing. It just doesn't mesh with certain play styles.
Quote from: Arturick;703971The beer-and-pretzels, meatgrinder of blank slate characters is a totally legitimate way to play...
I have NO idea what you are going on about. It was a complex, long term campaign involving politics, religion intra-kingdom intrigue, etc.
So, what was your post about?
Quote from: ArduinI have NO idea what you are going on about. It was a complex, long term campaign involving politics, religion intra-kingdom intrigue, etc.
So, what was your post about?
Your description made it sound like a hack-and-slash dungeoneering affair, not a nuanced political game. One wouldn't necessarily expect a game based around courtly intrigue and interpersonal conflict based on your description of your character dying 10 minutes into a dungeon and your implication that many dead PCs followed. I can only speak for myself but Arturick wasn't alone in his assumption that your game was more of a "blank slate meatgrinder" given what you'd written about it.
Quote from: Arduin;703973I have NO idea what you are going on about. It was a complex, long term campaign involving politics, religion intra-kingdom intrigue, etc.
So, what was your post about?
Many players today have never experienced an "old-school" game of that type, and conflate "high lethality" with "no depth".
Quote from: robiswrongMany players today have never experienced an "old-school" game of that type, and conflate "high lethality" with "no depth".
To be fair, although it's perfectly possible to run a deep game that happens to have high-lethality, especially lethal games
can become quite superficial, especially if the character-turnover is so high that players provide very minimal back-story for them. Super-lethal games are frequently dungeon crawls (i.e. Tomb of Horrors) too, which have a tendency to be a little more hack-and-slash oriented - not that one can't run a "deep" or sophisticated dungeon crawl, of course.
Quote from: robiswrong;703982Many players today have never experienced an "old-school" game of that type, and conflate "high lethality" with "no depth".
I've noticed that many inexperienced players often jump to extreme conclusions based on almost no data. Some even assume that "nuance", politics, etc. = DECREASED danger. :rotfl:
Quote from: Bill;703895How about:
Player: "Ok, my mighty fighter is ready to scout that kobold cave!"
GM: "Before we get in character, you know you have 6 HP, and a kobold with a spear can hit you 1 out of 4 and do 1-6 damage? And there could be many sneaky kobolds lurking inside?"
Player: "I charge inside the cave!"
GM: "Torches are handy......"
hah!
Been there - DMed that.
I am a firm believer that it is the DMs job to point out things the players should be aware of before gameplay. Basic hints and advice. Especially in low level D&D campaigns where the lethality is higher. And should give hints or direct advice if it looks like a player does not understand whats going on.
But.
I am also a firm believer that if a player ignores hints and then ignores direct warnings or advice. Then they get what they deserve and if they bitch afterwards that they died then well - there is the door - go find a new group.
Now though...
If I know the player is RPing a very stupid character... well... That is a story for another day/thread...
Quote from: Steerpike;703985To be fair, although it's perfectly possible to run a deep game that happens to have high-lethality, especially lethal games can become quite superficial, especially if the character-turnover is so high that players provide very minimal back-story for them. Super-lethal games are frequently dungeon crawls (i.e. Tomb of Horrors) too, which have a tendency to be a little more hack-and-slash oriented - not that one can't run a "deep" or sophisticated dungeon crawl, of course.
Even a game with a lot of dungeon crawling can have depth - the key is the world beyond the dungeon. I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of the classic settings started as "Megadungeon + city on top" in one way or another.
And that's where most of the depth in high lethality games comes from, anyway - the world as a whole, and being a part of it, rather than the individual characters. They Greyhawk FAQ said it best (at least at one time) - "Greyhawk is larger than any character, but any character can become as large as Greyhawk".
Of course, this just doesn't work if campaign = the same six players playing the same characters every week.
The overall answer is obviously if the players don't want highly lethal 1st level games then don't make them play games like that. There is no huge benefit, no mystical insight to be gained from such games.
As I said before D&D would benefit from a simple lifepath type tool like the guys have been discussing on Atlantis so you can create a 3rd/4th/14th level character with a bit of backstory.
And the whole Dying 15 times before I made 2nd level made a man of me schtick is more than a little tedious. A cunning 1st level wizard can hide and the back of the group disguised as a torchbearer do nothing and then just as the party are leaving the dungeon and getting back to the cart cast sleep, slit all their throats take all the treasure and they are already on the cusp of 3rd level ...... simples.....
Quote from: Steerpike;703985To be fair, although it's perfectly possible to run a deep game that happens to have high-lethality, especially lethal games can become quite superficial, especially if the character-turnover is so high that players provide very minimal back-story for them.
IME PCs don't need backstory to have personality. And players can play 'as themselves' without the game being superficial or beer & pretzels. Exploration of a complex political environment and a highly developed world can go along with high threat levels.
One thing I don't think has been emphasised enough in this thread is that actual 'old school mortality' (any pre-3e D&D, say) is a steeply declining risk of mortality by level, so characters can develop in play: the longer they are played, the lower their risk of death, so there is no incentive not to develop their personalities over time.
Furthermore, the inevitable death of large numbers of PCs was never a core part of the game; 'Killer GMs' were always criticised, just as much as 'Monty Haul GMs'. The GM is supposed to give the players a fair shot at survival and success.
Quote from: S'mon;704052Furthermore, the inevitable death of large numbers of PCs was never a core part of the game; 'Killer GMs' were always criticised, just as much as 'Monty Haul GMs'. The GM is supposed to give the players a fair shot at survival and success.
It may not have been a core part of the game, but given a random die for first level hp and a 10-40% chance of a targeted player being hit by a monster each combat round it is inevitable that lots of PCs will die. You can play as cautious, clever, and paranoid as you want - combat is still lethal for low level characters, and luck had a lot to do with making it out of first level alive.
Quote from: therealjcm;704057It may not have been a core part of the game, but given a random die for first level hp and a 10-40% chance of a targeted player being hit by a monster each combat round it is inevitable that lots of PCs will die. You can play as cautious, clever, and paranoid as you want - combat is still lethal for low level characters, and luck had a lot to do with making it out of first level alive.
If you play Moldvay Basic D&D RAW with the Reaction Table, hirelings etc then even the Fighters (AC 2, are hit on 17+) should rarely if ever actually be in combat. It's generally only a big problem if the GM forces combat, does not allow hirelings, etc.
But I agree somewhat; I prefer AD&D's kinder gentler approach.
My group took a very different approach at first level. We mainly avoided combat, spending more time sneaking about, and when we did fight, it was either because we set up an ambush where things were stacked in or favour or we fought defensively, taking the first opportunity to flee. It seems like if your party is out to kill every creature they meet, then high mortality isn't so much an aspect of the system as it is players treating it like a videogame.
True as I've pointed out. Even 3rd level characters can be taken down in short order.
The DMG though does suggest options such as tweaking the results so a killing blow just takes to zero. Or other ways to salvage a early kill which can derail the flow of a session or sideline a player all session.
BTW comparing OD&D, B/X and AD&D the boost Clerics (more healing by bonus spells) Fighters (more HP, more damage, more attacks) and Thieves (more HP, better backstab) get in AD&D could bring you to think that Gygax himself thought characters needed a little toughing up.
However I never met/talked/exchanged forum posts with Gygax so this is pure speculation. Old Geezer or Tim Kask probably know what GG's line of thought was at the time he wrote AD&D.
Anybody can pull a quote or something by GG about this?
Quote from: Steerpike;703985To be fair, although it's perfectly possible to run a deep game that happens to have high-lethality, especially lethal games can become quite superficial, especially if the character-turnover is so high that players provide very minimal back-story for them. Super-lethal games are frequently dungeon crawls (i.e. Tomb of Horrors) too, which have a tendency to be a little more hack-and-slash oriented - not that one can't run a "deep" or sophisticated dungeon crawl, of course.
Time spent on a backstory is not automatically equal to more character depth. It just means there is more filler. In general, super lethal games, other than killer DM deathtraps, are more often the result of players trying to charge headfirst into combat as option #1. When the system you are playing features characters with 1-6 hp and monsters that score 1-6 damage on a hit, and your first idea is to charge the enemy, is it the game that is producing the high turnover rate or your decisions?
Tomb of Horrors hack & slash? Spoken by someone who has obviously never read it, much less played it. IIRC there are only 2 monsters in the entire place. Not very much to hack & slash on.
Quote from: robiswrong;704002Even a game with a lot of dungeon crawling can have depth - the key is the world beyond the dungeon. I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of the classic settings started as "Megadungeon + city on top" in one way or another.
And that's where most of the depth in high lethality games comes from, anyway - the world as a whole, and being a part of it, rather than the individual characters. They Greyhawk FAQ said it best (at least at one time) - "Greyhawk is larger than any character, but any character can become as large as Greyhawk".
Of course, this just doesn't work if campaign = the same six players playing the same characters every week.
Good points. I would say the game could still work with the players playing the same characters every week. After all, it is possible to play your character as part of the larger world without dying. As long as the campaign doesn't crumble if the players
don't play the same characters every week, then all is good.
Quote from: therealjcm;704057It may not have been a core part of the game, but given a random die for first level hp and a 10-40% chance of a targeted player being hit by a monster each combat round it is inevitable that lots of PCs will die. You can play as cautious, clever, and paranoid as you want - combat is still lethal for low level characters, and luck had a lot to do with making it out of first level alive.
Yes there is luck involved. When there are die rolls determining outcomes there will be elements of chance at work. Combat is very lethal and thus a means of last resort to thinking players. The joy of actually making 2nd level is so much greater. Its like beating a videogame level on hard mode instead of easy. If overcoming greater difficuly or challenge holds no interest for you then of course you shouldn't bother.
Quote from: Steerpike;703938Good discussion.
Agreed.
Quote from: Steerpike;703938All I mean here is that the goal is fun. Becoming a "valuable player" or improving playing the game may be necessary prerequisites for fun - they may be the vehicle for fun, the means by which fun is attained. But, in my opinion, they aren't (or shouldn't be) ends in and of themselves; fun should always be the end-goal, the overriding objective. Some people don't find a lethal game fun and may nor may not be the sort of player who's motivated to improve their game (and thereby, potentially, have more fun) by character death.
I see it in the opposite way. Fun is something that is extremely variable between individuals and cannot be a goal of game design or game play (since the GM basically realizes the game in practice and "finishes" it as it runs) in a role playing game in and of itself. Even when you're just winging it and create something "for the fun of it", you might not realize it, but you are predicating what fun is and isn't on your personal tastes, personality and experiences (it's totally cool to do it that way of course!).
So, your game is going to be appealing to certain types of people and not others. Your game might appeal to a variety of people if you design several means by which fun can be had. And I certainly don't think that D&D, since it is the lingua franca of the RPG world, should be designed with a specific exclusive focus in a Forgist sense. In other words, "coherent design" is something to throw into the trash can, as far as D&D's concerned, so that it can retain its appeal to different types of players with different games and means to have fun.
As a GM, you can create conditions for the fun to happen in a wide variety of ways, and you can run a game that isn't lethal but offers all sorts of rewarding experiences to the people around the table, as long as they get hooked on one or several of these elements and through them "have fun" playing it.
Likewise, you can run a game that is lethal but also includes other ways to have fun, in which case some players might keep playing for other things than the challenge of survival they might not really care about, only to find out with time that they'd prefer not to play with that element of game play, OR on the contrary, that they actually come to enjoy the challenge more and more as they play.
What you can do is identify your audience, become conscious of your own preconceptions of what is fun and not fun, and act on it to craft a game experience that is potentially rewarding and "fun" through procedures, organic game play, and so on. So what you are in fact contributing to, in terms of builder, before or during the fact, depending on whether you are the one creating the game or module or the guy behind the GM screen as it's run, is the creation of the vehicle of fun, not the "fun" itself, because fun is a result of that thing which you are building, not the mean itself.
Really the idea here is that to me, "fun" is something you can't build towards without first defining what that "fun" is in the first place, which then demands that you set up means with a specific idea, or ideas, of that fun in mind (which can be broad or narrow in scope, let's be clear about that) so the participants in the game can experience it.
It's not as simple as that in practice, because a lot of this, as far as the actual role playing game play is concerned, is actually predicated on organic developments, people inspiring each other, actions and reactions, bouncing off each others' enthusiasm, creating a changing dynamic in which fun arises. But that's the principle of it.
Quote from: Steerpike;703938Maybe I should clarify - I just mean it's not really possible, in a sense, to alter one's own tastes consciously.
I completely disagree. It might not be successful, yes, because you are talking about conscious choices affecting something that might be ingrained in your personality or subconscious in some ways, but it certainly is possible.
Quote from: Steerpike;703938I don't mean that players can't influence the amount of fun they have by adopting a good attitude or staying open to new experiences etc. Just that some players don't enjoy certain types of games, and that personal subjective taste isn't necessarily something they can control. They might not have given a type of game enough of a chance, of course, and there are acquired tastes like oysters or wine (as you point out), but not everyone's tastes are the same. Asking players to keep playing a game they aren't enjoying after they've given it a proper try doesn't seem fair to me.
I disagree that there is no measure of control over one's tastes. Some people's tastes do change based on how they approach a certain topic or activity, how they persevere at it and how they determine whether it's worth their time or not to do so. And at the end of the day, for all that determination and study and careful choices of angles of approach and attitude, it might still not change one's mind for one reason or another, reason which very well might become clearer BECAUSE you spent the time to try, by the way. But it can.
It's one thing to say "I don't like horror movies and won't bother watching more of them to find out if I like some I didn't know existed before", and another to say "I just don't like horror movies - it's just who I am". The former is taking responsibility for a choice you make, and the other is just surrendering like you actually don't have a choice in what you do - you do! You do have a choice. It's okay to make one, or the other, but realize you are making a choice nonetheless.
Quote from: Steerpike;703938I should maybe add that I'm a bit of a determinist so in a metaphysical sense I don't think anyone's "free" to choose what they like and don't like, but that's a bit of a tangent and might not be a fruitful line of discussion.
Heh. It's probably part of our disagreement then. I believe that, though we are born into this world with a certain condition, or set of conditions, we are also given freedom of choice. What matters is to take responsibility over the choices we make, because they determine who we are.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
I'd tell them to reach down and find a pair and stop whining like a little pussy.
Quote from: JasonZavoda;704119I'd tell them to reach down and find a pair and stop whining like a little pussy.
Depends how they are dying, and I would suggest that if the players are not enjoying the game, insulting them is unlikely to improve morale.
That being said, I feel no chance of death equals boring, myself.
Quote from: Omega;703999hah!
Been there - DMed that.
I am a firm believer that it is the DMs job to point out things the players should be aware of before gameplay. Basic hints and advice. Especially in low level D&D campaigns where the lethality is higher. And should give hints or direct advice if it looks like a player does not understand whats going on.
But.
I am also a firm believer that if a player ignores hints and then ignores direct warnings or advice. Then they get what they deserve and if they bitch afterwards that they died then well - there is the door - go find a new group.
Now though...
If I know the player is RPing a very stupid character... well... That is a story for another day/thread...
Yup.
I personally enjoy playing 'stupid' characters, but I don't complain when my actions get me murderized.
Quote from: ExploderWizardsTomb of Horrors hack & slash? Spoken by someone who has obviously never read it, much less played it. IIRC there are only 2 monsters in the entire place. Not very much to hack & slash on.
I misspoke: I know it's more of a deathtrap dungeon than a monster-filled one a la the Caves of Chaos in Keep of the Borderlands or whatnot. You're right to call me out on this, though, as I haven't played Tomb of Horrors myself (I did read it once), it was just the first example that came to mind of a hyper-lethal "meatgrinder" dungeon. Am I incorrect in stating that Tomb of Horrors is an especially deadly dungeon crawl notorious for creating heaps of bodies? That was meant to be the spirit of my remark.
Quote from: ExploderWizardWhen the system you are playing features characters with 1-6 hp and monsters that score 1-6 damage on a hit, and your first idea is to charge the enemy, is it the game that is producing the high turnover rate or your decisions?
Totally agree. I like a lethal game, myself, in part because it forces characters to be cautious and strategic. If given my preference everyone should be vulnerable, gaining hp slowly. The HP bloat is my single biggest annoyance with 3.X/Pathfinder (obviously still a problem in 4th but there are even bigger things that bug me about that edition). But I know not everyone feels the same way, that's all. As I said in my post, I know it's
perfectly possible to run a lethal dungeon-crawl that still has depth and nuance. But it
can degenerate into a meatgrinder where the characters are very superificial, and that degeneration is linked to lethality. It depends on the players, largely.
Quote from: BenoistSo, your game is going to be appealing to certain types of people and not others. Your game might appeal to a variety of people if you design several means by which fun can be had. And I certainly don't think that D&D, since it is the lingua franca of the RPG world, should be designed with a specific exclusive focus in a Forgist sense. In other words, "coherent design" is something to throw into the trash can, as far as D&D's concerned, so that it can retain its appeal to different types of players with different games and means to have fun.
I can get onboard with this, totally. D&D shouldn't bother itself with coherent design stuff in the same way a more specialized game should, absolutely. However, there are multiple editions of D&D, some more lethal than others, and I think the DM should converse carefully with players about their preferred lethality level when starting a game and/or selecting the particular version of D&D they're going for (or set of houserules they're employing).
I agree that fun emerges "organically" a lot of the time and has to be cultivated by the DM. All I'm saying is that some people find lethal games frustrating, and shouldn't be blamed for this or told to just "suck it up, it's D&D." The fun of the people at the table is still paramount. Now, if most of the players are enjoying the lethality specifically and only one or two are finding a game too deadly, I'm less certain of how to proceed, but if the group as a whole is finding that an overly lethal game is comprimising their fun, it's not their fault, it's just that that group isn't a good fit for the particular system being employed.
Quote from: BenoistI disagree that there is no measure of control over one's tastes. Some people's tastes do change based on how they approach a certain topic or activity, how they persevere at it and how they determine whether it's worth their time or not to do so. And at the end of the day, for all that determination and study and careful choices of angles of approach and attitude, it might still not change one's mind for one reason or another, reason which very well might become clearer BECAUSE you spent the time to try, by the way. But it can.
I think the only thing people are really in control of with regard to their tastes are:
1) Their willingness to expose themselves to things.
2) Their mindset going into that experience.
Whether they actually enjoy or don't enjoy the experience isn't something they can consciously control. I cannot will myself to enjoy something. I can expose myself to it and keep an open mind about it, but I can't determine my own reaction to it. I'm
not saying tastes can't change or develop, I'm saying we don't have control over those changes beyond what we expose ourselves to and the general attitude we have towards our experiences.
What I want to get away from, essentially, is the idea that someone who doesn't like something might simply "not be trying hard enough." I'm not sure that's really what you're arguing (don't want to put words in your mouth!) but that's basically what I object to. I don't want to equate not liking something with a lack of
effort. Does that make sense?
There are lots of ways to play D&D.
1)You can play a more punishing game recklessly and die a lot.
2)You can play a more punishing game cautiously and die less often.
3)You can play a less punishing game recklessly and die less often.
4)You can play a less punishing game cautiously and die practically never*.
And of course, these are scales and not dichotomies, and they can vary session to session as much as table to table, so there are a lot more than 4 options. I'm just simplifying things.
*Though it might help to have some other thing at stake in this case.
__________________________________________________________
A character playing 1) or 2) and preferring 3) is not necessarily a poor player in need of improvement. There is a difference between ability and preference as well. Just because someone *can* play 2) to the hilt doesn't mean that they might not rather play a 3) game.
Not all players will out and out tell you this shit before the game. Especially with brand new players, who don't know how much things vary and haven't really formed any preferences yet.
And it's not really a function of playing other games for other experiences, since most versions of D&D can easily be great for any of the 4 styles just by varying what and/or how you prep, what loot you distribute, how you run the game, etc. The whole level-based thing is a great system for varying styles this way, and few games do levels as well as D&D (in some iteration or other) has. Never mind the fact that it's the one game absolutely everybody knows.
________________________________________________________
That said, bitching about the core rules/concepts of D&D because you want to make (say) 3) the default is dumb too in the light of my third point. It's easy as shit to make the game easy without changing much. You can start at higher levels, distribute better gear and spells, populate the world with weaker monsters, and like a million other things as the DM.
Quote from: Steerpike;704137I can get onboard with this, totally. D&D shouldn't bother itself with coherent design stuff in the same way a more specialized game should, absolutely. However, there are multiple editions of D&D, some more lethal than others, and I think the DM should converse carefully with players about their preferred lethality level when starting a game and/or selecting the particular version of D&D they're going for (or set of houserules they're employing).
Yes. We've established that.
Quote from: Steerpike;704137I agree that fun emerges "organically" a lot of the time and has to be cultivated by the DM. All I'm saying is that some people find lethal games frustrating, and shouldn't be blamed for this or told to just "suck it up, it's D&D."
Wait a minute, let's backtrack a little bit here. We've already established that such game preferences need to be discussed before the game.
If you have previously discussed this with your players and they signed on to your lethal D&D game, then it doesn't follow that they would find it frustrating, unless they actually didn't tell the DM that they found the lethality of said D&D game frustrating in the first place (which can be asserted in some iterations, such as OD&D and AD&D, by basic themes and game play structures like going into the dungeon and looking at the fact you're rolling hit points by the book at first level and a goblin can do 1-6 damage to you, possibly killing you outright). If that is the case, then they are absolutely to blame for their predicament. They signed on to that game in the pre-game chat. They can keep playing and get along with the game the other players did sign on as well and might be enjoying themselves, or run a different game on different days or with different folks, or sign on to a different game run by the same GM or another one, and so on. The fact remains, if we posit that the lethality of the game was discussed in the pre-game chat, then it absolutely is the responsibility of the player to say "not so fast, I'm not sure I want to play a really lethal game" before the shit hits the fan.
If that same player becomes frustrated and still does not talk to the GM to instead check out his cellphone and disrupt the game endlessly, then it is totally within the GM's right to say "the door is right there."
Quote from: Steerpike;704137The fun of the people at the table is still paramount.
The point I was making in my previous post is that this is a tautology. It's like saying that being happy is paramount. Well, duh? The fact of the matter is that what is fun or not fun varies with people, and what actually matters is the manner in which to have fun, which will vary from person to person, and group to group, by extension.
Quote from: Steerpike;704137Now, if most of the players are enjoying the lethality specifically and only one or two are finding a game too deadly, I'm less certain of how to proceed, but if the group as a whole is finding that an overly lethal game is compromising their fun, it's not their fault, it's just that that group isn't a good fit for the particular system being employed.
Actually it totally can be their responsibility if they failed to communicate their preferences before hand and the GM was straight with them when selling the game. We've already established, again, that a discussion needs to take place where potential participants exchange what they would like from the game, including whether the game is lethal, not that lethal, and so on. So if the majority of the players have a problem with the lethality of the game after the fact something failed on some communication level. Either the GM failed to convey just how lethal the game was going to be, or the players failed to convey just how lethal they wanted the game to be, or both. In two situations out of three, these players will bear part of the responsibility of that frustration they're feeling with the game.
Quote from: Steerpike;704137I think the only thing people are really in control of with regard to their tastes are:
1) Their willingness to expose themselves to things.
2) Their mindset going into that experience.
Whether they actually enjoy or don't enjoy the experience isn't something they can consciously control. I cannot will myself to enjoy something. I can expose myself to it and keep an open mind about it, but I can't determine my own reaction to it. I'm not saying tastes can't change or develop, I'm saying we don't have control over those changes beyond what we expose ourselves to and the general attitude we have towards our experiences.
Ahhhh but number 2 is VERY important here, and I believe that you are downplaying its potential effect on one's tastes, really! The mindset going into the experience matters very, very much when it comes to the enjoyment of a game.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen people ranting that D&D sucks and is a proto-roll-playing game and that dungeon crawling sucks and all that, then went into a game with these preconceptions to begin with, only to find that the game sucked, just like they predicted! Why? Because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you go into a game thinking it will suck, the chances that you will find the game potentially lacking increase exponentially. You still might have a good experience out of it and surprise yourself, true, but you basically raised the bar all the higher for you to be able to enjoy the experience for what it is, instead of what you wanted it to be.
So, we really do have control over the way we choose to approach different experiences, and which experiences we choose to partake in, which in turn do affect our tastes. I call that having quite a leeway in choices when it comes to the development and changes of one's tastes, so there IS a measure of control you can exercise over those!
Let's say a friend proposes to play something like Apocalypse World. I don't like Narrative games and construing RPGs as the creation of "stories" nearly as much as other types of games. But I can say "yes", just getting along with the fact that we're going to play a story-building and editing process, and have some amount of fun in the process. Worse comes to worse, since I braced myself for it, I won't be surprised, nor will have unduly become focused on what bothers me with the game, and I'll be able to enjoy other aspects, or the company of my friend, whatever, instead. In the best case scenario, I might find a narrative game I really enjoy, and keep playing it.
So I do exercise some amount of control over my tastes and their development.
So do you.
Quote from: Steerpike;704137What I want to get away from, essentially, is the idea that someone who doesn't like something might simply "not be trying hard enough."
It is not the ONLY possibility here, but it IS a possibility nonetheless. People do have some measure of control in the way they choose to approach games or activities and what they are getting from them, and I do not agree that people's tastes can't be discussed, or challenged, or are doomed to just be what they are and that's it, period, the end.
It's OKAY to say "I don't like it, I don't want to bother with it". But that too is a CHOICE. It is choosing not to want to bother with it and just roll one's eyes and just discard whatever that thing might have to offer. And if you're doing this willfully and then get frustrated by exposition to it though you were warned in the pre-game session, and that you get frustrated to the point you are becoming disruptive, then those are additional choices which rest squarely on your shoulders. These are your responsibilities, let's be clear, here.
Quote from: Steerpike;704137I'm not sure that's really what you're arguing (don't want to put words in your mouth!) but that's basically what I object to. I don't want to equate not liking something with a lack of effort. Does that make sense?
It does. And I think we disagree, but not in the way you thought. I'm not saying that a lack of liking something ALWAYS comes down to a lack of effort, or that putting in some effort into approaching that thing differently actually will ALWAY make you like it in the end.
But I am very much saying that choices are involved, that a lack of liking MIGHT, some times, have something to do with a lack of effort or just getting at that thing repeatedly the wrong way, and that choosing to approach things in different ways, to adapt to situations and see where they go MIGHT, occasionally, change your mind. Something that actually has ZERO chance to happen if you start with the attitude that you can't control what you like and dislike and that "you can't do anything about it, anyway" - and THIS attitude, in itself, is a choice on one's part.
Maybe we (as DMs) should instill the idea in new players that beginning (A)D&D characters should not be invested heavily in. Instead of an actual character sheet (which looks semi-permanent), give them a blank sheet of paper. Encourage the disposable, beer & pretzels aspect of the game.
Maybe that's why Monopoly doesn't have human-looking pawns. More fragile players might be emotionally distraught at a human-like figure having to go jail instead of say, a thimble.
Quote from: BenoistIf that same player becomes frustrated and still does not talk to the GM to instead check out his cellphone and disrupt the game endlessly, then it is totally within the GM's right to say "the door is right there."
I think we're in full agreement that the players and GM should talk about lethality beforehand. We can probably move on from that aspect of the topic.
Quote from: BenositThe fact of the matter is that what is fun or not fun varies with people, and what actually matters is the manner in which to have fun, which will vary from person to person, and group to group, by extension.
Again I agree here. All I'm fighting against is the idea that being good at the game matters in any sense
other than the extent to which being good at the game makes it more fun. I think you'd agree, though. I think our positions are probably closer on this than I/we had thought originally?
Quote from: BenoistSo, we really do have control over the way we choose to approach different experiences, and which experiences we choose to partake in, which in turn do affect our tastes. I call that having quite a leeway in choices when it comes to the development and changes of one's tastes, so there IS a measure of control you can exercise over those!
I'd still make a sharp distinction between being open to an experience and going in with the right mindset and our tastes themselves. Going in with the right mindset is like a prerequisite to actually enjoying something, not a guarantee you'll enjoy it. Otherwise people could never be disappointed by an experience. Your mindset may fully
enable you to appreciate something or not, but I don't think it actively
determines enjoyment.
Quote from: BenoistIt is not the ONLY possibility here, but it IS a possibility nonetheless. People do have some measure of control in the way they choose to approach games or activities and what they are getting from them, and I do not agree that people's tastes can't be discussed, or challenged, or are doomed to just be what they are and that's it, period, the end.
Sure, we should discuss and challenge tastes and we might convince someone to give something another try and be more open to it, to try and paint the experience in a new light. But sometimes no amount of trying is going to change someone's enjoyment or lack thereof, and further forcing them to endure an experience they're not enjoying isn't a good idea. Of course, as we've agreed, the player should have been onboard with most elements of the experience from the get-go due to pre-game discussion.
Quote from: BenoistBut I am very much saying that choices are involved, that a lack of liking MIGHT, some times, have something to do with a lack of effort or just getting at that thing repeatedly the wrong way, and that choosing to approach things in different ways, to adapt to situations and see where they go MIGHT, occasionally, change your mind. Something that actually has ZERO chance to happen if you start with the attitude that you can't control what you like and dislike and that "you can't do anything about it, anyway" - and THIS attitude, in itself, is a choice on one's part.
To the extent that the right mind-set is an important prerequisite to enjoying or not enjoying something, I agree with this. To the extent that people still have tastes that aren't entirely determined simply by mind-set, I think further effort is fruitless.
Quote from: artikid;704089However I never met/talked/exchanged forum posts with Gygax so this is pure speculation. Old Geezer or Tim Kask probably know what GG's line of thought was at the time he wrote AD&D.
Anybody can pull a quote or something by GG about this?
Sorry, no. I sort of faded out of the scene about 1977-78.
Yes, Steerpike, I think we're essentially in agreement here.
Basically, you don't want there to be an appearance that somehow if a player doesn't like something it's his fault by default and he should be punished or pointed the finger at for such a thing, which is something I am totally not saying, and I don't want there to be a perception that there's no choice involved in the way one chooses to approach games or to manage one's expectations and to talk to the GM about it, which by my reckoning now you are not saying either.
One particular point you raised I'd like to emphasize:
Quote from: Steerpike;704166Again I agree here. All I'm fighting against is the idea that being good at the game matters in any sense other than the extent to which being good at the game makes it more fun. I think you'd agree, though. I think our positions are probably closer on this than I/we had thought originally?
I agree with that, and what's more, what being "good" at the game means will change from game to game, table to table, and between individuals at the game table as well! At some table optimizing the crap out of your character is seen as "good gameplay" because "you can contribute" and whatnot, at others it's paramount to saying you hate the game you're playing. Likewise, some guys will be considered "good at the game" because they are clever, participate good plans, or have some entertaining role playing skills, or joke and just add to the good feel of the game, and so on. So two different people might be deemed "good" at a particular game table for completely different reasons, one being the cool jester you want to see at the game that brings the best ambiance out of people, and the other being the cunning strategist who helps the group survive in the dungeon.
The "valuable player" I was talking about was strictly related in context to the challenge of surviving in a lethal D&D game, like you have valuable players on a football team in the context of overwhelming the opponent in some way and scoring touchdowns, at the end of the day. And even in that context, what it means to be a valuable team player to win the day in a lethal game is actually going to vary depending on the particular teams/game tables we're talking about, what types of tactics are favored by the group, and so on.
Quote from: artikid;704089BTW comparing OD&D, B/X and AD&D the boost Clerics (more healing by bonus spells) Fighters (more HP, more damage, more attacks) and Thieves (more HP, better backstab) get in AD&D could bring you to think that Gygax himself thought characters needed a little toughing up.
However I never met/talked/exchanged forum posts with Gygax so this is pure speculation. Old Geezer or Tim Kask probably know what GG's line of thought was at the time he wrote AD&D.
Anybody can pull a quote or something by GG about this?
Supplement I stated that the new HD were supposed to boost fighters relative to MUs. (It may be debatable whether they actually did so.)
That's a plausible rationale for why MUs missed out on the HD boost in AD&D, which in turn seems to me -- along with bonuses for high (and in AD&D inflated) Constitution, Strength and Dexterity scores -- a reasonable response to the great increase in monster damage that Supplement I had introduced.
I can't cite it, but I seem to recall Gary mentioning that some material in
Unearthed Arcana came from players in his campaign playing characters longer than had been expected, and some from adventuring parties getting smaller. (Weapon specialization appears to have been, and Gary may have at one point said it was, another attempt to adjust the fighter-spellcaster balance.)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;703870I was speaking of those who desire to "play stupid" ( err....heroic) yet still feel entitled to have their characters survive. Thus D&D but not really D&D.
Its no different than those who claim to love D&D but hate classes, the magic system, alignments, etc. They like the idea of the game but not the actual game.
If the idea of the game includes from the start a lot of fighting and little dying, then it means from the start a better survival chance than 1 HD figures have. That doesn't mean not playing D&D, unless all of us who have moderate- to high-level figures are no longer playing D&D!
D&D by design accommodates that style better than many other systems. You can play a character who avoids reckless peril -- thus making each occasion more dramatic -- as easily in D&D or in those, but D&D makes it easier to have a real a swashbuckler. That so much of the rules apparatus is devoted to combat capabilities makes the assumption of frequent combat pretty normative, as do key literary inspirations.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;703883There was the concept of dungeon level long before there was a CR or anything. Higher level kick-your-ass monsters could appear on the 1st dungeon level but they were rarer and fewer in number than on deeper levels.
A 1st level dungeon isn't "safe", especially for 1st level characters. A few kobolds in the right set of circumstances could still result in a TPK. Old school "survivable for your level" assumed intelligent play. The modern definition of survivable means being able to potentially handle anything in a straight up fight, thus the disconnect.
If players desire a playstyle that involves just bashing down doors and kicking ass without having to think about it too much then they need to adventure on dungeon levels a few levels lower than their own.
One can:
(A) Keep monster levels no higher than one above dungeon level. (The AD&D tables stretch it further, and the original ones permit the most powerful monsters in the game on the 3rd level.)
(B) Keep wandering monster band total HD/levels fairly close to (say +/- 1/3) some multiple of dungeon level. For example, they might be 4 to 8 times DL. Consistency is more important here than fine specifics of
what multiple one chooses, although it's nice if one can anticipate a typical size of player party and gear the desired degree of inconvenience to that.
(C) Keep most lairs roughly tougher and richer in proportion to deeper level, although there can be more variation. (The toughness of WMs is part of the overall challenge of getting treasures from a given level, though, so the factors should rarely be very far apart.)
This consistency will allow players to choose their risk/reward level with a higher confidence, once they have the real options afforded by adding a couple of experience levels.
The wilderness can also have gradations. A market town or city would probably not be there in the first place if it had a major monster problem. Neither would a rich dragon hoard probably still be within easy reach of any adventurers who happen along. The further one goes from settlements, the wilder the wasteland or forest is likely to be.
Quote from: Bill;704121Depends how they are dying, and I would suggest that if the players are not enjoying the game, insulting them is unlikely to improve morale.
That being said, I feel no chance of death equals boring, myself.
As a DM I am cruel, but fair. The players will be risking the lives of their characters and sometimes the odds will be against them. A group that plays it slow and safe will garner less rewards than a group that likes a challenge, but to face real challenges the players will have to put more into their characters than a name and a set of stats. Experienced players will find that risking the loss of a character they have an investment in gives them more real world excitement in a game of dice, paper and imagination than a throw-away character. Removing the risk of a character dying removes the reward of a character surviving a challenge. If one of my players doesn't like the game I run because the risk is too high then they need to find another DM and I don't mind making that clear to them.
Quote from: jibbajibba;704003And the whole Dying 15 times before I made 2nd level made a man of me schtick is more than a little tedious. A cunning 1st level wizard can hide and the back of the group disguised as a torchbearer do nothing and then just as the party are leaving the dungeon and getting back to the cart cast sleep, slit all their throats take all the treasure and they are already on the cusp of 3rd level ...... simples.....
Better yet, make real allies of some even higher level types. Here's 4 grand, all shares to our protégé. Here's a few grand more, and a magic weapon. Rinse and repeat, and pretty soon you're near their level. Now you can all go after richer treasures than they could have handled without another helping hand.
Hirelings seemed to play a much bigger role in old school play than the modern 'Dungeon Superhero' variants. You don't go into the Argle Caverns of Bargle with just 4 PCs, you go in with 4 PCs and 6 NPCs to cover your ass.
Quote from: jibbajibba;704003And the whole Dying 15 times before I made 2nd level means that you're an idiot that can't learn from your mistakes, or your referee is an asshat.
Fixed your
typo.
Quote from: Old Geezer;704237Fixed your typo.
I think 15 was meant to be hyperbole. Three or four is fairly common (maybe about 1/3 to 1/4), though, IME even among old hands, if the DM is going by the book (ratio of g.p. value of treasure to monsters and traps, encounter range and surprise, pursuit and evasion, etc.), and bad luck could add another.
When I started playing the game (1E AD&D) at age 11 I went through, roughly, around six first levels characters (maybe a little more) before one made it to level 2. I remember having been killed by a skeleton, kobolds, a bunch of ogres in the wilderness (I was really stupid, I had no idea what to expect and they beat my character to a pulp), an NPC that killed me, and probably some animals of some sort.
I REALLY had a lot of fun through all of it and it WAS formative throughout. I was a child, but I could learn, and each time a character bit the dust, I wanted more. I wanted to "win at D&D". And that was awesome.
And yeah, you learn a lot of stuff in the process: not to go into a den of ogres and expect to make it in melee, in the first place, or to use diversions and clever tactics and role playing instead of just missing out on some stuff and playing it too safe or too suicidal, or the usefulness of getting some help, hirelings, henchmen, but how too many of them just makes you stall in levels, and so on, so forth.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704233Hirelings seemed to play a much bigger role in old school play than the modern 'Dungeon Superhero' variants. You don't go into the Argle Caverns of Bargle with just 4 PCs, you go in with 4 PCs and 6 NPCs to cover your ass.
There is a disconnect there between the source fiction and the game. Yes itne hgame better that you hire a buch of guys and if they all die meh no biggie. But the inspirational source material where the 'hero' hires a bunch of mooks and they all die in his service ... well just isn't there. There are parties, The Fellowship being the archetype, but all the protagonists are protagonists. Some stories have the guide or scout that helps out and usually dies but most of the source fiction is about heroes.
When I started playing D&D I wasn't trying to emulate D&D I was trying to emulate Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit, or Narnia, or the legends of King Arthur or the legend of CuChulain or the last of the Mohecians etc etc .... my heroes weren't people that would take along a load of peasants as canon fodder. If they had been there my hero would have protected them from the bad guys at the cost of his own life becuase that is what heroes do.
I think this is a fundermental break from D&D's origins, where we are looking at wargamers for who their PC is a promoted seargent, to the second tranche of players who were trying to emulate fantasy stories and wanted to be heroes. This happened almost straight way, just look at the OD&D class expansions so you can play Aragorn, or the Grey Mouser or ....
This is the paradigm that quickly came to dominate D&D and saw to the demise of hirelings and the desire to have your PC live beyond his first battle.
Our Pathfinder GM ran Tomb of Horrors for us tonight (for Halloween)... and while I enjoyed it and was fully expecting the TPK (3 by gargoyle, 1 by Green Devil Face)... I've gotta say, if that had been my first RPG experience, ever, I might not have come back for more... or at least come away with the wrong impression of D&D.
I get the idea that some people think that was the norm for old-school sessions... maybe it was somewhere, but not for us.
Yeah Tomb of Horrors is NOT a rookie module, and it's EXPLICITLY built to be a death trap. Some vets in search for a challenge might enjoy it a lot. I'd never consider running it for people who've never played before, and if I did put it in my campaign it's not a location vets would just stumble upon: they would hear about it, know the name of the location, I'd warn them outside of the game about its lethality, and they'd have freedom of choice in deciding when and how to take the challenge, if at all.
Quote from: jibbajibba;704277This is the paradigm that quickly came to dominate D&D and saw to the demise of hirelings and the desire to have your PC live beyond his first battle.
The actual disconnect comes from those who expect D&D to emulate only half of its roots.
Fantasy fiction is one source of inspiration, wargames are another. Those who expect D&D to be story time and adhere only to the tropes of fantasy fiction are disillusioned by the game aspect.
There is a difference between desire and an expectation or sense of entitlement. I'm quite sure players in the first D&D campaigns desired their PCs to survive and become powerful.
Actual play however, is a game not a story, and players of games understand the concept of win some, lose some. After all, playing a game with the
expectation (not hope) of victory isn't approaching the endeavor with good sportsmanship. If victory is assured why play it out? Make up an exciting story and tell it.
The game part of D&D offers the
opportunity to possibly play Aragorn, Conan, or the Grey Mouser if you play well enough and with a bit of luck. Ego based wish fulfillment was the death of gameplay.
Tomb of horrors is for veteran players who seek a challenge.
You really can't survive it without luck, previous knowledge of the module, truly absurd characters or gm leniency.
Quote from: Benoist;704251When I started playing the game (1E AD&D) at age 11 I went through, roughly, around six first levels characters (maybe a little more) before one made it to level 2. I remember having been killed by a skeleton, kobolds, a bunch of ogres in the wilderness (I was really stupid, I had no idea what to expect and they beat my character to a pulp), an NPC that killed me, and probably some animals of some sort.
I REALLY had a lot of fun through all of it and it WAS formative throughout. I was a child, but I could learn, and each time a character bit the dust, I wanted more. I wanted to "win at D&D". And that was awesome.
And yeah, you learn a lot of stuff in the process: not to go into a den of ogres and expect to make it in melee, in the first place, or to use diversions and clever tactics and role playing instead of just missing out on some stuff and playing it too safe or too suicidal, or the usefulness of getting some help, hirelings, henchmen, but how too many of them just makes you stall in levels, and so on, so forth.
My very first game of D&D (don't remember the edition but it was most likely 1st or a hybrid of 1st and some of the other versions of the game----this was about 86-87'), was quite exciting because for months prior a kid who lived down the street from my friend had been running us through a sci-fi, robotech-like RPG and he had been telling us about D&D that whole time. In the first hour of my first game, I was killed by a zombie. I found the game very exciting and as others have pointed out, dying didn't phase me any more than losing a game of risk. I didnt enjoy my character dying, but it was a necessary part of the excitement (just like risk is no fun if people let you win or play with kid gloves). Over the years, as I continued to game, the trend did seem to move away from that and at this stage the issue of lethality seems to be a sliding scale, which I am fine with. I enjoy a range of playstyles, but I do personally find people don't give the more lethal approach a fair shake. For me, it offers the most excitement and fun.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704337The actual disconnect comes from those who expect D&D to emulate only half of its roots.
Fantasy fiction is one source of inspiration, wargames are another. Those who expect D&D to be story time and adhere only to the tropes of fantasy fiction are disillusioned by the game aspect.
But most players expect that that was my point.
Wargames weren't so much a pointof inspiration as a starting point for the journey. Wargames let you reproduce the Battle of the Black Gate or whatever, RPGS took that idea and said why can;t we also reproduce the journey of Sam and Frodo at the same time.
So wargames are a base not an inspiration.
QuoteThere is a difference between desire and an expectation or sense of entitlement. I'm quite sure players in the first D&D campaigns desired their PCs to survive and become powerful.
Actual play however, is a game not a story, and players of games understand the concept of win some, lose some. After all, playing a game with the expectation (not hope) of victory isn't approaching the endeavor with good sportsmanship. If victory is assured why play it out? Make up an exciting story and tell it.
The game part of D&D offers the opportunity to possibly play Aragorn, Conan, or the Grey Mouser if you play well enough and with a bit of luck. Ego based wish fulfillment was the death of gameplay.
First off I think this is little loaded the 'entitlement' trope gets wheeled out to point the finger at the new kids that don't play the way we did 30 years ago. Everyone is entitled to have fun. You aren't playing D&D to build character or ensure you get into college or to pass the bar exam you are playing it to have fun.
Now one of the interesting things about when I started playing D&D was the empahasis that there were no winners. It wasn't a game you could win nor was it a competative game. If there are no winners then can their be loosers?
(well obviously 95% of the population think we are all loosers :) )
Now I am of the opinion that the playing of the game is the thing and death is just part of that. A heroic death to me is far more memorable than a tedious life. I certainly play games partly to create memories of a shared experience and I would much rather my character feature in that and died than tip taped his way to 20th level through 'sport RPG'.
If your kid wants to play aragron then cool play a game in which he can play aragorn. D&D can cope with that easily.
You don't need D&D to be some test of player skill where we are really measuring whether the player is able to pick a PC action that enables them to pass a series of choke points to get to a prize. Can you work out a way past the troll can you work out how to disarm the trap before it crushes the party etc etc ....
D&D can be a game where you pretend to be fantasy characters in a real and immersive world and those characters grow more tangible through their actions and behaviours. That development may be far more important than the risk of death.
just sayin
Quote from: jibbajibba;704347So wargames are a base not an inspiration.
Vis-a-vis D&D, that is about as incorrect as you can get. Wargames were a HUGE inspiration for the rules and thus, the feel of the game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;704347First off I think this is little loaded the 'entitlement' trope gets wheeled out to point the finger at the new kids that don't play the way we did 30 years ago. Everyone is entitled to have fun. You aren't playing D&D to build character or ensure you get into college or to pass the bar exam you are playing it to have fun.
Now one of the interesting things about when I started playing D&D was the empahasis that there were no winners. It wasn't a game you could win nor was it a competative game. If there are no winners then can their be loosers?
(well obviously 95% of the population think we are all loosers :) )
Now I am of the opinion that the playing of the game is the thing and death is just part of that. A heroic death to me is far more memorable than a tedious life. I certainly play games partly to create memories of a shared experience and I would much rather my character feature in that and died than tip taped his way to 20th level through 'sport RPG'.
If your kid wants to play aragron then cool play a game in which he can play aragorn. D&D can cope with that easily.
You don't need D&D to be some test of player skill where we are really measuring whether the player is able to pick a PC action that enables them to pass a series of choke points to get to a prize. Can you work out a way past the troll can you work out how to disarm the trap before it crushes the party etc etc ....
just sayin
Yes we all play games for fun. The real question is, will you have fun playing a game? Is playing a game really where you find your fun or is it something else? I don't have a problem with people not having fun playing games, that would prefer to do something else such as creating collaborative fiction. Just don't say that you want to play a game then whine like little bitch if you lose.
D&D is a game. As long as the player's expectation of playing Aragorn doesn't include the idea that he cannot die, D&D can handle it fine.
Quote from: jibbajibba;704347D&D can be a game where you pretend to be fantasy characters in a real and immersive world and those characters grow more tangible through their actions and behaviours. That development may be far more important than the risk of death.
How heroic would deeds be if there was no risk to the hero? Heroism usually includes a measure of bravery. How heroic would it be to stand alone against a hundred men if you were completely immune to physical damage?
In order for character development to have meaning, there needs to be risk.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704355How heroic would deeds be if there was no risk to the hero? Heroism usually includes a measure of bravery. How heroic would it be to stand alone against a hundred men if you were completely immune to physical damage?
In order for character development to have meaning, there needs to be risk.
If only there was some kind of balance between being invincible and having a high percent chance of dying every single time the weakest enemies in the game swing at you...
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704361If only there was some kind of balance between being invincible and having a high percent chance of dying every single time the weakest enemies in the game swing at you...
Play a fighter type. Unless your math skills are lower than a 5 yr olds you won't have that problem... ;)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704361If only there was some kind of balance between being invincible and having a high percent chance of dying every single time the weakest enemies in the game swing at you...
Yes, it'd be nice if we were discussing in terms of nuances, and didn't start by positing slanted scenarios such as "high percent chance of dying every time the weakest enemies swing at you" when that actually ignores that part of the game where such conditions apply is to decide whether the engagement occurs, on the means of said engagement if it is the preferred course of action, how to deal with various threats encountered during the exploration in likewise manner, which means you will want to use missile weapons before running to melee, you will use flaming oil to separate you from your targets, you will use surprise to your advantage, etc etc, i.e. you will avoid getting yourself in a situation where that enemy could take a free swing at you before you killed it in the first place.
That'd be cool. It'd be a reasonable way of approaching this discussion. Thing is, when you ignore the different parameters at play here, ignore the posts of people who have been pointing out these things in this very thread and you decide to get into formulating manufactured extremes by saying something like a "high percent chance of dying every time the weakest enemies swing at you" being the entirety of the game conditions and experience on that side of the spectrum, the discussion can't go far, because that is, fundamentally, what a strawman argument IS.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704361If only there was some kind of balance between being invincible and having a high percent chance of dying every single time the weakest enemies in the game swing at you...
You are a genius. You have posited a problem and provided the solution all in one.
That balance is of course, to try and mitigate the number of times an enemy takes a swing at you. Best defense no be there. Any DM forcing players to engage in straight up combat in order to earn any rewards is just being part of the problem.
Quote from: Benoist;704367Yes, it'd be nice if we were discussing in terms of nuances, and didn't start by positing slanted scenarios such as "high percent chance of dying every time the weakest enemies swing at you" when that actually ignores that part of the game where such conditions apply is to decide whether the engagement occurs, on the means of said engagement if it is the preferred course of action, how to deal with various threats encountered during the exploration in likewise manner, which means you will want to use missile weapons before running to melee, you will use flaming oil to separate you from your targets, you will use surprise to your advantage, etc etc,
Take it easy on him. He may not be smart enough to have figured out these basic , combat tactics himself, over the years... Maybe his PC's get to the dungeon on the short bus.
Its almost like people aren't capable of realizing I was making fun of the strawman he was creating in which anybody who doesn't care for the lethality of 1st level D&D believes their character should be invincible and incapable of dying...
I mean, look at the wording he used. He mentioned a character fighting ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE and being unable to die. As if being able to go toe to toe in a straight fight with two goblins without a high risk of dying is REALLY comparable to that. You do realize I'm arguing with him specifically because he stated that if you didn't play his way, you shouldn't be PLAYING D&D. If you all want to argue for how D&D should be accessible and not a "coherent" design (which I agree), then why do you want to support a guy who is saying that if you aren't playing his way, you shouldn't be playing the game.
Hell, I have no problem with high lethality games! I've played and ran games that were intentionally grinders. I have a problem with idiots saying that if you don't play a specific way, get the hell out of D&D.
But oh man, when the straw man is in YOUR favor, its absolutely true isn't it?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704374I mean, look at the wording he used. He mentioned a character fighting ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE and being unable to die. As if being able to go toe to toe in a straight fight with two goblins without a high risk of dying is REALLY comparable to that. You do realize I'm arguing with him specifically because he stated that if you didn't play his way, you shouldn't be PLAYING D&D. If you all want to argue for how D&D should be accessible and not a "coherent" design (which I agree), then why do you want to support a guy who is saying that if you aren't playing his way, you shouldn't be playing the game.
All I was saying is that D&D IS a game. If you aren't playing a game then you are not playing D&D.
Nowhere did I mention "my way".
I will stand by my opinion that those uninterested in playing game should look outside of D&D for their fun.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704384All I was saying is that D&D IS a game. If you aren't playing a game then you are not playing D&D.
Nowhere did I mention "my way".
I will stand by my opinion that those uninterested in playing game should look outside of D&D for their fun.
So you didn't say this:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;703854Yes. They want to play D&D but not really. There are other fantasy games besides D&D that might suit their tastes better.
In response to someone talking about playing a less lethal D&D.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704355Yes we all play games for fun. The real question is, will you have fun playing a game? Is playing a game really where you find your fun or is it something else? I don't have a problem with people not having fun playing games, that would prefer to do something else such as creating collaborative fiction. Just don't say that you want to play a game then whine like little bitch if you lose.
D&D is a game. As long as the player's expectation of playing Aragorn doesn't include the idea that he cannot die, D&D can handle it fine.
How heroic would deeds be if there was no risk to the hero? Heroism usually includes a measure of bravery. How heroic would it be to stand alone against a hundred men if you were completely immune to physical damage?
In order for character development to have meaning, there needs to be risk.
I have played heroic amberites heroic super heroes heroic transhumans whose life experiences are backed up onto a nueral lace..... Were they heroic?
In my games death is pretty rare, you basically don't die unless you fuck up and fucking up doesn't mean expecting to be able to do things that a reasonable person would expect like beating an orc in a sword fight, but you don't get to come back from dead.
So it's rarer but more permanent remember on an infinite timeline everybody dies.....
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704386So you didn't say this:
In response to someone talking about playing a less lethal D&D.
If the objective of their gameplay is to create collaborative fiction they in fact do NOT want to play D&D, but a facsimilie thereof.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704391If the objective of their gameplay is to create collaborative fiction they in fact do NOT want to play D&D, but a facsimilie thereof.
THIS is 100% correct.
Quote from: jibbajibba;704390I have played heroic amberites heroic super heroes heroic transhumans whose life experiences are backed up onto a nueral lace..... Were they heroic?
Was there any downside to their physical forms getting destroyed? Could they do as they pleased without anything to lose?
Quote from: jibbajibba;704390In my games death is pretty rare, you basically don't die unless you fuck up and fucking up doesn't mean expecting to be able to do things that a reasonable person would expect like beating an orc in a sword fight, but you don't get to come back from dead.
So it's rarer but more permanent remember on an infinite timeline everybody dies.....
In D&D, getting into a fair fight with a monster that is your equal counts as fucking up.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704391If the objective of their gameplay is to create collaborative fiction they in fact do NOT want to play D&D, but a facsimilie thereof.
Nah they just want to play a less lethal game of d&d but i guess that is badwrongfun......
:(
Quote from: Arduin;704372Take it easy on him. He may not be smart enough to have figured out these basic , combat tactics himself, over the years... Maybe his PC's get to the dungeon on the short bus.
And the opposition is on an even shorter short bus?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704396Was there any downside to their physical forms getting destroyed? Could they do as they pleased without anything to lose?
In D&D, getting into a fair fight with a monster that is your equal counts as fucking up.
Maybe but expectations about who your equal is may vary, likewise going back to you earlier question can you be heroic if you only ever fight foes you are vastly superior to or outnumber surely there is place for fighting the unbeatable foe, reaching the unreachable stars etc....
Quote from: Sommerjon;704400And the opposition is on an even shorter short bus?
Because they CAN figure out tactics? Um, so... How many hours of interwebtube time do they give you at the Spin Bin?
Quote from: jibbajibba;704402Maybe but expectations about who your equal is may vary,
When it varies TOO much it is also known as stupidity. Followed usually by whining by someone about their 1st level character getting killed by an ogre... :pundit:
QuoteIf the objective of their gameplay is to create collaborative fiction they in fact do NOT want to play D&D, but a facsimilie thereof.
I basically agree, but I think this is a
little black and white - I think there are some players who might want to create collaborative fiction as
part of their gameplay experience, while recognizing that the game has other elements. I also think it's a little silly to insist on authenticity in a game that's a fancy, codified version of playing pretend. So what if someone's playing a "facsimile" of "authentic" D&D? Who cares? Why does it matter? How is this in any way a bad thing?
Quote from: Arduin;704405When it varies TOO much it is also known as stupidity. Followed usually by whining by someone about their 1st level character getting killed by an ogre... :pundit:
Reminds me of a game i played years ago where my 1st level fighter beat an ogre on his own in order to protect the rest of the party.... He was heroic
Quote from: jibbajibba;704409Reminds me of a game i played years ago where my 1st level fighter beat an ogre on his own in order to protect the rest of the party.... He was heroic
YES. He was heroic.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704374Its almost like people aren't capable of realizing I was making fun of the strawman he was creating in which anybody who doesn't care for the lethality of 1st level D&D believes their character should be invincible and incapable of dying...
I mean, look at the wording he used. He mentioned a character fighting ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE and being unable to die. As if being able to go toe to toe in a straight fight with two goblins without a high risk of dying is REALLY comparable to that. You do realize I'm arguing with him specifically because he stated that if you didn't play his way, you shouldn't be PLAYING D&D. If you all want to argue for how D&D should be accessible and not a "coherent" design (which I agree), then why do you want to support a guy who is saying that if you aren't playing his way, you shouldn't be playing the game.
Oh then sure, obviously, building strawmen from the other side is totally warranted then, isn't it?
That's a totally dumb way of arguing for your side of the debate because that makes you look like a trolling douchebag. That's why.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704374Hell, I have no problem with high lethality games! I've played and ran games that were intentionally grinders. I have a problem with idiots saying that if you don't play a specific way, get the hell out of D&D.
Cool. I have a problem with people pouring oil over the fire. Nobody should care what jibba thinks as far as old school D&D's concerned, I certainly don't, but I'm actually talking to you here because I think you have a brain and might choose to use it. You could argue whatever you want reasonably. But that's not what you are doing. Proof: thread now goes to shit, and if you weren't the instigator, you certainly DO participate to that slide towards flinging shit at each other. Congratulations, man! Well done! How does THAT make you feel?
Quote from: jibbajibba;704409Reminds me of a game i played years ago where my 1st level fighter beat an ogre on his own in order to protect the rest of the party.... He was heroic
Same here! Firmly set me in my belief that javelins really are a low level fighters' best short to mid-range tool.
Quote from: Benoist;704412Oh then sure, obviously, building strawmen from the other side is totally warranted then, isn't it?
That's a totally dumb way of arguing for your side of the debate because that makes you look like a trolling douchebag. That's why.
Cool. I have a problem with people pouring oil over the fire. You could argue whatever you want reasonably. But that's not what you are doing. Proof: thread now goes to shit, and if you weren't the instigator, you certainly DO participate to that slide towards flinging shit at each other. Congratulations, man! Well done! How does THAT make you feel?
Quote from: mightyuncle;704414Same here! Firmly set me in my belief that javelins really are a low level fighters' best short to mid-range tool.
Mine was blind luck and a bastard sword oh and stones he had stones. Peasant hero kit remains one of my favourites
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704374Its almost like people aren't capable of realizing I was making fun of the strawman he was creating in which anybody who doesn't care for the lethality of 1st level D&D believes their character should be invincible and incapable of dying...
I mean, look at the wording he used. He mentioned a character fighting ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE and being unable to die. As if being able to go toe to toe in a straight fight with two goblins without a high risk of dying is REALLY comparable to that. You do realize I'm arguing with him specifically because he stated that if you didn't play his way, you shouldn't be PLAYING D&D. If you all want to argue for how D&D should be accessible and not a "coherent" design (which I agree), then why do you want to support a guy who is saying that if you aren't playing his way, you shouldn't be playing the game.
Hell, I have no problem with high lethality games! I've played and ran games that were intentionally grinders. I have a problem with idiots saying that if you don't play a specific way, get the hell out of D&D.
But oh man, when the straw man is in YOUR favor, its absolutely true isn't it?
Seems you have finished your training, young grasshopper.
Quote from: mightyuncle;704414Same here! Firmly set me in my belief that javelins really are a low level fighters' best short to mid-range tool.
In narrow tunnels, having a couple of the fighter types set spears while on one knee and having other party members use missiles from behind is also a great way to take on much larger forces.
Quote from: Benoist;704412I have a problem with people pouring oil over the fire.
Oh please, there are people in this thread being way bigger douchebags than I could even approach, but you don't touch it because they play the game in a similar way to you. Unless you legitimately think Arduin is making intelligent conversation rather than throwing insults half the time he opens his mouth.
This place spends 90% of the time in a bonfire. If your intention was to actually encourage rational debate, you wouldn't trot out the "pouring oil over the fire" bullshit only when you perceive someone as being on the other side of the line as you.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;704424If your intention was to actually encourage rational debate. . .
Ask Steerpike.
Quote from: Arduin;704421In narrow tunnels, having a couple of the fighter types set spears while on one knee and having other party members use missiles from behind is also a great way to take on much larger forces.
Like I said you like your opposition on an even shorter short bus.
Quote from: Arduin;704421In narrow tunnels, having a couple of the fighter types set spears while on one knee and having other party members use missiles from behind is also a great way to take on much larger forces.
It was a wilderness encounter and the advantage javelins have is that they can 1) be thrown one handed thereby allowing 2) another javelin to be set in the offhand and 3) can be set against a large sized charging creature, enabling double damage. I was able to approach and throw one round and get off another thrown javelin and set against the ogre's retaliatory charge in the next round.
Quote from: Steerpike;704408I basically agree, but I think this is a little black and white - I think there are some players who might want to create collaborative fiction as part of their gameplay experience, while recognizing that the game has other elements. I also think it's a little silly to insist on authenticity in a game that's a fancy, codified version of playing pretend. So what if someone's playing a "facsimile" of "authentic" D&D? Who cares? Why does it matter? How is this in any way a bad thing?
If everyone is on the same page and no one is fooled into thinking an actual game of D&D is happening everything is ok. I might want to play a storygame if advertised as such if it sounds interesting and fun.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704337The actual disconnect comes from those who expect D&D to emulate only half of its roots.
Fantasy fiction is one source of inspiration, wargames are another. Those who expect D&D to be story time and adhere only to the tropes of fantasy fiction are disillusioned by the game aspect.
D&D is a game in which things may happen that remind you of certain elements in certain stories, books, or movies. It is not and never was intended to be a way to emulate those stories, books, or movies.
Quote from: Old Geezer;704453D&D is a game in which things may happen that remind you of certain elements in certain stories, books, or movies. It is not and never was intended to be a way to emulate those stories, books, or movies.
Yeah it was a Hodge-podge of rules stolen and/or inspired from other sources mish-mashed together and left for that particular table to figure out wants it to be.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704441If everyone is on the same page and no one is fooled into thinking an actual game of D&D is happening everything is ok. I might want to play a storygame if advertised as such if it sounds interesting and fun.
And people try to say Onetrueway is never touted around here.:rolleyes:
Quote from: Sommerjon;704458Yeah it was a Hodge-podge of rules stolen and/or inspired from other sources mish-mashed together and left for that particular table to figure out wants it to be.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Quote from: Sommerjon;704459And people try to say Onetrueway is never touted around here.:rolleyes:
Show us on the doll where D&D touched you in a bad way.
Quote from: Old Geezer;704502You say that like it's a bad thing.
According to you it appears to be
D&D is a game in which things may happen that remind you of certain elements in certain stories, books, or movies. It is not and never was intended to be a way to emulate those stories, books, or movies.So which is it?
Quote from: ExploderwizardIf everyone is on the same page and no one is fooled into thinking an actual game of D&D is happening everything is ok. I might want to play a storygame if advertised as such if it sounds interesting and fun.
I guess I see your point - it's an advertising issue for you. I don't like the idea of being proscriptive about what D&D is and is not in some sort of clear-cut essentialist way - I think there are lots of different and unique and unusual ways to play D&D, all of them "correct" or "authentic" - but I see where you're coming from.
Quote from: Steerpike;704528I guess I see your point - it's an advertising issue for you. I don't like the idea of being proscriptive about what D&D is and is not in some sort of clear-cut essentialist way - I think there are lots of different and unique and unusual ways to play D&D, all of them "correct" or "authentic" - but I see where you're coming from.
Its simmilar to how some board gamers extoll Arkham Horror as a storytelling game, or an RPG. When it is neither. It simply happens to be structured such that you can use it as a sort of storytelling framework.
Though I have to agree that if you are using D&D as a pure storytelling basis. Then it is not D&D anymore. D&D though has been a hybrid since nearly the getgo. IE: Roll and describe the action/effect. As opposed to just roll and call damage.
Course different players have some wildly different ideas of what a storytelling game even is. Someone was recently elsewhere arguing that RPGs are a subset of storytelling games. Rather than their own game type with overlaps with RPGs.
I have played Arkahm Horror thre etimes, and I would call it a boardgame.
No idea why anyone would call it a story game.
When I play monopoly, I guess its a story game too?
Quote from: Sommerjon;704513According to you it appears to be
D&D is a game in which things may happen that remind you of certain elements in certain stories, books, or movies. It is not and never was intended to be a way to emulate those stories, books, or movies.
So which is it?
When you learn the difference between a familliar element and emulation do get back to us, ok?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704554When you learn the difference between a familliar element and emulation do get back to us, ok?
:rotfl: Nice try, sbcd.
Quote from: OmegaThough I have to agree that if you are using D&D as a pure storytelling basis. Then it is not D&D anymore. D&D though has been a hybrid since nearly the getgo. IE: Roll and describe the action/effect. As opposed to just roll and call damage.
Course different players have some wildly different ideas of what a storytelling game even is. Someone was recently elsewhere arguing that RPGs are a subset of storytelling games. Rather than their own game type with overlaps with RPGs.
I'll concede that if you're using D&D on a "pure" storytelling basis that wouldn't really be D&D as typically described. But almost no games could be considered that pure. Maybe
The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen might come close, but things like
Fate or
Monsterhearts or
Apocalypse World aren't "pure" storygames anymore than D&D is a pure roleplaying game. Basically I think it's possible to play a more storygamey/narrativist type D&D (or just a less lethal D&D) without having to stop calling it D&D. The very nature of the game, with its diverse array of editions, long tradition of houseruling, and DIY community ensures that "D&D" does not refer to one type of game or one set of consistent gaming experiences.
Quote from: Steerpike;704577I'll concede that if you're using D&D on a "pure" storytelling basis that wouldn't really be D&D as typically described. But almost no games could be considered that pure. Maybe The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen might come close, but things like Fate or Monsterhearts or Apocalypse World aren't "pure" storygames anymore than D&D is a pure roleplaying game. Basically I think it's possible to play a more storygamey/narrativist type D&D (or just a less lethal D&D) without having to stop calling it D&D. The very nature of the game, with its diverse array of editions, long tradition of houseruling, and DIY community ensures that "D&D" does not refer to one type of game or one set of consistent gaming experiences.
If the purpose of play is to create collaborative fiction then D&D has been wandered away from.
Not that narrative games don't involve roleplaying its just the nature of the role that sets them apart.
Players of D&D roleplay adventurers. Narrative game PCs roleplay co-storytellers, quite often from the perspective of characters in the story. This is quite a big fundamental difference in both approach to the game, and the ultimate purpose of play (beyond just having fun which is shared between the game types.)
Quote from: Steerpike;704577I'll concede that if you're using D&D on a "pure" storytelling basis that wouldn't really be D&D as typically described.
Actually, it wouldn't be D&D at all.
D&D can be played in any style. Or at least, the original iteration of the game. I always saw that as one of the game's primary strengths that 3rd and 4th abandoned. The concept of "not really D&D" would be laughable in the 70s and early 80s, especially when the term was synonymous with role-playing game. If a player doesn't want to play a certain style, find another group. There's no reason for a fear of "incorrect play"
Quote from: Steerpike;704577I'll concede that if you're using D&D on a "pure" storytelling basis that wouldn't really be D&D as typically described. But almost no games could be considered that pure.
There's no such thing as a "pure" D&D game, particularly when considering the open ended nature of the original game, and the nature of the games that preceded its inception.
But there is a common thread in terms of game structures that's been there from the start, that has been gotten away from back and forth, and that's the basic, default premise of the game: that you are creating adventurers who explore dungeons and wilderness, overcome challenges, get to the treasure, level up, become lords and wizards of their lands, and so on. That's the basic campaign structure, and from OD&D vol 3 The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures to the Dungeon Master's Guide to the Red box of Mentzer being about dungeoneering and leading into the Blue box of wilderness exploration to the "Back to the Dungeon!" 3rd edition mantra and on and on, it's always been the premise the game was based on, though it's been forgotten at times by those who owned it.
Now that's a premise anybody can completely discard at will and play whatever using the D&D rules, but that's the basic premise of the game nonetheless. The more you stray away from that premise, the more likely the rules, their detail, as well as what is described and quantified versus what isn't, might come off as bizarre, archaic or wonky at times.
It's not a purity test or claiming that there's a "superior way" of playing or whatnot: it's just pointing out that there is a basic premise of the D&D game, and that you may be more, or less, in tune with it at your game tables. Not liking that default premise isn't a bad thing or a sign of inferior gaming, it's a preference, and there are tons of games out there with a medieval fantasy feel more or less in tune with one's preferences for people who don't care for D&D's premise: MERP, Rolemaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, Pendragon, RuneQuest, Hawkmoon, Stormbringer, Talislanta, 13th Age, Dragon Age, . . . literally HUNDREDS (if not thousands!) of fantasy medieval RPGs to choose from.
Likewise, it should be okay to actually LIKE that premise of the D&D game. Moreover, given the existence of all these games outside, and given the D&D game itself can be tweaked and changed in all sorts of ways whether by houserules, by selecting third party supplements from the OGL never ending font of D&D-related products, and so on, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that those who DO like the premise of the D&D game would like the D&D game to retain it as its core, default assumption.
It's not "onetrueway" or "badwrongfun" or whatever to say as much. If I want to play something else than D&D, I do: it's something I actually do, with a lot of different RPGs. I'd never consider my Paris by Night Chronicle to be inferior somehow to the Hobby Shop Dungeon. It's utter nonsense, to me. It's just DIFFERENT. Can we acknowledge that there are different things out there and that making everything wishy-washy and designing everything by the lowest common denominator yardstick to make everyone happy all the time might end up with a mountain of RPGs that all try to accomplish the same thing and suck equally in the end? Is having different RPGs for different play experiences okay, in this hobby? Well I certainly hope it is.
Vive la différence !
Quote from: TristramEvans;704583D&D can be played in any style. Or at least, the original iteration of the game. I always saw that as one of the game's primary strengths that 3rd and 4th abandoned. The concept of "not really D&D" would be laughable in the 70s and early 80s, especially when the term was synonymous with role-playing game. If a player doesn't want to play a certain style, find another group. There's no reason for a fear of "incorrect play"
There is no incorrect play possible. There is only D&D or NOT D&D. I can decide to run Fantasy Storytime Hour using OD&D and if we all had fun playing it nothing would be incorrect. That wouldn't make it D&D.
Some people just really do not like playing D&D yet seem to want to play it, but only by transforming it into something else first.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704583The concept of "not really D&D" would be laughable in the 70s and early 80s,
Quite incorrect. If someone in '77 had told a bunch of D&D players that they were going to run a D&D game and then at the start told them that they would be doing "collaborative story telling", it would have been a WTF! moment.
NO ONE who had shown up to play would have considered that "D&D".
Quote from: Arduin;704591Quite incorrect. If someone in '77 had told a bunch of D&D players that they were going to run a D&D game and then at the start told them that they would be doing "collaborative story telling", it would have been a WTF! moment.
NO ONE who had shown up to play would have considered that "D&D".
The idea you have that everyone has preconceived notions about what is D&D is a modern PoV.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704592The idea you have that everyone has preconceived notions about what is D&D is a modern PoV.
No. In '77 it was REALITY. OBVIOUSLY, you were NOT an adult playing D&D back then. THAT is 100% assured. Based on your non sequitur response you were probably not even old enough to read then.
Quote from: Arduin;704591Quite incorrect. If someone in '77 had told a bunch of D&D players that they were going to run a D&D game and then at the start told them that they would be doing "collaborative story telling", it would have been a WTF! moment.
NO ONE who had shown up to play would have considered that "D&D".
In all fairness, assuming the play group was completely unfamilliar with D&D,(very possible in 77) they wouldn't have batted an eye.
Whatever the DM ran would have been D&D to them. They simply would have no experience to compare it to.
Why do you think we have so many people now who began playing 2E in a narrative style who think that is D&D?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704594In all fairness, assuming the play group was completely unfamilliar with D&D,
Reread what I wrote. I said D&D players.
Quote from: Arduin;704593No. In '77 it was REALITY. OBVIOUSLY, you were NOT an adult playing D&D back then. THAT is 100% assured. Based on your non sequitur response you were probably not even old enough to read then.
That got your panties in a twist. You're once again misusing the term non sequitur. Are you even old enough to read now? Whatever you'd like to believe about reality, typing in caps does not make it so, and there's nothing besides your own arrogance that makes your experiences universal.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704596That got your panties in a twist
No. But, once again, you couldn't form a coherent response. AND, as you have ZERO experience with time period and material in question, it isn't surprising that you wouldn't know what a sequester response would be. That's not your fault though.
Quote from: Arduin;704597No. But, once again, you couldn't form a coherent response. AND, as you have ZERO experience with time period and material in question, it isn't surprising that you wouldn't know what a sequester response would be. That's not your fault though.
A lot of assumptions from someone who Ive yet to see put forth an argument on these boards that amounted to anything besides "Nope" or "Nuh-uh". When you're obviously talking out your ass about something everyone knows you're completely ignorant about, it just goes to highlight everything else you've said comes from a position of ignorance.
So, have fun with that.
Quote from: Benoist;704586There's no such thing as a "pure" D&D game, particularly when considering the open ended nature of the original game, and the nature of the games that preceded its inception.
But there is a common thread in terms of game structures that's been there from the start, that has been gotten away from back and forth, and that's the basic, default premise of the game: that you are creating adventurers who explore dungeons and wilderness, overcome challenges, get to the treasure, level up, become lords and wizards of their lands, and so on. That's the basic campaign structure, and from OD&D vol 3 The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures to the Dungeon Master's Guide to the Red box of Mentzer being about dungeoneering and leading into the Blue box of wilderness exploration to the "Back to the Dungeon!" 3rd edition mantra and on and on, it's always been the premise the game was based on, though it's been forgotten at times by those who owned it.
Now that's a premise anybody can completely discard at will and play whatever using the D&D rules, but that's the basic premise of the game nonetheless. The more you stray away from that premise, the more likely the rules, their detail, as well as what is described and quantified versus what isn't, might come off as bizarre, archaic or wonky at times.
It's not a purity test or claiming that there's a "superior way" of playing or whatnot: it's just pointing out that there is a basic premise of the D&D game, and that you may be more, or less, in tune with it at your game tables. Not liking that default premise isn't a bad thing or a sign of inferior gaming, it's a preference, and there are tons of games out there with a medieval fantasy feel more or less in tune with one's preferences for people who don't care for D&D's premise: MERP, Rolemaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, Pendragon, RuneQuest, Hawkmoon, Stormbringer, Talislanta, 13th Age, Dragon Age, . . . literally HUNDREDS (if not thousands!) of fantasy medieval RPGs to choose from.
Likewise, it should be okay to actually LIKE that premise of the D&D game. Moreover, given the existence of all these games outside, and given the D&D game itself can be tweaked and changed in all sorts of ways whether by houserules, by selecting third party supplements from the OGL never ending font of D&D-related products, and so on, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that those who DO like the premise of the D&D game would like the D&D game to retain it as its core, default assumption.
It's not "onetrueway" or "badwrongfun" or whatever to say as much. If I want to play something else than D&D, I do: it's something I actually do, with a lot of different RPGs. I'd never consider my Paris by Night Chronicle to be inferior somehow to the Hobby Shop Dungeon. It's utter nonsense, to me. It's just DIFFERENT. Can we acknowledge that there are different things out there and that making everything wishy-washy and designing everything by the lowest common denominator yardstick to make everyone happy all the time might end up with a mountain of RPGs that all try to accomplish the same thing and suck equally in the end? Is having different RPGs for different play experiences okay, in this hobby? Well I certainly hope it is.
Vive la différence !
Now, there are those out there who think that the D&D game would be more successful if it was basically GURPS Fantasy, if it was rebuilt and redesigned from the ground up with an all-inclusive approach and attempted to be everything to everyone.
I think these people are wrong.
I think the game play structures pioneered by D&D, by which I mean creating a band of adventurers exploring a dungeon that is drawn on graph paper by the DM and populated before the game, exploring the wilderness as well, then moving on by campaign osmosis into being part of the milieu, lords and wizards and guild masters and so on, are the absolute best there are to introduce new people to role playing games. There have been contenders in terms of structures, such as the investigation structure of games like CoC, the mission structure of games like James Bond 007, the network structure of games like Vampire, and so on. Traveller comes close with its band of people on a ship travelling across space with hexes and systems and stuff. None beat the genius of D&D's game structures, however.
It's genius because it's clear, concrete, practical, and progressive.
It's clear because there's a goal to the game and a simple premise: you play adventurers, you explore, you try to get to the treasure and survive. It answers the question "what do you DO in this game?" with a very clear, understandable premise that will sound like fun to many.
It's concrete because all the elements are laid out clearly in the rules books: you have classes to choose from, you have monsters to pick and choose from to populate your map. You draw your map physically on a piece of paper, and indicate physical challenges right there on the piece of paper.
It's practical because these concrete aspects are not that many to begin with. You have an adventurer. You have a map. You have rooms and doors and pits and traps and piles of loot. And from there all that remains to be done is play the game. A session can be put together in 20 minutes, assuming you doodle a small dungeon quickly and put some critters on it real fast while your buddies create their characters.
It's progressive because there is a transitional path from the dungeon and its concrete elements to the wider scale of the wilderness and more fluid paths of explorations via the hex grid (or whatnot) thus finding out about the wider world and then becoming part of this world with your keep or your tower and dealing with the neighboring fiefs and kingdoms and whatnot. By then all the elements can come together for you to have sessions that are made of pure political intrigue based on hours and hours of game play that led you there, instead of considering all these things like backstories and backgrounds and political relationships before the game even begins. Likewise the DM's world starts with the dungeon and grows from there as the campaign progresses, adding the hex map around, then wondering what the neighbouring kingdoms are, how that piece of the dungeon game play fits into the greater picture, to finally uncover what the greater picture and campaign edifice actually is.
I think there is no role playing game structure out there that rivals the brilliance of that progression, from the concrete beginnings and practical applications thereof, to the wider world and more abstract considerations coming into the picture as the campaign progresses. And since it is clearly, in my mind, the best role playing game play structure there is out there, it should totally remain central to the flagship of the role playing game hobby.
Getting rid of that central, fundamental aspect of the D&D game is a mistake. It's a mistake that's been done before, by various people in charge of the game at various times. Every single time, it's been proven to have been a mistake. We will always have people out there who believe the D&D game needs to be everything for everyone and from there attempt to reshape it to become GURPS Fantasy with Classes, and these people will be proven wrong again. And again.
In my oh-so-biased opinion.
Quote from: Arduin;704595Reread what I wrote. I said D&D players.
Existing D&D players? Then yup you would be correct.
Quote from: Benoist;704599Getting rid of that central, fundamental aspect of the D&D game is a mistake. It's a mistake that's been done before, by various people in charge of the game at various times. Every single time, it's been proven to have been a mistake. We will always have people out there who believe the D&D game needs to be everything for everyone and from there attempt to reshape it to become GURPS Fantasy with Classes, and these people will be proven wrong again. And again.
In my oh-so-biased opinion.
Oh hell yes. Let D&D just BE itself. Create as many dirivative spin-offs as it takes to find your perfect game.
I agree that playing a pure storygame and calling it D&D woul be disingenuous, but, as I said, I don't think that Fate or other commonly cited "storygames" are pure either.
Quote from: ExploderwizardPlayers of D&D roleplay adventurers. Narrative game PCs roleplay co-storytellers, quite often from the perspective of characters in the story. This is quite a big fundamental difference in both approach to the game, and the ultimate purpose of play (beyond just having fun which is shared between the game types.)
I understand your distinction, but I think it's a little too stark. For a long time now there have been D&D players who are conscious of their characters' arcs and the overall shape of the story and the campaign; they may not be full co-storytellers or anything like that, but especially in sandbox-style and open campaigns where the story is not simply handed down by the DM, players can help to create stories through their characters' actions. I'm not claiming D&D as a storygame in disguise or something, all I'm saying is that there can be
some overlap between the idea of D&D as "pure roleplaying game" and a more narrativist/storygame style of play that privileges story in certain ways. In other words, I think that there can be more than one "purpose of play," and the actual "purpose(s)" may vary from player to play and moment to moment and game to game.
Quote from: ExploderwizardThat wouldn't make it D&D.
I guess I feel you're insisting too strongly on a concrete, fixed-in-stone definition of D&D, while I feel that the term "D&D" has become considerably more amorphous. Would you consider 4th edition D&D? Does setting matter to you? How about Arcana Unearthed/Evoled - is that D&D? If I used the AD&D rules set but homebrewed all of my races and classes and set the whole thing in an abandoned space station's holodeck would that be D&D? What if I use the 3rd edition rules-set but use the optional rules for action points, which afford players a limited amount of narrative control?
My feeling is that you don't care about setting variation, it's just that the moment players start doing anything other than roleplaying their characters the game has ceased to be D&D. Would that amply sum up your position?
We can always agree to disagree, of course. Ultimately this is kind of a semantic dispute more than anything.
Quote from: BenoistBut there is a common thread in terms of game structures that's been there from the start, that has been gotten away from back and forth, and that's the basic, default premise of the game: that you are creating adventurers who explore dungeons and wilderness, overcome challenges, get to the treasure, level up, become lords and wizards of their lands, and so on. That's the basic campaign structure, and from OD&D vol 3 The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures to the Dungeon Master's Guide to the Red box of Mentzer being about dungeoneering and leading into the Blue box of wilderness exploration to the "Back to the Dungeon!" 3rd edition mantra and on and on, it's always been the premise the game was based on, though it's been forgotten at times by those who owned it.
As usual, Benoist, you have insightful things to say.
I agree that this is absolutely the default premise. But from the roots of D&D onwards there has been much emphasis placed on the individuality of campaigns and the level of freedom inherent in the game - an awareness that while D&D may have a basic default structure this is certainly not the only structure permissible, and other structures and styles can still claim to be "D&D" nonetheless.
I'm not saying you're arguing otherwise, necessarily, all I want to put pressure on is the idea that straying from the default or basic premise makes the game in any way "less D&D."
Here are a few quotes from the AD&D Player's Handbook that I think speak to the point I'm trying to express:
Quote from: AD&D PHBA fantasy role playing game is an exercise in imagination and personal creativity.
Quote from: AD&D PHBThis game lets all of your fantasies come true.
Quote from: AD&D PHBEnjoy, for this game is what dreams are made of!
Quote from: AD&D PHBEach individual campaign has its own distinct properties and "flavor".
Quote from: AD&D PHBThis game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, and it is integral to the game.
Quote from: AD&D PHBYou, the reader, as a member of the campaign community, do not belong if the game seems wrong in any major aspect. Withdraw and begin your own campaign by creating a milieu which suits you and the group which you must form to enjoy the creation.
I would argue that these principles suggest that the boundaries of what is and is not D&D are fairly fluid. The game encourages customization and house-ruling and idiosyncratic forms of play. It emphasizes that neither the rules nor the setting (or any other "major aspect" of the game) are set in stone. I don't think that including some aspects of a storygame - like affording the players some degree of narrative control - violate some iron-clad definition of what D&D must or must not be.
Quote from: BenoistMoreover, given the existence of all these games outside, and given the D&D game itself can be tweaked and changed in all sorts of ways whether by houserules, by selecting third party supplements from the OGL never ending font of D&D-related products, and so on, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that those who DO like the premise of the D&D game would like the D&D game to retain it as its core, default assumption.
I think this is what I'm critiquing a bit - this sort of defensive or conservative stance to protect or enshrine the default premise of D&D as not just a
default mode of play, but as a "truer" form of D&D than other versions or variants, an Amber to which other forms of play are mere Shadows.
Quote from: Benoistan we acknowledge that there are different things out there and that making everything wishy-washy and designing everything by the lowest common denominator yardstick to make everyone happy all the time might end up with a mountain of RPGs that all try to accomplish the same thing and suck equally in the end? Is having different RPGs for different play experiences okay, in this hobby? Well I certainly hope it is.
Here, here!
I totally agree. The only thing I want to add or acknowledge is that embracing diversity amongst multiple games shouldn't restrict the freedom that was already inherent in D&D itself as a particular game. One of the great things, to me, about D&D in the TSR era was the enormous wealth of diversity amongst settings, from the SF weirdness of Spelljammer to the philosophical surrealism of Planescape to the campy horror of Ravenloft to the Mad-Max-esque grittiness of Dark Sun. I get that none of these are "storygames" in any sense of the term, of course, but they do represent considerable departures from the default premise of the game - in Planescape, for example, combat is discouraged quite heavily at times, in favour of urban intrigue and debate. I think losing that diversity and freedom
within D&D by insisting too strongly on what is and isn't D&D does the game a bit of a disservice. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704601Existing D&D players? Then yup you would be correct.
Nah, it's just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. "D&D players" doesn't mean people who learned to play the game in one specific manner. Even Gygax acknowledged the existence of multiple playstyles, even as he switched to his marketing-agenda "OneTrueWay" stance in the 80s.
I personally want D&D to have a broadness to it that allows for a range of playstyles and adventures. I like dungeons but they are not my favorite type of play. I am much more of a Ravenloft and Dark sun style player, so I like when the game allows for those things. I think at this point the game has changed to accomodate different preferences and styles. Not sure that is a bad thing. At the same time folks shouldn't spit on the past. I do see a lot of hostility to the early material from certain quarters and the truth is you can always learn by going back to that material.
Quote from: Steerpike;704602I understand your distinction, but I think it's a little too stark. For a long time now there have been D&D players who are conscious of their characters' arcs and the overall shape of the story and the campaign; they may not be full co-storytellers or anything like that, but especially in sandbox-style and open campaigns where the story is not simply handed down by the DM, players can help to create stories through their characters' actions. I'm not claiming D&D as a storygame in disguise or something, all I'm saying is that there can be some overlap between the idea of D&D as "pure roleplaying game" and a more narrativist/storygame style of play that privileges story in certain ways. In other words, I think that there can be more than one "purpose of play," and the actual "purpose(s)" may vary from player to play and moment to moment and game to game.
Emergent gameplay having an impact on the setting is not creating stories.
You can tell stories about what happened during actual play, but that is different from the stories and their creation
being the purpose of that actual play.
Quote from: Steerpike;704602I guess I feel you're insisting too strongly on a concrete, fixed-in-stone definition of D&D, while I feel that the term "D&D" has become considerably more amorphous. Would you consider 4th edition D&D? Does setting matter to you? How about Arcana Unearthed/Evoled - is that D&D? If I used the AD&D rules set but homebrewed all of my races and classes and set the whole thing in an abandoned space station's holodeck would that be D&D? What if I use the 3rd edition rules-set but use the optional rules for action points, which afford players a limited amount of narrative control?
My feeling is that you don't care about setting variation, it's just that the moment players start doing anything other than roleplaying their characters the game has ceased to be D&D. Would that amply sum up your position?
We can always agree to disagree, of course. Ultimately this is kind of a semantic dispute more than anything.
"Fantasy Roleplaying" is already a servicable amorphous term for gameplay beyond the scope of D&D.
Quote from: Steerpike;704602I totally agree. The only thing I want to add or acknowledge is that embracing diversity amongst multiple games shouldn't restrict the freedom that was already inherent in D&D itself as a particular game. One of the great things, to me, about D&D in the TSR era was the enormous wealth of diversity amongst settings, from the SF weirdness of Spelljammer to the philosophical surrealism of Planescape to the campy horror of Ravenloft to the Mad-Max-esque grittiness of Dark Sun. I get that none of these are "storygames" in any sense of the term, of course, but they do represent considerable departures from the default premise of the game - in Planescape, for example, combat is discouraged quite heavily at times, in favour of urban intrigue and debate. I think losing that diversity and freedom within D&D by insisting too strongly on what is and isn't D&D does the game a bit of a disservice. Does that make sense?
Back to the original thread topic, D&D discouraged engaging in a lot of combat via the lethality of the combat rules.
The default premise of the game, which Ben summed up quite nicely, was about exploration, and attaining wealth & fame. If urban intrigue and debate was the best path to wealth and fame then so be it.
Quote from: Steerpike;704602As usual, Benoist, you have insightful things to say.
I agree that this is absolutely the default premise. But from the roots of D&D onwards there has been much emphasis placed on the individuality of campaigns and the level of freedom inherent in the game - an awareness that while D&D may have a basic default structure this is certainly not the only structure permissible, and other structures and styles can still claim to be "D&D" nonetheless.
I'm not saying you're arguing otherwise, necessarily, all I want to put pressure on is the idea that straying from the default or basic premise makes the game in any way "less D&D."
Here are a few quotes from the AD&D Player's Handbook that I think speak to the point I'm trying to express:
(...)
I would argue that these principles suggest that the boundaries of what is and is not D&D are fairly fluid. The game encourages customization and house-ruling and idiosyncratic forms of play. It emphasizes that neither the rules nor the setting (or any other "major aspect" of the game) are set in stone. I don't think that including some aspects of a storygame - like affording the players some degree of narrative control - violate some iron-clad definition of what D&D must or must not be.
First, I agree that the D&D game is open by nature and should be adaptable to one's needs. I do also believe that things like houseruling, variant rules, and the like, should be encouraged not only in the advice, but tools be also provided via supplements, addendum and the like. I'm a strong believer in the "toolkit" aspect of the O/AD&D rules, and that goes with the territory, to me.
I think there are two things which are part of the game here, and are complementary, not opposites: first, there is a framework, which, while itself loose, defines what D&D is and isn't. The framework is developed through the rules and advice as presented in the rules books (I'm talking now specifically of AD&D first edition because that's what you quoted to me). And then there is leeway given to the individual DM to use that framework in the most imaginative and pleasurable ways, with the obvious nature of the game being that the end user becomes the creator as well, and that the group as it plays actually creates the adventure gaming that the game posits. So. On one hand you have the framework that defines AD&D, and on the other hand you have tremendous leeway within that framework to tweak, twist, discard, add and subtract what you like to make the campaign your own.
Quote from: Steerpike;704602I think this is what I'm critiquing a bit - this sort of defensive or conservative stance to protect or enshrine the default premise of D&D as not just a default mode of play, but as a "truer" form of D&D than other versions or variants, an Amber to which other forms of play are mere Shadows.
There are campaigns which will be more or less in tune with the framework as presented in the rules books, yes. Construing it as "truer" D&D is one way to characterize the idea, which certainly can come off as overly dismissive and could be communicated much better. But the fact remains that the D&D game does include a specific framework and that its design is predicated on a certain game play and accompanying structures. It is not "onetrueway-ist" to say that: it's a fact.
So while there is such a thing as a campaign that is more or less adhering to the framework and game play structures of the D&D game, it is ALSO true that you are given freedom to get away from these structures if you want to. Therefore, you could say there is such a thing as a campaign "truer" to the D&D framework than another, and that certainly is a point after which a campaign ceases to be "D&D" as defined by that framework, this same framework also specifies that deviations and variants should be your province, and that you are entitled to run the campaign that fits your game the most. These are complementary, not opposite assertions. So there is such a thing as a default D&D game, but deviations and variants are to be expected because of the very nature of the game.
Quote from: Steerpike;704602Here, here!
I totally agree. The only thing I want to add or acknowledge is that embracing diversity amongst multiple games shouldn't restrict the freedom that was already inherent in D&D itself as a particular game. One of the great things, to me, about D&D in the TSR era was the enormous wealth of diversity amongst settings, from the SF weirdness of Spelljammer to the philosophical surrealism of Planescape to the campy horror of Ravenloft to the Mad-Max-esque grittiness of Dark Sun. I get that none of these are "storygames" in any sense of the term, of course, but they do represent considerable departures from the default premise of the game - in Planescape, for example, combat is discouraged quite heavily at times, in favour of urban intrigue and debate. I think losing that diversity and freedom within D&D by insisting too strongly on what is and isn't D&D does the game a bit of a disservice. Does that make sense?
It does. I think that the real strength of AD&D2 was what you just talked about: its settings, their number and variety thereof. The problem is that AD&D2 threw the baby out with the bathwater when it excised all presence of Gary Gygax within its framework. By getting rid of Gygax, and excising what made the game his, what you basically were left with was late 1E to build on, the legacy of Zeb Cook, Doug Niles, Tracy Hickman, Margaret Weis, Jeff Grubb and others. So, though the actual detail of the rules is really close to the First Edition rules, the explicit default approach of AD&D2 is the approach of Dragonlance, the Survival Guides and so on: this is a game where you build a story, with story lines, plots, and so on, with the central unit of the game being the "encounter" in a purely D&D-game-unit sense, not in the usual parlance word sense (see 2nd edition Dungeon Master's Guide for that, and as you know, that would carry over into 3rd and 4th ed with different applications). So it's basically given up on what I just construed as the single most important piece of D&D design: the game structure that made it a winner.
Now what I think is totally possible is to have the best of both worlds, if you align your ducks correctly. What I mean by this is that you can have a D&D game that is first and foremost that framework I was just talking about with the dungeon, the wilderness, the exploration, the growing into the campaign milieu and so on, thus ensuring that the game retains this formidable strength in terms of game structures, and THEN with different settings and supplements open up those horizons so that people who want to play different games where the D&D rules framework would be an asset CAN do that and have some support doing so. A fresh take on the game might include "construing the game as a storytelling exercise" with a whole set of variants and modifications helping groups of players that want that while still using the core D&D rules to achieve it.
So you could do both. But one needs to align the ducks correctly. D&D Next in that regard has been talking the talk ad nauseam. Whether the actual end product will be anything like this concept I just described, we'll see. The devil will be in the details.
Quote from: ExploderwizardEmergent gameplay having an impact on the setting is not creating stories.
You can tell stories about what happened during actual play, but that is different from the stories and their creation being the purpose of that actual play.
I see your point, but I think the distinction is a bit muddier (or can be a bit muddier) than you're claiming. I think there can be significant overlap and co-existence between roleplaying and storytelling. They are not oil and water. I don't think a game falls entirely under one heading or the other. And I think it's possible to play D&D while mixing in a little storytelling/storygaming. Given the way D&D has defined itself - that is to say, loosely and flexibly, with great emphasis placed on customization, house-ruling, idiosyncrasy, and experimentation - I think it's OK to still consider such a game "D&D." I certainly would.
Quote from: ExploderwizardBack to the original thread topic, D&D discouraged engaging in a lot of combat via the lethality of the combat rules.
Original D&D definitely did this. More recent editions have emphasized combat a great deal more. Do 3rd and 4th not count as D&D for you? I mean, I don't like 4th edition much at all, but I'd still consider it a form of D&D, just a form I don't like. My definition of D&D encompasses a fairly wide variety of different forms, play-styles, and assumptions, some of which I don't like.
I'm not sure, at this point, that we're going to convince each other of much: our positions are pretty well defined, although that has value in and of itself so at least it's not a wasted discussion :). As I'm reading your position, you have a pretty narrow definition about what qualifies or counts as D&D, one based around a particular set of core assumptions about the game and a tightly circumscribed focus, whereas I'm arguing for a broader, more liberal/flexible understanding of the game that accommodates a wider variety of play. Is that an adequate summation?
Quote from: BenoistSo while there is such a thing as a campaign that is more or less adhering to the framework and game play structures of the D&D game, it is ALSO true that you are given freedom to get away from these structures if you want to. Therefore, you could say there is such a thing as a campaign "truer" to the D&D framework than another, and that certainly is a point after which a campaign ceases to be "D&D" as defined by that framework, this same framework also specifies that deviations and variants should be your province, and that you are entitled to run the campaign that fits your game the most. These are complementary, not opposite assertions. So there is such a thing as a default D&D game, but deviations and variants are to be expected because of the very nature of the game.
Again, I think we're mostly on the same page, and we're really zeroing in on what's more of a terminological/semantic dispute.
I would make a big distinction between the "default" premise of D&D and the "true" version of D&D. I have no issue with defining the
default D&D in the way that's been described. But I would argue that this style or play, this form of the game, though the default, is no more the "pure" or "true" form than any other style. The plethora of editions and settings, all of which promulgate different play-styles, different versions of the premise, further complicate any conception of a true/pure form of D&D. In my mind, at least, 4th edition D&D is as much D&D as 1st edition AD&D, for example but those editions have wildly different assumptions about the abilities and motivations of characters, the prevalence of combat, and what an average session looks like. Although I greatly prefer the default premises, assumptions, and execution of earlier editions, I consider 4th edition just as "true" or authentic a variety of D&D - it's just a form I dislike.
Quote from: BenoistThe problem is that AD&D2 threw the baby out with the bathwater when it excised all presence of Gary Gygax within its framework.
I will concur here. I'm all for keeping the spirit of Gygax alive when it comes to the default premise, so long as that doesn't discourage diversity and variation. I worry a bit that
too great an emphasis on a Gygaxian milieu in the DIY community might inhibit creativity within the boundaries of "D&D" more broadly; I don't want D&D to be
reduced to its Gygaxian milieu, in other words. This is probably an unfounded concern, though.
Quote from: BenoistSo you could do both. But one needs to align the ducks correctly. D&D Next in that regard has been talking the talk ad nauseam. Whether the actual end product will be anything like this concept I just described, we'll see. The devil will be in the details.
Yeah, that's an apt summation. Again, great discussion.
Quote from: Benoist;704599Now, there are those out there who think that the D&D game would be more successful if it was basically GURPS Fantasy, if it was rebuilt and redesigned from the ground up with an all-inclusive approach and attempted to be everything to everyone.
I think these people are wrong.
I think the game play structures pioneered by D&D, by which I mean creating a band of adventurers exploring a dungeon that is drawn on graph paper by the DM and populated before the game, exploring the wilderness as well, then moving on by campaign osmosis into being part of the milieu, lords and wizards and guild masters and so on, are the absolute best there are to introduce new people to role playing games. There have been contenders in terms of structures, such as the investigation structure of games like CoC, the mission structure of games like James Bond 007, the network structure of games like Vampire, and so on. Traveller comes close with its band of people on a ship travelling across space with hexes and systems and stuff. None beat the genius of D&D's game structures, however.
It's genius because it's clear, concrete, practical, and progressive.
It's clear because there's a goal to the game and a simple premise: you play adventurers, you explore, you try to get to the treasure and survive. It answers the question "what do you DO in this game?" with a very clear, understandable premise that will sound like fun to many.
It's concrete because all the elements are laid out clearly in the rules books: you have classes to choose from, you have monsters to pick and choose from to populate your map. You draw your map physically on a piece of paper, and indicate physical challenges right there on the piece of paper.
It's practical because these concrete aspects are not that many to begin with. You have an adventurer. You have a map. You have rooms and doors and pits and traps and piles of loot. And from there all that remains to be done is play the game. A session can be put together in 20 minutes, assuming you doodle a small dungeon quickly and put some critters on it real fast while your buddies create their characters.
It's progressive because there is a transitional path from the dungeon and its concrete elements to the wider scale of the wilderness and more fluid paths of explorations via the hex grid (or whatnot) thus finding out about the wider world and then becoming part of this world with your keep or your tower and dealing with the neighboring fiefs and kingdoms and whatnot. By then all the elements can come together for you to have sessions that are made of pure political intrigue based on hours and hours of game play that led you there, instead of considering all these things like backstories and backgrounds and political relationships before the game even begins. Likewise the DM's world starts with the dungeon and grows from there as the campaign progresses, adding the hex map around, then wondering what the neighbouring kingdoms are, how that piece of the dungeon game play fits into the greater picture, to finally uncover what the greater picture and campaign edifice actually is.
I think there is no role playing game structure out there that rivals the brilliance of that progression, from the concrete beginnings and practical applications thereof, to the wider world and more abstract considerations coming into the picture as the campaign progresses. And since it is clearly, in my mind, the best role playing game play structure there is out there, it should totally remain central to the flagship of the role playing game hobby.
Getting rid of that central, fundamental aspect of the D&D game is a mistake. It's a mistake that's been done before, by various people in charge of the game at various times. Every single time, it's been proven to have been a mistake. We will always have people out there who believe the D&D game needs to be everything for everyone and from there attempt to reshape it to become GURPS Fantasy with Classes, and these people will be proven wrong again. And again.
In my oh-so-biased opinion.
Bravo Ben; brilliant post.
Quote from: Steerpike;704618Again, I think we're mostly on the same page, and we're really zeroing in on what's more of a terminological/semantic dispute.
Yes. I think we are in agreement. It's not about "purity tests" and "superior gaming". It's about acknowledging that there is a premise to the D&D game, and that individual campaigns are more or less in tune with that premise in the first place, while also retaining that premise at the core of the D&D game because of its inherent brilliance, as I explained before.
Quote from: Steerpike;704618I will concur here. I'm all for keeping the spirit of Gygax alive when it comes to the default premise, so long as that doesn't discourage diversity and variation. I worry a bit that too great an emphasis on a Gygaxian milieu in the DIY community might inhibit creativity within the boundaries of "D&D" more broadly; I don't want D&D to be reduced to its Gygaxian milieu, in other words. This is probably an unfounded concern, though.
I think it is an unfounded concern as well. I think that you will always have people who push the boundaries and try to play in different ways, on one hand, and on the other hand I think the "Gygaxian premise" is itself a formidably versatile idea and structure. It's actually amazing just how much you can do with with a dungeon structure, and what kind of directions you can take it. I actually theorized on the versatility of that structure in another discussion some time ago and came up with an idea putting in play an AD&D dungeon and a CoC conspiracy reflecting one another on a structural level. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=537094&postcount=92) One day I'm going to actually do it with a dual-game module specifically geared towards making that mirror-universe premise work in practice.
Quote from: Steerpike;704618Yeah, that's an apt summation. Again, great discussion.
Agreed!
Quote from: S'mon;704640Bravo Ben; brilliant post.
Thanks. :)
Quote from: Bill;704550I have played Arkahm Horror thre etimes, and I would call it a boardgame.
No idea why anyone would call it a story game.
When I play monopoly, I guess its a story game too?
hah! If you are telling a story with it while playing then by their argument. Yes. Though to be fair I do not think anyone ever has made such a claim of Monopoly.
I usually argue then that at that point Chess and Tic-Tac-Toe are RPGs and Storygames because you can use those too to make a story or play pretend and RP out the actions. The fact you can use a wrench as a hammer does not make the wrench a hammer. You can hammer with it (likely badly.) But it is not designed to hammer. But that is a personal irk for another day..
Same argument for D&D. It can be used to play a storytelling game. But it is not itself a storytelling game. You can use D&D to play a wargame. But D&D iteself is not a wargame (Least till Chainmaile/Battlesystem/Birthright introduced an add on wargame to D&D).
Which comes around to mortality.
The game is not designed to kill characters left and right. It can very well do so. But that is not the focus.
A more narrative or plot driven playstyle will tend to lean to a less lethal start. It is a very short story if the group gets wiped out within effectively the first page of the tale unless it is one of those... "And the story moves on" sort of setups. But the story may never move on if no one lives long enough to move.
A more "play as you go" or zero-to-hero" style can be more open for frequent deaths.
etc.
If a group is fine with high mortality then blaze away. Eventually someone is going to make it past level 5. Those few that do will be likely well reguarded for such a feat. They may even hit a point where they are no longer so much in threat of immenent death.
If a group wants more to actually get on with things and not be pulling out a new character every 10 min then blaze away. Eventually they will hit a point where the tale needs the threat of immenent death and the players will be ready and acceptible of it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
I don't think a game should change just because a potential player has issues. A GM is not helping a player if they are enabling or coddling them.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;704719I don't think a game should change just because a potential player has issues. A GM is not helping a player if they are enabling or coddling them.
But they are not helping the player by killing the characters off over and over and over either.
Find the middle ground where possible. Even if that middle is one extreme or the other. After that things may over time adjust to some balance.
Too much mortality is just as bad as too little.
Quote from: Omega;704722But they are not helping the player by killing the characters off over and over and over either.
Find the middle ground where possible. Even if that middle is one extreme or the other. After that things may over time adjust to some balance.
Too much mortality is just as bad as too little.
What I meant was, GMs and players need only play by the rules of an RPG without dumbing-down the rules. GMs killing off their players is a whole different matter. If players can't follow instructions for RPGs, or go "Whaaaa!" if they think there is a possibility of character death, they need to find another hobby is all.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;704728What I meant was, GMs and players need only play by the rules of an RPG without dumbing-down the rules. GMs killing off their players is a whole different matter. If players can't follow instructions for RPGs, or go "Whaaaa!" if they think there is a possibility of character death, they need to find another hobby is all.
True. Its an RPG with usually lots of combat. Combat tends to be lethal.
There should be the threat of death. Just not the threat of excessive death. Unless you are playing Crushed. In which case you'll probably be killed a few times before you even get to the adventure site. Remember to loot your body when you get back to wherever it was you last got offed.
Quote from: Omega;704732True. Its an RPG with usually lots of combat. Combat tends to be lethal.
There should be the threat of death. Just not the threat of excessive death. Unless you are playing Crushed. In which case you'll probably be killed a few times before you even get to the adventure site. Remember to loot your body when you get back to wherever it was you last got offed.
It is the quite possible that players may possess the ability to infer from multiple character deaths that engaging in 'lots of combat' just
might be the reason for the excessive lethality.
At that point they have the option of continuing the same thing expecting different results, or trying a new approach. One of these options is actually quite insane.
On a tangential note, I always thought it bad advice that "when the game feels like it's settling into a lull, attack the party in their sleep with bandits/ninjas." Sounds too contextually removed from the setting to just throw that out there whenever you feel the players are no longer juiced up to your liking. The players should have a say in their own thrill seeking by the choices they make in game.
That meaningful choice about danger relates to this topic. Considering old skool games pride themselves on their openness of choices, D&D would have to be played with a really jaundiced lens to feel such lethality is mandatory. It's not so much an argument about "yeah it's lethal, suck it up noob!" as it is about "why does the GM or players feel compelled to play in a manner they don't enjoy?"
It seems to me like a weird, passive aggressive "the mechanics made me do it!" complaint.
The ninjas dictum works for certain genres - superheroes, glamour espionage, etc. Its not something that would make sense for D&D under normal circumstances,
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;704719I don't think a game should change just because a potential player has issues. A GM is not helping a player if they are enabling or coddling them.
Quote from: Omega;704722But they are not helping the player by killing the characters off over and over and over either.
Find the middle ground where possible. Even if that middle is one extreme or the other. After that things may over time adjust to some balance.
Too much mortality is just as bad as too little.
I think there might be a misunderstanding at work here, as far as people like me enjoying lethal games are concerned.
First, to me, such things are discussed before hand by the participants. They should come to an agreement as to the type of game they would enjoy, including the level of lethality if that's relevant, and work from there. It's as simple as sitting down around a few beers and saying something like "so I got this old school dungeon you guys might want to explore, with the wilderness around and all that, the environment won't be 'level appropriate' all the time, it's this world you guys explore and you decide what you want to do, where you want to go, how you want to do it and so on."
Personally, whether I am a player or the DM, I want there to be choices. Choices are indeed paramount, because this is in part what makes me play role playing games instead of reading novels or watching movies in the first place. If I don't have choices in the game, why am I sitting there, exactly?
For choices to be real, they need to have consequences. This means that choices lead to different potential outcomes. So things like DM illusionism, fudging the dice to guarantee specific outcomes in the game, are right out as far as I'm concerned, whether I am a player or DM.
If we are talking about a game where the challenge is to explore the unknown, find some way to strike it rich and survive, then potential outcomes should include not only the threat of death, but also include the threat of excessive death, with the agreement that the DM is not the person triggering these consequences in the game, but rather it's the choices of the players, the way they explore, what they choose to confront or not, the particular ways they choose to approach threats during the exploration, that might lead to character deaths, along with the (hopefully mitigated, if the players are smart) luck of the dice at some point or other in the process.
The DM doesn't have some "creative agenda" during the game session that he puts into action deciding which character lives or which character dies according to some meta-considerations. The creative agenda, if any, was put into action before the game session when creating the environment to explore in the first place. During the game, the DM just role plays the environment - the environment is the DM's character, just like the players have theirs. The adventure, to me, is a function of the interaction of those two elements in a role playing game. It's entirely emergent from the actual play, rather than a story arc or plot determined before hand and worked into the game session in progress.
In that context, once an agreement has been made between players and DM, the game is what it is, and the outcomes emerge from the choices made by the players and the world living and breathing around them. There's no such thing as a "middle ground" or deus ex machina intervention that changes the deal because there would be "too much death" or "too little" - these things are the results of the choices of the participants, and if as a DM I screw with that, then I am removing one of the core components of what I think is enjoyable about a role playing game - that the choices you make in the fantasy world do matter, and that sometimes, this will mean the difference between life or death, going on with the same character, or rolling up a new one.
So it's really not a choice during the game to "strike the middle ground" and change die results, shift things around and go illusionist on the players. This is the type of things that tremendously reduces my enjoyment of a role playing game session, personally.
Ever get the feeling 90% of people's problems with gaming could be solved by talking to other people like a normal human being?
For a subculture that is known for its strong opinions online, it's astounding to me seem completely unwilling to discuss anything with people IRL.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704769Ever get the feeling 90% of people's problems with gaming could be solved by talking to other people like a normal human being?
I completely agree with that. 90% plus of these issues are resolved by two things: communication, talking to each other before, during and after game sessions, and trust, trust the players are not out to wreck your game world or cheat or whatnot, and trust the DM to be impartial, to do his thing as a referee and be fair in the adjudication of the game thereof. The two are linked, obviously - one feeds into the other, since you get to trust one another by talking to each other in the first place, and talking to each other increases the trust you have in one another's care for each other's concerns.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704754The ninjas dictum works for certain genres - superheroes, glamour espionage, etc. Its not something that would make sense for D&D under normal circumstances,
Yeah, it works in 4e D&D, which is functionally more of a superheroes game, if run right. I don't think it's a good idea in other editions of D&D.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704769Ever get the feeling 90% of people's problems with gaming could be solved by talking to other people like a normal human being?
For a subculture that is known for its strong opinions online, it's astounding to me seem completely unwilling to discuss anything with people IRL.
You know, for all my participation in arguments online about gaming, I think I've had all of zero issues in real life games. If we have issues we hash it out. I think I had a discussion with my brother about one game he was running straight out of an adventure path about how ridiculously sloggy one of the fights turned into, because the enemy was nigh unhittable, had invisibility powers, and could fear people. And we just kind of came to a conclusion of "Yeah, that one kind of sucked, it wasn't even a threat to you guys either it was just annoying". Other than that I can't even think of an issue I've had in a real life game, much less one that escalated to anything beyond discussion.
Wait, there was the one guy who got angry that my paladin in one game got bonus XP from the GM because we were getting our asses kicked by some kind of rock golem creature, so I told everyone else to run while I held it off... and then after they ran I somehow had a string of crazy good rolls and killed it. But he was just an angry gamer in general, and I kept out of it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704734It is the quite possible that players may possess the ability to infer from multiple character deaths that engaging in 'lots of combat' just might be the reason for the excessive lethality.
At that point they have the option of continuing the same thing expecting different results, or trying a new approach. One of these options is actually quite insane.
Absolutely true.
But sometimes the players aren't getting the choice about being thrown into combat over and over and over till they die. Ambushes, no chance to negotiate or surrender or flee and the players are not going to ever learn other methods because that particular group is getting none.
Mercifully that sort of problem is rare. At least I hope it is.
Also this assumes the players are ignoring DM advice. In which case again. They likely got what they deserved. Otherwise the players should not be expected to puzzle out that combat=dead if the DM has not said anything about it. They could easily just assume that combat and frequent death are the norm. Not the exception. So again the DM should be at least dropping hints so the players have a clue that their are options.
Quote from: Benoist;704765I think there might be a misunderstanding at work here, as far as people like me enjoying lethal games are concerned.
First, to me, such things are discussed before hand by the participants. They should come to an agreement as to the type of game they would enjoy, including the level of lethality if that's relevant, and work from there. It's as simple as sitting down around a few beers and saying something like "so I got this old school dungeon you guys might want to explore, with the wilderness around and all that, the environment won't be 'level appropriate' all the time, it's this world you guys explore and you decide what you want to do, where you want to go, how you want to do it and so on."
Personally, whether I am a player or the DM, I want there to be choices. Choices are indeed paramount, because this is in part what makes me play role playing games instead of reading novels or watching movies in the first place. If I don't have choices in the game, why am I sitting there, exactly?
For choices to be real, they need to have consequences. This means that choices lead to different potential outcomes. So things like DM illusionism, fudging the dice to guarantee specific outcomes in the game, are right out as far as I'm concerned, whether I am a player or DM.
If we are talking about a game where the challenge is to explore the unknown, find some way to strike it rich and survive, then potential outcomes should include not only the threat of death, but also include the threat of excessive death, with the agreement that the DM is not the person triggering these consequences in the game, but rather it's the choices of the players, the way they explore, what they choose to confront or not, the particular ways they choose to approach threats during the exploration, that might lead to character deaths, along with the (hopefully mitigated, if the players are smart) luck of the dice at some point or other in the process.
The DM doesn't have some "creative agenda" during the game session that he puts into action deciding which character lives or which character dies according to some meta-considerations. The creative agenda, if any, was put into action before the game session when creating the environment to explore in the first place. During the game, the DM just role plays the environment - the environment is the DM's character, just like the players have theirs. The adventure, to me, is a function of the interaction of those two elements in a role playing game. It's entirely emergent from the actual play, rather than a story arc or plot determined before hand and worked into the game session in progress.
In that context, once an agreement has been made between players and DM, the game is what it is, and the outcomes emerge from the choices made by the players and the world living and breathing around them. There's no such thing as a "middle ground" or deus ex machina intervention that changes the deal because there would be "too much death" or "too little" - these things are the results of the choices of the participants, and if as a DM I screw with that, then I am removing one of the core components of what I think is enjoyable about a role playing game - that the choices you make in the fantasy world do matter, and that sometimes, this will mean the difference between life or death, going on with the same character, or rolling up a new one.
So it's really not a choice during the game to "strike the middle ground" and change die results, shift things around and go illusionist on the players. This is the type of things that tremendously reduces my enjoyment of a role playing game session, personally.
That was my point earlier on.
The GM and players should be on the same wavelength as to what to expect.
The players shouldnt have to guess the lethality level or parse out that their are options when no hints are being given. With clues and hints the players will adjust as they go and learn.
If the players are getting warnings and hints and still insist on flailing away at everything then let the bodies fall where they may.
But there are also cases where the DM is new and simply isnt aware of certain factors yet. Adjusting in mid stride is part of learning for the DM too.
A personal example was 1e Shadowrun. My first gig GMing it and I tossed some, what I thought were, easy guards with automatics. The players would likely get shot up but if they worked together and used their medical resources then they likely would not have to abort before the final showdown. What I had not factored in was some odd quirk of automatics that increases penetration or damage. So the runners would instead of a challenging gunfight instead get filled full of holes. So on the fly I had to adjust the guards weapons to something that was not going to 95% likely kill the whole PC group. My goof and my adjustment learning something unforeseen.
Same applies to a new GM and a pack of kobolds with daggers. It may not be apparent untill the PCs meet them that it is a-lot more lethal than expected. The GM may adjust to tone things down to a more even stage. Or they may just assume that is how the game is.
Learning RPGing is like playing a branching path gamebook sometimes.
Quote from: Omega;704835Absolutely true.
But sometimes the players aren't getting the choice about being thrown into combat over and over and over till they die. Ambushes, no chance to negotiate or surrender or flee and the players are not going to ever learn other methods because that particular group is getting none.
Mercifully that sort of problem is rare. At least I hope it is.
Also this assumes the players are ignoring DM advice. In which case again. They likely got what they deserved. Otherwise the players should not be expected to puzzle out that combat=dead if the DM has not said anything about it. They could easily just assume that combat and frequent death are the norm. Not the exception. So again the DM should be at least dropping hints so the players have a clue that their are options.
There may be DMs who run combat as lethal as it is and offer combat and lots of it, as the only way available to play. Unless these DMs have players who love endlessly sending PCs into the grindhouse they won't have players for very long.
The lethal nature of combat in the original game is intentional. It is a message to players telling them that there is more to the game than endless battle. Frequent death is the club over the head in case the XP for treasure victory condition didn't stick.
The early players were wargamers. Wargaming centers on knowing your victory conditions and choosing the tactics that best help you achieve them. The victory conditions in D&D were 1- survive, 2- get as much loot as you can while remembering #1, and 3- becoming a power player in the game world by observing conditions 1 & 2.
Fighting is
one possible way to condition #2, but without meeting condition #1 it is kind of pointless.
This doesn't mean killing enemies or suffering casualties never happens. For strategic players, a fair fight is what awaits you at the end of a plan gone FUBAR.
My view may be unusual, but I've always seen D&D as similar to its predecessor Chainmail in being a game system kit that one can use to play a huge range of scenarios of one's devising: not only a "zero to superhero" scenario.
Another comparison would be Squad Leader. Ease of learning the complex rules is the one reason to start playing SL with scenarios that exclude heavy weapons, vehicles and so on. Old D&D is simpler, while recent editions (arguably more complicated than SL) front load the complexity of tactical rules right from the start.
I see no reason in principle that the game must be limited to a bildungsroman a la Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins, if the players prefer a picaresque a la Fafhrd and Gray Mouser. The rules set can handle both quite well!
In real life as well as fiction, different figures have different degrees and kinds of power when their biographies become most interesting. It's not what you've got, but what you do with it.
What matters is not how interesting a character is at arbitrary level X, but how interesting it becomes in the course of play, regardless of initial stats and situation.
The extreme power escalation is hardly typical of sword-and-sorcery fiction. Fritz Leiber's roguish duo get one story apiece devoted to a formative adventure. Howard's tales of Conan, and Moorcock's of Elric, jumped all over chronologically (the former starting his saga near the peak of the hero's career, the latter at the doom-laden end). Wagner's Kane repeatedly grasps and loses power.
In all these cases, the protagonist starts his chronicled career as a noteworthy figure, and his inherent powers do not vastly increase in an ever-upward spiral; the interest is in his responses to situations, not in his permanent acquisition of physical or supernatural might.
The complaint that low-level figures are too vulnerable is about as legitimate as the complaint that high-level figures are too invulnerable. Part of the game's appeal is how easy it is to modify to one's taste.
Empire of the Petal Throne cranked up lethality at all levels, and made a 10th-level warrior a fearsome engine of destruction even against figures of 6 or 7 HD, while remaining very obviously a variation on OD&D. Arduin and Hackmaster on one hand added gruesome critical hits, and on the other flattened the level curve by giving characters (and monsters in HM) a "kicker" of additional HP.
Quote from: Benoist;704656It's about acknowledging that there is a premise to the D&D game, and that individual campaigns are more or less in tune with that premise in the first place, while also retaining that premise at the core of the D&D game because of its inherent brilliance, as I explained before.
I agree with your assessment of the brilliant utility of what Gygax presented, but I am less comfortable with calling it exclusively "the" premise of D&D. I guess some people regard Gygaxian D&D the only true D&D, discounting Arneson's Blackmoor campaign as a "proto-D&D" beyond the pale.
Quote from: Phillip;704917I agree with your assessment of the brilliant utility of what Gygax presented, but I am less comfortable with calling it exclusively "the" premise of D&D. I guess some people regard Gygaxian D&D the only true D&D, discounting Arneson's Blackmoor campaign as a "proto-D&D" beyond the pale.
Dave's proto-D&D Blackmoor campaign was very much built on the premise that made it into the D&D game itself (vol 3 The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures). The premise was to explore the dungeons under Castle Blackmoor, and the player characters shifted early on from there to become the who's who of the town and neighbouring region, with the forces of the Egg of Coot as a major mover and shaker around as well.
So Blackmoor participated to this premise of the D&D game, and particular campaign developments that followed almost immediately are not contradicting it, on the contrary: they're a testament to the premise's versatility in the first place, IMO.
Quote from: Opaopajr;704752On a tangential note, I always thought it bad advice that "when the game feels like it's settling into a lull, attack the party in their sleep with bandits/ninjas." Sounds too contextually removed from the setting to just throw that out there whenever you feel the players are no longer juiced up to your liking.
My impression is that "Gygaxian naturalism" tended to get trumped by Gygaxian boredom. Hopefully it added to the players' fun as well, but if they weren't entertaining the DM then the DM would entertain himself.
Quote from: Phillip;704949My impression is that "Gygaxian naturalism" tended to get trumped by Gygaxian boredom. Hopefully it added to the players' fun as well, but if they weren't entertaining the DM then the DM would entertain himself.
That's true. "Gyagaxian naturalism" being a term made up very recently to describe what James M perceived in his columns.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;704355D&D is a game. As long as the player's expectation of playing Aragorn doesn't include the idea that he cannot die, D&D can handle it fine.
It can handle a deathless character just fine, too. Seriously, the way some figures go through resurrections and reincarnations, death is rather a minor bump in the road. The "kill you" part is generally less of a bother than the "and take your stuff" bit!
First time Ive heard the term 'Gygaxian naturalism', so googled it and found one of Grognardia's better entries, IMO. Sometimes wish Dwimmermount never happened as the egg that killed the goose that laid it.
Gygaxian naturalism is, as a concept, something Ive always looked for/strived for in my games.
The original Underworld & Wilderness Adventures recommended that wandering monster numbers should be based on the adventuring party's size. I suppose one could rationalize this "in world," but I think it basically reflects the fact that D&D originated first and foremost as a game, only incidentally as a simulation.
Huh, yeah, just googled it myself; though I'm sure it leads to the old traffic circle of "realism" arguments.
D&D is not meant to be "realistic," and it isn't meant to be a simulation, especially in regards to Forge jargon, either.
Some variants to which I am becoming more favorably inclined:
1) Give MUs d6 HD.
2) Cap "per level" type damage spells. AD&D 2E limits Magic Missile to 5 dice, Lightning Bolt to 10. That seems plenty to me, and Wizards have access to such higher-level nasties as Death Spell, Disintegrate and Meteor Swarm.
3) Either halt the spell-casting progression a lot earlier than 29th, or don't end the advancement of the powers of fighter and thief types at 17th. (Yes, thieves in 1E get better hit and save chances at 21st, but that's still weak sauce by comparison with spell casters.)
4) Give fighters a damage bonus, maybe 1/2 level rounded down, and probably a lesser one for clerics and thieves. This is mainly to keep duels among high-HP figures from taking so long, but it could also help offset the offensive powers of high-level MUs. (EDIT: If MUs get reduced to doing much flailing with fists or daggers, everyone else can grab a bag of popcorn and laugh.)
5) Limit undead turning to a number of HD based on the cleric's level, or a single individual of higher level if the table allows that. I'm inclined to go further and make it a 1st level spell.
It would take a lot more revision (e.g., of the spell list) really to balance character types by level and/or XP. I don't think WotC did a very good job with 3E, and 4E did it in a way that was far too radical a departure for my taste, but it would seem to make a better fit for the prevailing modes of play today. The original balance of factors was suited to a different campaign environment.
I think there's a pretty wide consensus that in most editions, spellcasters get too little early and too much late. Attempts to ameliorate the former problem by how the GM sets up the game situation tend to exacerbate the latter problem, so it would be better to put some thought into adjusting the basic rules.
Quote from: Benoist;704956D&D is not meant to be "realistic," and it isn't meant to be a simulation, especially in regards to Forge jargon, either.
I remember an early flap over the game's depiction of Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, Wizards, Orcs, etc., not being a good simulation of Tolkien's Middle Earth, and other complaints about its infidelity to Medieval reality.
On both counts, C&S would be a better choice (if you're not up to making your own house rules). D&D was put together not to model any particular fictional world, but to enable the exploration of all sorts of fantastic elements.
I tend toward having everything somewhere in the milieu, but other GMs might want to pick and choose.
Quote from: TristramEvans;704952First time Ive heard the term 'Gygaxian naturalism', so googled it and found one of Grognardia's better entries, IMO. Sometimes wish Dwimmermount never happened as the egg that killed the goose that laid it.
Gygaxian naturalism is, as a concept, something Ive always looked for/strived for in my games.
While I don't subscribe to James M's definition of Gygaxian Naturalism for reasons expressed above, I do think he was on to something, especially by comparison to later iterations of the game. I think this is why I feel D&D isn't "gamist" in the Forge sense either (or "narrativist" for that matter).
But what you are empathizing with here is definitely something that made its way down to Ernie's table via Gary, most probably, since one of the things we have been working at he and I is to give a sense of coherence of the fantasy game milieu within and beyond the Hobby Shop Dungeon. It's not an "all or nothing", all random and nonsensical, or all perfectly smoothed out and thoroughly explained, kind of thing. It's a balancing act between the demands of the game as such and the feeling of coherence the make-believe requires, of what to describe and not describe in order to give a sense of both believability AND whimsicality of the milieu, of providing starting points and means to visualize the milieu effectively, while letting each DM do his thing the way he wants it.
It's probably coming out more complicated than I want to express it, but to take an example, while the maps follow the lines of graph paper, that corridors are 10' wide and so on, there's actually an explanation for that fact. Likewise, though the physics of stacking dungeon levels could be debated ad nauseam, some peculiarities of the dungeon's physics have an explanation in the game world, while others have been considered from a more. . . Mundane, let's say, to not use the "R" word, point of view, such as the third-dimensional aspect of the construction and the way it affects the whole on multiple levels of logistics.
Quote from: Benoist;704956D&D is not meant to be "realistic," and it isn't meant to be a simulation, especially in regards to Forge jargon, either.
I'm not up on that jargon. Though in Traveller, the word gets bandied around along with verisimilitude and plausibility; I have to say that it also gets linked with some mind numbingly boring conceptualizations. In that way, I find the use annoying, and the argument for "realism", futile. There is actually another word that means "Gygaxian Naturalism", but I can't think of it.
Sometimes variants that reduce PC mortality are introduced primarily for other reasons.
One DM gives all characters maximum HP at 1st level, in order to emphasize the difference in training. Instead of luck giving an MU 4 times the points of a fighting man, the fighter gets 2.5 times the MU's allotment.
Another gives "normal man" or 1 HD figures 1-9 HP (Constitution/2, rounded down), then gives 1st-level characters their 1st HD in addition. This gives the average mundane figure 1/3 (d6) to 1/2 (d8) chance of getting killed in a single round, which would arguably be high if that represented a single blow from a hacking type medieval sword or such. It also makes classed figures clearly tougher, which better represents what some people make of their rarity and distinction. Elite monsters (chieftains, bodyguards, shamans, etc.) also get another dice added to their BTB allotment.
Most poisons in real life are not instantly deadly (to the inconvenience of ancient/medieval assassins), and a lot of combat wounds kill slowly with even 19th or early 20th c. medicine -- but might be remediated with magic. Some people like to have these factors reflected in their games for inherent interest, rather than to make life easy for PCs.
Quote from: The Were-Grognard;704165Maybe we (as DMs) should instill the idea in new players that beginning (A)D&D characters should not be invested heavily in. Instead of an actual character sheet (which looks semi-permanent), give them a blank sheet of paper. Encourage the disposable, beer & pretzels aspect of the game.
Index cards: the best friend a gamer could ask for.
QuoteMaybe that's why Monopoly doesn't have human-looking pawns. More fragile players might be emotionally distraught at a human-like figure having to go jail instead of say, a thimble.
I actually used Monopoly tokens when I first started playing -as well as plastic knights that used to come in bags like green army men. In large part because most miniatures back then looked like blobs of shit.
Quote from: Arduin;704405When it varies TOO much it is also known as stupidity. Followed usually by whining by someone about their 1st level character getting killed by an ogre... :pundit:
My very first character, Rollo the Thief, was killed in B2 by the ogre. My next character, Mollo the Magic-User, pelted the ogre with flaming oil, then ran like hell as the ogre burned for two rounds while chasing him, all the while getting shot with arrows by the other PCs.
I never fancied myself as any kind of tactical genius or awesome gamer. I just learn from obvious mistakes and I have little patience or sympathy for those who won't.
Quote from: jibbajibba;704277There is a disconnect there between the source fiction and the game. Yes itne hgame better that you hire a buch of guys and if they all die meh no biggie. But the inspirational source material where the 'hero' hires a bunch of mooks and they all die in his service ... well just isn't there.
Bullshit.
QuoteThere are parties, The Fellowship being the archetype, but all the protagonists are protagonists. Some stories have the guide or scout that helps out and usually dies but most of the source fiction is about heroes.
I guess you never watched any adventure movies made between 1930 and 1985.
QuoteWhen I started playing D&D I wasn't trying to emulate D&D I was trying to emulate Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit, or Narnia, or the legends of King Arthur or the legend of CuChulain or the last of the Mohecians etc etc .... my heroes weren't people that would take along a load of peasants as canon fodder. If they had been there my hero would have protected them from the bad guys at the cost of his own life becuase that is what heroes do.
Ever watch an obscure, low-budget matinee movie called...
...STAR WARS?
If you ever do get around to watching it, you'll notice that Princess Leia has a ship's crew and a dozen or so soldiers taking part in her mission. They are nameless, faceless characters who exist to get blown away by the bad guys.
While you're at it, check out any number of war movies or pirate movies where the hero(oes) have a crew of sailors or a squad of soldiers following them on their adventures, most of whom get killed.
The expendable crew member/soldier is is such a long-running cliche that Trekkies came up with a name for them: red shirts.
Quote from: Elfdart;705007If you ever do get around to watching it, you'll notice that Princess Leia has a ship's crew and a dozen or so soldiers taking part in her mission. They are nameless, faceless characters who exist to get blown away by the bad guys.
While you're at it, check out any number of war movies or pirate movies where the hero(oes) have a crew of sailors or a squad of soldiers following them on their adventures, most of whom get killed.
The expendable crew member/soldier is is such a long-running cliche that Trekkies came up with a name for them: red shirts.
This to a "T."
0 to 1st level D&D characters are those red shirts, not because it's some bad joke but because it is the players' actions that get to define them as heroes or fertilizer, not because of some arbitrary predestined decision made by the players or referee. Making that clear from the get go helps a lot of people not get torn up in the process. DCC made this beautifully clear in the character generation process. I started a D&D game off with everyone in the middle of a huge peasant revolt (0-level villagers) for the grinder and it really set the tone for them that they were just trying to survive of a very hazardous situation.
Lots of different ways to go at it. Lethal, 50/50, Allmost safe, etc.
DMs need to be up front about what threat level the session is using.
Players need to be aware that just flailing away at everything will likely = dead character/group.
DMs need to realize when an encounter is unintentionally overpowered and adjust as needed. But also not to go too easy on the players. Challenge does not mean trying to wipe them out every encounter.
Players should try to learn tactics and alternatives to combat. Negotiate, Bribery, Flee, Surrender even. Learn from mistakes. But also need to know when to speak up or object if things are getting senselessly lethal.
Quote from: Elfdart;700339When I kick off a campaign, I allow each player to choose from the following:
- one 2nd-level character
- two 1st-level characters
- one 1st-level and two men-at-arms (d6+1 hp, skilled with 2-3 weapons, THAC0 21)
- one 1st-level and three lackeys (d6 hp, skilled with 1-2 weapons*, THAC0 22)
* one of the two must be club, knife, hand axe or dagger
Lackeys who gain experience may become men-at-arms or possibly 1st-level PCs. Men-at-arms who gain experience may become 1st-level fighter-types.
I also allow 5 re-rolls that may be used at any time, from rolling stats, combat, saving throws, etc, etc.
Between the options of having backup PCs on hand, and getting five "do-overs", there has never been whining about the deadliness of the setting I run -and even with those bonuses, it's deadly.
That's some very neat ideas right there. Very good thinking. I guess I'm considering stealing these ideas.
Quote from: Phillip;704978Most poisons in real life are not instantly deadly (to the inconvenience of ancient/medieval assassins), and a lot of combat wounds kill slowly with even 19th or early 20th c. medicine -- but might be remediated with magic. Some people like to have these factors reflected in their games for inherent interest, rather than to make life easy for PCs.
Not all save or die poisons are instant either. The sting of a wyvern is fatal in 1-6 turns and the giant rattlesnake venom takes 1-4 turns.
Quote from: Omega;705010DMs need to be up front about what threat level the session is using.
:rotfl:
I'll remember this the next time I pull from Romper Room for my player pool.
Quote from: Arduin;705054:rotfl:
I'll remember this the next time I pull from Romper Room for my player pool.
As opposed to what? Throwing them into a meatgrinder and making them guess? Or putting on the kid gloves and leaving them wondering where the action is?
How is "This campaign will be playing fairly rough. Think things through or you will probably get your characters heads handed to them." wrong?
Quote from: Omega;705328As opposed to what? Throwing them into a meatgrinder and making them guess? Or putting on the kid gloves and leaving them wondering where the action is?
How is "This campaign will be playing fairly rough. Think things through or you will probably get your characters heads handed to them." wrong?
setting expectations is pretty key, as has been mentioned in many places. Especially at the campaign level, and even more so, when you run campaigns with new Players. It's actually pretty dumb to do otherwise.
Quote from: ArduinI'll remember this the next time I pull from Romper Room for my player pool.
Yeah I'll chime in here in puzzlement with Lord Vreeg and Omega. Are you saying it's best
not to discuss what kind of game you'll be playing and what players can (in very broad terms) expect? Or are you just saying you don't want to give too much away in individual sessions and areas, perhaps?
Quote from: Steerpike;705341Or are you just saying you don't want to give too much away in individual sessions and areas, perhaps?
This. PC's can use whatever they have to glean info about upcoming events. That's why they have spells, can hunt down seers, etc. I of course brief players on the world (what their PC's would know) before play starts.
But, engaging in a profession that revolves around wresting almost unbelievable (to the average NPC) amounts of treasure from evil monsters via murder and theft paints a self explanatory picture of the possible risk involved...
So how does the DM being up front about the threat level of their campaign equate to giving away too much?
"This is a harsh setting. Healing items and temples to raise may be hard to come by. These are the things your PC should know for this area based on how they started adventuring."
or
"Magic items are plentiful. But expect enemies to used them liberally too."
or even just.
"Combat is tough. Do not flail away at everything that moves. I am not going to pull punches."
I am not going to make the players try to guess things their characters should know of the campaign's common knowledge. IE: Dragonlance: No clerics. Alignment slide, Colour coded wizards, Minotaur PC race, etc. But nothing about draconians or other things that the characters would not know.
And I an not going to make them guess my play style as a DM. IE: I am not out to kill you. If I do not like an outcome of some roll or misjudged an encounter then I may adjust it on the fly to something more appropriate and you'll never know. But I am not going to pull punches. Actions have reactions. Think things through. You have options. Use em or or risk rolling a new character. etc.
Quote from: Arduin;705704This. PC's can use whatever they have to glean info about upcoming events. That's why they have spells, can hunt down seers, etc. I of course brief players on the world (what their PC's would know) before play starts.
But, engaging in a profession that revolves around wresting almost unbelievable (to the average NPC) amounts of treasure from evil monsters via murder and theft paints a self explanatory picture of the possible risk involved...
Quote from: Omega;705715I am not going to make the players try to guess things their characters should know of the campaign's common knowledge. IE: Dragonlance: No clerics. Alignment slide, Colour coded wizards, Minotaur PC race, etc. But nothing about draconians or other things that the characters would not know.
Exactly as I stated....
Quote from: Omega;705715And I an not going to make them guess my play style as a DM. IE: I am not out to kill you. If I do not like an outcome of some roll or misjudged an encounter then I may adjust it on the fly to something more appropriate and you'll never know. But I am not going to pull punches. Actions have reactions. Think things through. You have options. Use em or or risk rolling a new character. etc.
I've never encountered players who need this info. Once I say that it is a Sandbox campaign, that's it. (exception: When I introduction my kids & their friends to D&D)
Quote from: Omega;705715I am not out to kill you. If I do not like an outcome of some roll or misjudged an encounter then I may adjust it on the fly to something more appropriate and you'll never know.
I don't enjoy this type of illusionism at all a player, and trust me, I do notice.
You might be a master deceiver, who knows, but in my experience DMs believe they are a lot more shrewd at hiding their illusionism than they really are. Once you've been playing for a while, you notice these things as a player fairly easily, so I don't think I'm a special snowflake in being able to notice these things casually either.
Quote from: Benoist;705720I don't enjoy this type of illusionism at all a player, and trust me, I do notice.
You might be a master deceiver, who knows, but in my experience DMs believe they are a lot more shrewd at hiding their illusionism than they really are. Once you've been playing for a while, you notice these things as a player fairly easily, so I don't think I'm a special snowflake in being able to notice these things casually either.
I feel the same way. I would much rather you let the bad roll do me in, then fudge to keep me alive. I do realize not all players agree with this however, so I am not going to disrupt things if that is how the group rolls.
Quote from: ArduinPC's can use whatever they have to glean info about upcoming events. That's why they have spells, can hunt down seers, etc. I of course brief players on the world (what their PC's would know) before play starts.
Fair enough - I don't think Vreeg would disagree (and I certainly don't). What we were talking about is more on meta-level, concerning the game as a whole and its generally lethality and play-style (wilderness hexcrawl, megadungeon, big sprawling sandbox, domain management, old-school meatgrinder, or whatever - maybe something less concrete). Omega outlined it very well above.
Quote from: ArduinOnce I say that it is a Sandbox campaign, that's it.
That's awesome, and I'm glad that works for you, but for many other groups and players this may not be the case. "Sandbox," of course, implies a particular type of play, so that may be sufficient warning about potentially lethal areas, but for other types of play more discussion may be needed. I do think it's quite possible to discuss the overall lethality and style of play you'll be using - given the great variation in these things - without giving too many specifics away or spoiling things.
I prefer to keep things simple. Just look over the character sheet and deliver the Ivan Drago line straight up. " If he dies, he dies." :D
Quote from: Steerpike;705734That's awesome, and I'm glad that works for you, but for many other groups and players this may not be the case.
One can only speak from experience. I can't say what has or hasn't worked for you. I've just never encountered a problem with this in ~30 years of GMing countless different groups. So, it struck me as extremely odd. That's all. I've never had a player ask me if the game was going to be easy or dangerous to the PC's. Which is what I commented on originally.
Quote from: ArduinOne can only speak from experience. I can't say what has or hasn't worked for you. I've just never encountered a problem with this in ~30 years of GMing countless different groups. So, it struck me as extremely odd. That's all. I've never had a player ask me if the game was going to be easy or dangerous to the PC's. Which is what I commented on originally.
You probably GM well. With that level of experience you may not need to have all of the same discussions. But remember that most gamers don't have 3 decades of experience - so occasionally having meta discussions about system, play-style, and lethality might help them avoid problems. Is that fair?
Quote from: Steerpike;705744You probably GM well. With that level of experience you may not need to have all of the same discussions. But remember that most gamers don't have 3 decades of experience - so occasionally having meta discussions about system, play-style, and lethality might help them avoid problems. Is that fair?
Like I said. I have had to explain stuff like that to people who were new to D&D type of games.
Quote from: ArduinLike I said. I have had to explain stuff like that to people who were new to D&D type of games.
I assume you mean you "haven't" had to explain stuff like that to people?
What I was trying to say is that your seasoned GMing style may mitigate any potential lethality/play-style issues within the game itself even with brand new players. But a GM with less experience, who is less sure of themselves, may benefit from discussing a few things with their players surrounding the overall shape and manner of the game ahead of time. Is that such a crazy idea? New GMs may be experimenting with different campaign formats and styles of play, systems, and levels of lethality, so making sure their players are onboard is a smart move. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Steerpike;705748I assume you mean you "haven't" had to explain stuff like that to people?
Nope. Reread my posts where I say who I've had to explain stuff like that to.
Oh, I was confused by some of your other posts - you claimed that "I've just never encountered a problem with this in ~30 years of GMing countless different groups" and that "I've never encountered players who need this info." I assumed this meant you didn't need to have any discussions about playing style or lethality. My bad. So you are on board with having out-of-character discussions about the overall shape of the game, then?
Quote from: Steerpike;705754So you are on baord with having out-of-character discussions about the overall shape of the game, then?
Precisely as I stated in my posts.
Sometimes example is best. Face to face is faster.
So, you hear that I have a "D&D" game starting and want to play. I state that it will be a campaign (long term) game starting at first level and I run a Sandbox type game. Now, other than the info about the game world itself (what a person living in that world would know) what else would you NEED to know?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;705723I feel the same way. I would much rather you let the bad roll do me in, then fudge to keep me alive. I do realize not all players agree with this however, so I am not going to disrupt things if that is how the group rolls.
Agree with Ben and Brendan on this point.
I really hate being 'saved' by the gm. Worst of all is the GM that 'saves' you or 'punishes' you, and ALSO hides die rolls. Great way to teach players not to trust you.
Quote from: aSo, you hear that I have a "D&D" game starting and want to play. I state that it will be a campaign (long term) game starting at first level and I run a Sandbox type game. Now, other than the info about the game world itself (what a person living in that world would know) what else would you NEED to know?
OK, I think the confusion was about the
extent of the discussion. I agree that if everyone knows what a sandbox is (which most probably will), you likely won't need a lot of further discussion. But for other styles of play that aren't as open and variable as a true sandbox, further discussion might be useful. All that people like Vreeg, Omega, and myself are arguing is that a GM makes sure their players are fully on-board with the format and general lethality level(s) of a campaign before launching into it. Some of your posts
seemed to be resisting that idea.
I prefer to avoid vague phrases like "sandbox" and the like, or even "high lethality", in terms of specific details.
"Sandbox" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I'm more likely to say something like: "issues may come up in the game. You may choose to deal with them, or not. If you choose to deal with them, how you do so is up to you, and there is no predetermined way that they will go. If you choose not to deal with them, someone else may, and they may have an effect on the world. Just because an event occurs in game doesn't mean that you should presume it's the start of a 'plot'. The only 'plot' that exists is the things that your characters do. But that also doesn't mean that the world is static and waits for you to do things."
That gives much more specific details about the kinds of expectations that the players should have in the game.
Same with "high lethality". I'm more likely to say something like "You have the hit points you have. I won't fudge dice. The only thing that I won't do is force you into encounters without them being a logical outcome of your choices, or let a series of random rolls kill characters without at least some opportunity for player choice - so if there's a random dragon encounter, it won't come up, have the dragon land, breathe fire and eat you all in one round before you have had a chance to do anything. That said, encounters are *not* going to be 'level appropriate', and if you wander into the dragon breeding grounds, that's sufficient enough player decision that the dragon *may* land and eat you."
I'm also more likely to call out things that may piss people off, even if I think getting pissed off about it is silly, just to make sure there's a heads-up.
I've also done things like have players make two characters, one as a 'backup', to more subtly reinforce the idea that characters *are* mortal, and some level of mortality should be expected. The backup character idea can also take some of the sting out of character death, as the player hasn't entirely invested in one character.
Asking players about how they'd feel about specifics is a good idea, too, I've found. Saying "there's a mix of RP and combat" is vague. Saying "some sessions will be RP only" is better. Asking, "how would you feel about sessions where no dice were rolled, and no 'plot' was advanced, but the game was mostly having low-'plot' interactions with townsfolks?" is a much better gauge, in my experience.
Same with magic item distribution. "It's not high magic" is almost meaningless - "it's low magic" nearly as bad. "Some characters may not get a usable magic item until third or fourth level, how do you feel about that?" is a better gauge.
At least by figuring out where players' expectations are, I can either work with them to understand what the game is and isn't, or just agree that it's not the game for them. The only thing I don't think is useful is having people come into a game expecting one thing, but getting another.
The questions format also works well for me, as if people give me the same answers to questions that I'd give, I can probably move on quicker without having to spell every little thing out. If talking about sandboxes, frex, "do you think major events should happen in the world without the PCs involvement?" and "do you think the PCs should be involved in every major event that happens in the world?" are interesting questions that let me know what the player thinks a "sandbox" is, without me having to detail what it means to me for the next hour.
Quote from: Benoist;705720I don't enjoy this type of illusionism at all a player, and trust me, I do notice.
You might be a master deceiver, who knows, but in my experience DMs believe they are a lot more shrewd at hiding their illusionism than they really are. Once you've been playing for a while, you notice these things as a player fairly easily, so I don't think I'm a special snowflake in being able to notice these things casually either.
No, you're not. Practically every gm I played under in the 90's did this and hell I even did it myself when I ran games. I finally stopped playing entirely because I found the safety net completely unsatisfying. My own games were suffering as well but in time I was able to identify why. It took a huge change in playstyle and a lot of rolling in the open and sticking to the results to break myself of it. I still don't have much interest in playing a pc but if I were to join a game it'd be the #1 thing I'd be on the lookout for.
Quote from: Omega;705715So how does the DM being up front about the threat level of their campaign equate to giving away too much?
"This is a harsh setting. Healing items and temples to raise may be hard to come by. These are the things your PC should know for this area based on how they started adventuring."
or
"Magic items are plentiful. But expect enemies to used them liberally too."
or even just.
"Combat is tough. Do not flail away at everything that moves. I am not going to pull punches."
Or my favorite:
Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances!
Quote from: The Ent;705030That's some very neat ideas right there. Very good thinking. I guess I'm considering stealing these ideas.
You can't steal what is offered freely. :cool:
While you're borrowing my ideas, check out "Helmets Made Easy", something I came up with a few years back -and Philotomy Jurament simplified.
Quote from: Benoist;705720I don't enjoy this type of illusionism at all a player, and trust me, I do notice.
You might be a master deceiver, who knows, but in my experience DMs believe they are a lot more shrewd at hiding their illusionism than they really are. Once you've been playing for a while, you notice these things as a player fairly easily, so I don't think I'm a special snowflake in being able to notice these things casually either.
If I screw up. I fix it. Simple as that.
I put in too many orcs? I might have one fall back and try to warn the rest of the camp. Or maybee hes got a grudge with Grog right there and slips a knife in his back while everyone is distracted and then blames it on the adventurers.
How do you know I didn't plan it that way all along?
Conversely, say I put too few orcs in to really challenge the group and realize it too late. I can have reinforcements come in from other areas. Or I can make the players and characters suspicious exactly why this was too easy. They might find dead orcs further in. Or they might run into the missing orcs guarding some room with backup. Or its a trap and the orcs are waiting in numbers elsewhere.
How do you know I didn't plan it that way all along?
Quote from: Elfdart;705864Or my favorite:
Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances!
Only when I get payed to GM. And I have. :cool:
Quote from: Benoist;705720I don't enjoy this type of illusionism at all a player, and trust me, I do notice.
You might be a master deceiver, who knows, but in my experience DMs believe they are a lot more shrewd at hiding their illusionism than they really are. Once you've been playing for a while, you notice these things as a player fairly easily, so I don't think I'm a special snowflake in being able to notice these things casually either.
By the way. You conveniently cut off the "But I am not going to pull punches. Actions have reactions. Think things through. You have options. Use em or or risk rolling a new character. etc."
Quote from: Omega;705925How do you know I didn't plan it that way all along?
I don't think the danger for the otherwise savvy GM is in the way any particular scenario is handled, but in the players noticing patterns over time. If, somehow, each fight that looks like something they should run away from seems to keep turning in their favor, if it's never a cakewalk, that sort of thing.
Quote from: Bill;705774Agree with Ben and Brendan on this point.
I really hate being 'saved' by the gm. Worst of all is the GM that 'saves' you or 'punishes' you, and ALSO hides die rolls. Great way to teach players not to trust you.
I tend to be with Ben and Brendan but not completely or in all cases. I go either way with GM rolls, even though I prefer hidden just to give the GM choices because as a player I trust the GM not to dick me over and as a GM I want latitude for when the players do something cool and my die roll technically doesn't allow it.
Quote from: Omega;705925If I screw up. I fix it. Simple as that.
I put in too many orcs? I might have one fall back and try to warn the rest of the camp. Or maybee hes got a grudge with Grog right there and slips a knife in his back while everyone is distracted and then blames it on the adventurers.
How do you know I didn't plan it that way all along?
Conversely, say I put too few orcs in to really challenge the group and realize it too late. I can have reinforcements come in from other areas. Or I can make the players and characters suspicious exactly why this was too easy. They might find dead orcs further in. Or they might run into the missing orcs guarding some room with backup. Or its a trap and the orcs are waiting in numbers elsewhere.
How do you know I didn't plan it that way all along?
We don't know, the first time.
After umpteen similar occurrences it gets pretty obvious, trust me.
Quote from: Omega;705925How do you know I didn't plan it that way all along?
You can, of course, play it that way. But to me, that's the only way that I as referee can cheat. If there are forty orcs in the Swamp of Terror, there are forty orcs, period. I don't change the numbers either larger or smaller.
And I roll the dice out in the open.
Quote from: Imp;705938I don't think the danger for the otherwise savvy GM is in the way any particular scenario is handled, but in the players noticing patterns over time. If, somehow, each fight that looks like something they should run away from seems to keep turning in their favor, if it's never a cakewalk, that sort of thing.
But we aren't talking about every encounter or every session.
And I am certainly not talking about nudging in the players favour. I am saying that if I as the DM misjudged an encounter I set up as too hard or too easy for the group to handle. Then I can and will fix it one way or another. And the players won't know because everything is going about average instead of a cakewalk or a massacre out of the blue. Average being that every combat encounter is a challenge and characters may die, especially if the players aren't thinking things through when they should be.
As said, that fix could be as simple as having the excess or too powerfull opponents doing something in the background that tones things down to the threat level it should have been in the first place and work it into the plot. Or add some forces elsewhere for a later encounter if the fight went too easy due to too few or too weak opponents. etc. Things that work with the flow of events rather than disrupt.
The bug becomes a feature and the players live or die by their own hands.
Quote from: Omega;705996As said, that fix could be as simple as having the excess or too powerfull opponents doing something in the background that tones things down to the threat level it should have been in the first place and work it into the plot.
I think we have identified the problem.
Quote from: Old Geezer;705995You can, of course, play it that way. But to me, that's the only way that I as referee can cheat. If there are forty orcs in the Swamp of Terror, there are forty orcs, period. I don't change the numbers either larger or smaller.
And I roll the dice out in the open.
Yes. But if I put 40 orcs in the swamp when realistically vs the party's strength levels there should only be 30. Then that is my screwup and its my job as the DM to think of some way to un-screw things. That is not cheating.
As said in the previous post.
It could be as simple as setting the excess 10 off on a patrol or raid. Maybee the party sees a chance to ambush them and take their stuff as a disguise.
Or the group could walk in on an argument or brawl in progress and take advantage of it. Weave it into the story. Turn the mistake into a plot element. The players get a fair fight where they may still lose. But they did not lose because the odds were stacked totally against them by accident.
Quote from: Omega;705998Yes. But if I put 40 orcs in the swamp when realistically vs the party's strength levels there should only be 30. Then that is my screwup and its my job as the DM to think of some way to un-screw things. That is not cheating.
As said in the previous post.
It could be as simple as setting the excess 10 off on a patrol or raid. Maybee the party sees a chance to ambush them and take their stuff as a disguise.
Or the group could walk in on an argument or brawl in progress and take advantage of it. Weave it into the story. Turn the mistake into a plot element. The players get a fair fight where they may still lose. But they did not lose because the odds were stacked totally against them by accident.
So your players are incapable of doing a bit of scouting, sizing up the opposition, and deciding on what they think they can handle?
If 40 seems too overwhelming to fight then perhaps options other than a straight fight ought to be considered.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;705997I think we have identified the problem.
Plot (for me) being what is unfolding at the moment. Or being the adventure that the characters may or may not see the end of. I am either running a session totally on the fly, or I have a couple of scenarios set up before start and see if the group goes for any of them. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
As opposed to plot as a track the players follow, or some story that must be told to its conclusion no matter. Even when running a module I let the players roam as they will unless they specifically agreed to go on XYZ quest. And even then they might call an abort and then things role from there.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;705999So your players are incapable of doing a bit of scouting, sizing up the opposition, and deciding on what they think they can handle?
If 40 seems too overwhelming to fight then perhaps options other than a straight fight ought to be considered.
I think that's his point, kinda (allthough I lack telepathic powers, so I can't say that for 100% certain. Just 90%. ;)).
I mean. Say.
1st level party discovers 40 orcs. Decides to get the frakk outta Dodge (or dies).
10th+ level party discovers 40 orcs. Makes a joke. Kills the orcs. Makes another joke.
5th level or so party discovers 40 orcs. Fun combat is had.
Now of course, to lots of nuschool dudes the thing would be to make sure the 40 orcs belong in the area in wich the 5th level party is going about having adventures, since they'll kill the 1st level party dead while the 10th level party would hardly notice them (the fighter kills 10 orcs a round...the wizard casts fireball...the rest is silence...). However in a hexcrawl, or an Old Geezer style campaign? The orcs are gonna live in that swamp, whether the dudes that meet them are Johnny Greenhorns or John Rambos. That's just the way it is.
Quote from: Omega;706002Plot (for me) being what is unfolding at the moment. Or being the adventure that the characters may or may not see the end of. I am either running a session totally on the fly, or I have a couple of scenarios set up before start and see if the group goes for any of them. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
As opposed to plot as a track the players follow, or some story that must be told to its conclusion no matter. Even when running a module I let the players roam as they will unless they specifically agreed to go on XYZ quest. And even then they might call an abort and then things role from there.
Sounds like a good attitude imo. I guess dedicated hexcrawlers can get their hackles up when they hear the word "plot" in RPGs, getting flashbacks to the horrors of the 90s etc; but your plot philosophy doesn't sound like railroading at all. I generally do the same kinda thing myself btw.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;705999So your players are incapable of doing a bit of scouting, sizing up the opposition, and deciding on what they think they can handle?
If 40 seems too overwhelming to fight then perhaps options other than a straight fight ought to be considered.
It is not a guarantee of getting the full head count. What if some are off on patrol? yadda yadda.
Still the problem of 40 when there should have been 30. And you might not realize that there are 10 too many till the group is committed themselves thinking that the odds are tough, but winnable. When it now may not.
Then it is time to make a decision as the DM of what to do. Can the players through tricks and treachery even the odds on their own? Will they even try it? A heavily good aligned group might baulk. Luckily my gaming groups tend to be more nefarious.
If you think they can win out, possibly with heavy casualties. Then let them loose and see what happens. But if you are certain they are going to get wiped out even with good tactics and tricks then you'd better be thinking of some way to salvage. Otherwise you just deliberately allowed your own screwup to kill the group.
Quote from: Omega;706008Still the problem of 40 when there should have been 30. And you might not realize that there are 10 too many till the group is committed themselves thinking that the odds are tough, but winnable. When it now may not.
Well...the party might not have to
kill more than 30. At the point when the party's killed 30 out of 40 orcs, the remaining 10 will most likely fail a morale check and/or Int check with huge bonus and run like wee little wabbits. Wich likely means they'll get the away since the 40 orcs' treasure is surely worth way more xp than a mere 10 orcs.
Quote from: Omega;706008It is not a guarantee of getting the full head count. What if some are off on patrol? yadda yadda.
Still the problem of 40 when there should have been 30. And you might not realize that there are 10 too many till the group is committed themselves thinking that the odds are tough, but winnable. When it now may not.
Then it is time to make a decision as the DM of what to do. Can the players through tricks and treachery even the odds on their own? Will they even try it? A heavily good aligned group might baulk. Luckily my gaming groups tend to be more nefarious.
If you think they can win out, possibly with heavy casualties. Then let them loose and see what happens. But if you are certain they are going to get wiped out even with good tactics and tricks then you'd better be thinking of some way to salvage. Otherwise you just deliberately allowed your own screwup to kill the group.
Unless the enemy happens to be grossly weak or powerful, there is always a chance of defeat from criticals, bad luck, etc...
My main pet peave in this area is when a gm 'forces' a fight AND 'prevents retreat'
That will usually suck. Admittedly, it could happen as a reasonable event in the setting, but it will usually suck.
Quote from: Omega;706008It is not a guarantee of getting the full head count. What if some are off on patrol? yadda yadda.
Still the problem of 40 when there should have been 30. And you might not realize that there are 10 too many till the group is committed themselves thinking that the odds are tough, but winnable. When it now may not.
Then it is time to make a decision as the DM of what to do. Can the players through tricks and treachery even the odds on their own? Will they even try it? A heavily good aligned group might baulk. Luckily my gaming groups tend to be more nefarious.
If you think they can win out, possibly with heavy casualties. Then let them loose and see what happens. But if you are certain they are going to get wiped out even with good tactics and tricks then you'd better be thinking of some way to salvage. Otherwise you just deliberately allowed your own screwup to kill the group.
If the PC's have a chance to do recon, and they still miscalculate and attack it is NOT my screwup its theirs. Is no different than any other decision point that the players make a bad call on.
No plan survives contact with the enemy.If the PCs plan didn't include a contingency for what to do in case of a rout, again that isn't the DMs fault.
I generally don't "let" the players fight or not depending on the opposition. Those are the kinds of choices that they make for themselves.
Orcs are crude but not mindless. They may be smart enough to offer surrender and try to ransom the PCs. If it turns out no one is willing to pay the ransom they can always eat them later.
The game doesn't always need to come to a screeching halt when the PCs lose a fight, especially to intelligent opponents.
Quote from: The Ent;706003I think that's his point, kinda (allthough I lack telepathic powers, so I can't say that for 100% certain. Just 90%. ;)).
I mean. Say.
1st level party discovers 40 orcs. Decides to get the frakk outta Dodge (or dies).
10th+ level party discovers 40 orcs. Makes a joke. Kills the orcs. Makes another joke.
5th level or so party discovers 40 orcs. Fun combat is had.
Now of course, to lots of nuschool dudes the thing would be to make sure the 40 orcs belong in the area in wich the 5th level party is going about having adventures, since they'll kill the 1st level party dead while the 10th level party would hardly notice them (the fighter kills 10 orcs a round...the wizard casts fireball...the rest is silence...). However in a hexcrawl, or an Old Geezer style campaign? The orcs are gonna live in that swamp, whether the dudes that meet them are Johnny Greenhorns or John Rambos. That's just the way it is.
Pretty much. I prefer dynamic regions of the players are spending any time in the area. I just dropped 40 orcs in the swamp. Are they new or have they been there a while? I decide they are new and getting a feel of the area. The players scout and get a baser head count of 30. Had there been the intended 30 they might have got a head count of 20-25. Some are off scouting or foraging. Or cutting trees to build a fort. Which is what got them noticed in the first place. And all that is on the fly from a basic plot of 40 orcs in da swamp.
Now if the players decide to wheel and deal instead of fight... Or decide on hit and run tactics instead of a flat out assault. Well. That is a totally different matter and things can just proceed as is.
The fix it if broken scenario exists only as the last resort. I trust my players to come up with totally unforeseen saves to crazy situations.
----
Quote from: Old Geezer;705995You can, of course, play it that way. But to me, that's the only way that I as referee can cheat. If there are forty orcs in the Swamp of Terror, there are forty orcs, period. I don't change the numbers either larger or smaller.
Absolutely. To be clear, Omega runs games however he wants and if he and his players have fun that way, cool, rock on, keep doing what works for you.
What grinds my gears is to pretend that there's no difference between our gaming styles at all, that we all do this and shouldn't therefore have any problem with plotting the encounters and shifting things around, including die rolls, if something doesn't go the way the DM expected.
Well no. Fuck no. I don't like this type of illusionism as a player and as a DM, and I don't run games to edit the world mid-game because this or that would be deemed too hard or too easy. These are the types of things set up before the game, to me, not something you modify on the go, especially in the name of "tension" and "drama" and "plot".
We have different ways of running games and that should be okay. Omega runs games his way, fine, but please, don't pretend there's no difference with the way I run my games. There is.
Quote from: Steerpike;705783All that people like Vreeg, Omega, and myself are arguing is that a GM makes sure their players are fully on-board with the format and general lethality level(s) of a campaign before launching into it. Some of your posts seemed to be resisting that idea.
Yes. I understand now. Those who don't run sandbox style would have to readjust their viewpoint to understand my responses. Like I had to skew mine to understand where GM's, who fudge things to funnel the adventure how they want it to turn out , were coming from and the problems they encounter with players.
Quote from: Omega;706008It is not a guarantee of getting the full head count. What if some are off on patrol? yadda yadda.
Still the problem of 40 when there should have been 30. And you might not realize that there are 10 too many till the group is committed themselves thinking that the odds are tough, but winnable. When it now may not.
Then it is time to make a decision as the DM of what to do.
Not really. If the GM has played it straight up until that point, the GM only has to tell the players what happens as they do X, Y, Z, etc. No decisions to make. (excepting where die rolls are needed).
Quote from: Benoist;706025Absolutely. To be clear, Omega runs games however he wants and if he and his players have fun that way, cool, rock on, keep doing what works for you.
What grinds my gears is to pretend that there's no difference between our gaming styles at all, that we all do this and shouldn't therefore have any problem with plotting the encounters and shifting things around, including die rolls, if something doesn't go the way the DM expected.
Well no. Fuck no. I don't like this type of illusionism as a player and as a DM, and I don't run games to edit the world mid-game because this or that would be deemed too hard or too easy. These are the types of things set up before the game, to me, not something you modify on the go, especially in the name of "tension" and "drama" and "plot".
We have different ways of running games and that should be okay. Omega runs games his way, fine, but please, don't pretend there's no difference with the way I run my games. There is.
The Dm isn't infallible, they are able to fuck up just as easily and/or as much as the Players. It's not Illusionism for the Dm to change something, particularly in editions beyond 1st where the math behind the game is quite different.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706048The Dm isn't infallible, they are able to fuck up just as easily and/or as much as the Players. It's not Illusionism for the Dm to change something, particularly in editions beyond 1st where the math behind the game is quite different.
Its only illusionism if the DM tries to hide it from the players.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706048The Dm isn't infallible, they are able to fuck up just as easily and/or as much as the Players.
Sure. They also have a capacity to learn from their mistakes and get better at what they do without having to resort to illusionism, assuming the players trust in their DM's capacity to do just that, and there's actual, normal communication between players and DM in and out of the game, of course.
How about we start from a position where the DM referees the game to the best of his capacity and has the faculty to learn, instead of assuming he sucks and will try to run a game to ruin your day?
Quote from: Sommerjon;706048It's not Illusionism for the Dm to change something, particularly in editions beyond 1st where the math behind the game is quite different.
It absolutely is illusionism to me to set up a fort on the road with 40 orcs and then decide mid-game there are only 20 because you rolled a random encounter just before and the PCs took a beating from a group of gnolls. The content of the game world magically adjusts to be "threat appropriate", and that's something I do not enjoy at all as a player, or as a DM.
Now, you like that? That's cool with me, awesome.
There's also nothing wrong with me not liking this at all.
Quote from: Omega;706008If you think they can win out, possibly with heavy casualties. Then let them loose and see what happens. But if you are certain they are going to get wiped out even with good tactics and tricks then you'd better be thinking of some way to salvage. Otherwise you just deliberately allowed your own screw-up to kill the group.
Here's a question: why not let the players handle their challenges? Why not let them think up ways to "salvage" situations? Perhaps they'll come up with some "tricks" that you won't expect (I've found it challenging over the years to ever be "certain"/predict what players, and their characters, will do or can accomplish). Or maybe they'll avoid the encounter, or try to parley or intimidate their opponents.
To me, this approach just comes across as so much coddling. Making sure your players are treated with kid gloves; making sure that no challenge is so great that you risk "killing the group"; altering the "story" of your adventure so that it's appropriate to what you perceive are the player's capabilities.
I guess I'm just not a fan of
illusionism, which is what this approach clearly is. Or being babysat by the DM.
Thread should be renamed: Issues with New-Schooler's Tactics Deficiencies
:D
Sandbox has nothing to do with lethality. You can run frelling Toon as a Sandbox.
As for fudging dice, I never saw the point, but I will roll dice for reasons other than generating a result.
With regard to illusionism and adjusting difficulty on the fly to meet expected party capabilities, there is something of importance that can get lost.
Player creativity.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If every challenge is adjusted to be winnable with bog standard tactics and the pre-programmed application of character powers then players won't need to come up with clever means to win through on their own. Every solution will end up using the same moves simply because they work.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706062With regard to illusionism and adjusting difficulty on the fly to meet expected party capabilities, there is something of importance that can get lost.
Player creativity.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If every challenge is adjusted to be winnable with bog standard tactics and the pre-programmed application of character powers then players won't need to come up with clever means to win through on their own. Every solution will end up using the same moves simply because they work.
About 15 years ago I started noticing this with the newer players. I'd let them bring a high level character of theirs into my game. They were SO utterly deficient in ability to think creatively that they would lose a 10th level PC to a threat that a 5th level should have been able to handle. It would take several months of play to bring them "up to speed".
Quote from: Benoist;706025What grinds my gears is to pretend that there's no difference between our gaming styles at all, that we all do this and shouldn't therefore have any problem with plotting the encounters and shifting things around, including die rolls, if something doesn't go the way the DM expected.
That and the common fallacy that describing a certain type of play is automatically advocating for it, or that advocating for a certain style of play means that you're advocating it at the expense of all others.
Fuck man, I can describe railroading while still despising it. I can enjoy Fate-style games *and* old-school D&D games.
Personally, in almost any case, if there's forty orcs, there's forty orcs. The game is supposed to provide enough resilience to handle cases where not every encounter is 'level appropriate'. In D&D, that means scouting, tactics, avoidance, retreat, etc. In Fate, that means either the above, or *shock of shocks*, that the game goes in a direction that neither I nor the players anticipated.
Of course, I also don't run "you're on a boat and get ambushed by sea creatures" scenarios, so there's that...
Quote from: TristramEvans;706060Sandbox has nothing to do with lethality. You can run frelling Toon as a Sandbox.
Quite correct. The players choose the lethality level based on what they have their PC's do.
Quote from: Arduin;706065Quite correct. The players choose the lethality level based on what they have their PC's do.
...and the system used, including houserules.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706050Its only illusionism if the DM tries to hide it from the players.
Hide what? The players have full knowledge of everything in the setting?
Quote from: Benoist;706052Sure. They also have a capacity to learn from their mistakes and get better at what they do without having to resort to illusionism, assuming the players trust in their DM's capacity to do just that, and there's actual, normal communication between players and DM in and out of the game, of course.
How about we start from a position where the DM referees the game to the best of his capacity and has the faculty to learn, instead of assuming he sucks and will try to run a game to ruin your day?
I'm not assuming he sucks. I also am not assuming he's infallible.
Quote from: Benoist;706052It absolutely is illusionism to me to set up a fort on the road with 40 orcs and then decide mid-game there are only 20 because you rolled a random encounter just before and the PCs took a beating from a group of gnolls. The content of the game world magically adjusts to be "threat appropriate", and that's something I do not enjoy at all as a player, or as a DM.
Now, you like that? That's cool with me, awesome.
There's also nothing wrong with me not liking this at all.
What purpose does the Dm knowing the absolute exact number of creatures do for the game?
I question the voracity of set in stone numbers in any RPG that uses random encounters. That gnoll encounter, where did those numbers come from? did you already roll to know the exact number of gnolls that are in the area, is there different tribes? what's their territory?
This keeps snowballing. Where does it stop?
Quote from: TristramEvans;706071...and the system used, including houserules.
Game system is a constant within a given game (campaign). Houserules also. I'm talking about outside the rule framework.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072I've always had issues with set in stone numbers in any RPG that uses random encounters.
I've NEVER encountered an experienced GM that would use set in stone random encounter tables out of the box for their unique campaign. Playing with crappy GM's has probably coloured your outlook...
Quote from: Benoist;706025What grinds my gears is to pretend that there's no difference between our gaming styles at all, that we all do this and shouldn't therefore have any problem with plotting the encounters and shifting things around, including die rolls, if something doesn't go the way the DM expected.
Quote from: robiswrong;706064That and the common fallacy that describing a certain type of play is automatically advocating for it, or that advocating for a certain style of play means that you're advocating it at the expense of all others.
Ah, no. Just no. This is not how that works, man. If I say "I like this, but not that," that in itself is not advocating my liking over all others.
Likewise, if I get peeved that some people are advocating that there's no differences between our games over and over, that in itself is not advocating my liking over all others. It is simply stating that there is a difference between these things, one which I personally happen to like better than the other.
Quote from: robiswrong;706064Fuck man, I can describe railroading while still despising it. I can enjoy Fate-style games *and* old-school D&D games.
You like this or that, or this AND that, and me like that, but not this, does not make you a superior gamer. If you start pretending there is actually no difference between this and that, and that therefore I should just go along with your way of doing things because somehow I am deluded and already do, anyway, you are actually lording your way over my way because you deny not only my liking of that, instead of this, but the idea there is a difference between those two things to begin with.
By doing this, you are actually the one using a badwrongfun/badwrongthought argument.
Quote from: Arduin;706074I've NEVER encountered an experienced GM that would use set in stone random encounter tables out of the box for their unique campaign. Playing with crappy GM's has probably coloured your outlook...
Wha?
Set in stone numbers relating to how many creatures of the type rolled there are.
If it is Illusionism to change the number of creatures at the fort, then it is also Illusionism to not keep precise track of how many creatures there are of a given type on the random encounter charts.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706080Wha?
What I wrote is VERY clear and concise. What EXACTLY don't you understand?
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072Hide what? The players have full knowledge of everything in the setting?
The players don't have full knowledge of the setting. Thats kind of the point of the game, to explore and discover things about the setting.
The DM making adjustments is perfectly acceptable-so long as he tells the players WHY?
Adjusting difficulty on the fly and keeping it hidden is like moving your ships around once a game of Battleship has begun. You can move your ships closer to where the players have been firing or farther away as needed to maximize drama and tension. This might give you the OUTCOME you are looking for but you have fuckall of a GAME from that.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072What purpose does the Dm knowing the absolute exact number of creatures do for the game?
I question the voracity of set in stone numbers in any RPG that uses random encounters. That gnoll encounter, where did those numbers come from? did you already roll to know the exact number of gnolls that are in the area, is there different tribes? what's their territory?
This keeps snowballing. Where does it stop?
The DM shouldn't be using any random encounter tables without thinking about possible outcomes just because its in a rulebook. If an encounter table specifies 2-12 gnolls for an area that the DM knows has no gnolls then the wrong encounter table is being used. I create custom encounter tables for different areas, thus I am certain there is nothing on those tables that would need to be scrapped if it came up on a random roll.
Yup.
Never roll on a random monster table if you are not prepared to implement the results.
For me, I don't make rolls just to ignore them.
I am quite comfortable choosing to NOT roll, but if I do, what's the point if you don't abide by it?
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072I'm not assuming he sucks. I also am not assuming he's infallible.
Neither am I.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072What purpose does the Dm knowing the absolute exact number of creatures do for the game?
It's not about having an absolute exact number of creatures. You can check my advice to build the mega-dungeon, and in my examples I indicate that in some areas you have say, 2-5 orcs here, or 2-12 bandits there.
If there are 2-5 orcs in the room, I roll d4+1 to determine how many orcs there are in the room at a precise moment. What I do not do is decide there would be 2-5 orcs in that room before running the game, and then change it to 2-12 or 5-30 during the game because I think the players are having it too easy up to that point.
Once the game world is in play, I run it as it is, which guarantees impartial and organic developments from the players' actions as they interact with the environment. It is impartial: if I change numbers on the players and change die rolls because I don't like them, I can't claim to be impartial as a referee - I am either for the players on some cases, or against them in others, or partial towards some meta-consideration that has nothing to do with the game world as it is, whether it's "building up tension", or "drama", or "making sure the characters get to the plot", whatever.
Besides, one of the things I appreciate the most when playing is that situations will play out in completely different ways with two different groups because of the choices players made, because of good and bad rolls, because of what happened before, and what happens while they are doing something.
If the group has a hard time after meeting a random group of gnolls and arrives at the Orc Fort to find out there are 40 orcs there, they will use different tactics and fundamentally make different decisions than if there were 20 or 10. And THAT in itself is what I want. To make decisions, as a player, based on the game world and what's going on in it, my choices, my luck or lack thereof, influencing what happens next.
But if the DM decides that our party had a hard time with the gnolls and will put 20 instead of 40 orcs in there because our party would better handle it, then the DM is partial. He's already making choices for us and railroading us towards certain favored outcomes (like taking the orcs head on and surviving), and that fundamentally is illusionism, and railroading. It negates the consequences of the fight we had with the gnolls, and means we'll always meet "threat appropriate" things along the way, so I'll never find out what cool things might have happened if the party had gotten to a fort with 40 orcs after going through a rough time with the gnolls.
That's not what I want from a role playing game.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072I question the voracity of set in stone numbers in any RPG that uses random encounters.
You're right, they are not that voracious. ;)
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072That gnoll encounter, where did those numbers come from?
Dice.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072did you already roll to know the exact number of gnolls that are in the area, is there different tribes?
I probably rolled the exact number of gnolls after rolling that encounter, as indicated on the table. Or used the set number indicated in the key of the encounter table if it wasn't variable for some reason.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072what's their territory?
Who knows? If they are on my encounter table then I probably decided there are gnolls in the region, and chances are, I already have an idea what's going on as far as gnolls are concerned in the area. I role play the environment from there. Maybe these were scouts exploring the area. Maybe they have a cavern nearby. The point is, once I rolled for it and made a decision as to what the result means in the game world, it doesn't change.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706072This keeps snowballing. Where does it stop?
Who's making arguments in favor of extremes here, I wonder? Are you saying that either you go all illusionist on the players because things like world coherence, make-believe, choices don't matter in the game anyway, OR you are some type of extremist and it keeps going and going so either one is hypocrical, deluded, or just doesn't realize that you just can't run consistent games in any way, shape, or form, ever, so you might as well give up?
Really? Because that's what your question here is implying.
Quote from: Benoist;706103Who's making arguments in favor of extremes here, I wonder? Are you saying that either you go all illusionist on the players because things like world coherence, make-believe, choices don't matter in the game anyway, OR you are some type of extremist and it keeps going and going so either one is hypocrical, deluded, or just doesn't realize that you just can't run consistent games in any way, shape, or form, ever, so you might as well give up?
Really? Because that's what your question here is implying.
My question is why
"If there are 2-5 orcs in the room, I roll d4+1 to determine how many orcs there are in the room at a precise moment. What I do not do is decide there would be 2-5 orcs in that room before running the game, and then change it to 2-12 or 5-30 during the game because I think the players are having it too easy up to that point."is you original decision infallible?
You are the one making the numbers. Why is it 'once written it cannot be unwritten'? How is it Illusionism if you change 2-12 to 4-16?
Quote from: Sommerjon;706117My question is why
"If there are 2-5 orcs in the room, I roll d4+1 to determine how many orcs there are in the room at a precise moment. What I do not do is decide there would be 2-5 orcs in that room before running the game, and then change it to 2-12 or 5-30 during the game because I think the players are having it too easy up to that point."
is you original decision infallible?
My decisions are not infallible, though I did learn a little bit along the way while running my own games, so actual failure due to gross misjudgment on my part doesn't happen that often. I'm still learning, of course. I don't think I'm a special snowflake, if that's what you're asking: anybody can do that. Anybody can get things mostly right for a satisfying game from the get-go or nearly, with a little bit of thought involved and some judicious advice thrown in for good measure, and everybody can learn to get better from there with practice.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706117You are the one making the numbers. Why is it 'once written it cannot be unwritten'? How is it Illusionism if you change 2-12 to 4-16?
There is a difference between coming up with a world or module to play, where I do consider things like whether an opposing force might be formidable, or especially weak, whether the numbers would be variable because creatures in the group move around, or there is a set number of NPCs in here at all times, according to all sorts of reasons like whether the orcs are in the employment of the Bandit King and how much he can afford and how he organizes the defense of his Underground Lair with what he can afford, and running the game proper, once you have created that world outside of the game.
For instance, when I come up with a dungeon deciding that there is a progressive difficulty in challenges, I might say, go for first level is challenging for characters level 1-2, second level of the dungeon is challenging for characters of level 2-3, and so on. This means that there is a challenge with increasing difficulty, and the choice of the difficulty is left for the players to decide as they play the game.
So the party explores level 1 of the dungeon, and when the players find a staircase going down they have a clear choice before them: either they go down and face a greater challenge for potentially greater rewards or death, or they stay where they are and play it more safe for lesser rewards and a lesser chance that the shit might hit the fan.
In that set-up, the choice is the players', not mine.
Likewise, if I consider what type of creatures exist in and around the moor the players decided to explore last session, I might come up with an encounter table indicating on a d% "16-20: Gnolls 2-8" because the moor is close to the Gnoll Mountains and one chance in 20 to meet a hunting party in search for food to bring back to the Mountains in case an encounter occurs seems plausible and reasonable to me.
When I come to actually run the game, I will run the game impartially. This means that I will use these tools in order to role play the environment. I will check say 1-in-6 every three exploration turns, because the area is not *that* populated, which by the way is a frequency I will have decided before hand, when I came up with the environment in the first place, and if I get a result of "6", then I'll roll on my encounter table. What actually happens according to the way the world works as simulated by the encounter table ultimately is not my decision, but the outcome of the dice. That guarantees impartiality, and also guarantees there are consequences to choices from the players such as staying in the moor for a while instead of going back to town or getting to that temple they noticed earlier to strike it rich. Whatever the choice, there will be natural consequences.
If I rolled that "6" and an encounter happens, the players characters generally choose how to approach this threat. They will notice the presence of something in the environs, and will be able to decide whether they want to scout, whether they just attack first, try to find out their intentions, whatever. The choice, again, is theirs, and the consequences are primarily predicated on these choices, rather than what I thought they could or could not handle.
Quote from: Arduin;706063About 15 years ago I started noticing this with the newer players. I'd let them bring a high level character of theirs into my game. They were SO utterly deficient in ability to think creatively that they would lose a 10th level PC to a threat that a 5th level should have been able to handle. It would take several months of play to bring them "up to speed".
I noticed this about 10 years ago, with my second 3e D&D group. Before them I had always assumed I could throw
anything at mid or high level PCs and they'd handle it somehow. It was a sad awakening. These were like 16th level PCs and they felt kinda
lame. :(
Quote from: Benoist;706078Ah, no. Just no. This is not how that works, man. If I say "I like this, but not that," that in itself is not advocating my liking over all others.
Uh, so you realize I'm agreeing with you, right? And that I was bitching about people that presume that just because someone describes something, that they're a) advocating for it b) to the exclusion of all else, and that I totally agree that it's a fallcy?
Quote from: Benoist;706078Likewise, if I get peeved that some people are advocating that there's no differences between our games over and over, that in itself is not advocating my liking over all others. It is simply stating that there is a difference between these things, one which I personally happen to like better than the other.
Which I agree with. If you're running Fate as Fate, and D&D as D&D, they're two pretty different games. Yeah, you can run D&D with Fate rules or vice versa, but that usually ends up as a pretty crappy game.
I happen to like both Fate and D&D. So I'm definitely saying this acknowledging the difference - hell, I *appreciate* the difference, which is why I like *both* games.
Quote from: Benoist;706078You like this or that, or this AND that, and me like that, but not this, does not make you a superior gamer. If you start pretending there is actually no difference between this and that, and that therefore I should just go along with your way of doing things because somehow I am deluded and already do, anyway, you are actually lording your way over my way because you deny not only my liking of that, instead of this, but the idea there is a difference between those two things to begin with.
No, it doesn't, nor have I said it does. Nor am I pretending there's no difference between them.
I like D&D, played in an old-school game. Why in hell would I try to convince you not to play it, or that it's the same as other things?
Hell, I like hockey and skiing. You liking hockey but not skiing doesn't make me a better hockey player than you, or even a better athlete. And even though both involve using contraptions strapped to your feet to move quickly over frozen water, I'm sure as hell not going to argue that they're the same thing.
I'm also not going to argue that hockey's "easier" because it's on a flat surface, or that skiing is "easier" because there's no goalie and no opposing team. Those are silly arguments based on a missapplication of assumptions.
Quote from: Benoist;706078By doing this, you are actually the one using a badwrongfun/badwrongthought argument.
Except I'm not. Unless you're actually agreeing with me and are talking about the people that *are* making those arguments, rather than me.
OOOOH I in fact completely misunderstood your post robiswrong. My bad!
Quote from: Benoist;706193OOOOH I in fact completely misunderstood your post robiswrong. My bad!
It's all good :)
Since I like both games like Fate, as well as old-school D&D, half of the folks here think I'm a Forgist plant out to destroy RPGs, and the other half think I'm a crusty grognard who's afraid of progress and thinks his member is bigger because he lost more first level characters than them.
Quote from: Benoist;706103Once the game world is in play, I run it as it is, which guarantees impartial and organic developments from the players' actions as they interact with the environment. It is impartial: if I change numbers on the players and change die rolls because I don't like them, I can't claim to be impartial as a referee
Congratulations, Ben, you have truly grokked what "D&D as a wargame, referee as neutral arbiter" means.:)
Have a beer. While you're buying, get me one too.
Quote from: Old Geezer;706253Congratulations, Ben, you have truly grokked what "D&D as a wargame, referee as neutral arbiter" means.:)
I find that attitude useful in just about any game, actually. If you're not willing to do that, you're not really playing a game. You're letting the DM tell you a story.
Quote from: Omega;705998Yes. But if I put 40 orcs in the swamp when realistically vs the party's strength levels there should only be 30. Then that is my screwup and its my job as the DM to think of some way to un-screw things. That is not cheating.
As said in the previous post.
It could be as simple as setting the excess 10 off on a patrol or raid. Maybee the party sees a chance to ambush them and take their stuff as a disguise.
Or the group could walk in on an argument or brawl in progress and take advantage of it. Weave it into the story. Turn the mistake into a plot element. The players get a fair fight where they may still lose. But they did not lose because the odds were stacked totally against them by accident.
I have "punted on 1st down" a few times when I realized the PCs (more precisely, the players) were in over their heads. But that was always with newbies. There's really no reason 40 orcs should be
that difficult a challenge for any group of PCs run by players with some experience.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;705999So your players are incapable of doing a bit of scouting, sizing up the opposition, and deciding on what they think they can handle?
If 40 seems too overwhelming to fight then perhaps options other than a straight fight ought to be considered.
After all, a band of heroes taking on several times their number of foes is the theme of The Seven Samurai (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnRUHtSgJ9o) and countless imitators.
Quote from: Elfdart;706262I have "punted on 1st down" a few times when I realized the PCs (more precisely, the players) were in over their heads. But that was always with newbies. There's really no reason 40 orcs should be that difficult a challenge for any group of PCs run by players with some experience.
If I were GMing a set of new players in that situation (especially in an old-school game), I'd be more likely to kind of paint a picture of the scenario, and give the odds to the players. Seems like a good lesson that sometimes the right answer is to RUN.
What I find interesting about the "over their heads" scenario is that generally when people are talking about it from a GM perspective, there's no indication of how the players got there in the first place. I think one of the big disconnects is there - old-school GMs don't decide 'you're going to fight this many orcs'. The orcs may be there, but what happens with them is up to the players.
But more linear scenarios often have set encounters that aren't really about what the *players* or *characters* decided, but are basically served up to them. In that situation, yeah, maintaining appropriate balance is much more important.
Quote from: Arduin;706073Game system is a constant within a given game (campaign). Houserules also. I'm talking about outside the rule framework.
I don't think anyone else is though when they talk about DM vs player expectation and the importance of communication between the 2 so players know what to expect
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706062With regard to illusionism and adjusting difficulty on the fly to meet expected party capabilities, there is something of importance that can get lost.
Player creativity.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If every challenge is adjusted to be winnable with bog standard tactics and the pre-programmed application of character powers then players won't need to come up with clever means to win through on their own. Every solution will end up using the same moves simply because they work.
Oh yeah, this for me is one of the high points of being a GM. I regularly respond to PC actions by putting them in situations where I, personally, can see no immediate exit.
For example the group gets kidnapped out of their beds at the inn by men working for the lord of a nearby territory, whose son they killed for being a general bastard. They come to out of a drug induced haze finding themselves in a dungeon with a smallish barred window high up on one wall, and Baron Sneerychops telling them they're to be hung at dawn.
And that was that.
Some of the creative ideas they came up with included
- Levering a bent nail out of the wooden cot and using it to pick the lock
- One player had seen Shanghai Noon and wanted to try his tailoring skill (BASKETWEAVING SKILL) to see if he knew that the fine silk shirt another player was wearing could be peed on to bend the bars in the window
- One player wanted to see if the guards could be bribed with the gold coins he had in his boot's false heel
And so on.
Quote from: Benoist;706127My decisions are not infallible, though I did learn a little bit along the way while running my own games, so actual failure due to gross misjudgment on my part doesn't happen that often. I'm still learning, of course. I don't think I'm a special snowflake, if that's what you're asking: anybody can do that. Anybody can get things mostly right for a satisfying game from the get-go or nearly, with a little bit of thought involved and some judicious advice thrown in for good measure, and everybody can learn to get better from there with practice.
If you think you are a special snowflake wasn't even on the radar. I cannot fathom the idea 'once written it cannot be unwritten'.
Quote from: Benoist;706127There is a difference between coming up with a world or module to play, where I do consider things like whether an opposing force might be formidable, or especially weak, whether the numbers would be variable because creatures in the group move around, or there is a set number of NPCs in here at all times, according to all sorts of reasons like whether the orcs are in the employment of the Bandit King and how much he can afford and how he organizes the defense of his Underground Lair with what he can afford, and running the game proper, once you have created that world outside of the game.
For instance, when I come up with a dungeon deciding that there is a progressive difficulty in challenges, I might say, go for first level is challenging for characters level 1-2, second level of the dungeon is challenging for characters of level 2-3, and so on. This means that there is a challenge with increasing difficulty, and the choice of the difficulty is left for the players to decide as they play the game.
So the party explores level 1 of the dungeon, and when the players find a staircase going down they have a clear choice before them: either they go down and face a greater challenge for potentially greater rewards or death, or they stay where they are and play it more safe for lesser rewards and a lesser chance that the shit might hit the fan.
In that set-up, the choice is the players', not mine.
Likewise, if I consider what type of creatures exist in and around the moor the players decided to explore last session, I might come up with an encounter table indicating on a d% "16-20: Gnolls 2-8" because the moor is close to the Gnoll Mountains and one chance in 20 to meet a hunting party in search for food to bring back to the Mountains in case an encounter occurs seems plausible and reasonable to me.
When I come to actually run the game, I will run the game impartially. This means that I will use these tools in order to role play the environment. I will check say 1-in-6 every three exploration turns, because the area is not *that* populated, which by the way is a frequency I will have decided before hand, when I came up with the environment in the first place, and if I get a result of "6", then I'll roll on my encounter table. What actually happens according to the way the world works as simulated by the encounter table ultimately is not my decision, but the outcome of the dice. That guarantees impartiality, and also guarantees there are consequences to choices from the players such as staying in the moor for a while instead of going back to town or getting to that temple they noticed earlier to strike it rich. Whatever the choice, there will be natural consequences.
If I rolled that "6" and an encounter happens, the players characters generally choose how to approach this threat. They will notice the presence of something in the environs, and will be able to decide whether they want to scout, whether they just attack first, try to find out their intentions, whatever. The choice, again, is theirs, and the consequences are primarily predicated on these choices, rather than what I thought they could or could not handle.
While I am not trying to poopoo on this style of play, I have always had issues with this concept of gaming. Too much(for my tastes) is taken out of the DMs hands and given over to charts. Charts that were written 'in a vacuum', the DM who updates their charts from the aftereffects of the PCs is an insignificant percentage in my experience. I have always felt(as a player) that I was careening from randomness to randomness without any rhyme or reason. Perhaps I had too many 'Bad Dms touching me'.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706379While I am not trying to poopoo on this style of play, I have always had issues with this concept of gaming. Too much(for my tastes) is taken out of the DMs hands and given over to charts. Charts that were written 'in a vacuum', the DM who updates their charts from the aftereffects of the PCs is an insignificant percentage in my experience. I have always felt(as a player) that I was careening from randomness to randomness without any rhyme or reason. Perhaps I had too many 'Bad Dms touching me'.
If the charts are produced with little thought given to their content then the effort is largely wasted. Might as well use charts from a basic rulebook and save the effort.
Nothing is removed from the DMs hands that he/she doesn't willingly give up. Tables are there as a tool. You can let them dictate your game for you if you want.
For example if the PCs completely slaughter every inhabitant in a small dungeon complex and are still in the area doing a top to bottom search for treasure I'm not going to roll for wandering monsters at all unless a lot of time has gone by or the group leaves the place for a good stretch of time then returns.
Often the tables themselves aren't the problem. Its more often the DM not applying thought to their use.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706383If the charts are produced with little thought given to their content then the effort is largely wasted. Might as well use charts from a basic rulebook and save the effort.
Nothing is removed from the DMs hands that he/she doesn't willingly give up. Tables are there as a tool. You can let them dictate your game for you if you want.
For example if the PCs completely slaughter every inhabitant in a small dungeon complex and are still in the area doing a top to bottom search for treasure I'm not going to roll for wandering monsters at all unless a lot of time has gone by or the group leaves the place for a good stretch of time then returns.
Often the tables themselves aren't the problem. Its more often the DM not applying thought to their use.
This. Charts are a tool, and like any part of any system defer to common sense. If your DM lacks this, charts can create a videogame-like environment. Used correctly, they add to the versimilitude of a setting.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706383If the charts are produced with little thought given to their content then the effort is largely wasted. Might as well use charts from a basic rulebook and save the effort.
Yeah, if the tables are halfway environmentally accurate, you should probably expect to meet gnolls around gnoll mountain. If you aren't set up to deal with gnolls maybe you shouldn't have gone near gnoll mountain. Or, use clever ideas to extricate yourself from situations you weren't ready for as per my jail example earlier, which is where player innovation really shines.
This notion of two opposing sides swapping punches until the one falls over is the very very least of what an RPG can do.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706379If you think you are a special snowflake wasn't even on the radar. I cannot fathom the idea 'once written it cannot be unwritten'.
OK Cool.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706379While I am not trying to poopoo on this style of play, I have always had issues with this concept of gaming.
It's totally cool if you come out of this conversation thinking "hey, I still like my games a lot better than his, but at least now I get a better sense of where the guy's coming from." If that occurs, I'll count that as a huge win for both of us.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706379Too much(for my tastes) is taken out of the DMs hands and given over to charts. Charts that were written 'in a vacuum', the DM who updates their charts from the aftereffects of the PCs is an insignificant percentage in my experience. I have always felt(as a player) that I was careening from randomness to randomness without any rhyme or reason. Perhaps I had too many 'Bad Dms touching me'.
I can only talk about my games and those I've seen using similar techniques and how they came out in play. Now that said, I actually witnessed games that were similar to what you describe here: games where things are mostly generated randomly, and the actual game feels random as well, to the point where the world just doesn't feel real, more like a succession of completely arbitrary encounters having no link between each other whatsoever.
When you combine that with the "white room sandbox", you know, that extreme where nothing happens in the world if the players don't do anything, and they end up wondering what the hell there IS to do in this campaign, if it's got any point at all, then it can devolve into a terrible, harrowing game you want to drop as quickly as possible, and if you know what I'm talking about here and you felt that well, Good Lord I can't blame you for wanting to leave, because I think that something's gone wrong with the way the sandbox and all the random charts were put together in the first place.
If you add on top of that a DM who is basically a douche telling you you suck if you don't do anything in his white room sandbox, then yeah, that'd be a case of "DMs touching you in the wrong places" in my book, for sure.
So how do I avoid that with my games?
I think about world consistency, challenges, the ways these might mix with each other and all those kind of things when I prepare the game, draw the map, and build the encounter tables that will emulate that particular part of the world (whether we're talking about a specific area of the wilderness, a level of the dungeon or whatnot) so there is a feel that these things belong and there is an explanation behind their presence on there (you can see from my examples in my last two posts how I think about whether the orcs might be encountered were they hired by the Bandit King and so on).
A note about random encounter tables (I'm going to get to that next in the advice to build the mega-dungeon, in fact): Random tables in rules books are by nature generic things that serve me more as examples to build my own smaller, custom, more setting-specific ones than actual tools to be used all the time in the game (though sometimes I'll include the possibility of rolling on a generic table INSIDE a custom one just to let that 1% possibility that just about ANYTHING climate appropriate could potentially be encountered, just in case, on a completely rare, off chance).
Likewise, if the situation evolves dramatically in a part of the setting where the random table applies, such as a level that would have been completely wiped out (generally very hard to do in my games because I generally think about things like "what if this group is wiped out, who fills the vacuum, etc" and "how would that group evolve throughout the campaign, would it grow, shrink, eventually be wiped out by some other group, etc?", but theoretically possible), then I might change the table between game sessions to reflect that impact the players had on the population of the area, to reflect the state of the game world as it is, instead of what it once was.
So there very much is a rhyme and reason behind the tools I'm using in my settings, and that is the rhyme and reason of the worlds I came up with in the first place. If I do my job right both in and out of the game, when I come up with the tools and when I use them in the game, interpret the results and role play them at the table, even the most bizarre encounters in the game will feel like they have a place in this world, and will spawn questions on the part of the players who'll wonder what that thing is, why it's there at all - and that generally is something I will have given some thought about before the game when I built those tools I'm using. They get sucked into the make-believe, and that's really a big part of the fun as well, to me.
Quote from: Old Geezer;706253Congratulations, Ben, you have truly grokked what "D&D as a wargame, referee as neutral arbiter" means.:)
Have a beer. While you're buying, get me one too.
I'll make sure to pay a few rounds when we finally meet for real. A good thing I like Guinness too, heh? :D
(http://cattletoapple.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/guinness-for-strength-posters.jpg)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706383Often the tables themselves aren't the problem. Its more often the DM not applying thought to their use.
Tabletop RPGs are dependent on the referee doing well. There just no way around that. Any tool or mechanic for tabletop is broken in the hands of a poor referee. A good referee can make make just about any system shine.
What it boils down is that a for a tabletop RPG game to succeed it need to be successful at teaching folks how to be good referees. And it has to go beyond just presenting a set of law of good gamemastering. You need to give them the tools to succeed when they are a novice and go further to give them stuff that save them work when they are experienced.
Quote from: TristramEvans;706384This. Charts are a tool, and like any part of any system defer to common sense. If your DM lacks this, charts can create a videogame-like environment. Used correctly, they add to the versimilitude of a setting.
All a random encounter chart is is the GM, before the game, coming up with a bunch of shit that could happen in that area, writing it down, and putting likelihoods next to it.
Done well, it's a powerful tool.
Quote from: K Peterson;706053Here's a question: why not let the players handle their challenges? Why not let them think up ways to "salvage" situations? Perhaps they'll come up with some "tricks" that you won't expect (I've found it challenging over the years to ever be "certain"/predict what players, and their characters, will do or can accomplish). Or maybe they'll avoid the encounter, or try to parley or intimidate their opponents.
To me, this approach just comes across as so much coddling. Making sure your players are treated with kid gloves; making sure that no challenge is so great that you risk "killing the group"; altering the "story" of your adventure so that it's appropriate to what you perceive are the player's capabilities.
I guess I'm just not a fan of illusionism, which is what this approach clearly is. Or being babysat by the DM.
Thats what was discussed in a seperate post. If the players come up with a plan despite the odds then all is fine.
The problem is when even with a plan, or acting on the equivalent of false information... They still dont have a chance due to GM goof. Then the GM should likely think of some way to salvage without disrupting the flow of the session. Such as a fight breaking out, or some scheemer using the PCs as a distraction and scape goat for picking off a rival. Whatever is needed to nudge the chance back to 50/50 or even just 30/70 since the players tend to not need much to pull off a victory against odds.
It is neither illusionism or babysitting. Merely making a choice to salvage what turns out to be an unintentional TPK about to happen.
Quote from: Omega;706550The problem is when even with a plan, or acting on the equivalent of false information... They still dont have a chance due to GM goof. Then the GM should likely think of some way to salvage without disrupting the flow of the session.
Can you give a specific example from your game?
Quote from: Omega;706550It is neither illusionism or babysitting. Merely making a choice to salvage what turns out to be an unintentional TPK about to happen.
As opposed to all the fiendishly clever TPK by design encounters the DM worked so hard putting together?
Do you see how silly it all sounds when put like that?
Quote from: Omega;706550Thats what was discussed in a seperate post. If the players come up with a plan despite the odds then all is fine.
The problem is when even with a plan, or acting on the equivalent of false information... They still dont have a chance due to GM goof. Then the GM should likely think of some way to salvage without disrupting the flow of the session. Such as a fight breaking out, or some scheemer using the PCs as a distraction and scape goat for picking off a rival. Whatever is needed to nudge the chance back to 50/50 or even just 30/70 since the players tend to not need much to pull off a victory against odds.
It is neither illusionism or babysitting. Merely making a choice to salvage what turns out to be an unintentional TPK about to happen.
Intended by whom? You? Why should the GM intend a TPK, or not?
I think this is the disconnect. Most people arguing against lethality seem to be coming from a position where they presume:
1) It's the GM's job to prep specific encounters
2) The players are expected to fight and defeat the encounters
3) The GM is in control of the direction of the game.
Old-school games don't make these presumptions. Ideally, the GM doesn't care if you beat an "encounter" or not. He's neither out to kill the party, nor to guide them. The players choose what they do and where they go, and have ample opportunity to scout, figure out what's going on, and retreat if necessary.
If you make the assumptions that I've outlined above, then TPKs are a bad idea. You're essentially punishing the players for choices that they didn't make. But if you give the players actual agency in the world, then if there's a TPK, it's due to player decisions, not the GM "mis-balancing" an encounter.
Almost everyone I've seen talking negatively about TPKs and lethality has talked *only* about the combat - not what led up to it, and not the players' opportunities to exit or avoid the combat. And that's key. Talking about old-school lethality without talking about those things is missing critical pieces of the conversation.
And I'm not being critical here of "series of encounters" types of games. I'm not into them, but that's fine. But when talking about high lethality in old school games, it's important to recognize the differences between the play structure of "series of encounters" games, and how old-school games ran.
Quote from: robiswrong;706568Almost everyone I've seen talking negatively about TPKs and lethality has talked *only* about the combat - not what led up to it, and not the players' opportunities to exit or avoid the combat. And that's key. Talking about old-school lethality without talking about those things is missing critical pieces of the conversation.
This, right here.
One of the most common disconnects I've seen over the years in many gaming circles is the premise that if the PCs can't beat the bad guys in a straight up, toe-to-toe slugging match, Something Is Broken.
For my part, being a good roleplayer ought to involve the usual human preference not to get hurt. Being a good tactician ought to involve figuring out ways to minimize that hurt. If I think the combat odds aren't great, I'm going to try to avoid combat. If I don't think I can avoid combat, I'm going to try tactical options which serve to mitigate the risk. If I'm in combat and things are going south, I'm going to try to break off the engagement and skedaddle. None of this is brain surgery.
Quote from: robiswrong;706568I think this is the disconnect. Most people arguing against lethality seem to be coming from a position where they presume:
1) It's the GM's job to prep specific encounters
2) The players are expected to fight and defeat the encounters
3) The GM is in control of the direction of the game.
Old-school games don't make these presumptions.
Those presumptions come mainly from the video gamer crowd.
Quote from: Omega;706550It is neither illusionism or babysitting. Merely making a choice to salvage what turns out to be an unintentional TPK about to happen.
I disagree. But I'll leave it at that, and not waste time arguing against your viewpoints.
Quote from: robiswrong;706568Almost everyone I've seen talking negatively about TPKs and lethality has talked *only* about the combat - not what led up to it, and not the players' opportunities to exit or avoid the combat. And that's key. Talking about old-school lethality without talking about those things is missing critical pieces of the conversation.
Money quote right here.
"What led up to the combat" includes prepping for the expedition, seizing the strength of the opponent when you get there, formulating a plan, including making sure the fight is *not* fair for the opponent, choosing the encounter's terrain and using it to one's advantage, choosing the means of engagement and so on, in order to create an overwhelming tactical advantage.
In that case, it is the players' responsibility to change a "no win" scenario into one that grants you victory, and if the shit hits the fan, that you find yourself in a situation you cannot win, then it's time to consider a retreat to live another day and maybe approach the same problem later with a different strategy.
By the way, 50/50 odds are *terrible* odds, tactically speaking. Parties going to melee with those kinds of chances are asking for a TPK to happen.
Quote from: Omega;706550Thats what was discussed in a seperate post. If the players come up with a plan despite the odds then all is fine.
The problem is when even with a plan, or acting on the equivalent of false information... They still dont have a chance due to GM goof. Then the GM should likely think of some way to salvage without disrupting the flow of the session. Such as a fight breaking out, or some scheemer using the PCs as a distraction and scape goat for picking off a rival. Whatever is needed to nudge the chance back to 50/50 or even just 30/70 since the players tend to not need much to pull off a victory against odds.
It is neither illusionism or babysitting. Merely making a choice to salvage what turns out to be an unintentional TPK about to happen.
The fact that a TPK, could be described as 'intentional' or not by the DM is exactly what illusionism is all about.
Quote from: mightyuncle;7050080 to 1st level D&D characters are those red shirts, not because it's some bad joke but because it is the players' actions that get to define them as heroes or fertilizer, not because of some arbitrary predestined decision made by the players or referee.
Turns out you weren't the only thief who showed up to rob the Tower of the Elephant. The other fellow rushed ahead, though, and met a grisly death. You at least will remember the unfortunate's name: Conan, a Cimmerian.
Quote from: Omega;705010DMs need to be up front about what threat level the session is using.
Players need to be aware that just flailing away at everything will likely = dead character/group.
I remember once on Enworld, I saw a consensus that some risk I took for granted in D&D would call for explicit and emphatic warning. I don't recall the details, whether it was just something to do with "level appropriate encounters," or the GM letting the dice fall as they may instead of "fudging."
Anyway, stuff like that can set off an old hand's weirdness meter and have one goggling. Wait, we're talking about
D&D, aren't we?
QuoteDMs need to realize when an encounter is unintentionally overpowered and adjust as needed. But also not to go too easy on the players....
... so (real life example!) my Sleep spell gets arbitrarily nullified because the GM made an encounter "too easy." Never mind that it's the only spell I've got, and the GM assigned it.
The justification is that it's the kind of game (if you can call it a game) in which the players are just along for a ride on the GM's railroad. We've got no choice except to get into whatever fights the GM has chosen to arrange, because if we stray from the program then the GM will just pack up and call it a day.
If that's the deal, then I concede that since the GM has taken away our power -- and thus responsibility -- for making sure the odds are in our favor, it can fall on nobody else's shoulders.
I think it's a rotten deal, though; at any rate, it quickly bores me.
Quote from: Omega;705998Yes. But if I put 40 orcs in the swamp when realistically vs the party's strength levels there should only be 30.
Realistically, orcs aren't likely to think, "Hey, we could actually keep ourselves from getting massacred by a particular bunch of guys we've never heard of, and we can't have us, you know, surviving to go about our business, can we? So, let's draw straws for which quarter of us gets to go off and be even more easily slaughtered."
Realistically, if they thought like that, there probably wouldn't be any orcs left, any more than dodos are still around for what passed as "sport."
QuoteThen that is my screwup and its my job as the DM to think of some way to un-screw things. That is not cheating.
You willy nilly vanish a knight here, add some pawns there, to keep a player's moves from actually making a difference in the outcome, and to you that isn't cheating?
What, one wonders, do you see as the point of the exercise? Why should a player even show up?
Quote from: Phillip;706594What, one wonders, do you see as the point of the exercise? Why should a player even show up?
For what it's worth, I agree with you.
The point seems to be telling a group story about how awesome the players' characters are. That's not intended to be as snarky as it sounds, but I can't think of another way to put it without spending a hell of a lot of time on wording.
As Rob Kuntz said at last GaryCon, "they're playing, but it's not a game."
Strokes, folks, different, and all. As Spock said, "I note the phenomenon exists, but I do not understand it."
Quote from: TristramEvans;706579The fact that a TPK, could be described as 'intentional' or not by the DM is exactly what illusionism is all about.
Word. "Unintentional TPK" shows that the writer's assumptions are so different from mine that meaningful exchange of ideas is virtually impossible.
For clarity, it's because "unintentional TPK" implies the existence of another kind of TPK, most likely intentional.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
Yes Sir, this and using retainers as "Characters-to-be".
I think that a lot of new players are not coming from a war-game background, but a read D&D novels and want to play Drizzt. As they want to be heroic from level 1 and be the center of both the world and campaign.
But they forget that they also want to be a level 20+ character at one point. It is the highest echelons of power that shape the game world, it should not be the PCs regardless of level. When the PCs are level one, regardless of the story inherent in the campaign, it is the Gods and high level spell-casters etc., that make the major changes to the world.
I think that a lot of players want "Story After" approach to telling their Mary Sue stories. They will at the end of a campaign describe as their persona was always the best at everything, and that the game mechanics were scaled to apply _only_ to their PC relevant statistics and abilities.
I think that if you clearly state that it is an adventure where the unknown and meek become major forces in the story, rather than "PCs are the greatest heroes even at level one!" this can be overcome.
You just clearly need to differentiate between what a low level character _is_ and the players perceived implications are. (I think a lot of players think that being level one means you are Conan or Merlin.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303How would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
You can start them off with a "Good Shepard" such as an Angel capable of resurrection, an item such as a Ring of Regeneration or Elixir of Life. Something to ensure that their snowflake will survive their actions to a point in the story where character death is unlikely. Though I dislike these personally.
My suggestion is to get them to maximize their retainers at level 1 at the first opportunity. Get them to create or role-play the acquisition of their 4-14 retainers, get them used to character creation, tell them you dont have a problem with them using these as their next character _if_ it can be explained in context. So if their PC dies they can playing strait away.
If their problem is they dont want their snowflake dying, because it is _imperative_ to them "roll-playing" "telling their unique story" "writing their novel" "Mary Sueing", please, please tell them to play Dragonlance or something where is it is implied that the 1st level characters are going to be heroes that save the world in a hundred adventures time.
I think that if you ask them to describe there perceptions of _Why_ people are gathered to play an rpg, and it is different to the rest of the playgroup then maybe just explain to them that they can play the same game as everyone else, or just have luck finding a playgroup that would suit their tastes.
There are playgroups for every type of role-playing, and there will always be That Guy, and That DM. Directly explain the differences between their preconceived notions, and the play style of the group.
Though personally, just keep killing off their characters as though they werent a DMGF and they will eventually grok the concept, or you know they wont and never will.
:D
Quote from: Old Geezer;706661Word. "Unintentional TPK" shows that the writer's assumptions are so different from mine that meaningful exchange of ideas is virtually impossible.
For clarity, it's because "unintentional TPK" implies the existence of another kind of TPK, most likely intentional.
Perhaps he just worded it as unintentional to clarify that he was not addressing people that experienced an intentional tpk?
Intentional tpk's do exist, but need not be something the op personally does.
Quote from: Snake_Eyes;706733But they forget that they also want to be a level 20+ character at one point. It is the highest echelons of power that shape the game world, it should not be the PCs regardless of level. When the PCs are level one, regardless of the story inherent in the campaign, it is the Gods and high level spell-casters etc., that make the major changes to the world.
I will have to disagree with this particular part. Successful play (at least IMHO) CAN lead the PCs to positions of world movers and shakers. Such a status is a prize to be aimed for though, and not handed out at level one, nor should it be automatic with achieving level X, but such a status should be obtainable with dedication and intelligent play.
Otherwise you are telling the players that they may play but will never be allowed to really win. Here gentle D&D player you get to compete in the campaign olympics but the gold medal is off the table. Ready?
Screw that. If you expect your players to accept true loss and the possibility of multiple ignoble deaths in the quest for ultimate victory, then there should be an ultimate victory to be had.
Quote from: Phillip;706582I remember once on Enworld, I saw a consensus that some risk I took for granted in D&D would call for explicit and emphatic warning. I don't recall the details, whether it was just something to do with "level appropriate encounters," or the GM letting the dice fall as they may instead of "fudging."
Anyway, stuff like that can set off an old hand's weirdness meter and have one goggling. Wait, we're talking about D&D, aren't we?
... so (real life example!) my Sleep spell gets arbitrarily nullified because the GM made an encounter "too easy." Never mind that it's the only spell I've got, and the GM assigned it.
The justification is that it's the kind of game (if you can call it a game) in which the players are just along for a ride on the GM's railroad. We've got no choice except to get into whatever fights the GM has chosen to arrange, because if we stray from the program then the GM will just pack up and call it a day.
If that's the deal, then I concede that since the GM has taken away our power -- and thus responsibility -- for making sure the odds are in our favor, it can fall on nobody else's shoulders.
I think it's a rotten deal, though; at any rate, it quickly bores me.
Was he a novice gm?
A single sleep spell is hardly game breaking.
Quote from: Benoist;706578Money quote right here.
"What led up to the combat" includes prepping for the expedition, seizing the strength of the opponent when you get there, formulating a plan, including making sure the fight is *not* fair for the opponent, choosing the encounter's terrain and using it to one's advantage, choosing the means of engagement and so on, in order to create an overwhelming tactical advantage.
This is where I have the biggest issues.
If the players are able to check off most/all of these, the DM is letting the players win.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706763This is where I have the biggest issues.
If the players are able to check off most/all of these, the DM is letting the players win.
Hmm - I suspect you never let the monsters do most of this stuff to the PCs either, because that would be 'unfair to the players', right?
IMCs it can go either way, and pre-3e D&D is well set up to handle either eventuality and still work well. Note that even if the PCs are taking no special precautions they get to surprise the monsters 2 in 6 and ought to often be able to use those tactics. With effective scouts the chances can be higher. But likewise the PCs may be ambushed too, with monsters base 2 in 6 to get surprise.
Quote from: Sommerjon;706763This is where I have the biggest issues.
If the players are able to check off most/all of these, the DM is letting the players win.
If the DM gets out of his way and against the world's consistency and logic to always give the PCs a break, then he is partial to a meta-consideration, that being in favor of a multitude of inconsistent player choices in any and all situations, and that's a way of running the game that ends up actually stealing agency away from the party because whatever they do they'll never be able to corner themselves by their own doing into bad situations to get out of.
That said, the basic setup of my games is that the characters delve into the dungeon or otherwise explore the wilderness around it, starting from a town, refuge or settlement they can fall back to periodically. So prepping to get out, buying/selling equipment, talking to the townsfolk to gather stories and information about what happenened to others before them and what they found out until now, what might be interesting to get to, as well as organizing the party (does the second row use polearms? Is the magic user at the tail end of the order of march? Who's holding range weapons and how?) and so on are choices right out of the gate.
When they explore the outside world, the PCs will get occasions to approach dangerous areas, such as the dungeon, in a variety of ways. Scouting instead of charging head on for the first entrance they see and seizing the opposition is a possible choice.
Once that is done, attemting to draw the opponents out to ambush them, creating a decoy to reduce the number of guards standing at the entrance, parleying to be given free passage into the dungeon are possible strategies. Sure, the guards might want to run you through with their swords instead of accepting your bribe, they might not fall for a decoy, and sometimes patrols will investigate decoys coming from inside the dungeon rather than the guards at the entrance leaving their posts, but such reactions will vary, depending on the nature of said guards (ogres will react to a noise in the bushes differently than a group of trained mercenaries at the entrance for instance), the precise circumstances in which these strategies are put into play, and sometimes the luck of the dice as well, when certain reactions or outcomes would not be clear for me to interpret and role play.
Finally, in many situations, the choice to retreat and or avoid certain threats will be presented. That's in part why the map is drawn as a maze with multiple paths of exploration instead of a linear succession of room and challenges that would have to be faced in a certain precise order or the adventure just doesn't happen. It is to ensure that the players have agency to say "oookay maybe we won't step into that bleeding room with the very obvious gold idol just right now and go explore that other corridor we spotted before." But the exact amount of agency depends, and varies, not only because of what I setup in the environment, but because of what the players did before they arrived at that precise point of the adventure.
So while I agree that overriding the world's consistency in the name of giving the players the same amount of choices all the time whatever they do in itself actually would rob them of their agency in the game world, I disagree that the possibility these choices exist, in and of themselves, are indicative of a game geared towards letting the players win.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706748I will have to disagree with this particular part. Successful play (at least IMHO) CAN lead the PCs to positions of world movers and shakers. Such a status is a prize to be aimed for though, and not handed out at level one, nor should it be automatic with achieving level X, but such a status should be obtainable with dedication and intelligent play.
Otherwise you are telling the players that they may play but will never be allowed to really win. Here gentle D&D player you get to compete in the campaign olympics but the gold medal is off the table. Ready?
Screw that. If you expect your players to accept true loss and the possibility of multiple ignoble deaths in the quest for ultimate victory, then there should be an ultimate victory to be had.
Are we playing for victory or for adventure though? Higher level D&D characters, often you may as well be playing Exalted. My preference is for starting characters out at a reasonably tough level and finishing not much different, if a campaign reaches the stage where individuals are laughing off armies, it's time to wrap it up.
The joy for me comes from what I do with my character, not the cumulative accrual of personal power, although that may happen too. And let's face it, a world mover and shaker is very often as much of a beaurocrat and accountant as a supremely awesome warrior or wizard.
With great power comes great paperwork.
Quote from: The Traveller;706772Are we playing for victory or for adventure though? Higher level D&D characters, often you may as well be playing Exalted. My preference is for starting characters out at a reasonably tough level and finishing not much different, if a campaign reaches the stage where individuals are laughing off armies, it's time to wrap it up.
The joy for me comes from what I do with my character, not the cumulative accrual of personal power, although that may happen too. And let's face it, a world mover and shaker is very often as much of a beaurocrat and accountant as a supremely awesome warrior or wizard.
With great power comes great paperwork.
Political power is what I was speaking of. Building up holdings and gradually building influence to become a major player in the world, which is something that 0 level NPCs may accomplish by birth. :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706784Political power is what I was speaking of. Building up holdings and gradually building influence to become a major player in the world, which is something that 0 level NPCs may accomplish by birth. :)
Still kind of the opposite of adventure, more like a sabbatical in public sector administration and politics tbh. Which is great if that's what you enjoy doing, but it seems as though the kind of players who got into the game by looting and pillaging dungeons, battling terrible foes in mortal combat and outsmarting villains bent on devastation mightn't have a lot in common with those who enjoy a good game of "tally your taxes and settle that tillage boundary dispute between farmer Radcliffe and the Burghers' guild".
When I was introduced to D&D in the 1970s, it was just usual to expect a game -- field game, board game, video game, whatever -- to be a challenge of strategic skill. There's real accomplishment in learning to solve a tough problem, none in besting a "challenge" that's trivial.
With 4E (based on DMG reading as well as RPGA play), the strategic element in the wargame sense got cut away to focus on a more or less predetermined series of tactical games. It's sort of like playing Melee and Wizard as arena bouts, as opposed to the full version of The Fantasy Trip: nice game, if that's what you want, but a very different game.
The strategic aspect -- the premise that the players choose what to undertake -- is I think pretty key not only to the original D&D campaign conception, but to what "role playing" means to many of us.
The Tomb of Horrors is a very different proposition when players can say, "Sod this for a lark, let's seek mercenary commissions in Bissel!" as opposed to being told, "This is a tournament; if you abandon the Tomb, that's game over."
If I'm free to choose my moves, then the bad ones can be very bad indeed; decent game balance simply requires that good ones be discoverable enough.
As to adjusting things mid-game, "This rule sucks, let's change it!" is something I've heard often enough while playing board and card games. I personally would rather have such a consultation than have the GM unilaterally "fudging" to ensure this or that outcome; we players can speak for ourselves, and we might not agree with the GM's assessment of what's "too much."
The problem, of course, is that such consultation may be too much of a distraction from in-character play. The solution I suggest is to restore the strategic element so that consequences arise from player choices (with an accepted element of chance). The GM should neither be arranging nor preventing PC deaths, but rather allowing players to get their characters killed.
One way to lessen the chance of TPK in old school games, esp. D&D, is to not ignore the various rules on surprise, monster reaction, encounter distance (very important when it comes to not being killed by the 40 orcs!), and morale. Also, if you GM 1e, roll 30-300 orcs, and have them ambush your PCs, you may be being a bit unfair. It's far more likely the PCs would either first encounter a small orc party of scouts or foragers, or they'd spot the orc fortress/camp before blundering into it. Surprise chances need modifying if one side is much larger than the other. This isn't coddling the players, it's good objective environment simulation.
Quote from: Benoist;706769If the DM gets out of his way and against the world's consistency and logic to always give the PCs a break, then he is partial to a meta-consideration, that being in favor of a multitude of inconsistent player choices in any and all situations, and that's a way of running the game that ends up actually stealing agency away from the party because whatever they do they'll never be able to corner themselves by their own doing into bad situations to get out of.
Tossing food or money to stop pursuit, throwing oil, spiking doors as SOP is what I was referring to. Things that the players do by rote instead of actual strategy/tactics. That to me has stolen agency away from the players. The players have stopped thinking and given over to custom. When these customs don't work people start bitching.
Quote from: Benoist;706769That said, the basic setup of my games is that the characters delve into the dungeon or otherwise explore the wilderness around it, starting from a town, refuge or settlement they can fall back to periodically. So prepping to get out, buying/selling equipment, talking to the townsfolk to gather stories and information about what happenened to others before them and what they found out until now, what might be interesting to get to, as well as organizing the party (does the second row use polearms? Is the magic user at the tail end of the order of march? Who's holding range weapons and how?) and so on are choices right out of the gate.
Got no major issues with this. However, if the townsfolks' information has more accuracy than not of a place they have never gone to...I start having issues.
Quote from: Benoist;706769When they explore the outside world, the PCs will get occasions to approach dangerous areas, such as the dungeon, in a variety of ways. Scouting instead of charging head on for the first entrance they see and seizing the opposition is a possible choice.
Size of the party has major implications on the variety and accuracy of their information gathering. The impact of a 4 man group is vastly different than a group of 30.
Quote from: Benoist;706769Once that is done, attemting to draw the opponents out to ambush them, creating a decoy to reduce the number of guards standing at the entrance, parleying to be given free passage into the dungeon are possible strategies. Sure, the guards might want to run you through with their swords instead of accepting your bribe, they might not fall for a decoy, and sometimes patrols will investigate decoys coming from inside the dungeon rather than the guards at the entrance leaving their posts, but such reactions will vary, depending on the nature of said guards (ogres will react to a noise in the bushes differently than a group of trained mercenaries at the entrance for instance), the precise circumstances in which these strategies are put into play, and sometimes the luck of the dice as well, when certain reactions or outcomes would not be clear for me to interpret and role play.
This I have problems with. What does having guards do for the things inside if the guards are consistently being bribed? Having enterprising individuals setting up a toll booth at the entrance to a 'dungeon' is interesting once every 5 campaigns, having them at every entrance to a dungeon is not. Why don't the things inside have their own roving patrols outside their 'domain' to give early warnings of possible invasion?
Why would the things inside fall for the draw them out and ambush them for? They have a very defensible position that the players are trying to gain access to.
Quote from: Benoist;706769Finally, in many situations, the choice to retreat and or avoid certain threats will be presented. That's in part why the map is drawn as a maze with multiple paths of exploration instead of a linear succession of room and challenges that would have to be faced in a certain precise order or the adventure just doesn't happen. It is to ensure that the players have agency to say "oookay maybe we won't step into that bleeding room with the very obvious gold idol just right now and go explore that other corridor we spotted before." But the exact amount of agency depends, and varies, not only because of what I setup in the environment, but because of what the players did before they arrived at that precise point of the adventure.
The map is drawn as a maze with multiple paths of exploration is when that vein in my temple throbs. World consistency and logic is tossed out the window in favor of player agency.
Quote from: Benoist;706769So while I agree that overriding the world's consistency in the name of giving the players the same amount of choices all the time whatever they do in itself actually would rob them of their agency in the game world, I disagree that the possibility these choices exist, in and of themselves, are indicative of a game geared towards letting the players win.
That's fine. Agree to disagree then
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091The map is drawn as a maze with multiple paths of exploration is when that vein in my temple throbs. World consistency and logic is tossed out the window in favor of player agency.
Take a look at pretty much any street-map...
Quote from: robiswrong;706568Intended by whom? You? Why should the GM intend a TPK, or not?
I think this is the disconnect. Most people arguing against lethality seem to be coming from a position where they presume:
1) It's the GM's job to prep specific encounters
2) The players are expected to fight and defeat the encounters
3) The GM is in control of the direction of the game.
Old-school games don't make these presumptions. Ideally, the GM doesn't care if you beat an "encounter" or not. He's neither out to kill the party, nor to guide them. The players choose what they do and where they go, and have ample opportunity to scout, figure out what's going on, and retreat if necessary.
And you and the others totally missed the point... AGAIN!
I am saying that I as the DM am trying to set up balanced encounters that challenge the players and give them both the chance of winning and failing. The players should not be TPKed by a mistake. Nor should they get a cakewalk to one.
If I goof up and place something that I had not intended to be there in the first place that makes the encounter too easy or too hard. Then perhaps based on the players current courses of actions I can work with it rather than just pausing and rewinding.
Such as the too many orcs example. The original idea was the players can handle XYZ many with good tactics. I misjudge and drop in more than the group can handle period under the circumstances. Or I put in too few to be a challenge. I made a mistake. Why then is it wrong to correct it?
Quote from: Sommerjon;706763This is where I have the biggest issues.
If the players are able to check off most/all of these, the DM is letting the players win.
Quote from: Benoist;706769So while I agree that overriding the world's consistency in the name of giving the players the same amount of choices all the time whatever they do in itself actually would rob them of their agency in the game world, I disagree that the possibility these choices exist, in and of themselves, are indicative of a game geared towards letting the players win.
So I think it's interesting here that it seems like you two are going back and forth on what decisions should be important. It *appears* that Sommerjon is primarily interested in the in-combat decisions - tactics, power usage, possibly charop, etc., and is against aspects of the game that minimize the impact of those decisions.
Benoist, OTOH, seems more interested in the out-of-combat decisions - scouting, coming up with plans, etc., and is perfectly happy with much simpler combat.
So for Sommerjon, a series of fair, but tough encounters is ideal, since that maximizes the stuff he cares about. That's not ideal for Benoist, because he values the world exploration, scouting, etc. aspects of the game more.
In reality, neither of you want the game to be "geared for the players to win". You just want different things to be the primary focus of whether a player succeeds or not.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091Tossing food or money to stop pursuit, throwing oil, spiking doors as SOP is what I was referring to. Things that the players do by rote instead of actual strategy/tactics. That to me has stolen agency away from the players. The players have stopped thinking and given over to custom. When these customs don't work people start bitching.
Sure, and the same can happen with charop and in-encounter tactics as well. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of "checklist dungeoneering", as I like to call it. But tactics getting reduced to a single best option isn't something that just happens with throwing gold/food and the like.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091This I have problems with. What does having guards do for the things inside if the guards are consistently being bribed? Having enterprising individuals setting up a toll booth at the entrance to a 'dungeon' is interesting once every 5 campaigns, having them at every entrance to a dungeon is not. Why don't the things inside have their own roving patrols outside their 'domain' to give early warnings of possible invasion?
Something being *an* option doesn't mean that the same thing will work each and every time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091Why would the things inside fall for the draw them out and ambush them for? They have a very defensible position that the players are trying to gain access to.
Who said it would? It might work in some cases, depending on how players set up the ambush, and what type of opponents the players were dealing with.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091The map is drawn as a maze with multiple paths of exploration is when that vein in my temple throbs. World consistency and logic is tossed out the window in favor of player agency.
Yeah. Because most places are a group of rooms where one leads directly to the next?
Ok. So you are all saying that having set up the encounter for the group wrongly. That it is then set in stone and can never be undone?
The princess is in room A instead of room B. oops oh well. Enjoy that cakewalk players. She cant be moved back were she should have been.
I rolled on the level 1 table instead of the level 5 table. Oops oh well. Enjoy that cakewalk players. It cant be adjusted now to be an actual challenge. Or by some of the arguments here. The players will think of some way to make the encounter challenging.
I drop 40 orcs into the damn swamp. Oops oh well. Enjoy rolling up new characters because instead of a challenge you got massacred because Im not allowed to do anything about it.
Why should the DM be forced to play a session disrupting mistake that they could have quietly swept aside?
I am not saying save the players. I am saying restore the encounter to being a life or death challenge.
Quote from: Omega;707150Ok. So you are all saying that having set up the encounter for the group wrongly. That it is then set in stone and can never be undone?
The princess is in room A instead of room B. oops oh well. Enjoy that cakewalk players. She cant be moved back were she should have been.
I rolled on the level 1 table instead of the level 5 table. Oops oh well. Enjoy that cakewalk players. It cant be adjusted now to be an actual challenge. Or by some of the arguments here. The players will think of some way to make the encounter challenging.
I drop 40 orcs into the damn swamp. Oops oh well. Enjoy rolling up new characters because instead of a challenge you got massacred because Im not allowed to do anything about it.
Why should the DM be forced to play a session disrupting mistake that they could have quietly swept aside?
I am not saying save the players. I am saying restore the encounter to being a life or death challenge.
There's a few assumptions you're making here.
1) It's the GM's job to set a series of tactical combats in front of the players, that are tough but fair.
2) An "encounter" means that you arrange the enemies in the tactical space and roll for initiative, as combat is going to begin.
3) There's an "appropriate" difficulty for encounters.
So, with those in mind, I'll go into the forty orcs issue, as I think it's a good one:
An encounter of forty orcs doesn't mean you roll for initiative. All it means is that the party and a group of forty orcs comes close enough to each other that one becomes aware of the other's presence.
Given forty orcs, and a party of five or so adventurers, that probably means the party becomes aware of the orcs.
But what are the orcs doing there? Are they a war party? If so, do they have scouts? Maybe the "encounter" means that the scouts see the PCs - and now we have an interesting encounter, trying to evade the scouts or kill them before they report.
If the PCs see the orcs first, then the encounter is probably going to be either avoiding the orcs, or figuring out a way past them.
If the full group of orcs see the PCs either first or at the same time, what then? Do the orcs give chase? Do they sound out a hunting party? Or what? A group of forty orcs will almost certainly make enough noise that if they attack en masse, the PCs will notice before the orcs on top of them - and then the encounter becomes about evading the orcs and losing them - or leading them back to an area where the PCs know there are sufficient reinforcements.
And where are the orcs? Are they between the PCs and their objective? Are they moving? Is this a camp? Is it a normal area for orcs? All of these things are questions that the GM should answer, and that can make the game more interesting. And that's how random encounter tables were meant to be used.
But you're right - in a game where the structure is "GM hands out a series of combat encounters, in order", the random forty orcs is a bad choice. But that's not the only game structure.
Quote from: Planet Algol;707143Take a look at pretty much any street-map...
Lol, I was thinking as I read that, "someone's never driven around a city in New Jersey"
Sommerjon: I've been answering all your questions about my games truthfully, so far, without an intent to play "catch ya" and with an attitude to build bridges, rather than burn them. Now that you are moving from asking questions to making judgments about my games, I hope you will return the favor and answer mine in the same spirit.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091Tossing food or money to stop pursuit, throwing oil, spiking doors as SOP is what I was referring to. Things that the players do by rote instead of actual strategy/tactics. That to me has stolen agency away from the players. The players have stopped thinking and given over to custom. When these customs don't work people start bitching.
Have you played in a game in which tossing food or money to stop pursuit, throwing oil and spiking doors would have become Standard Operating Procedure to the point there is no thought involved in their use, how they are applied, where/when/how, nor actual strategy nor tactics involved in their expenditure thereof?
Have you played a game where these resources' expenditure was inconsequential?
Are you talking about games you played yourself? If so, would you mind talking to us about them?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091Got no major issues with this. However, if the townsfolks' information has more accuracy than not of a place they have never gone to...I start having issues.
Have you played a game where the townsfolk would systematically have super-accurate information about the outside world without having been there themselves for no reason at all?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091Size of the party has major implications on the variety and accuracy of their information gathering. The impact of a 4 man group is vastly different than a group of 30.
That's true. So is the stealth in doing so. This is why you have such concepts as "scouting parties" ahead of large force to gather critical immediate information before the main force arrives in location. The point remains: the size of the party, who is scouting and how with what gear and whatnot may have some effect on the nature of the information gathered, and how the scouting goes generally.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091This I have problems with. What does having guards do for the things inside if the guards are consistently being bribed?
Who spoke about guards
consistently being bribed at every entrance with the same results all the time? I didn't.
On the contrary, I spoke about it as one possibility among many, a possibility with an outcome that may greatly depend on a number of factor, a few of which I actually enumerated: the type of guards we are talking about, their attitudes towards their leader if any, how the general force or group they are a part of is organized, if any, and so on.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091Having enterprising individuals setting up a toll booth at the entrance to a 'dungeon' is interesting once every 5 campaigns, having them at every entrance to a dungeon is not. Why don't the things inside have their own roving patrols outside their 'domain' to give early warnings of possible invasion?
Who is talking about enterprising individuals setting up tolls at every entrance of the dungeon all the time? Or the systematic absence of patrols? I don't.
There very well might be some patrols roaming around the dungeon. Who knows? I guess your party is going to find out when they get there, heh? So when you are in the adventuring party at the beginning of the game, do you prep in advance thinking that patrols might be about around the dungeon, and maybe not, or do you assume that there won't be ever and that there'll just be a toll booth at every entrance?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091Why would the things inside fall for the draw them out and ambush them for? They have a very defensible position that the players are trying to gain access to.
Absolutely. I'm pretty sure some disciplined mercenaries, or even orcs with enough of an instinct of self-preservation and a stronger/smarter leader, might think about such things. Not all guards are always disciplined soldiers or trained underlings under a leader strong enough to save the morons from themselves, however.
All things happening all the time in the same manner regardless of specific circumstances is not what world consistency is about, if that's what you're thinking. World consistency doesn't mean "whatever surrounds a situation and whatever the circumstances it's always the same". Like . . . "trained soldiers will have the exact same reaction to a chunk of meat thrown in the bushes as an ogre at a dungeon's entrance, and all entrances are toll booths in the campaign" - that's not world consistency. Are we clear on that?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091The map is drawn as a maze with multiple paths of exploration is when that vein in my temple throbs. World consistency and logic is tossed out the window in favor of player agency.
You can do both. Ever heard of the Catacombs of Paris? I mean: These are real tunnels which are totally NOT linear and allow for an infinity of paths of exploration going on for miles and miles under the French capital. Some people even got lost and died in there. For real. So it's not that much of a stretch to imagine a similar network of underground tunnels, rooms and corridors in a fantasy world. To me at least.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707091That's fine. Agree to disagree then
Sure. There's always the option to agree to disagree. I did answer quite a number of your questions, however, so I hope you'll extend the same courtesy and answer mine in return. Please.
Quote from: TristramEvans;707163Lol, I was thinking as I read that, "someone's never driven around a city in New Jersey"
To be fair, the
gentleman in question is just a bullshitting insincere argumentative dick-waver.
Quote from: Benoist;707204You can do both. Ever heard of the Catacombs of Paris? I mean: These are real tunnels which are totally NOT linear and allow for an infinity of paths of exploration going on for miles and miles under the French capital. Some people even got lost and died in there. For real. So it's not that much of a stretch to imagine a similar network of underground tunnels, rooms and corridors in a fantasy world. To me at least.
I have worked in a sports complex and the basement of a hospital that were both so labyrinthine that everybody on the crew had problems getting lost.
Shit, look at shopping malls.
Quote from: Planet Algol;707272I have worked in a sports complex and the basement of a hospital that were both so labyrinthine that everybody on the crew had problems getting lost.
Shit, look at shopping malls.
The ultra-modern corridors of the faculty of science in Nancy were the same. They were all intertwined above and under ground around the campus. Felt like exploring some cold, dust-filled tunnels inside the Nostromo. It was really easy to get lost in there!
Quote from: Benoist;707204Sommerjon: I've been answering all your questions about my games truthfully, so far, without an intent to play "catch ya" and with an attitude to build bridges, rather than burn them. Now that you are moving from asking questions to making judgments about my games, I hope you will return the favor and answer mine in the same spirit.
Wasn't meant as a judgement of your personal games. It's questions of the 'playstyle'. It's a style I haven't really came across(the way it is portrayed here). I have seen bits and pieces of these aspects, which could have been more but was hidden from me.
Quote from: Benoist;707204Have you played in a game in which tossing food or money to stop pursuit, throwing oil and spiking doors would have become Standard Operating Procedure to the point there is no thought involved in their use, how they are applied, where/when/how, nor actual strategy nor tactics involved in their expenditure thereof?
Have you played a game where these resources' expenditure was inconsequential?
Are you talking about games you played yourself? If so, would you mind talking to us about them?
I played with a group in the early 90s where spiking doors was SOP for rooms that only had one exit, until I made the observation about which way doors typically open. It was something none of them really thought about, then the group got pissed at me for spoiling one of their favorite tactics.
I've never seen food tossed as a way to stop pursuit. Seen it used as a lure though.
Nor have I seen money tossed, what I have seen is players giving up the stolen treasure to stop pursuit i.e. taking the statue which awakens the golems, toss the statue at the golems and run like hell.
Yes played in games where resource expenditure was not very important and played in games where it was very important. I would say it has probably been an even split over the years of the two extremes coupled with a middle of some attention was given over to it.
Quote from: Benoist;707204Have you played a game where the townsfolk would systematically have super-accurate information about the outside world without having been there themselves for no reason at all?
Actually the justification for such precise information was because the adventurers come back often and relayed the information to the townsfolk. That was a group that people here would define as 'entitled'.
Quote from: Benoist;707204That's true. So is the stealth in doing so. This is why you have such concepts as "scouting parties" ahead of large force to gather critical immediate information before the main force arrives in location. The point remains: the size of the party, who is scouting and how with what gear and whatnot may have some effect on the nature of the information gathered, and how the scouting goes generally.
I'll just agree with you and move on.
Quote from: Benoist;707204Who spoke about guards consistently being bribed at every entrance with the same results all the time? I didn't.
On the contrary, I spoke about it as one possibility among many, a possibility with an outcome that may greatly depend on a number of factor, a few of which I actually enumerated: the type of guards we are talking about, their attitudes towards their leader if any, how the general force or group they are a part of is organized, if any, and so on.
Didn't say you did, it's such a common trope that it feels, to me, like SOP.
You gave me only that possibility, I didn't want to put the proverbial words into your mouth by positing another possibility and commenting on it like you had said it.
Quote from: Benoist;707204Who is talking about enterprising individuals setting up tolls at every entrance of the dungeon all the time? Or the systematic absence of patrols? I don't.
There very well might be some patrols roaming around the dungeon. Who knows? I guess your party is going to find out when they get there, heh? So when you are in the adventuring party at the beginning of the game, do you prep in advance thinking that patrols might be about around the dungeon, and maybe not, or do you assume that there won't be ever and that there'll just be a toll booth at every entrance?
It's a fairly common trope of TSR. I mentioned it because we just started a campaign going through the Castle Greyhawk module(the one that came out in 91?) Has a group of Dwarves who set up a toll booth in front of one of the towers.
Quote from: Benoist;707204Absolutely. I'm pretty sure some disciplined mercenaries, or even orcs with enough of an instinct of self-preservation and a stronger/smarter leader, might think about such things. Not all guards are always disciplined soldiers or trained underlings under a leader strong enough to save the morons from themselves, however.
I'll just agree and move on.
Quote from: Benoist;707204All things happening all the time in the same manner regardless of specific circumstances is not what world consistency is about, if that's what you're thinking. World consistency doesn't mean "whatever surrounds a situation and whatever the circumstances it's always the same". Like . . . "trained soldiers will have the exact same reaction to a chunk of meat thrown in the bushes as an ogre at a dungeon's entrance, and all entrances are toll booths in the campaign" - that's not world consistency. Are we clear on that?
Clear as mud. Don't really understand what you are saying.
Que the peanut gallery.
Quote from: Benoist;707204You can do both. Ever heard of the Catacombs of Paris? I mean: These are real tunnels which are totally NOT linear and allow for an infinity of paths of exploration going on for miles and miles under the French capital. Some people even got lost and died in there. For real. So it's not that much of a stretch to imagine a similar network of underground tunnels, rooms and corridors in a fantasy world. To me at least.
Sure, it was built and added onto over hundreds of years by different groups of peoples. It's the concept of having to make a dungeon this way for player agency that bothers me. Consistency is given way to player agency.
Quote from: Omega;707144I am saying that I as the DM am trying to set up balanced encounters that challenge the players and give them both the chance of winning and failing.
And you appear to be totally missing OUR point.
You are playing a different game from us.
Outside the dungeon, I set up encounters. They are what they are. In a dungeon there is approximate difficulty by level, but no safety. If there are 10 orcs there are 10 orcs; if the players have had 4 characters killed and the rest badly wounded when they encounter the orcs, well, tough shit. I will not alter the encounter.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310It's a fairly common trope of TSR. I mentioned it because we just started a campaign going through the Castle Greyhawk module(the one that came out in 91?) Has a group of Dwarves who set up a toll booth in front of one of the towers.
I wouldn't lump any products produced in the Lorraine Williams era in the same bucket as earlier material when defining "TSR tropes".
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310Clear as mud. Don't really understand what you are saying.
Que the peanut gallery.
The peanut gallery would like to point out that we both enjoy rpgs yet favor different styles of gameplay and yet we still live in the same "consistent" world. It is no different in a fantasy world. Sometimes a monster will go for a slab of meat and sometimes it might not. Just because both outcomes may happen depending on circumstances doesn't mean the world is an inconsistent place.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310Sure, it was built and added onto over hundreds of years by different groups of peoples. It's the concept of having to make a dungeon this way for player agency that bothers me. Consistency is given way to player agency.
Some "dungeons" may not be constructed that way. When I'm drawing a map for a cellar beneath an inn, I don't generally draw a maze of rooms & passages. I will usually make a few rooms connected directly to each other because it makes sense for its intended purpose.
A large dungeon or megadungeon may be much like the Paris catacombs. Perhaps it too was dug out over centuries by various groups that inhabited it.
Quote from: robiswrong;707145So I think it's interesting here that it seems like you two are going back and forth on what decisions should be important. It *appears* that Sommerjon is primarily interested in the in-combat decisions - tactics, power usage, possibly charop, etc., and is against aspects of the game that minimize the impact of those decisions.
Benoist, OTOH, seems more interested in the out-of-combat decisions - scouting, coming up with plans, etc., and is perfectly happy with much simpler combat.
For the record, I wouldn't characterize what I enjoy in the game in that way. I don't think I care
more for out-of-combat decisions, and I can handle both simple and complex combat rules, as long as tactical decisions taken in-character, i.e. real tactics, not tactics based on the game rules as a meta-game inside the game, can be the primarily elements determining success or failure.
What I'd say is that I care about out-of-combat decisions as much as the tactical decisions taken during the combat itself. I see the latter as being a natural extension of the former, rather than a strictly and artificially separated sequence of game play. I want decisions derived from role playing, sound strategy and tactics derived from the players thinking as their characters in the game world, to be what defines the outcome of combat, rather than gaming the rules used to adjudicate situations themselves.
Quote from: Old Geezer;707352And you appear to be totally missing OUR point.
You are playing a different game from us.
Outside the dungeon, I set up encounters. They are what they are. In a dungeon there is approximate difficulty by level, but no safety. If there are 10 orcs there are 10 orcs; if the players have had 4 characters killed and the rest badly wounded when they encounter the orcs, well, tough shit. I will not alter the encounter.
I agree its better to not change the 10 orcs just because the characters are weakened at the moment.
But can you clarify what you mean by encounters outside/inside?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310Wasn't meant as a judgement of your personal games. It's questions of the 'playstyle'. It's a style I haven't really came across(the way it is portrayed here). I have seen bits and pieces of these aspects, which could have been more but was hidden from me.
Okay.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310I played with a group in the early 90s where spiking doors was SOP for rooms that only had one exit, until I made the observation about which way doors typically open. It was something none of them really thought about, then the group got pissed at me for spoiling one of their favorite tactics.
I've never seen food tossed as a way to stop pursuit. Seen it used as a lure though.
Nor have I seen money tossed, what I have seen is players giving up the stolen treasure to stop pursuit i.e. taking the statue which awakens the golems, toss the statue at the golems and run like hell.
Yes played in games where resource expenditure was not very important and played in games where it was very important. I would say it has probably been an even split over the years of the two extremes coupled with a middle of some attention was given over to it.
So when you are describing things you don't like about the play style, you are talking about these instances where you saw these things into action and it got dysfunctional in some manner or other, correct?
The bit about the iron spikes is interesting. It seems counter-intuitive to me to attempt to spike everything throughout the dungeon. You are cutting the party's own routes of escape, or limiting those routes exponentially, which actually favors the monsters and allows them to corner the party where it wouldn't have been able to moments prior, so I don't see it as particularly smart.
It's the kind of thing where you should apply some thinking, in my opinion, based on what you already explored, what you guess lies in the blank spaces beyond the map, in order to shape a potential battle ground in a way that favors the party. So it's not systematic in the games I run and play, and it's not a mindless SOP tactic.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310Actually the justification for such precise information was because the adventurers come back often and relayed the information to the townsfolk. That was a group that people here would define as 'entitled'.
Yeah that's what I was going to say: if the home base is a camp or drinking hole or whatnot where parties of adventurers are known to go back to chill and tell stories, it's possible the local townsfolk would have heard them, some of them being able to tell such stories their heard in great detail, others not so much, and others yet trying to make them as "interesting" as possible to "embellish" the tale. That depends on role playing, particular NPCs, etc.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310I'll just agree with you and move on.
OK.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310Didn't say you did, it's such a common trope that it feels, to me, like SOP.
When I see bribery attempts, it's usually when the party has been found out or cornered into a situation where combat could break but it's not at the party's advantage for some reason, like they have already been at it for a while and fear a disaster without showing it to whoever they are interacting with, or they have bigger fish in mind and want to just skip those kobold guards to get to the prize ASAP.
It'll unfold in very different ways depending on the circumstances. Some small chaotic evil critters might accept the bribe for instance, then lose it all dicing with their buddies, and to escape being slaughtered to find out where the gold coins came from, they'll bring back an entire band of critters with them to the site and hope to meet the party again so they can kill them with greater numbers and take their stuff. That's just an example of course. That's part of the role playing of the situations and action-reaction thing going on between the DM playing the World and the PCs interacting with it, to me.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310You gave me only that possibility, I didn't want to put the proverbial words into your mouth by positing another possibility and commenting on it like you had said it.
When I'm giving examples, such as the chaotic evil critters above, these are examples. It doesn't mean it's always how that unfolds all the time whatever the specifics of the game, or that I get out of my way to screw the players in comparable ways all the time either. It's a function of role playing the world, to me. It could unfold in many different ways.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310It's a fairly common trope of TSR. I mentioned it because we just started a campaign going through the Castle Greyhawk module(the one that came out in 91?) Has a group of Dwarves who set up a toll booth in front of one of the towers.
Yeah, the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk isn't "The Castle" to me. And then again, there were effectively several versions of "The Castle" as well. I seem to remember though that in the original campaign there was something like that, but somehow I remember them as being elves, not dwarves, for some reason. Weren't they the dudes extorting money to get access to ways down the Black Reservoir? Maybe Old Geezer knows something about that?
In any case, to me, it's totally possible that some group in the dungeon not hell bent on waging war on the PCs might squeeze whatever opportunities they could from parties going through their territories to reach the depths of the dungeon. Could be that they want something specific to be recovered, or that they want more holdings deeper in the dungeon for some reason, or that they simply want all the coin they can get. But that wouldn't be usual, and there would be a specific reason for it in my campaign.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310I'll just agree and move on.
Cool.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310Clear as mud. Don't really understand what you are saying.
Que the peanut gallery.
OK. What I meant was that when I speak of something like "world consistency and logic" I don't mean that when I'm giving you an example it means that usual SOB and that it'll always happen the same way regardless of circumstances and different people involved and so on.
I mean the reverse, actually: I mean that the specific way events unfold in the game are variable and can change depending on actual specific circumstances in the game. That's the way the world makes sense. Like for instance, if you throw a deer's leg bone into the bushes near the dungeon's entrance, a couple of mercenaries might check the noise, maybe, or might not give a fuck because they're busy chatting or whatnot, whereas a lone ogre might not initially pay attention, then start to smell the meat, look over his shoulder to see if his masters are around, and leave the entrance "just a moment" to check it out. Or maybe not, if he's too afraid he's going to be found out. Or if he has the presence of mind to think this might be a trap.
That's world consistency and logic to me. That's role playing the world.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707310Sure, it was built and added onto over hundreds of years by different groups of peoples. It's the concept of having to make a dungeon this way for player agency that bothers me. Consistency is given way to player agency.
Not necessarily. You can think about how the place came to be, its purpose, including the reason there would be sprawls of mazes around and the like, in the first place, AND guarantee player agency and paths of exploration at the same time. There might be specific areas which would have to be linear for some reason or other (like say, particular seals leading to a treasure chamber in the dungeon or whatnot), but these wouldn't HAVE to be explored in order for the adventure to proceed in whatever way.
Quote from: Benoist;707423Yeah, the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk isn't "The Castle" to me. And then again, there were effectively several versions of "The Castle" as well. I seem to remember though that in the original campaign there was something like that, but somehow I remember them as being elves, not dwarves, for some reason. Weren't they the dudes extorting money to get access to ways down the Black Reservoir? Maybe Old Geezer knows something about that?
Got it. These elves are talked about in the Expedition into the Black Reservoir Gary Gygax wrote.
Quote from: Expedition Into The Black ReservoirA huge oaken door at the bottom of the tower gave into a corridor running east and west. Erac led eastward, turned south at an intersection, followed a branching passage southeasterly, and halted the group in a large natural cavern which was lighted by glowing clumps of foxfire upon floor, walls, and ceiling.
At least a score of elves were lounging about, and they greeted the four adventurers in a businesslike manner. These were the guardians of the eastern stairs. Who or what had made them the warders of this ingress to the dungeon depths no-one knew or cared; for they were there, and no-one cared to dispute their right.
A bargain was quickly arranged: On their return the expedition would allow the elves their choice of any one magical item plus a tithe of silver and gold---all this assuming that the party DID return, and if they returned that they had any treasure to divide. The deeper dungeons are most hazardous, prizes are hard won, and mortality is high. A few parting words and the four went further into the cavern, up a small passage, and then began a long descent by means of uneven steps cut into living rock.
Mike, you know more about these guys?
Regarding the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk side-topic, there were three towers. One of which had a group of elves and another of which had a group of dwarves. I believe both charged some sort of "tax" based on what the party retrieved and offered a game of chance to reduce the "tax" (or make it worse).
EDIT: As for the other tower, I don't recall there being a similar setup. It's been well over a decade since I last saw that module, but I do recall running it for no fewer than five groups.
EDIT #2: Tower of War=Dwarves (tax on gold and gems and the like), Tower of Power=Elves (tax on magic items), Tower of Zagyg=different setup to get in...
My memory isn't good, so I accept that I might be off on some of this.
Quote from: Benoist;707423So when you are describing things you don't like about the play style, you are talking about these instances where you saw these things into action and it got dysfunctional in some manner or other, correct?
The bit about the iron spikes is interesting. It seems counter-intuitive to me to attempt to spike everything throughout the dungeon. You cutting the party's own routes of escape, or limiting those routes exponentially, which actually favors the monsters and allows them to corner the party where it wouldn't have been able to moments prior, so I don't see it as particularly smart.
It's the kind of thing where you should apply some thinking, in my opinion, based on what you already explored, what you guess lies in the blank spaces beyond the map, in order to shape a potential battle ground in a way that favors the party. So it's not systematic in the games I run and play, and it's not a mindless SOP tactic.
They weren't spiking everything, just the rooms that only had one door as an exit. Their reasoning behind that tactic, why confront everything in this place when we only want the treasure. Neutralize the creatures inside by spiking the door and move on. If they were able to do that for 20%+ of the creatures inside they felt that was a win.
It was Tower of War=Dwarves. You are able to freely go in, coming back out is when the taxes are taken. Didn't matter we died in the very first set of rooms.
Quote from: robiswrong;707145So I think it's interesting here that it seems like you two are going back and forth on what decisions should be important. It *appears* that Sommerjon is primarily interested in the in-combat decisions - tactics, power usage, possibly charop, etc., and is against aspects of the game that minimize the impact of those decisions.
No.
Theres more to it, but why cause a dogpile.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707490They weren't spiking everything, just the rooms that only had one door as an exit. Their reasoning behind that tactic, why confront everything in this place when we only want the treasure. Neutralize the creatures inside by spiking the door and move on. If they were able to do that for 20%+ of the creatures inside they felt that was a win.
So they wouldn't even go inside the room and just spike the door if they found out there was a monster inside and just one exit, correct?
Quote from: Benoist;707406For the record, I wouldn't characterize what I enjoy in the game in that way. I don't think I care more for out-of-combat decisions, and I can handle both simple and complex combat rules, as long as tactical decisions taken in-character, i.e. real tactics, not tactics based on the game rules as a meta-game inside the game, can be the primarily elements determining success or failure.
Fair 'nuff. I still think that my analysis of the overall preferences stands, even if I slightly over-emphasized one aspect of the game in your case.
I totally get what you mean by 'real tactics' as well, as opposed to game mastery. In a game I was part of once, a mage stood directly in the line of charging cavalry - because he knew the horse couldn't move that far. Unfortunately for him, he was wrong on the movement rate.
Quote from: Benoist;707499So they wouldn't even go inside the room and just spike the door if they found out there was a monster inside and just one exit, correct?
Correct. They played the odds that not every room would have hidden/disguised exits in them.
That group was the one that got me thinking about the whys of 1e in general(also got me to switch completely over to 2e as a DM).
Quote from: Benoist;707499So they wouldn't even go inside the room and just spike the door if they found out there was a monster inside and just one exit, correct?
Quoting to piggyback on, not to oppose, your post.
Aside from the direction that the door might swing, I would wonder about the noise caused by spiking doors (and the accuracy of knowledge leading them to believe there were no other doors leading out of that room.
EDIT: The prior post answers my second concern.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707490They weren't spiking everything, just the rooms that only had one door as an exit. Their reasoning behind that tactic, why confront everything in this place when we only want the treasure. Neutralize the creatures inside by spiking the door and move on. If they were able to do that for 20%+ of the creatures inside they felt that was a win.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707513Correct. They played the odds that not every room would have hidden/disguised exits in them.
That group was the one that got me thinking about the whys of 1e in general(also got me to switch completely over to 2e as a DM).
How did the group know which rooms had treasure with at most a quick glance to scan for exits?
Unless the group was only willing to look for unguarded treasure?
Spiking doors as a common tactic is bizarre.
Every place they go is a 'dungeon' with spikable doors?
Thats....wrong.
Quote from: Bill;707544Spiking doors as a common tactic is bizarre.
Every place they go is a 'dungeon' with spikable doors?
Thats....wrong.
So, what is this about? They go to a door in a dungeon and just put spikes in the floor outside of the door on the off chance that there is a monster inside?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;707540How did the group know which rooms had treasure with at most a quick glance to scan for exits?
Unless the group was only willing to look for unguarded treasure?
I know they played modules religiously. I assume that having played through so many modules there tended to be a pattern to them that they were exploiting.
Quote from: Bill;707544Spiking doors as a common tactic is bizarre.
Every place they go is a 'dungeon' with spikable doors?
Thats....wrong.
Why is it wrong? If there wasn't a door for them to spike closed, they were smart enough as a group to bring a door with them so they could place it and spike it closed. It always seemed to work. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sommerjon;707562Why is it wrong? If there wasn't a door for them to spike closed, they were smart enough as a group to bring a door with them so they could place it and spike it closed. It always seemed to work. :rolleyes:
:rotfl:
......on the next episode of......DUNGEON BUILDERS
Quote from: Arduin;707560So, what is this about? They go to a door in a dungeon and just put spikes in the floor outside of the door on the off chance that there is a monster inside?
That's certainly the way it reads.
Quote from: FickleGM;707566That's certainly the way it reads.
OMG, that's funny. What happens if the doors open "in"? :rotfl:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;707564:rotfl:
......on the next episode of......DUNGEON BUILDERS
"I'm sorry Sir Opulent the Pure, but I was looking for more of an open-concept dungeon. Let's head back to the tavern."
"Wait, I think this dungeon can fulfill your needs, and in the area you're looking, it's a good value. All we need to do is knock down a couple walls and we can have your open-concept."
Quote from: Arduin;707569OMG, that's funny. What happens if the doors open "in"? :rotfl:
In all fairness, he did address that earlier as a point he brought up to this group as a reason the tactic might not be the best.
Quote from: FickleGM;707575In all fairness, he did address that earlier as a point he brought up to this group as a reason the tactic might not be the best.
Oh, I missed that one. Wouldn't one miss out of possible treasure if ya just spiked everything closed? Seems like a waste of time even if all the doors were 'amenable'.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707513Correct. They played the odds that not every room would have hidden/disguised exits in them.
Or significant treasure, apparently. They seemed to make the assumption that the more profitable treasure would be accessible in rooms with multiple entrances OR completely unguarded, since they would systematically spike doors with monsters and a single exit.
Do you remember the DM making any kind of roll related to the spikes? Did the creatures in the rooms try to bust doors open or break through, and if so, how often were they successful?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707513That group was the one that got me thinking about the whys of 1e in general(also got me to switch completely over to 2e as a DM).
Sounds like you didn't have much fun. The point about the directions the doors are revolving is interesting, as well. What are the circumstances that led you to bring this up? When/how did you bring it up?
Quote from: FickleGM;707516Quoting to piggyback on, not to oppose, your post.
Aside from the direction that the door might swing, I would wonder about the noise caused by spiking doors (and the accuracy of knowledge leading them to believe there were no other doors leading out of that room.
EDIT: The prior post answers my second concern.
Given that opening doors is a noisy business in and of itself (requiring by default open doors checks), I'd assume wedging a door open or close with iron spikes can be messy business as well.
I can see logistics issues with the SOP Sommerjon is describing as well: how many iron spikes is the group carrying? Iron spikes are described in the PH as "spike, iron, large". Note "large." Is there a character who's carrying a large bag full of iron spikes? Are they loose in the bag? What weight does that represent? And so on.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707562I know they played modules religiously. I assume that having played through so many modules there tended to be a pattern to them that they were exploiting.
Were they playing with the same DM? I'd rather look at the way the guy was running the game in terms of patterns that developed over time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707562Why is it wrong? If there wasn't a door for them to spike closed, they were smart enough as a group to bring a door with them so they could place it and spike it closed. It always seemed to work. :rolleyes:
Okay. Now you are losing me. Are you saying that the party would casually carry doors around to place them in openings that wouldn't have some? Would all the openings automatically fit the door they were carrying? Were they carrying several doors of different sizes just in case? How many doors were they carrying, exactly? What were they made of? What weight does that represent? Did all the characters have exceptional strength?
Quote from: Benoist;707587Okay. Now you are losing me. Are you saying that the party would casually carry doors around to place them in openings that wouldn't have some? Would all the openings automatically fit the door they were carrying? Were they carrying several doors of different sizes just in case? How many doors were they carrying, exactly? What were they made of? What weight does that represent? Did all the characters have exceptional strength?
Maybe a Magic Door. A la the Iron Tower that springs up at command? :)
Quote from: Arduin;707596Maybe a Magic Door. A la the Iron Tower that springs up at command? :)
Daern's Instant Fortress.
Don't leave home without a few dozen in your 'backpack of more gear than you can carry'.
Quote from: Bill;707598Daern's Instant Fortress*.
Don't leave home without a few dozen in your 'backpack of more gear than you can carry'.
*Available wherever fine magic items are sold
Quote from: Benoist;707587Okay. Now you are losing me. Are you saying that the party would casually carry doors around to place them in openings that wouldn't have some? Would all the openings automatically fit the door they were carrying? Were they carrying several doors of different sizes just in case? How many doors were they carrying, exactly? What were they made of? What weight does that represent? Did all the characters have exceptional strength?
Welcome latest victim of the tried and true slow frog boil troll. Its quite a clever execution, pretending to engage in rational discussion and keep it going until the victim realizes what is going on.
I salute you sir for lasting this long. :)
Quote from: Benoist;707587Or significant treasure, apparently. They seemed to make the assumption that the more profitable treasure would be accessible in rooms with multiple entrances OR completely unguarded, since they would systematically spike doors with monsters and a single exit.
Do you remember the DM making any kind of roll related to the spikes? Did the creatures in the rooms try to bust doors open or break through, and if so, how often were they successful?
They didn't seem to mind letting some treasure stay there. I don't remember any creatures getting out of a room, doesn't mean it didn't happen 20 odd years is a long time and a lot of different games.
Quote from: Benoist;707587Sounds like you didn't have much fun. The point about the directions the doors are revolving is interesting, as well. What are the circumstances that led you to bring this up? When/how did you bring it up?
It was too 'business like' for me. The grouped worked as a well oil machine. I didn't get any sense of wonder from them.
They never bothered to ask which way the door swung. It went like:
1. Open Door
2. Take a quick look
3. Close Door
4. Spike Door
5. Move on
* Exceptions
If more then one exit, enter and neutralize
If empty enter and search.
Quote from: Benoist;707587Given that opening doors is a noisy business in and of itself (requiring by default open doors checks), I'd assume wedging a door open or close with iron spikes can be messy business as well.
To my best recollection I have never come across a group that rolled an open doors check for each door.
Then again if it is a dungeon inhabited by creatures, the random sound of a door should be normal.
Quote from: Benoist;707587I can see logistics issues with the SOP Sommerjon is describing as well: how many iron spikes is the group carrying? Iron spikes are described in the PH as "spike, iron, large". Note "large." Is there a character who's carrying a large bag full of iron spikes? Are they loose in the bag? What weight does that represent? And so on.
I never paid attention to it Think it was around, at most, 20 rooms
Quote from: Benoist;707587Were they playing with the same DM? I'd rather look at the way the guy was running the game in terms of patterns that developed over time.
I assumed the Dm was the Dm most of the time from the way they talked.
Quote from: Benoist;707587Okay. Now you are losing me. Are you saying that the party would casually carry doors around to place them in openings that wouldn't have some? Would all the openings automatically fit the door they were carrying? Were they carrying several doors of different sizes just in case? How many doors were they carrying, exactly? What were they made of? What weight does that represent? Did all the characters have exceptional strength?
I was being a smart ass. Bill asked an absurd question, I gave an absurd answer in response.
Quote from: Bill;707544Spiking doors as a common tactic is bizarre.
Every place they go is a 'dungeon' with spikable doors?
Thats....wrong.
Yes Bill every place they go is a 'dungeon' with spikable doors. If there wasn't a door for them to spike closed, they were smart enough as a group to bring a door with them so they could place it and spike it closed. This is how the group stopped the dragon Ugottabekiddingme
(http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/vandalist-door-1.jpg)Then went and looted it's lair. It was awesome. :rolleyes:
When you get into the fine details of how various groups ran their games back in ye olde day, you are going to run into things that seem weird to you. Each group tended to form a cluster of comfortable tropes and assumptions that constituted realism and consistency for them.
The problems arise when you introduce a new perspective on those tropes and assumptions. Obviously, Sommerjon's group just internalized "doors are spikeable and spiked doors stay spiked" as common tropes of their games.
When I was 16, my players always used their 10' poles to pole vault over pit traps. We didn't really think about how that would work beyond, "Have pole. Pole vault. Well done, gentlemen."
In the real world, almost nobody ever says "shoot that guy in the leg to slow him down." But, at many game tables it is standard operating procedure. The DM isn't going to suddenly say, "Oh, he's so panicked that he doesn't even realize he's been shot in the leg. You find him later, having bled to death through his femoral artery." And the DM is going to not say that because he's part of the same group of people who think, "Shoot leg. Slow down. Well done, gentlemen."
The reason a limited selection of things become standard operating procedure for every group is because the group is looking for it's standard of realism. Reality tends to offer a painfully limited selection of options for resolving issues.
If you were actually in a mine shaft dug by 4' tall dwarves and a 10' wide pit opened before you, you would not attempt to jump across. You would not attempt to throw a small friend across. Even if you were capable of such athleticism, the height of the ceiling would probably not allow the necessary physics. You would find a way to build a bridge, or you would go somewhere else.
But, since not everyone is on the same page with their tropes and understanding of reality, you get this conversation...
P1: "We always built bridges across pits."
P2: "Bridges? That's too noisy and time consuming. Just pole vault."
P3: "Pole vaulting is for going up over a wall, not across a distance. Just throw the wizard. His robes will give him some glide."
P1: "Gliding robes? Robes would create drag!"
P1-3: "I'm going back to my group of friends who play the game right!"
Quote from: Bill;707407I agree its better to not change the 10 orcs just because the characters are weakened at the moment.
But can you clarify what you mean by encounters outside/inside?
Not OG but here is my take on the whole inside/outside of things.
Dungeons are "inside" meaning indoor locations. Customarily these places have a built in "threat meter" via depth. There is no assurance of safety even on level one as monsters of up to 4th level can (rarely) appear as a solo threat.
So in a dungeon, while on the inside, the players have a rough approximation of the danger relative to their own level(s).
Outside the dungeon in the wilderness all bets were off. The terrain governed what might be most likely encountered in the area and there was no real "depth" gauge to measure it with.
In our campaigns the outdoor depth gauge was the distance from civilization. Near town things were relatively safe. As the land became more wild the threat level increased. This is why the DM advice urged placing starting dungeons no more than a day or so travel away from town. Its kind of pointless to have a level one dungeon in the middle of a wilderness that only an army or high level group could reach.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707626They didn't seem to mind letting some treasure stay there. I don't remember any creatures getting out of a room, doesn't mean it didn't happen 20 odd years is a long time and a lot of different games.
My guess is, you would remember if the occurrences were significant. Given that the explicit use of spike in OD&D (1974) is to wedge doors open (and get out of open pits), not closed, and that their actual use is not described in AD&D 1e, and given that wedging a door open in OD&D generates a 1-in-3 (5-6 on d6) chance of the spike sliding off, I'm confident at this point saying that the DM you had didn't quite think things through.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707626It was too 'business like' for me. The grouped worked as a well oil machine. I didn't get any sense of wonder from them.
They never bothered to ask which way the door swung. It went like:
1. Open Door
2. Take a quick look
3. Close Door
4. Spike Door
5. Move on
* Exceptions
If more then one exit, enter and neutralize
If empty enter and search.
OK, but when exactly did you bring up the issue? Was it in the middle of a game? After how many sessions?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707626To my best recollection I have never come across a group that rolled an open doors check for each door.
Then again if it is a dungeon inhabited by creatures, the random sound of a door should be normal.
Maybe, though a sound, any sound, gets one's attention, even when you are expecting that smelling troll douchebag that lives next to you. There's usually no such thing as a peace of mind in the dungeon. Especially considering large dungeons with multiple groups and factions at the throats of each other - these are battlegrounds.
Not rolling for open doors flies in the face of OD&D and AD&D rules. It's okay, you can do it that way, cool, but that's not what the advice instruct.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707626I never paid attention to it Think it was around, at most, 20 rooms
So that's at least 20 spikes. If you assume just one spike per door.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707626I assumed the Dm was the Dm most of the time from the way they talked.
*nod*
Quote from: Sommerjon;707626I was being a smart ass. Bill asked an absurd question, I gave an absurd answer in response.
OK. Could we stick to straight, truthful answers, no matter how much people poke at you? Because that muddles the whole thing.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;707721Not OG but here is my take on the whole inside/outside of things.
Dungeons are "inside" meaning indoor locations. Customarily these places have a built in "threat meter" via depth. There is no assurance of safety even on level one as monsters of up to 4th level can (rarely) appear as a solo threat.
So in a dungeon, while on the inside, the players have a rough approximation of the danger relative to their own level(s).
Outside the dungeon in the wilderness all bets were off. The terrain governed what might be most likely encountered in the area and there was no real "depth" gauge to measure it with.
In our campaigns the outdoor depth gauge was the distance from civilization. Near town things were relatively safe. As the land became more wild the threat level increased. This is why the DM advice urged placing starting dungeons no more than a day or so travel away from town. Its kind of pointless to have a level one dungeon in the middle of a wilderness that only an army or high level group could reach.
the depth = danger trope is just the same as the CR trope no difference.
Quote from: jibbajibba;707809the depth = danger trope is just the same as the CR trope no difference.
There is one MAJOR difference: the Players choose how deep they want to go this session. Not the DM. AND it's explainable way more readily in the fantasy world (i.e. the deeper you go, the more ancient and terrifying the threats are, which will be instinctively OK with 90+% of gamers out there, I would guess).
Quote from: Benoist;707811There is one MAJOR difference: the Players choose how deep they want to go this session. Not the DM. AND it's explainable way more readily in the fantasy world (i.e. the deeper you go, the more ancient and terrifying the threats are, which will be instinctively OK with 90+% of gamers out there, I would guess).
Still think its dubious. Apex predators occupy the best environment not the one furthest from a food source, but I have no reason to dislike it like I said a convenient shorthand for GMs and players just like CR or those regions in WoW that are full of rats and those that are full of Chimeras.
Apex predators? Come on man, this is lurid fantasy we're talking about here. The closer you get to hell, the more dangerous it's going to be.
At least you managed to spell apex properly.
Quote from: Planet Algol;707848Apex predators? Come on man, this is lurid fantasy we're talking about here. The closer you get to hell, the more dangerous it's going to be.
Yeah; the Balrog lurks at the bottom of the Mines of Moria, not in room #1 where he'll have east access to the rich hunting grounds of Lorien. :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;707828Still think its dubious. Apex predators occupy the best environment not the one furthest from a food source, but I have no reason to dislike it like I said a convenient shorthand for GMs and players just like CR or those regions in WoW that are full of rats and those that are full of Chimeras.
Philotomy said it first and best (http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf) (pp. 22-24). Dungeons do not, or should not, operate by the same laws as the surface world.
Yeah... that's good for my Kult, Seventh Seal, or In Nomine games, but I have no interest in it for my D&D prime material plane fantasy. Mythic Underworld stuff is alternate planes bleeding into each other, and I already have Planescape and Ravenloft for that. If you go in such special "the familiar rules no longer apply" dungeons there's no guarantee that when you backtrack anywhere, let alone to the entrance, you're in the same place.
That's a totally different game structure in my view. And without the horror of "far from home, can't get back" feels like a cheap dungeon crawl video game to me. The surface rules don't apply, but the maps stays consistent, and the critters haven't conquered the surface yet because... adventurers with flammable oil? Credulity stretched too far; like superheroes, just doesn't click at all with me. It's something I deliberately avoid in my setting design. Never played in a fun version of that at the table, have no interest running one myself.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;707721Not OG but here is my take on the whole inside/outside of things.
Dungeons are "inside" meaning indoor locations. Customarily these places have a built in "threat meter" via depth. There is no assurance of safety even on level one as monsters of up to 4th level can (rarely) appear as a solo threat.
So in a dungeon, while on the inside, the players have a rough approximation of the danger relative to their own level(s).
Outside the dungeon in the wilderness all bets were off. The terrain governed what might be most likely encountered in the area and there was no real "depth" gauge to measure it with.
In our campaigns the outdoor depth gauge was the distance from civilization. Near town things were relatively safe. As the land became more wild the threat level increased. This is why the DM advice urged placing starting dungeons no more than a day or so travel away from town. Its kind of pointless to have a level one dungeon in the middle of a wilderness that only an army or high level group could reach.
Correctamundo. Note that Volume 3 is "The Underworld and WILDERNESS Adventures," not "Outdoor Adventures".
Outdoors <> Wilderness.
Quote from: Benoist;707807My guess is, you would remember if the occurrences were significant. Given that the explicit use of spike in OD&D (1974) is to wedge doors open (and get out of open pits), not closed, and that their actual use is not described in AD&D 1e, and given that wedging a door open in OD&D generates a 1-in-3 (5-6 on d6) chance of the spike sliding off, I'm confident at this point saying that the DM you had didn't quite think things through.
OK, but when exactly did you bring up the issue? Was it in the middle of a game? After how many sessions?
Maybe, though a sound, any sound, gets one's attention, even when you are expecting that smelling troll douchebag that lives next to you. There's usually no such thing as a peace of mind in the dungeon. Especially considering large dungeons with multiple groups and factions at the throats of each other - these are battlegrounds.
Not rolling for open doors flies in the face of OD&D and AD&D rules. It's okay, you can do it that way, cool, but that's not what the advice instruct.
So that's at least 20 spikes. If you assume just one spike per door.
*nod*
OK. Could we stick to straight, truthful answers, no matter how much people poke at you? Because that muddles the whole thing.
Fyi, guys, I was making fun of the idea door spiking would be globally useful; I was not making fun of anyone in particular.
Quote from: Benoist;707807OK, but when exactly did you bring up the issue? Was it in the middle of a game? After how many sessions?
Once the module was completed.
Quote from: Benoist;707807Maybe, though a sound, any sound, gets one's attention, even when you are expecting that smelling troll douchebag that lives next to you. There's usually no such thing as a peace of mind in the dungeon. Especially considering large dungeons with multiple groups and factions at the throats of each other - these are battlegrounds.
This is where I take that different playstyle path
Quote from: Sommerjon;707895Once the module was completed.
The DM agreed with you, changed the rules in the middle of the campaign telling people that they wouldn't be able to spike doors from one side as opposed to the other, and considering most doors would swing open inside the room, that was that. Group got pissed. You left the group.
That's what I got from your story. Is that accurate?
How long did the DM take to make this decision to change the way spikes work in the campaign?
Why did you point that out to the DM after the module was played?
Quote from: Sommerjon;707895This is where I take that different playstyle path
That's cool with me, play what it is you enjoy. Notice that I use such words as "usually" in my answer - this is not an ironclad thing, i.e. making some noise opening a door will not always spell doom for the group with a whole bunch of creatures investigating the noise. It's, again, a question of specific circumstances, what area we are talking about, who lives nearby, do they give a shit, etc.
Remember the "world consistency" and "role playing the world" thing I was talking about earlier? This is what I'm talking about.
Quote from: Benoist;707917The DM agreed with you, changed the rules in the middle of the campaign telling people that they wouldn't be able to spike doors from one side as opposed to the other, and considering most doors would swing open inside the room, that was that. Group got pissed. You left the group.
That's what I got from your story. Is that accurate?
How long did the DM take to make this decision to change the way spikes work in the campaign?
Why did you point that out to the DM after the module was played?
I left because I changed duty stations. One of the players did leave in a very memorable rage quit.
When I said
"Tossing food or money to stop pursuit, throwing oil, spiking doors as SOP is what I was referring to. Things that the players do by rote instead of actual strategy/tactics. That to me has stolen agency away from the players. The players have stopped thinking and given over to custom. When these customs don't work people start bitching." The Rage Quiter was the poster child for that. From my point of view the others hadn't given too much thought into it, sure they gave a couple jabs about. Then we got back to gaming. Looking back on it I think the Dm was looking for something to spark a change in the group.
Quote from: Benoist;707917That's cool with me, play what it is you enjoy. Notice that I use such words as "usually" in my answer - this is not an ironclad thing, i.e. making some noise opening a door will not always spell doom for the group with a whole bunch of creatures investigating the noise. It's, again, a question of specific circumstances, what area we are talking about, who lives nearby, do they give a shit, etc.
Remember the "world consistency" and "role playing the world" thing I was talking about earlier? This is what I'm talking about.
Cool beans.
We, from the look of it, have different opinions on "world consistency" and "role playing the world".
Quote from: Sommerjon;707966I left because I changed duty stations. One of the players did leave in a very memorable rage quit.
When I said "Tossing food or money to stop pursuit, throwing oil, spiking doors as SOP is what I was referring to. Things that the players do by rote instead of actual strategy/tactics. That to me has stolen agency away from the players. The players have stopped thinking and given over to custom. When these customs don't work people start bitching." The Rage Quiter was the poster child for that. From my point of view the others hadn't given too much thought into it, sure they gave a couple jabs about. Then we got back to gaming. Looking back on it I think the Dm was looking for something to spark a change in the group.
Maybe - I hope that this situation was profitable for the group on the long run. I too am not seeing how something that becomes so routine, such a standard operating procedure that it becomes a reflex with no variation from session to session and no differing results to even prompt variation can be fun to play on the long run. From the varying situations and circumstances existing in the game world to the simple luck of the dice when outcomes ought to not be certain, there is such a world of possibilities between the bland extremes of automatism and complete chaos with no logic to the world whatsoever that it boggles the mind some gamers would just let that happen to their game and campaign.
In the sense that this DM basically gave up on role playing the world and thinking about the world's logic and consistency, he robbed the players of agency by inaction. It's not that choices are actively negated . . . it's just that he lets the players sink into an "autopilot" position where choices just do not come to anyone's mind. I see your point now. That sounds like the door opening on some potentially very, very boring games to me.
Quote from: Sommerjon;707966Cool beans.
We, from the look of it, have different opinions on "world consistency" and "role playing the world".
That might be, yes.
It's a good idea to always shake things up so routine tactics are not taken for granted. Not all encountered doors operate the same way, not all oils are easily flammable, not all monsters care about dropped loot v. pursuit, etc. The players should be paying attention, and imagination land should attempt to have plenty of screwballs. We are used to "shit happens" here, it tends to be a good RPG insert for verisimilitude reasons.
I disagree. Sometimes, yes. Always, not in my experience. When the players are guessing what to do, rather than trying to apply what logic and experience they have available, you aren't working with player skill.
Quote from: FickleGM;708136I disagree. Sometimes, yes. Always, not in my experience. When the players are guessing what to do, rather than trying to apply what logic and experience they have available, you aren't working with player skill.
In a consistent world seemingly random things will not actually be random if you are paying attention. If you are not paying attention and running a standard playbook blind then youn sometimes get "shit happens".
A fair DM will provide opportunity for players who are actually playing skillfully to forsee some shit and possibly take action to keep it from happening.
Quote from: FickleGM;708136I disagree. Sometimes, yes. Always, not in my experience. When the players are guessing what to do, rather than trying to apply what logic and experience they have available, you aren't working with player skill.
There's a difference between establishing variability from the start, and just randomly deciding after the baseline is set "haha! That doesn't work any more!"
The former is good GMing. The latter is a Dick Move.
I agree. I sometimes get pedantically caught up in semantics.
I should clarify that "shit happens" is one of those decisions best delegated to randomized content creators.
Quote from: Opaopajr;708265I should clarify that "shit happens" is one of those decisions best delegated to randomized content creators.
Indeed. The natural corollary is that it's important to countenance wacky ideas from the players when they're trying to deal with shit that happens. It's a fine line between encouraging innovation and accommodating any old nonsense though.
I really enjoyed the first Star Wars movie (Episode IV).
[Bare with me, this is on-topic]
Why?
Because it was fun. It was all about a young apprentice and an old master. Coming of age and discovering who you are. The rogue who learns to fight for a cause. Taking chances, daring greatly, dealing with great success and great failure.
It was a fun story.
That point cannot be over stressed.
Role-playing, for the GM and Players alike, is all about telling a fun story.
Adventuring in a world where the GM makes every action one of the tasks of Hercules ... is not fun.
Refereeing players so cautious or careless that opening a door takes a 2 hour battle plan (which is once set and often repeated) or you need a legion of angels to maintain the stream of 'divine interventions' necessary to keep them alive ... is not fun.
... and gaming is all about having fun.
Sometimes that means you have a group that really wants to be bigger than life. So the GM and Players will, by mutual agreement, create a bigger than life adventure with bigger than life problems and impossible escapes. (Holy Odin's Beard, Batman ... that was close!)
Sometimes that means the GM and Players want a gritty realism, with long periods of nothing-happening suspense (Shhh, did you hear that noise? What was it?) followed by short periods of intense action. (Everyone, fall back and we'll fight them in the corridor?)
I have long since stopped obsessing over the dice rolls. I don't give a rip whether your character makes Conan look like a girly-man or they make Peewee Herman look macho ... tell me what your character is like and pick attributes that match your description ... but remember, if a party of demi-gods goes adventuring, they will not be fighting an orc patrol. That's where the group needs a shared vision of what kind of game this will be.
Personally, I would handle combat with a single D6 roll ... 1 = you really screw up, 6 = wow, the gods smiled on you ... now roll and tell me what happens! Absent that K.I.S.S. and don't let a random roll spoil the adventure.
[Bad GM Story: I will never forget a module back in the day where the inexperienced GM played it exactly as written ... we got through the first handful of rooms, everyone failed the check to notice the secret door, we searched for hours, knowing that there had to be more than a few empty rooms. We were never able to enter the remaining 90% of the dungeon, so we went back to town. End of the adventure ... nobody had fun.]
Ultimately, foolish actions need to have consequences and bad luck needs to be cut a break.
That’s how all the fun stories handle things, so that’s good enough for me.
Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: atpollard;708294Role-playing, for the GM and Players alike, is all about telling a fun story.
No. It has NOTHING to do with telling a story. You obviously missed the bus on RPG's.
Quote from: Arduin;708295No. It has NOTHING to do with telling a story. You obviously missed the bus on RPG's.
You mean the bus where the GM and players are adversaries and the players end up road kill ... yup, I wanted nothing to do with THAT bus. :)
Quote from: atpollard;708298You mean the bus where the GM and players are adversaries and the players end up road kill
Um, no. Interesting Strawman though. Like I said, you haven't CLUE about what RP'ing is.
Quote from: Arduin;708300Um, no. Interesting Strawman though. Like I said, you haven't CLUE about what RP'ing is.
Not a strawman, I was just attempting to be polite ... what I really meant to say was:
"Bullshit."
... and without clarification or support, your comment is just empty trolling.
Quote from: atpollard;708298You mean the bus where the GM and players are adversaries and the players end up road kill ... yup, I wanted nothing to do with THAT bus. :)
It is quite amusing, this binary divide. Either the whole group is gathered together to tell a group story
OR
The game is a brutal competition between GM and players each side trying to dominate the other and claim "victory".
If you can see no other possibilities outside of these, then there is little hope of you understanding the purpose of emergent rpg play.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708304Either the whole group is gathered together to tell a group story
This over-stresses my intention. Some games have a gritty realism that dominates their character, while other games tend to be larger than life in character. The GM and Players should both be expecting either gritty realism or larger-than-life.
If the players come prepared for larger-that-life and encounter a GM offering gritty realism, there will not be fun.
That is the extent of the mutual agreement for the storytelling that is 'required'.
[The intent of the bus quip was addressed in another post.]
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708304If you can see no other possibilities outside of these, then there is little hope of you understanding the purpose of emergent rpg play.
I came up with this definition for Emergent Gameplay from a Google search:
QuoteEmergent gameplay is a game design term that refers to video game mechanics that change according to the player's actions. Emergent gameplay includes a number of relatively simple decisions that a player must make, the sum of which lead to more complex outcomes. Emergent gameplay can also be created by adding multiple players to the same game environment and having their individual actions impact the overall game narrative. Similarly, more complex artificial intelligence capable of impacting the storyline in unpredictable ways can be used in lieu of additional players.
Was there something in my original post that seems contradictory or incompatible with this definition?
Or do you have a definition of "emergent rpg play" that is significantly different from "Emergent Gameplay" (above)?
Quote from: atpollard;708310This over-stresses my intention. Some games have a gritty realism that dominates their character, while other games tend to be larger than life in character. The GM and Players should both be expecting either gritty realism or larger-than-life.
If the players come prepared for larger-that-life and encounter a GM offering gritty realism, there will not be fun.
That is the extent of the mutual agreement for the storytelling that is 'required'.
[The intent of the bus quip was addressed in another post.]
If you mean the players and GM need to be on the same page regarding the type of game being played I agree.
That is a separate issue from storytelling, which may or may not be happening depending on what the participants agree to play.
Quote from: Arduin;708295It has NOTHING to do with telling a story.
Counterarguments:
QuoteDungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook (4th Edition). Wizards of the Coast. June 6, 2008. pp. Chapter 1. ISBN 0-7869-4867-1. "A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children."
GURPS (4th Edition). Steve Jackson Games. 2004. pp. Chapter 1. "But roleplaying is not purely educational. It's also one of the most creative possible entertainments. Most entertainment is passive: the audience just sits and watches, without taking part in the creative process. In roleplaying, the "audience" joins in the creation. The GM is the chief storyteller, but the players are responsible for portraying their characters. If they want something to happen in the story, they make it happen, because they're in the story."
Werewolf: The Apocalypse (2nd Edition). White Wolf Publishing. 1994. pp. Chapter 1. ISBN 1-56504-112-7. "Although Werewolf is a game, it is more concerned with storytelling than it is with winning. Werewolf is a tool enabling you to become involved in tales of passion and glory, and to help tell those stories yourself."
Some would argue that it has
something to do with telling a story.
Quote from: robiswrong;707152There's a few assumptions you're making here.
1) It's the GM's job to set a series of tactical combats in front of the players, that are tough but fair.
2) An "encounter" means that you arrange the enemies in the tactical space and roll for initiative, as combat is going to begin.
3) There's an "appropriate" difficulty for encounters.
So, with those in mind, I'll go into the forty orcs issue, as I think it's a good one:
An encounter of forty orcs doesn't mean you roll for initiative. All it means is that the party and a group of forty orcs comes close enough to each other that one becomes aware of the other's presence.
Given forty orcs, and a party of five or so adventurers, that probably means the party becomes aware of the orcs.
But what are the orcs doing there? Are they a war party? If so, do they have scouts? Maybe the "encounter" means that the scouts see the PCs - and now we have an interesting encounter, trying to evade the scouts or kill them before they report.
If the PCs see the orcs first, then the encounter is probably going to be either avoiding the orcs, or figuring out a way past them.
If the full group of orcs see the PCs either first or at the same time, what then? Do the orcs give chase? Do they sound out a hunting party? Or what? A group of forty orcs will almost certainly make enough noise that if they attack en masse, the PCs will notice before the orcs on top of them - and then the encounter becomes about evading the orcs and losing them - or leading them back to an area where the PCs know there are sufficient reinforcements.
And where are the orcs? Are they between the PCs and their objective? Are they moving? Is this a camp? Is it a normal area for orcs? All of these things are questions that the GM should answer, and that can make the game more interesting. And that's how random encounter tables were meant to be used.
But you're right - in a game where the structure is "GM hands out a series of combat encounters, in order", the random forty orcs is a bad choice. But that's not the only game structure.
Correct. I am well aware of that. I trust my players to come up with marvelous ideas for most situations.
It is the whole "You made a mistake and now can
NEVER undo it!" part that is being argued here that bugs the hell out of me.
Heres an example from a Shadowrun session I GMed... badly.
Players, 2, are trying to hit a business, get in, get the data, get out. The net side went fine until the decker tripped an alarm while trying to cover electronic tracks. Very clever move too.
During prep I'd selected a single guard on the floor armed with some sort of automatic rifle. Should have given them a good first combat with about 50/50 odds. Players lure the guard into a hall where he doesnt have any cover and they pop out from behind a corner and open fire... All good here.
Guard survives both hits and returns fire on the now exposed characters.
Burst catches one then the other somehow. Been a decade. Details are a little fuzzy. Roll damage.
Here is where things went sideways. One of the players notes the weapon the guard is using and points out that it gets some sort of crazy penetration or damage jump from the burst. The burst goes from banging up the two fairly well and if they dont drop the guard by next turn the decker is likely going down - To - they were both killed on the spot. Never had a chance. Some quirk of 1st ed SR I think.
Did not sound right to me. But the other player knew SR better than I and sure enough Id missed that bit. So we paused, swapped out the rifle for something a liiiitle less lethal for a starting pair of runners and proceeded from there. Decker went down as predicted but his merc friend took out the guard and got out with the now perforated deckers body. As opposed to a TPK.
My screw up. And my fix.
But according to the arguments going on here. No. Once that guard was placed with that rifle. It is set in stone and I cannot ever un-do it.
Which is totally insane.
Quote from: atpollard;708315I came up with this definition for Emergent Gameplay from a Google search:
Was there something in my original post that seems contradictory or incompatible with this definition?
Or do you have a definition of "emergent rpg play" that is significantly different from "Emergent Gameplay" (above)?
The definition for the term as it applies to videogame play assumes a set storyline. This is not present in tabletop rpgs. Emergent play in a videogame must still fall within parameters set by the designers code, thus the storyline. A tabletop emergent game can go anywhere.
Quote from: atpollard;708320Some would argue that it has something to do with telling a story.
4E and WW games ARE narrative based. GURPS includes elements that can make some games behave likewise.
You didn't find quotes from 1st generation rpgs such as D&D, Traveler, or Runequest for a reason.
Quote from: Omega;708321Correct. I am well aware of that. I trust my players to come up with marvelous ideas for most situations.
It is the whole "You made a mistake and now can NEVER undo it!" part that is being argued here that bugs the hell out of me.
Heres an example from a Shadowrun session I GMed... badly.
Players, 2, are trying to hit a business, get in, get the data, get out. The net side went fine until the decker tripped an alarm while trying to cover electronic tracks. Very clever move too.
During prep I'd selected a single guard on the floor armed with some sort of automatic rifle. Should have given them a good first combat with about 50/50 odds. Players lure the guard into a hall where he doesnt have any cover and they pop out from behind a corner and open fire... All good here.
Guard survives both hits and returns fire on the now exposed characters.
Burst catches one then the other somehow. Been a decade. Details are a little fuzzy. Roll damage.
Here is where things went sideways. One of the players notes the weapon the guard is using and points out that it gets some sort of crazy penetration or damage jump from the burst. The burst goes from banging up the two fairly well and if they dont drop the guard by next turn the decker is likely going down - To - they were both killed on the spot. Never had a chance. Some quirk of 1st ed SR I think.
Did not sound right to me. But the other player knew SR better than I and sure enough Id missed that bit. So we paused, swapped out the rifle for something a liiiitle less lethal for a starting pair of runners and proceeded from there. Decker went down as predicted but his merc friend took out the guard and got out with the now perforated deckers body. As opposed to a TPK.
My screw up. And my fix.
But according to the arguments going on here. No. Once that guard was placed with that rifle. It is set in stone and I cannot ever un-do it.
Which is totally insane.
I have outlined where it was your players screwed the pooch. If they had sight on the guard then they could have fired from cover rather than "popping out".
NEVER give up available cover unless you have to. Surviving a firefight rule #1. Love it. Learn it. Live it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;707721Not OG but here is my take on the whole inside/outside of things.
Dungeons are "inside" meaning indoor locations. Customarily these places have a built in "threat meter" via depth. There is no assurance of safety even on level one as monsters of up to 4th level can (rarely) appear as a solo threat.
So in a dungeon, while on the inside, the players have a rough approximation of the danger relative to their own level(s).
Outside the dungeon in the wilderness all bets were off. The terrain governed what might be most likely encountered in the area and there was no real "depth" gauge to measure it with.
In our campaigns the outdoor depth gauge was the distance from civilization. Near town things were relatively safe. As the land became more wild the threat level increased. This is why the DM advice urged placing starting dungeons no more than a day or so travel away from town. Its kind of pointless to have a level one dungeon in the middle of a wilderness that only an army or high level group could reach.
Correct. In a dungeon, Id say the group could handle 40 orcs simply due to the way dungeons are laid out. You can pick off small groups with some creative tactics, or good sneaking and backstabbing, etc.
But in the current example it is 40 orcs in the wilderness (swamp). When it should have been 30. And still there are the arguments that Im not even allowed to role play anything to reduce the problem down to an even challenge because Im then denying the players their god given right to die by clerical error.
As said elsewhere. I trust my players to come up with amazing plans. But I also have enough common sense not to allow a mistake made on my part to wipe out the group. Again. Life or death struggle. Not a massacre.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708325The definition for the term as it applies to videogame play assumes a set storyline. This is not present in tabletop rpgs. Emergent play in a videogame must still fall within parameters set by the designers code, thus the storyline. A tabletop emergent game can go anywhere.
Perhaps not the way you play tabletop rpgs. However, there is no authority on how to play tabletop rpgs.
Quote from: Sommerjon;708328Perhaps not the way you play tabletop rpgs. However, there is no authority on how to play tabletop rpgs.
Well, thats the difference between a roleplaying game and a storytelling game. Both can be classified as "tabletop rpgs" yet have different aspects and purposes of play.
Quote from: atpollard;708320Counterarguments:
Some would argue that it has something to do with telling a story.
Quite the encyclopediac knowledge of RPGs you have there, that you were able to so quickly find story-related quotes from all over.
Quote from: atpollard;708320Some would argue that it has something to do with telling a story.
I've come to the conclusion that it has something to do with storytelling and something to do with gaming. People have different preferences as to the correct mix of the two. Personally I think a blend of 50/50 is the optimum, but I would never accuse someone who preferred a different blend of having missed the bus on RPGs.
I will claim that someone who says that RPGs has nothing to do with storytelling is utterly mistaken. A game without any storytelling at all is not a roleplaying game. (Note that the reverse is not true. Most boardgames and wargames have some smidgin of storytelling involved unless they're as abstract as Go and Reversi).
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708332I will claim that someone who says that RPGs has nothing to do with storytelling is utterly mistaken. A game without any storytelling at all is not a roleplaying game.
Hans
:rotfl:
Welcome to the rpgsite!
Quote from: atpollard;708294Personally, I would handle combat with a single D6 roll ... 1 = you really screw up, 6 = wow, the gods smiled on you ... now roll and tell me what happens! Absent that K.I.S.S. and don't let a random roll spoil the adventure.
Can we agree that I personally wouldn't enjoy something like this?
Can we also agree that if it is okay I wouldn't like it, it doesn't mean I'm a less sophisticated, or inexperienced, or mistaken gamer? Because I've ran Vampire games for more than 20 years now, and I'm pretty sure the amount of role play, meaning, emotional investment, whatever you want to call it, going on in my games doesn't leave to be desired.
Quote from: atpollard;708294[Bad GM Story: I will never forget a module back in the day where the inexperienced GM played it exactly as written ... we got through the first handful of rooms, everyone failed the check to notice the secret door, we searched for hours, knowing that there had to be more than a few empty rooms. We were never able to enter the remaining 90% of the dungeon, so we went back to town. End of the adventure ... nobody had fun.]
Ultimately, foolish actions need to have consequences and bad luck needs to be cut a break.
That’s how all the fun stories handle things, so that’s good enough for me.
Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: atpollard;708298You mean the bus where the GM and players are adversaries and the players end up road kill ... yup, I wanted nothing to do with THAT bus. :)
I think we should agree about not making slanted comparisons to the effect of "here is this horrible game with this horrible DM I played with versus my play style which is totally cool and awesome."
If you want to compare playstyles, either compare two horrible games between them, or two of the best games you can think of between them. You don't compare a horrible game to a decent one and call it a win. It's a logical fallacy.
There are decent DMs out there playing games with no storytelling intent. I am one of them. Maybe we could compare our games instead of referring to shitty experiences on either side, because I could come up with my own war stories of terrible storytelling experiences, or games with no storytelling intent that sucked, for that matter.
If we do that, we might come to the conclusion that we wouldn't play in each other's game, and that's cool. You want storytelling to be the goal of the role playing experience, that's fine. I don't. Is that okay with you?
Because when you say this . . .
Quote from: atpollard;708310That is the extent of the mutual agreement for the storytelling that is 'required'.
You are already making the assumption that storytelling is what the role playing experience is about, whatever consensus there is around the game table, whatever the aims of the game, and that's not the case, in my experience. You can perfectly run a role playing game without a storytelling intent. We are several on this board doing this and enjoying our games deeply.
So let's not be dumb and acknowledge that if you want storytelling out of your games it's cool, rock on, but those who don't want that out of their games are not necessarily terrible DMs, clueless, or badwrong. Is that cool with you?
Quote from: atpollard;708320Counterarguments:
[Game text from D&D 4e, GURPS 4e and Werewolf: The Apocalypse Revised]
Some would argue that it has something to do with telling a story.
What you proved is that some games construed themselves as exercises of storytelling since at least 1994. There are earlier games that did the same thing. I think it's also a fact that a variety of people wanted to play out stories out of role playing games since the very early hours of the hobby at least.
None of that proves that all role playing games are about storytelling, and that storytelling is part of all role playing games. Again: we are several here who are construing role playing game play differently, and do not set out to tell a story when playing a tabletop RPG. Is that cool with you?
Quote from: rancke;708332I've come to the conclusion that it has something to do with storytelling and something to do with gaming. People have different preferences as to the correct mix of the two. Personally I think a blend of 50/50 is the optimum, but I would never accuse someone who preferred a different blend of having missed the bus on RPGs.
OK. That's cool with me. But then when you directly follow that statement with this . . .
Quote from: rancke;708332I will claim that someone who says that RPGs has nothing to do with storytelling is utterly mistaken.
You've just lost me, Hans. Because you can't say on one hand that you wouldn't condemn people for having different preferences than you playing role playing games, and then follow that statement by a direct condemnation of people who would construe role playing games as having nothing to do with storytelling and call them "utterly mistaken". That's bullshit.
I think you guys come late at the party here, and you probably haven't read the whole thread. I would encourage you to do so. It was a good conversation so far (Thank you, Sommerjon!), and I think you could get a hint of where guys like me come from on that question.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708337:rotfl:
Welcome to the rpgsite!
It's funny... I really don't like games where the players are given direct narrative control (aka Story Games), which would generally put me on the side of TheRPGSiters more often than not. I even like dangerous games with a threat of high lethality and areas of the world that don't change to meet the PC's level.
But the neckbeardy "We are the cultural gatekeepers of gaming and you pussies aren't tall enough to ride" attitude around here rankles me so badly that I guess I come across as a troll.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708325I have outlined where it was your players screwed the pooch. If they had sight on the guard then they could have fired from cover rather than "popping out".
NEVER give up available cover unless you have to. Surviving a firefight rule #1. Love it. Learn it. Live it.
That is not the point. The point is the weapon was wrong for the encounter because I wasnt aware of how it actually worked. They got their cover bonus. What do you think pop out means?
Quote from: Arduin;708295No. It has NOTHING to do with telling a story. You obviously missed the bus on RPG's.
Keep in mind that metaphor did not classically imply a shared Storygame. Story as something that comes out of the game has always been true, where it got confused is when people started looking at the game itself as taking place "within a story", and adopting a 3rd person PoV to match. But using story as a metaphor for roleplaying goes all the way back to D&D.
In other words, I wouldn't jump down someone's throat for mentioning story in any connection to RPGs, w/o a bit more to go on.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708330Well, thats the difference between a roleplaying game and a storytelling game. Both can be classified as "tabletop rpgs" yet have different aspects and purposes of play.
At what point does a tapbletop rpg turn from a roleplaying game to a storytelling game?
Quote from: TristramEvans;708350In other words, I wouldn't jump down someone's throat for mentioning story in any connection to RPGs, w/o a bit more to go on.
No, but when they have explicit story references from RPGs spanning a decade and a half immediately to hand, it does make the chin a bit itchy.
Quote from: Sommerjon;708352At what point does a tapbletop rpg turn from a roleplaying game to a storytelling game?
My answer to that would be that it's utterly dependent on each particular individual. Basically gamers will come with a variety of answers to that one. What that says is that there's no clear objective line between the two.
I think that there's a spectrum between the two styles of gaming and games define themselves with their intents and particular mechanics somewhere on that spectrum, or try to be different things on that spectrum for different users. But whatever the game defines itself as is not necessarily how the game is going to be run and played by a variety of GMs. So there's a huge variation there as well.
We're talking about games which by design are utterly subjective because so much relies on personal interpretations and imagination. The users themselves are empowered to create the finished product, the adventure itself as it's played, as opposed to the manual explaining how to get there. So it's no wonder that people will have different answers to that question. I've thought a lot about this lately, and I think it's a core feature of the tabletop RPG medium, not a bug.
(http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/henryV.jpg)
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
Quote from: atpollard;708320Some would argue that it has something to do with telling a story.
Yeah, lots of GM advice chapters say that; but for the reasons I'll expound below, this is an approach that doesn't really play to the strengths of traditional RPGs, and in fact negates them to a degree.
Quote from: rancke;708332I will claim that someone who says that RPGs has nothing to do with storytelling is utterly mistaken. A game without any storytelling at all is not a roleplaying game. (Note that the reverse is not true. Most boardgames and wargames have some smidgin of storytelling involved unless they're as abstract as Go and Reversi).
For wide enough values of "story" and "storytelling", sure. You can call the output of a game session a "story", though if you're playing a traditional RPG, it's unlikely to look like an actual piece of storytelling, i.e. a narrative created expressly for the passive entertainment of a reading (or listening, viewing, etc.) crowd. Because traditional RPGs for the most part tend to simulate lifelike worlds, with varying degrees of abstraction and complete with randomizers, the output of a traditional RPG gaming session won't necessarily adhere to the formalisms of actual storytelling as usually understood.
Certain RPGs, influenced by a gent named Ron Edwards and his fellow-travelers, have been built from the ground up to enforce an output that resembles a "story", understood here as a string of fictitious facts tied together by certain literary conventions, with the explicit purpose of entertaining a passive observer (reader, listener, viewer). You know, stuff with a beginning, a middle and an end.
Quote from: rancke;708332I've come to the conclusion that it has something to do with storytelling and something to do with gaming. People have different preferences as to the correct mix of the two. Personally I think a blend of 50/50 is the optimum, but I would never accuse someone who preferred a different blend of having missed the bus on RPGs.
Like you, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I could care less about who gets to use the "RPG" label, which is a big sticking point with a lot of people here. You can expect these two posts to rub a lot of people the wrong way (I just hope that wasn't your idea all along).
In any case, welcome to theRPGsite and may God have mercy on your souls. ;)
Quote from: Sommerjon;708352At what point does a tapbletop rpg turn from a roleplaying game to a storytelling game?
When people start telling stories in lieu of RPing what is supposed to be a real time happening. I can tell you what I am having a PC DO while hunting. OR, I can tell you a story about what HAPPENED when I went hunting. There's the difference.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;7083254E and WW games ARE narrative based. GURPS includes elements that can make some games behave likewise.
Lol, the funny thing about WW games is they talk about storytelling, and narrative play, but the system isn't narrative based at all. They're just regular, albeit pretentious, RPGs.
Don't know why you think 4e is narrative based. It's as gamist as they come. Pretty much epitomizes gamist play.
And what elements in GURPs are you referring to? I've only read up to third edition, but it was again about as far from a narrative based system as I can imagine.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708350Keep in mind that metaphor did not classically imply a shared Storygame. Story as something that comes out of the game has always been true, where it got confused is when people started looking at the game itself as taking place "within a story", and adopting a 3rd person PoV to match. But using story as a metaphor for roleplaying goes all the way back to D&D.
In other words, I wouldn't jump down someone's throat for mentioning story in any connection to RPGs, w/o a bit more to go on.
Yes, there's a difference between dislike of highly narrative games, and treating a term that is "story" like someone just said "nigger".
Quote from: The Traveller;708356No, but when they have explicit story references from RPGs spanning a decade and a half immediately to hand, it does make the chin a bit itchy.
Eh, this has been a battle fought again and again. I saw the low post count and wanted to assume the best perhaps.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708361Lol, the funny thing about WW games is they talk about storytelling, and narrative play, but the system isn't narrative based at all. They're just regular, albeit pretentious, RPGs.
Agreed. Vampire is one of my top three tabletop RPGs of all time, despite its storytelling take on the medium. I've run my Paris by Night game for more than 20 years, and it's essentially a "by Night" sandbox, not storytelling time. It's absolutely great, I love that game, it runs great that way.
Quote from: Arturick;708346It's funny... I really don't like games where the players are given direct narrative control (aka Story Games), which would generally put me on the side of TheRPGSiters more often than not. I even like dangerous games with a threat of high lethality and areas of the world that don't change to meet the PC's level.
But the neckbeardy "We are the cultural gatekeepers of gaming and you pussies aren't tall enough to ride" attitude around here rankles me so badly that I guess I come across as a troll.
You and me both.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708363Eh, this has been a battle fought again and again. I saw the low post count and wanted to assume the best perhaps.
Me too. But the rapid fire quote mining made that little woop-woop alarm in my head go off.
Quote from: Benoist;708342You are already making the assumption that storytelling is what the role playing experience is about, whatever consensus there is around the game table, whatever the aims of the game, and that's not the case, in my experience. You can perfectly run a role playing game without a storytelling intent. We are several on this board doing this and enjoying our games deeply.
I'm not making any assumptions. I've learned from playing RPGs that storytelling to some degree always and invariably enters into it, although the degree differ from game to game. I'm utterly baffled by your claim that you and others are playing roleplaying games without any storytelling at all. How do you go about that?!? :confused:
QuoteSo let's not be dumb and acknowledge that if you want storytelling out of your games it's cool, rock on, but those who don't want that out of their games are not necessarily terrible DMs, clueless, or badwrong. Is that cool with you?
It's not a question of wanting. I don't understand how one could possbly have roleplaying without storytelling. I don't see how you can have one without the other. It has nothing to do with bad GMming, cluelessness or hurting wrong fun. If you enjoy games without storytelling then you have my blessing and permission to have fun (Please note that I don't think you require it ;)).
I enjoy playing games without storytelling. A lot. But I don't call them roleplaying games. Possibly our disagreement lies in mutually contradictory definitions.
QuoteNone of that proves that all role playing games are about storytelling, and that storytelling is part of any and all role playing games. Again: we are several here who are construing role playing game play differently, and do not set out to tell a story when playing a tabletop RPG. Is that cool with you?
Certainly. My problem here is solely that I find your claim to be playing RPGs without storytelling as baffling as someone claiming to play soccer without a ball.
QuoteYou've just lost me, Hans. Because you can't say on one hand that you wouldn't condemn people for having different preferences than you playing role playing games, and then follow that statement by a direct condemnation of people who would construe role playing games as having nothing to do with storytelling and call them "utterly mistaken". That's bullshit.
I'm not condemning anyone. I'm saying that roleplaying invariably involves some degree of storytelling. I'm saying that in the same spirit that I would say that someone who claimed that chess was a roleplaying game was utterly mistaken.
Now, if you can tell me how one can roleplay without some degree of storytelling, I'll willingly retract my statement. Or more likely agree to disagree, as I suspect we may have different definitions of 'storytelling'. Perhaps there's a common usage of the term with which I'm unfamiliar? I'm simply using the common sense of the word.
QuoteI think you guys come late at the party here, and you probably haven't read the whole thread.
That's perfectly true.
Hans
Quote from: Arturick;708346But the neckbeardy "We are the cultural gatekeepers of gaming and you pussies aren't tall enough to ride" attitude around here rankles me so badly that I guess I come across as a troll.
Play whatever games you like, but anyone making the blanket claim that Hans did is going to get laughed at by me.
I don't happen to think narrative games are for pussies. I will play them and I have run some myself. They are just a different type of game played with a different purpose. I enjoy the hell out of pulp games such as HEX, and Savage Worlds. I play them because they are fun and to create exciting stories. Because of that, the "rule of cool" makes sense when playing these games.
Just because I am aware of the differences between traditional and narrative rpgs doesn't mean I regard one or the other as superior. I will not pretend that the significant differences don't exist.
Quote from: Arduin;708360When people start telling stories in lieu of RPing what is supposed to be a real time happening. I can tell you what I am having a PC DO while hunting. OR, I can tell you a story about what HAPPENED when I went hunting. There's the difference.
That seems a helpful reference point.
So
1: RPing is "I swing my sword at the orc" roll dice.
2:Storytelling is "I leap fiercely at the orc cleaving away with my flashing blade to skewer it through the heart!" no dice roll...
3: Thing is. Ive seen example 2 from players who after the rolls then interpret and describe what went down. Is that storytelling too?
#2 does not seem to have much inherent threat to it. Which I assume is the source of some players disdain for it? IE: There likely would never be a TPK in a storytelling session? And even if there was, it was because the players said so, rather than any real threat?
Quote from: Arduin;708360When people start telling stories in lieu of RPing what is supposed to be a real time happening. I can tell you what I am having a PC DO while hunting. OR, I can tell you a story about what HAPPENED when I went hunting. There's the difference.
That appear to be the source of the part of the controversy I seem to have sparked. To me you're telling a story whenever you're performing roleplay. When you're matching game units against other game units and rolling dice to decide the outcome, you're gaming rather than roleplaying. Both have a place in roleplaying games and it's not a 'roleplaying game' (compound term) unless it has both.
Hans
Quote from: Omega;7083722:Storytelling is "I leap fiercely at the orc cleaving away with my flashing blade to skewer it through the heart!" no dice roll...
Shared narrative gaming is "Johannes Albrecht the Templar leaps fiercely at the orc cleaving away with his flashing blade to skewer it through the heart, and then the orc turns into a valuable obsidian statue, because that makes it a better story".
The third person viewpoint, the GM-like control over the setting, these are among the telling differences.
Note I wouldn't say that "characters not dying in an inappropriate fashion" is a shared narrative technique, that's just bowing to genre conceits in a heavy handed way. The conceits in question are media where the heroes always die in a heroic manner. CoC does much the same thing except everyone goes mad, if they're lucky.
Quote from: rancke;708369Certainly. My problem here is solely that I find your claim to be playing RPGs without storytelling as baffling as someone claiming to play soccer without a ball.
That's a problem.
When I play a role playing game, I am acting as my character in the world as it happens. The action of the game is not a story, in the same way that my own life right now isn't a story to me. I take the vantage point of my character as I am in the game, and what I'd call "the story," if any, is the stuff I can tell people after I've played the game. It isn't a concern of mine, nor my character, while I am playing the game.
Conversely, when I am the DM, I role play the world, and the logic is the same.
I am playing in the "now" of the game world. I do not play away from it to consider it as a story building exercise.
Therefore, my role playing has nothing to with storytelling, "stories" as such being completely incidental to the game, after the fact.
Now again, you can construe your game play and your role into it in a different way that makes "telling a story" a fundamental part of the experience, to you. But that is not what all gamers are searching for in role playing games, and that is not what I personally am looking for when playing an RPG.
Is that okay if I construe the games I play that way, without you calling me deluded or mistaken? That'd be cool.
Quote from: Arduin;708360When people start telling stories in lieu of RPing what is supposed to be a real time happening. I can tell you what I am having a PC DO while hunting. OR, I can tell you a story about what HAPPENED when I went hunting. There's the difference.
This would mean a game is both roleplaying and storytelling.
The Dm takes me aside, I tell him what I am having my PC DO while hunting. I come back to the party and tell the group a story about what HAPPENED when my PC went hunting.
Or are you saying that a 'storytelling game' is only played in the recent past?
Quote from: Omega;7083721: RPing is "I swing my sword at the orc" roll dice.
Why are you swinging your sword at the orc? The 'why' is roleplaying and involves storytelling. Rolling the dice is gaming. You can have one without the other, but then it isn't a roleplaying game, it's either a board- or war-game or it's improvisational theater. (Exaggerating a bit for effect here).
Hans
Quote from: Sommerjon;708352At what point does a tapbletop rpg turn from a roleplaying game to a storytelling game?
The type of game is determined by the aims and purpose of play. Are you playing to create cool stories about a group of characters or are you playing to explore a fictional world?
Quote from: TristramEvans;708361Lol, the funny thing about WW games is they talk about storytelling, and narrative play, but the system isn't narrative based at all. They're just regular, albeit pretentious, RPGs.
Fair enough. Not really overly familliar with them.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708361Don't know why you think 4e is narrative based. It's as gamist as they come. Pretty much epitomizes gamist play.
The nuts & bolts mechanics are very gamist. Check out the adventure design advice in the DMG. It is full of scene setting, tension building kind of advice.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708361And what elements in GURPs are you referring to? I've only read up to third edition, but it was again about as far from a narrative based system as I can imagine.
Since GURPS supports so many genres, there are elements of genre tropes present. Since the system as a whole works with or without them, it is very flexible and can be used to build a variety of game types. I like that versatility.
Quote from: rancke;708375That appear to be the source of the part of the controversy I seem to have sparked. To me you're telling a story whenever you're performing roleplay. When you're matching game units against other game units and rolling dice to decide the outcome, you're gaming rather than roleplaying. Both have a place in roleplaying games and it's not a 'roleplaying game' (compound term) unless it has both.
Hans
I see it as several hobbies interrelated - there's straight out simulation/sandbox play, where the gameworld is open and player choice alone determines the course of events.
There's Thatcherism/railroad play where the GM forces the players through a predetermined plot. The players themselves are roleplaying as normal, but they are arbitrarily limited by the constraints put on them by the GM's imposed story.
There's narrative play, where the players and GM are taking turns telling a shared story, which is what I would call storygaming.
And there's gamist play, where the players are playing to the system and roleplaying is a secondary concern.
There's also games, probably the most common, that mix or jump between two or more of the aformentioned styles.
Quote from: rancke;708382Why are you swinging your sword at the orc? The 'why' is roleplaying and involves storytelling.
It is not storytelling to me. When in real life I decide to go to the grocery store the "why" is not storytelling at the moment I take this decision and act on it. It's my life. Likewise, when I swing my sword at the orc in a role playing game, the "why" to me is part of my motivations as my character in the game world, and doesn't involve storytelling at all, from that standpoint. Please read my previous post, and the whole thread, for that matter. It should clarify some things in regards to my particular POV on this question.
Quote from: rancke;708382Why are you swinging your sword at the orc? The 'why' is roleplaying and involves storytelling. Rolling the dice is gaming. You can have one without the other, but then it isn't a roleplaying game, it's either a board- or war-game or it's improvisational theater. (Exaggerating a bit for effect here).
Hans
You equate player motivation with storytelling? I'd just call that roleplaying. The deciding question to me is "is the player considering their environment and making choices based on the PoV of thier character, or as an omniscient author whose choices are based on narrative concerns?"
Quote from: Benoist;708387Not to me. When in real life I decide to go to the grocery store the "why" is not storytelling when I take that decision. It's my life.
That's because real life and games are two different things. In real life you probably wouldn't be telling a story. If someone writes a book describing why his character decides to go shopping, he's telling a story. And if you ever tell anyone about going grocery shopping, you'll be telling a story too.
QuoteLikewise, when I swing my sword at the orc in a role playing game, the "why" to me is part of my motivations as my character in the game world, and doesn't involve storytelling at all, from that standpoint.
I don't agree. The 'why' is storytelling just as the hypothetical author above was storytelling.
Hans
Quote from: TristramEvans;708388You equate player motivation with storytelling? I'd just call that roleplaying. The deciding question to me is "is the player considering their environment and making choices based on the PoV of thier character, or as an omniscient author whose choices are based on narrative concerns?"
I'm equating the narrative that provides you with your motivation with storytelling, yes. And I equate the narrative that you provide when you roleplay your character with storytelling.
Hans
Quote from: TristramEvans;708388You equate player motivation with storytelling? I'd just call that roleplaying. The deciding question to me is "is the player considering their environment and making choices based on the PoV of thier character, or as an omniscient author whose choices are based on narrative concerns?"
This is where the issue arises. 'Roleplaying' and 'Storytelling' when it comes to tabletop rpgs is decided blurred.
Personally when players use third person I instantly see 'storytelling'. I see the player as a voyeur watching the 'story' of Gamble Buttercastle unfold.
My 'roleplaying' zone is players in first person and the Dm in second person, third person only when context is needed.
Quote from: rancke;708391That's because real life and games are two different things. In real life you probably wouldn't be telling a story.
When I play a role playing game, I want to play "let's pretend." Make believe. The point of the game to me is to play "let's pretend I am my character and this is the world he lives in, this is his life." If I don't get to pretend the action in the game is the "now" I am living in right now as my character, I am missing something critical to my enjoyment of role playing games.
Let's be clear, it's not about extremes. It's not about total immersion and not being able to make the difference between the action in the game and what's going on in the real world at all, to me - it's about let's pretend, literally, like kids playing in the "now" of whatever they imagine at the moment they're playing it.
Quote from: rancke;708391I don't agree. The 'why' is storytelling just as the hypothetical author above was storytelling.
You can't "disagree" with what I'm telling you I experience in the game as I'm playing it. Unless you are telling me you know better than I do what's going on in my head as I'm playing a role playing game, which would be ludicrous, let's face it.
You either accept what I'm telling you as a truthful expression of what I feel when I play, and what I'm looking for when playing the game, or you don't. If you think I am lying to you, or am deluded, or do not understand what it is I am talking about when describing what's going on in my own head as I play a role playing game, well, we won't go anywhere and we can stop this right now.
Quote from: Sommerjon;708398Personally when players use third person I instantly see 'storytelling'. I see the player as a voyeur watching the 'story' of Gamble Buttercastle unfold.
My 'roleplaying' zone is players in first person and the Dm in second person, third person only when context is needed.
A voyeur or an author, yes I'd agree with this. Also where players have GM like control over the setting, definetely when the two are combined.
Quote from: The Traveller;708376Shared narrative gaming is "Johannes Albrecht the Templar leaps fiercely at the orc cleaving away with his flashing blade to skewer it through the heart, and then the orc turns into a valuable obsidian statue, because that makes it a better story".
The third person viewpoint, the GM-like control over the setting, these are among the telling differences.
Note I wouldn't say that "characters not dying in an inappropriate fashion" is a shared narrative technique, that's just bowing to genre conceits in a heavy handed way. The conceits in question are media where the heroes always die in a heroic manner. CoC does much the same thing except everyone goes mad, if they're lucky.
Used to call that Round Robin. Except there was no underlying game structure.
As for the death part. Sounds right. Im just wondering if some see it as lesser for the lack of perceived threat?
IE: Death by narration rather than death by die roll?
Quote from: rancke;708395I'm equating the narrative that provides you with your motivation with storytelling, yes. And I equate the narrative that you provide when you roleplay your character with storytelling.
Hans
Ok, do you consider that when a theatre actor improvises lines they are storytelling?
Quote from: Omega;708403As for the death part. Sounds right. Im just wondering if some see it as lesser for the lack of perceived threat?
IE: Death by narration rather than death by die roll?
Lesser or greater comes down to a matter of opinion here. Even gritty high mortality RPGs are still playing to a genre - a gritty high mortality genre. That may just be realism in action, but as far as games go realism is just another genre.
Quote from: rancke;708391If someone writes a book describing why his character decides to go shopping, he's telling a story. And if you ever tell anyone about going grocery shopping, you'll be telling a story too.
Hans
YES!!! You got it.
The act itself is not a story. The recounting of such an act IS a story.
During the game, is the act being performed or being re-told?
Thats your answer.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708408YES!!! You got it.
The act itself is not a story. The recounting of such an act IS a story.
Correctamundo. That's my perspective.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708408The act itself is not a story. The recounting of such an act IS a story.
During the game, is the act being performed or being re-told?
When a GM says "The King wants you to go kill some orcs that have been bothering him", is he a king asking adventurers to go kill orcs or is he a guy telling his players about a king talking to their characters?
When a player says, "I hit the orc", is he hitting an orc or telling about his character hitting an orc?
QuoteThat's your answer.
It is indeed.
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708412When a GM says "The King wants you to go kill some orcs that have been bothering him", is he a king asking adventurers to go kill orcs or is he a guy telling his players about a king talking to their characters?
When a player says, "I hit the orc", is he hitting an orc or telling about his character hitting an orc?
The former, in both instances. Or at least I'll be pretending to, i.e. playing make-believe. If I'm not pretending, there's no point in playing, to me.
Quote from: Benoist;708414The former, in both instances. Or at least I'll be pretending to, i.e. playing make believe. If I'm not pretending, there's no point in playing, to me.
You can pretend all you want but you're still a player telling your GM what your character is doing, not your character doing it.
This may also be considered the reply to your previous post about believing what you tell me you're experiencing when you play roleplaying games. What you pretend to experience and what you experience in real life is not the same.
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708416You can pretend all you want but you're still a player telling your GM what your character is doing, not your character doing it.
Do you not immerse?
Quote from: rancke;708416This may also be considered the reply to your previous post about believing what you tell me you're experiencing when you play roleplaying games. What you pretend to experience and what you experience in real life is not the same.
The point is to pretend they are the same thing as I play the game, to me.
Quote from: rancke;708416You can pretend all you want but you're still a player telling your GM what your character is doing, not your character doing it.
Of course I am. It's just that the point of the game to me precisely is to pretend I am that adventurer hitting the orc, and that I am this same adventurer listening to the king role played by the GM as he tries to hire us to save his daughter.
Apparently you don't care for that when you are playing your games, and it's cool. But you cannot deny this is what I am personally looking for in a game, nor that it is actually what I experience when playing it.
Sure, you could tell me "No! I know better than you what's going on in your head!" or "You lie!" but then, I would just kindly but firmly tell you to go fuck yourself, and that conversation would have been for naught.
Quote from: The Traveller;708418Do you not immerse?
Probably not. What is it to immerse and how would immersing change me from a real life person prtetending to be an adventurer into a real adventurer?
Hans
Quote from: Omega;708372That seems a helpful reference point.
So
1: RPing is "I swing my sword at the orc" roll dice.
2:Storytelling is "I leap fiercely at the orc cleaving away with my flashing blade to skewer it through the heart!" no dice roll...
Nope. You CLEARLY didn't understand all the big words I used. Reread with an eye towards English language comprehension.
Point 2 is about 180 degrees from what I said.
Try again.
Quote from: rancke;708422Probably not. What is it to immerse and how would immersing change me from a real life person prtetending to be an adventurer into a real adventurer?
Immersion is the waking dream my friend, a more potent form than that experienced by moviegoers enthralled by a captivating production, forgetting all their cares and worries for the duration, forgetting even that they watch a movie. It's chasing the polyhedral fairy, absinthe for the soul, a visceral experience more of the gut than the intellect, possession of a most persuasive variety.
You in no way become a real adventurer. But your mind believes you do, for a while, and that in the final analysis is all that matters.
Quote from: Benoist;708421Of course I am. It's just that the point of the game precisely is to pretend I am that adventurer hitting the orc, and that I am this same adventurer listening to the king role played by the GM as he tries to hire us to save his daughter.
And that is storytelling.
QuoteApparently you don't care for that when you are playing your games, and it's cool. But you cannot deny this is what I am personally looking for in a game, nor that it is actually what I experience when playing it.
I can and will deny that you're actually watching a king and hearing his voice with your adventurer's keen ears. You're watching your GM and hearing
his voice with
your ears. And if you claim otherwise, your claim is not congruous with reality. And you can interpret that remark any way you want for all I care.
Hans
Quote from: The Traveller;708424Immersion is the waking dream my friend, a more potent form than that experienced by moviegoers enthralled by a captivating production, forgetting all their cares and worries for the duration, forgetting even that they watch a movie. It's chasing the polyhedral fairy, absinthe for the soul, a visceral experience more of the gut than the intellect, possession of a most persuasive variety.
You in no way become a real adventurer. But your mind believes you do, for a while, and that in the final analysis is all that matters.
No, I don't do that. If I did, I don't think I would consider the experience to be part of a roleplaying game. Roleplaying, possibly, but definitely not gaming.
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708427No, I don't do that.
Then you have my sympathies, friend.
Quote from: rancke;708426And that is storytelling.
No, it is not, not to me. It is playing let's pretend.
Quote from: rancke;708426I can and will deny that you're actually watching a king and hearing his voice with your adventurer's keen ears. You're watching your GM and hearing his voice with your ears. And if you claim otherwise, your claim is not congruous with reality. And you can interpret that remark any way you want for all I care.
Hans
And that counter argument would be completely off the mark, since I never denied that the events and components of the game were not real. I am, however, playing let's pretend, and imagining these elements of the game world as real in my mind's eye to then react to them through my character as though they were, experiencing the game world as "now", instead of construing it as a storytelling exercise.
You can continue to tell me I'm sitting here at a table rolling dice with a GM talking to me and I'll say "yes, duh, absolutely", but it doesn't change the fact that to me the point of the game is to play make believe and pretend that these things we are talking about, these characters we are impersonating and the situations we play out in the game world are real in our imaginations as they occur and collide and spring from one another organically from our interactions around the table.
Quote from: Benoist;708432No, it is not, not to me. It is playing let's pretend.
I just googled this guy. Has trolled many sites over the last couple years.
Quote from: Benoist;708432No, it is not, not to me. It is playing let's pretend.
We've been around this block a couple of times already. To me you're like someone claiming that since to him the point of getting into a train is to get to the destination, he's not actually travelling by train. He's just going to his destination. And when it is pointed out to you that you're actually getting on a train and travelling by it, you reply that, yes, but that's not the
point so anyone claiming that you're travelling by train is calling you a liar.
Storytelling
- may not be the point, but it's nevertheless the vehicle for your pretendings. You can't pretend without storytelling entering into the process.
- In the common sense. Possibly not in the gamer jargon sense.[/SIZE]
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708438We've been around this block a couple of times already. To me you're like someone claiming that since to him the point of getting into a train is to get to the destination, he's not actually travelling by train. He's just going to his destination. And when it is pointed out to you that you're actually getting on a train and travelling by it, you reply that, yes, but that's not the point so anyone claiming that you're travelling by train is calling you a liar.
Storytelling- may not be the point, but it's nevertheless the vehicle for your pretendings. You can't pretend without storytelling entering into the process.
- In the common sense. Possibly not in the gamer jargon sense.[/SIZE]
Hans
I agree, we've been around the block a couple of times already, and we've basically identified that I have no problem with you construing your games the way you want them, whereas you seem to have a big problem with me construing my games the way I do.
It's okay. No skin off my nose.
Quote from: Arduin;708435I just googled this guy. Has trolled many sites over the last couple years.
Oh!
Color me embarrased. :o
I shall stop feeding the troll forthwith.
Anyway, we were fast approaching the point where my rule of thumb for not continuing a discussion (which is when I can answer posts by cutting and pasting from past posts) would have come into effect.
Hans
I don't really see any point in arguing further either. Hans doesn't immerse, end of story. His experiences with RPGs are going to be fundamentally different to those of people who do immerse to one degree or another, and that's that.
Quote from: The Traveller;708449I don't really see any point in arguing further either. Hans doesn't immerse, end of story. His experiences with RPGs are going to be fundamentally different to those of people who do immerse to one degree or another, and that's that.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
I do pretend to immerse. At least, I think I do. Is that good enough to earn me a place among the Blessed?
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708453:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
I do pretend to immerse. At least, I think I do. Is that good enough to earn me a place among the Blessed?
Hans
You don't have to earn anything, it's a question of what you want to experience. Some people can't let go, and play these games like chess, and that's valid. But it becomes difficult for them to relate to the experiences of those who do open that door, then people end up arguing, everyone's talking past one another, a complete waste of time.
I wasn't kidding when I said it was absinthe for the soul...
"After the first glass you see things as you wish they were.
After the second you see things as they are not."
-
Oscar Wilde
Quote from: rancke;708453I do pretend to immerse. At least, I think I do. Is that good enough to earn me a place among the Blessed?
Hans
You're crossing the line here, Hans. As we've discussed on this thread, I have personally no problem with you playing your game however you want to, and construing it as storytelling. That is your prerogative. Game it your way.
You, however, clearly have a problem with guys like me who say that for them, playing a role playing game isn't about storytelling. You have gone through great lengths to try to "disprove" what they are trying to tell you they experience playing the game, up to the point you're basically saying you know better than them what's going on in their own heads as they play the game, or they're deluded, or they're just speaking in bad faith and lying to you.
So if there's a guy here who's acting all mightier than thou "I understand role playing better than you do, unwashed masses who do not understand what storytelling is!" it's you here, my friend. You're the guy here acting like he's the Anointed One who understands True Storytelling.
So I'd let that go now, if I were you. It's okay to disagree.
Welcome to TheRPGSite, atpollard and rancke!
Quote from: rancke;708453I do pretend to immerse. At least, I think I do. Is that good enough to earn me a place among the Blessed?
Hans
I would actually reply to this but since I am not currently equipped with either fire or acid you would just regenerate so what's the point?
I have learned some important things over the past couple pages. Very good stuff and I honestly want to thank all the participants.
It is difficult to read that back and not perceive sarcasm, and I wrote it. It was not meant sarcastically, but as a statement regarding an important observation regarding human behavior and a few things that I can do to improve my own behavior.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708361Don't know why you think 4e is narrative based. It's as gamist as they come. Pretty much epitomizes gamist play.
There's a bunch of Dramatist (and maybe even a bit of Edwards-Narrativist) GMing advice by Robin Laws in the 4e DMG2. Some GMs like pemerton on EN World have successfully used 4e's extensive character 'fluff' (which RPGnettter 4e fans treat as disposable) for Dramatist play; I've done a bit of this myself.
4e play does tend to produce stuff that looks more like a story than traditional D&D play does; eg PC and major enemy death scenes tend to be big drawn out dramatic affairs, not the frequent bathos of other editions (including 3e). 4e's encounter-level 'combat as sport' Gamism tends to shift the focus away from stuff that can give bathetic outcomes, eg 3e's Scry-Buff-Teleport or 2e's Save vs Poison Or Die, making it compatible with Dramatist play. But it's not really designed for Dramatist play the way eg Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG is, it just gives some tools that can be used that way.
Quote from: The Traveller;708418Do you not immerse?
Probably not; the inability to experience immersion seems to have been what led to The Forge and Narrativism theory; game as story-creation.
Possibly a form of 'brain damage'... :D
Quote from: The Traveller;708331Quite the encyclopediac knowledge of RPGs you have there, that you were able to so quickly find story-related quotes from all over.
My Google-fu is strong. ;)
They came from "Roleplaying Games" from Wikipedia.
The irony of some of the criticism that I have received, is that I STILL play AD&D (1st ed) and Classic Traveller as my preferred rules systems ... making me hard-core old-school and just plain older than dirt. :)
All the feats and prestige classes just don't stir my soul.
I really tried to learn to like them, but sorry, no sale.
Quote from: atpollard;708481They came from "Roleplaying Games" from Wikipedia.
Well now, isn't that interesting.
Gentlemen, it appears that the children of the ron have been busy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game).
QuoteBoth authors and major publishers of tabletop role-playing games consider them to be a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling.
Quote from: The Traveller;708483Well now, isn't that interesting.
Gentlemen, it appears that the children of the ron have been busy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game).
"Role-playing games also include single-player offline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offline) role-playing video games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game) in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics."
:rotfl: Now, this is an example of why any College Prof worthy of the title tosses one out of class for citing Wiki...
Quote from: Arduin;708484Now, this is an example of why any College Prof worthy of the title tosses one out of class for citing Wiki...
And yet it remains number one on searches for "roleplaying games".
Quote from: The Traveller;708487And yet it remains number one on searches for "roleplaying games".
That's because Google algorithm constantly throws up wiki near the top of search results artificially. And Google is the top search engine.
Quote from: Arduin;708488That's because Google algorithm constantly throws up wiki near the top of search results artificially. And Google is the top search engine.
Yes.
I've changed my attitude quite a bit about that precise point. There was a time when I would have said "if you start playing with the intent of creating a story, you are not playing a role playing game, to me."
I don't think that's true anymore. I realize that I have my own way to play role playing games, that there are things involved in role playing that I enjoy more than others, but I also do see that there are many gamers out there who play and role play and totally are into creating a story together.
So I think that the term "role playing game" is really, really wide as a term. I'd call what I'm doing "adventure gaming". I like adventure games. That may not be a perfect term, but it's one that I understand and can define in a conversation about role playing games. There are adventure games, storytelling games, all sorts of games under the role playing games umbrella, and I can live with it.
What I will not have is people trying to tell me that guys like me who play role playing games the way I do, and who are not seeing the act of playing a tabletop RPG as an exercise in storytelling at all, are deluded, don't understand RPGs, or worse, don't actually exist, as Ron Edwards and his cronies once tried by creating artificial categories of games and then claiming that "Simulationism" wasn't actually a "thing" because "creative agenda".
Quote from: Benoist;708491I'd call what I'm doing "adventure gaming". I like adventure games. That may not be a perfect term, but it's one that I understand and can define in a conversation about role playing games.
As I've been saying, we need a new name.
Quote from: Benoist;708491I've changed my attitude quite a bit about that precise point. There was a time when I would have said "if you start playing with the intent of creating a story, you are not playing a role playing game, to me."
I don't think that's true anymore. I realize that I have my own way to play role playing games, that there are things involved in role playing that I enjoy more than others, but I also do see that there are many gamers out there who play and role play and totally are into creating a story together.
So I think that the term "role playing game" is really, really wide as a term. I'd call what I'm doing "adventure gaming". I like adventure games. That may not be a perfect term, but it's one that I understand and can define in a conversation about role playing games. There are adventure games, storytelling games, all sorts of games under the role playing games umbrella, and I can live with it.
What I will not have is people trying to tell me that guys like me who play role playing games the way I do, and who are not seeing the act of playing a tabletop RPG as an exercise in storytelling at all, are deluded, don't understand RPGs, or worse, don't actually exist, as Ron Edwards and his cronies once tried by creating artificial categories of games and then claiming that "Simulationism" wasn't actually a "thing" because "creative agenda".
Agree with all this completely. I think RPG is a big tent and there are plenty of viable styles within the hobby. Where i get annoyed is folks telling me my experience of the game is incorrect, or that I am really doing something else, or that immersion is a meaningless concept by trying to deconstruct the word. There is plenty of room for folks who want the story aspect, but there is also lots of room for people who don't want that.
To me, the narrative rpgs are still rpgs. The difference isn't so much one of roleplaying or not but instead about the nature of the assumed role.
A player in a traditional rpg assumes the role of an inhabitant of a fictional world.
A player in a narrative rpg assumes the role of co-storyteller from prospective X in a fictional world.
Quote from: The Traveller;708495As I've been saying, we need a new name.
As soon as one were to be adopted, the wannabe's from other gaming genres would start using it. Same as happened with term Role Playing Game.
Quote from: Arduin;708506As soon as one were to be adopted, the wannabe's from other gaming genres would start using it. Same as happened with term Role Playing Game.
That ship has sailed and those flags have been nailed to their respective masts. Let them have it I say.
Quote from: Benoist;708491What I will not have is people trying to tell me that guys like me who play role playing games the way I do, and who are not seeing the act of playing a tabletop RPG as an exercise in storytelling at all, are deluded, don't understand RPGs, or worse, don't actually exist, as Ron Edwards and his cronies once tried by creating artificial categories of games and then claiming that "Simulationism" wasn't actually a "thing" because "creative agenda".
Another thing I will not have is people trying to put me in a box such as "Simulationism", telling me that my games are really about strict simulations (no they are not, they are about make believe, let's pretend, which is a different thing), that there's no role playing in my games, that I am some sort of untermensch of gaming because of the way I like to play games.
I can run games that have deep emotional investment, thank you very much. I can run horror games, fantasy games, sci fi games, whatever games where you actually don't roll a die at all during sessions and keep talking with NPCs in character. Some people like this, some people don't - that's all cool with me. But don't tell me there's no role playing in my games.
So fuck "Simulationism". Fuck "there's no role playing in your games". Fuck those boxes and "you are not a true role player" and "story telling IS role playing" and "storytelling is deep, meaningful role playing" and all that. Fuck that noise to hell.
Quote from: Benoist;708513So fuck "Simulationism". Fuck "there's no role playing in your games". Fuck those boxes and "you are not a true role player" and "story telling IS role playing" and "storytelling is deep, meaningful role playing" and all that. Fuck that noise to hell.
The wildly popular publicly editable resource wikipedia says otherwise.
Quote from: S'mon;708474Probably not; the inability to experience immersion seems to have been what led to The Forge and Narrativism theory; game as story-creation.
Possibly a form of 'brain damage'... :D
Immersion as recently described (the ability to experience imaginary events as reality) sounds way too close to Schizophrenia to start flinging accusations of 'brain damage' on those who only like to 'pretend'. ;)
For my part, some semantic clarification of my intent behind using the term "story" and "storytelling" in the same sentence with "RPG" is called for:
Players create a persona for their characters and control the actions of those characters. The Referee creates a fantasy (as opposed to reality, not the genre) world with which the characters can interact. The players act and react in the first person of their characters. The Referee acts in the first person for the NPCs that the Player's character will encounter, and narrates in the third person for events that happen to the character ("Fred the Bold falls from the cliff and is swept downstream by the current, washing ashore at a bend in the river.") The interaction between the Referee and multiple players generates a series of events.
This series of events is the "story" in the "storytelling" that is (and has always been) part of roleplaying games.
I profess both complete ignorance and general indifference to the meaning of "The Forge" and "Narrativism theory".
I just enjoy roleplaying games ... especially Classic Traveller ... and heard that theRPGSite was the "Mos Eisley cantina of forums".
... and here I am, getting to know y'all. :)
[If anyone wants to know who I am, I am atpollard everywhere I post ... mostly Traveller boards.]
Quote from: atpollard;708520... and here I am, getting to know y'all. :)
Hi.
Could you answer my questions from upthread? Reposting the content here:
Quote from: atpollard;708294Personally, I would handle combat with a single D6 roll ... 1 = you really screw up, 6 = wow, the gods smiled on you ... now roll and tell me what happens! Absent that K.I.S.S. and don't let a random roll spoil the adventure.
Can we agree that I personally wouldn't enjoy something like this?
Can we also agree that if it is okay I wouldn't like it, it doesn't mean I'm a less sophisticated, or inexperienced, or mistaken gamer? Because I've run Vampire games for more than 20 years now, and I'm pretty sure the amount of role play, meaning, emotional investment, whatever you want to call it, going on in my games doesn't leave to be desired.
Quote from: atpollard;708294[Bad GM Story: I will never forget a module back in the day where the inexperienced GM played it exactly as written ... we got through the first handful of rooms, everyone failed the check to notice the secret door, we searched for hours, knowing that there had to be more than a few empty rooms. We were never able to enter the remaining 90% of the dungeon, so we went back to town. End of the adventure ... nobody had fun.]
Ultimately, foolish actions need to have consequences and bad luck needs to be cut a break.
That’s how all the fun stories handle things, so that’s good enough for me.
Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: atpollard;708298You mean the bus where the GM and players are adversaries and the players end up road kill ... yup, I wanted nothing to do with THAT bus. :)
I think we should agree about not making slanted comparisons to the effect of "here is this horrible game with this horrible DM I played with versus my play style which is totally cool and awesome."
If you want to compare playstyles, either compare two horrible games between them, or two of the best games you can think of between them. You don't compare a horrible game to a decent one and call it a win. It's a logical fallacy.
There are decent DMs out there playing games with no storytelling intent. I am one of them. Maybe we could compare our games instead of referring to shitty experiences on either side, because I could come up with my own war stories of terrible storytelling experiences, or games with no storytelling intent that sucked, for that matter.
If we do that, we might come to the conclusion that we wouldn't play in each other's game, and that's cool. You want storytelling to be the goal of the role playing experience, that's fine. I don't. Is that okay with you?
Because when you say this . . .
Quote from: atpollard;708310That is the extent of the mutual agreement for the storytelling that is 'required'.
You are already making the assumption that storytelling is what the role playing experience is about, whatever consensus there is around the game table, whatever the aims of the game, and that's not the case, in my experience. You can perfectly run a role playing game without a storytelling intent. We are several on this board doing this and enjoying our games deeply.
So let's not be dumb and acknowledge that if you want storytelling out of your games it's cool, rock on, but those who don't want that out of their games are not necessarily terrible DMs, clueless, or badwrong. Is that cool with you?
Quote from: atpollard;708320Counterarguments:
[Game text from D&D 4e, GURPS 4e and Werewolf: The Apocalypse Revised]
Some would argue that it has something to do with telling a story.
What you proved is that some games construed themselves as exercises of storytelling since at least 1994. There are earlier games that did the same thing. I think it's also a fact that a variety of people wanted to play out stories out of role playing games since the very early hours of the hobby at least.
None of that proves that all role playing games are about storytelling, and that storytelling is part of all role playing games. Again: we are several here who are construing role playing game play differently, and do not set out to tell a story when playing a tabletop RPG. Is that cool with you?
Quote from: atpollard;708520Immersion as recently described (the ability to experience imaginary events as reality) sounds way too close to Schizophrenia
It's a sorry commentary on american society that healthy activities engaged in by children which should probably be embraced by a lot more adults, are described as schizophrenic, although I suppose not much more can be expected from a "dope em with prozac and get back to the x-factor" culture.
Quote from: atpollard;708520to start flinging accusations of 'brain damage' on those who only like to 'pretend'. ;)
Ironically it was the shared narrative gamers who applied that sobriquet to gamers.
Quote from: Benoist;708522What you proved is that some games construed themselves as exercises of storytelling since at least 1994.
No, they didn't. Or at least not in the latter sense. Jesus fuck is it any wonder the hobby has ended up in this mess.
Quote from: atpollard;708520Immersion as recently described (the ability to experience imaginary events as reality) sounds way too close to Schizophrenia to start flinging accusations of 'brain damage' on those who only like to 'pretend'. ;)
I was referencing Ron Edwards' claim that players who had been subjected to White Wolf style '90s gaming - mostly GM controlled railroads - were 'brain damaged'. Edwards' inability to understand immersion as a goal ('agenda') or even a possibility, seems similar.
Are you really unable to immerse in a game? To feel something of what your character is feeling? Then yeah, you'd be brain damaged too, and I'm not; that ability is part of the standard human repertoire and is a big part of most fiction.
Holy crap the amount of jargon flying about. I'm actually from a wargamer background, buying Imperium before Traveller, then graduating to real wargames in my late teens/early twenties*. It was my sister who introduced me to D&D, which was ok, a way to hang out with girls, but "rpg's" sounded - bleh. Holy hell would break out if someone called Traveller D&D as well to my group, we weren't geeks or nerds (my gf called us the warpigs), but military and/or engineering students.
*Funny story - As one of our instructors was explaining a situation, and how to do the AAR's and stuff, one cadet I knew raised his hand and asked why it wasn't balanced. The instructor said: "Either you force battle on them or they force it on you, but if there is some sort of 'balance', something is wrong, you aren't playing Squad Leader here, it's not a game."
Quote from: Benoist;708522Hi.
Could you answer my questions from upthread? Reposting the content here:
You are asking for a lot of effort to respond to some quick snipes at comments taken out of context, but I’ll try:
QuoteCan we agree that I personally wouldn't enjoy something like this?
Can we also agree that if it is okay I wouldn't like it, it doesn't mean I'm a less sophisticated, or inexperienced, or mistaken gamer? Because I've ran Vampire games for more than 20 years now, and I'm pretty sure the amount of role play, meaning, emotional investment, whatever you want to call it, going on in my games doesn't leave to be desired.
I have no idea what you like or dislike, but I am not your mother … you are created in the image of God, full of infinite potential. Who am I to add or subtract from you by placing a stamp of my approval or diapproval.
QuoteI think we should agree about not making slanted comparisons to the effect of "here is this horrible game with this horrible DM I played with versus my play style which is totally cool and awesome."
If you want to compare play styles, either compare two horrible games between them, or two of the best games you can think of between them. You don't compare a horrible game to a decent one and call it a win. It's a logical fallacy.
There are decent DMs out there playing games with no storytelling intent. I am one of them. Maybe we could compare our games instead of referring to shitty experiences on either side, because I could come up with my own war stories of terrible storytelling experiences, or games with no storytelling intent that sucked, for that matter.
If we do that, we might come to the conclusion that we wouldn't play in each other's game, and that's cool. You want storytelling to be the goal of the role playing experience, that's fine. I don't. Is that okay with you?
The example, from my personal experience, was not intended to convey any moral judgement on play style. It was intended as an illustration in support of the statement made just before it that bad die rolls should not be allowed to ruin the fun for everyone involved. Which was a comment on the opening topic of excessive mortality rate. If the character is being stupid, then I would hope (as the GM) that the player would learn from the character’s death. If the player made an unlucky roll, then “shit happens” will not generate any positive worthwhile result … so I (as the GM) get to say “screw the dice, sometimes shit don’t happen”.
QuoteBecause when you say this . . .
You are already making the assumption that storytelling is what the role playing experience is about, whatever consensus there is around the game table, whatever the aims of the game, and that's not the case, in my experience. You can perfectly run a role playing game without a storytelling intent. We are several on this board doing this and enjoying our games deeply.
So let's not be dumb and acknowledge that if you want storytelling out of your games it's cool, rock on, but those who don't want that out of their games are not necessarily terrible DMs, clueless, or badwrong. Is that cool with you?
With respect to “storytelling”, see my clarification of intent and hopefully it will clear that I was not advocating any particular school of game theory.
QuoteWhat you proved is that some games construed themselves as exercises of storytelling since at least 1994. There are earlier games that did the same thing. I think it's also a fact that a variety of people wanted to play out stories out of role playing games since the very early hours of the hobby at least.
None of that proves that all role playing games are about storytelling, and that storytelling is part of all role playing games. Again: we are several here who are construing role playing game play differently, and do not set out to tell a story when playing a tabletop RPG. Is that cool with you?
Perfectly “cool”, since I said none of what you “heard”. I was merely challenging the accusation that “No. It has NOTHING to do with telling a story. You obviously missed the bus on RPG's.” by quoting from roleplaying games that specifically state that roleplaying has something to do with storytelling.
Quote from: The Traveller;708495As I've been saying, we need a new name.
You will never get widespread agreement on that. Tabletop roleplayers will not stop calling tabletop RPGs......RPGs. You do know this, right? There's simply no way that you can possibly be this dense. Remember what I said in the other thread,
"Tabletop RPGs vs. video games: the former are 'better' "....?
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=28218&page=26
Quote from: Sacrificial LambLet's think about this for a minute. You're strongly advocating this....
(1.) WoTC suddenly decides to "rebrand" tabletop roleplaying games....by not calling them roleplaying games any more.
(2.) Paizo suddenly decides to "rebrand" tabletop roleplaying games....by not calling them roleplaying games any more.
(3.) Over 90% of the smaller RPG publishers spontaneously decides to "rebrand" tabletop roleplaying games....by not calling them roleplaying games any more.
(4.) Over 90% of the tabletop RPG hobbyists spontaneously decides to agree with you, and ignore nearly 40 years of tabletop RPG history.....by not calling them roleplaying games any more.
(5.) Over 90% of the existing tabletop RPG websites spontaneously become edited....in order to eliminate confusion, and are labelled as.....something else.
(6.) Over 90% of existing tabletop RPGs are given a new edition or printing.....in order to make it clear that they aren't RPGs. They're.....something else.
You assert that if these directions are followed, RPG publishers will magically see a large increase in sales.
For that "new name" to stick, you'd need all or most of these events to happen. But it won't. It can't. The skies would sooner explode in a cosmic fireball before that ever happens. Games such as AD&D, D&D 3e, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, GURPS, Vampire, Gamma World, Runequest, and more.....are
roleplaying games. Any serious attempt to relabel them (or "rebrand" them) would be deceptive horseshit, so cut it out. You're just wasting your time, and cluttering up the forums with
nonsense.
Okay. I get the feeling you actually don't want to address my points, atpollard.
And no, I won't play the dictionary definition game at this point.
That's cool with me.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;708533Any serious attempt to relabel them (or "rebrand" them) would be deceptive horseshit, so cut it out. You're just wasting your time, and cluttering up the forums with nonsense.
Why does it scare you so much?
Quote from: S'mon;708526I was referencing Ron Edwards' claim that players who had been subjected to White Wolf style '90s gaming - mostly GM controlled railroads - were 'brain damaged'. Edwards' inability to understand immersion as a goal ('agenda') or even a possibility, seems similar.
Are you really unable to immerse in a game? To feel something of what your character is feeling? Then yeah, you'd be brain damaged too, and I'm not; that ability is part of the standard human repertoire and is a big part of most fiction.
"An emoticon is a metacommunicative pictorial representation of a facial expression which in the absence of body language and prosody serves to draw a receiver's attention to the tenor or temper of a sender's nominal verbal communication, changing and improving its interpretation."
Here in the West, ;) is often used to convey humor. Note the coincidence of the hyperbole used by others in describing 'immersion' with the quote that I referenced claiming those incapable of immersion as 'brain damaged', and lighten up just a little. I didn't piss in your corn flakes, so why are you attacking me?
Not that it should really matter to you, but YES, I am capable of immersion (if by immersion you mean the ability to experience empathy with my character and vicariously share in the emotional thrill of his adventure, like reading a great book). On the other hand, if you are asking me do I enter a mental state when roleplaying where I loose the ability to distinguish between reality and the game in a literal sense, then NO, I am neither capable nor desirous of 'immersion'.
[HUMOR] I just wade in a little. [/HUMOR]
Quote from: atpollard;708537Not that it should really matter to you, but YES, I am capable of immersion (if by immersion you mean the ability to experience empathy with my character and vicariously share in the emotional thrill of his adventure, like reading a great book)
Yaay! :D
Quote from: atpollard;708537Note the coincidence of the hyperbole used by others in describing 'immersion' with the quote that I referenced claiming those incapable of immersion as 'brain damaged', and lighten up just a little.
We get it, you like storygames and don't like immersion. And why not. You may find other sites more conducive to your tastes however, just a word in your ear.
Quote from: The Traveller;708535Why does it scare you so much?
You're trying too hard.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;708543You're trying too hard.
I'm not the one who typed up an essay which completely ignored the actual point that was being made chief. But by all means, educate us further. :popcorn:
Quote from: The Traveller;708523It's a sorry commentary on american society that healthy activities engaged in by children which should probably be embraced by a lot more adults, are described as schizophrenic, although I suppose not much more can be expected from a "dope em with prozac and get back to the x-factor" culture.
I think it is not the act of immersion that he thinks is scizoid, but rather the sometimes borderline unhealthy obsession some players seem to have with it that drifts uncomfortably close.
Interestingly there was a study paper in a magazine maybee a year ago about levels of immersion. Mostly focusing on LARPs I think. But same end result. The interesting thing was that some players were actually mixing up themselves and their character to what sounded like dangerous levels really.
Personally I doubt TTRPG players with high immersion levels are as likely to teeter on the brink as they arent actively... well... the equivalent of physically being the character for hours or days at a time.
WMMV of course.
Quote from: The Traveller;708544I'm not the one who typed up an essay which completely ignored the actual point that was being made chief. But by all means, educate us further. :popcorn:
So you
are trolling after all, and you're not even being subtle about it. You
deliberately failed to address all of my points. How in the world are you going to compel WoTC, Paizo, and over 90% of the other RPG publishers to stop calling their games RPGs? How will you convince over 90% of tabletop gamers to stop calling these games.....RPGs?
Quote from: The TravellerWhy does it scare you so much?
You know what "scares" me? Deliberate forum clutter. I don't object to arguments, fiery rants, and people telling each other to fuck off. But I don't like disingenuous, passive-aggressive assholes who would try to deceive people in order to reinvent the fucking hobby. That sounds vaguely like a less pseudo-intellectual brand of Forge babble. So fuck off.
Quote from: Omega;708545I think it is not the act of immersion that he thinks is scizoid, but rather the sometimes borderline unhealthy obsession some players seem to have with it that drifts uncomfortably close.
I can't say I've ever encountered unhealthily obsessed players. Immersion is the act of becoming your character in the same way that someone reading a good book embraces the characters they are reading about, except better because one has agency. Ron Edwards may very well call that brain damaged, but I for one disagree.
Worth noting is that I actually
have encountered numerous trolls who've apparently never heard of storygaming but happen to have voluminous out of context and meaningless quotes about stories as they pertain to RPGs, and likewise drop phrases like 'brain damage'. Especially when they come in pairs.
Quote from: Omega;708545Interestingly there was a study paper in a magazine maybee a year ago about levels of immersion. Mostly focusing on LARPs I think. But same end result. The interesting thing was that some players were actually mixing up themselves and their character to what sounded like dangerous levels really.
Personally I doubt TTRPG players with high immersion levels are as likely to teeter on the brink as they arent actively... well... the equivalent of physically being the character for hours or days at a time.
WMMV of course.
Yes, and videogames cause violence/satanism/rape.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;708546You deliberately failed to address all of my points.
You didn't read the rest of the thread you linked to, did you. Whoops.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;708546You know what "scares" me? Deliberate forum clutter.
Really? I wish I had your life.
No, no I don't.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;708546So fuck off.
Interesting. But encouraging!
Thanks.
Quote from: Omega;708545I think it is not the act of immersion that he thinks is scizoid, but rather the sometimes borderline unhealthy obsession some players seem to have with it that drifts uncomfortably close.
Interestingly there was a study paper in a magazine maybee a year ago about levels of immersion. Mostly focusing on LARPs I think. But same end result. The interesting thing was that some players were actually mixing up themselves and their character to what sounded like dangerous levels really.
Personally I doubt TTRPG players with high immersion levels are as likely to teeter on the brink as they arent actively... well... the equivalent of physically being the character for hours or days at a time.
WMMV of course.
Are we back on the mazes and monsters BS again?
Quote from: The Traveller;708547I can't say I've ever encountered unhealthily obsessed players. Immersion is the act of becoming your character in the same way that someone reading a good book embraces the characters they are reading about, except better because one has agency. Ron Edwards may very well call that brain damaged, but I for one disagree.
Worth noting is that I actually have encountered numerous trolls who've apparently never heard of storygaming but happen to have voluminous out of context and meaningless quotes about stories as they pertain to RPGs, and likewise drop phrases like 'brain damage'. Especially when they come in pairs.
Yes, and videogames cause violence/satanism/rape.
1: Neither have I in RPGs. Hence why I said I was dubious RPG immersion could hit the levels of LARP immersion.
2: Lack of understanding. Or worse, lack of willingness to understand is older than RPGs. Hence why I ask the questions earlier for clarifications rather than just guess or hate something because someone said to.
3: Some LARPs with high immersion levels are not exactly what one would call safe. While others are. Videogames and RPGs dont put you on the proverbial Holodeck like some LARPs can. But. Just like with everything else, probably someone is going to take it too far at some point.
I'd love to give a high immersion LARP a try to see for myself what its like. Untill then we have observation. speculation, and research, minor as it may be.
Quote from: Omega;7085501: Neither have I in RPGs. Hence why I said I was dubious RPG immersion could hit the levels of LARP immersion.
Yes, much like yourself, I wouldn't describe RPGers as 'schizophrenic'.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;708549Are we back on the mazes and monsters BS again?
Not yet. Least I hope not. But when a faction of LARPErs are actually arguing that if a player is really injured in game that the players should role play it so as not to break immersion. Then something is drifting way to far off the track. And that is an argument I got into and then got the hell out of, among others all revolving around obsession with immersion.
Which are things I have not seen with RPG players into immersion. As said in the previous post. I think the lack of actually running around as the character is a contributing factor.
Or to put it bluntly.
RPG immersion = Ok.
LARP immersion = Ok unless taken too far.
So here is a question then.
With a higher level of RPG immersion for some players. How does character death impact the player? For anyone who has experienced it. What was it like?
Quote from: Omega;708552So here is a question then.
With a higher level of RPG immersion for some players. How does character death impact the player? For anyone who has experienced it. What was it like?
Doesn't bother me. There is an 'oh, damn' feeling like when you lose a hand of poker. Immersion isn't going crazy, it's feeling briefly like you are there a bit like you do when you get deeply into a movie. But it doesn't carry over outside the game ( like when the lights go on in the theater).
As with anything there are sore losers who get upset when their character dies. But you don't need immersion for that
Quote from: The Traveller;708424Immersion is the waking dream my friend, a more potent form than that experienced by moviegoers enthralled by a captivating production, forgetting all their cares and worries for the duration, forgetting even that they watch a movie. It's chasing the polyhedral fairy, absinthe for the soul, a visceral experience more of the gut than the intellect, possession of a most persuasive variety.
You in no way become a real adventurer. But your mind believes you do, for a while, and that in the final analysis is all that matters.
Sounds like dementia to me.
I can pretend to think like my character thinks, even down to speaking poor Middle English and trying to react with a medieval knight's odd combination of piety, tenderness, and cruelty.
But at no point do I ever lose sight of the fact that I'm a pudgy middle aged guy sitting at a table drinking beer and talking about pretending to be Sir Roland de Tours.
I've heard "Immersion" used to describe everything from "speaking of your character in first person" to "You're a fucking looney!"
The term is so vague to be useless.
* lights thread on fire *
* pisses it out *
Quote from: Old Geezer;708555Sounds like dementia to me.
I'll be sure and use small, simple words in future.
Quote from: Omega;708552With a higher level of RPG immersion for some players. How does character death impact the player? For anyone who has experienced it. What was it like?
Quote from: Benoist;708399When I play a role playing game, I want to play "let's pretend." Make believe. The point of the game to me is to play "let's pretend I am my character and this is the world he lives in, this is his life." If I don't get to pretend the action in the game is the "now" I am living in right now as my character, I am missing something critical to my enjoyment of role playing games.
Let's be clear, it's not about extremes. It's not about total immersion and not being able to make the difference between the action in the game and what's going on in the real world at all, to me - it's about let's pretend, literally, like kids playing in the "now" of whatever they imagine at the moment they're playing it.
So your question seems completely bizarre to me, to the point to make me wonder if you ever felt something anywhere close to what we're calling "immersion" here. What I personally call "immersion" is nowhere near schizophrenia, or the inability to separate game from reality. It sounds like you are completely misinterpreting the concept, or setting up a giant strawman argument, to me.
I wanted to say that atpollard's dickish pedantry is a sad commentary on atpollard, not American society (there are plenty of sad commentaries to be sure, but let's not lump in one knucklehead amongst them...heck, doing so is giving his opinion more weight than it deserves).
I also wanted to add that I would figure ease of language and commerce as two far more probable causes for the language drift that apparently took place with the term roleplaying game. I don't think it had much to do with any dastardly motives of the new school incursion.
Quote from: Old Geezer;708557* lights thread on fire *
* pisses it out *
It really is the thread that keeps on giving.
Quote from: FickleGM;708561I wanted to say that atpollard's dickish pedantry is a sad commentary on atpollard, not American society (there are plenty of sad commentaries to be sure, but let's not lump in one knucklehead amongst them...heck, doing so is giving his opinion more weight than it deserves).
Quite right, American society has a lot to recommend it, and I retract my comment. Also before anyone goes off half cocked, there's no evidence to suggest that this atpollard is the same one that posts on other forums.
Quote from: FickleGM;708561I don't think it had much to do with any dastardly motives of the new school incursion.
Generally speaking, no. As far as the wikipedia article goes, yes.
Quote from: The Traveller;708563Generally speaking, no. As far as the wikipedia article goes, yes.
I can agree with that.
Quote from: Omega;708552But when a faction of LARPErs are actually arguing that if a player is really injured in game that the players should role play it so as not to break immersion.
I've done live steel and boffer battles and this is an issue with combat LARPS. The big argument isn't "always roleplay", its more "don't act like a whiny bitch in a combat LARP, only break character if you are actually in real trouble."
I have seen guys break bones in combat LARPs or have an asthma attack and
nobody had any issue with the game immediately being stopped.
But the expectation is that when a bunch of guys swinging boffers around start moshing like an Anthrax pit, there will be some bruising and some accidental head shots and so everyone participating needs to take it like a man. Absolutely no different than any of the expectations I have seen in adult football pickup games.
Quote from: Omega;708550I'd love to give a high immersion LARP a try to see for myself what its like. Untill then we have observation. speculation, and research, minor as it may be.
You should absolutely give it a try. It can be freaking awesome, but if you are concerned about "people taking it too far", then join first as an observer or talk to the people out-of-game before joining as a player. In my experience, the "take it too far" crowd doesn't hide it when you ask about their LARP and their expectations of play.
I am a LARP GM and other LARP GMs I know are really clear about boundaries and expectations they want in their events.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708503To me, the narrative rpgs are still rpgs. The difference isn't so much one of roleplaying or not but instead about the nature of the assumed role.
A player in a traditional rpg assumes the role of an inhabitant of a fictional world.
A player in a narrative rpg assumes the role of co-storyteller from prospective X in a fictional world.
And playing Chess, I assume the role of myself playing Chess, therefore Chess is an RPG? Not that there can't be things worthy of being called "narrative RPGs," but unless the role is at a given time that of a particular character
in the game world, I think the term is getting stretched too far.
Quote from: Old Geezer;708555I've heard "Immersion" used to describe everything from "speaking of your character in first person" to "You're a fucking looney!"
The term is so vague to be useless.
Pretty much.
I first ran into the term from the LARPing community where some players are striving for ever more deeper immersion. Some of the stuff the hard core fanatics are spouting off it totally nuts or at least unacceptably eletist. The one that really set me off was about how handicapped players are breaking their precious immersion. Specifically people wearing glasses.
That rather soured me on the term untill I bumped into it later being used for RPGs where it seems to have a very different meaning. Or at least I hope so. Unfortunately on another forum someone was wimpering about how the text in a damn RPG rulebook was breaking their immersion... argh!
Immersion seems to be how into character a player gets. Essentially how well they can imagine and see whats being described, or even think as the character. With levels of deepness.
I can say at a session "I swing my sword at the orc." and not be immersed at all. Its just how some people express their actions. Its when someone says it and they are imagining the character doing it, or thinking as the character doing it that you seem to get into immersion territory.
Probably a subject for its own thread.
Quote from: atpollard;708520For my part, some semantic clarification of my intent behind using the term "story" and "storytelling" in the same sentence with "RPG" is called for:
Players create a persona for their characters and control the actions of those characters. The Referee creates a fantasy (as opposed to reality, not the genre) world with which the characters can interact. The players act and react in the first person of their characters. The Referee acts in the first person for the NPCs that the Player's character will encounter, and narrates in the third person for events that happen to the character ("Fred the Bold falls from the cliff and is swept downstream by the current, washing ashore at a bend in the river.") The interaction between the Referee and multiple players generates a series of events.
This series of events is the "story" in the "storytelling" that is (and has always been) part of roleplaying games.
That a game involves a series of events (even imaginary events) is too trivial to belabor. It would be obviously daft to blather on about the "story" (or the "fiction") in The Game of Life or Axis & Allies.
Where it's worth speaking of "storytelling" is where the intent is to construct a dramatically structured narrative. Much history and journalism is like this, artfully selecting and presenting events. One can do the same thing with an account of any game -- Football or Poker as well as D&D -- but note the important distinction:
The narrative structure is imposed
after the fact; the game itself is not governed by rules of literary convention! A game can be quite engaging enough a pastime for the participants without anyone expecting it to be material for a Hollywood movie.
A tension arises from the fact that while a story derives its effect from careful prearrangement, a game's entertainment value depends upon events
not being predetermined.
Quote from: rancke;708422Probably not. What is it to immerse and how would immersing change me from a real life person prtetending to be an adventurer into a real adventurer?
Hans
(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll237/bprdhellboy/Memes/null_zps6286aae3.jpg)
Quote from: Benoist;708559So your question seems completely bizarre to me, to the point to make me wonder if you ever felt something anywhere close to what we're calling "immersion" here. What I personally call "immersion" is nowhere near schizophrenia, or the inability to separate game from reality. It sounds like you are completely misinterpreting the concept, or setting up a giant strawman argument, to me.
Your idea of immersion and my idea of immersion seems to be not what others are referring to as immersion. I think you are mixing me up with the other fellow who was going on about the scizo aspect. Which I have allready stated I disagree with.
Hence why I did not ask about a specific style. So really. If you are well immersed in a RP or character and they died. Was it any different from a not so immersed session? (Or none at all as the case may be.)
You have interesting insights and your take on immersion and possible impact or lack thereof on character death I'd think would be informative.
Quote from: S'mon;708472There's a bunch of Dramatist (and maybe even a bit of Edwards-Narrativist) GMing advice by Robin Laws in the 4e DMG2. Some GMs like pemerton on EN World have successfully used 4e's extensive character 'fluff' (which RPGnettter 4e fans treat as disposable) for Dramatist play; I've done a bit of this myself.
4e play does tend to produce stuff that looks more like a story than traditional D&D play does; eg PC and major enemy death scenes tend to be big drawn out dramatic affairs, not the frequent bathos of other editions (including 3e). 4e's encounter-level 'combat as sport' Gamism tends to shift the focus away from stuff that can give bathetic outcomes, eg 3e's Scry-Buff-Teleport or 2e's Save vs Poison Or Die, making it compatible with Dramatist play. But it's not really designed for Dramatist play the way eg Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG is, it just gives some tools that can be used that way.
Ah, guess Im not experienced enough with it: I read the PHB, and played in two games of Gamma World, and that was it for me and that system
Quote from: rancke;708427No, I don't do that. If I did, I don't think I would consider the experience to be part of a roleplaying game. Roleplaying, possibly, but definitely not gaming.
Hans
A roleplaying game is where you Roleplay, as a game, instead of for any other reason.
As for your insistence on using the term storytelling to describe people playing make-believe, well, a story has a beginning, middle, and end, as every child in grade school knows.
To look at an rpg through that lens, the beginning is whatever happens before play, actual play is the middle, and the end is entirely optional. Thus actual play is just the middle, again and again. To call that storytelling seems nothing besides pretentious. At first I thought you were just using some terminology that you were unaware has loaded implications on the rpg forums these days. Now it's pretty clear you have an Agenda.
Good luck with convincing everyone to use your lexicon. I won't be, and doesn't look like anyone else here will be, but if that's the kind of battle you enjoy waging, that's your perrogative. It doesn't interest me.
Quote from: Phillip;708587That a game involves a series of events (even imaginary events) is too trivial to belabor. It would be obviously daft to blather on about the "story" (or the "fiction") in The Game of Life or Axis & Allies.
Except when the purpose is to refute the claim that there is not necessarily any storytelling at all in roleplaying games. Then even a trivial truth is sufficient to do the job. That roleplaying involves some degree of storytelling ought to be too trivial to belabor. But apparently it isn't.
QuoteA tension arises from the fact that while a story derives its effect from careful prearrangement, a game's entertainment value depends upon events not being predetermined.
A tension arises from the fact that a roleplaying game contains some degree of game play. Storytelling aspects arise from the fact that a roleplaying game contains some degree of roleplaying. You can have a game without roleplaying and you can have roleplaying without game play. But neither would be a roleplaying game.
That roleplaying games involve both game play and roleplaying ought to be too trivial to belabor. Yet here we are, with five pages worth of posts belaboring it/denying it).
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708600Storytelling aspects arise from the fact that a roleplaying game contains some degree of roleplaying.
Why are these two trolls not yet banned.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708599A roleplaying game is where you Roleplay, as a game, instead of for any other reason.
A roleplaying game is an activity that involves roleplaying and game play. Roleplaying invloves storytelling. Common definition of storytelling not gamer jargon storytelling, which I've been at pains to point out a couple of times.
QuoteAs for your insistence on using the term storytelling to describe people playing make-believe, well, a story has a beginning, middle, and end, as every child in grade school knows.
Grade school children know a lot of things that are simplifications of more complex truths.
QuoteAt first I thought you were just using some terminology that you were unaware has loaded implications on the rpg forums these days. Now it's pretty clear you have an Agenda.
Apparently I was using a term that has special meaning to some of the people on this forum. As was A.T.. Since I've carefully acknowledged that
and pointed out that I used the term in its ordinary meaning, I don't think that the problem is on my side.
Hans
Quote from: The Traveller;708603Why are these two trolls not yet banned.
How does that work? When others repeat/restate their arguments to me, they're not trolling, but when I repeat/restate an argument, I am?
Thanks to an upbringing that taught me that he who fails to speak up is agreeing to what is being said, I find it hard to walk away from a discussion even when my opponent is merely repeating himself. So I find myself repeating myself. If that is trolling, then the opponent is trolling too.
Looks like double standards to me.
Hans
Quote from: rancke;708605A roleplaying game is an activity that involves roleplaying and game play.
"Game play" isn't a meaningful or seperated term in and of itself. It means nothing , really, other than distinguishing an activity that has a purpose or goal of entertainment from something else.
QuoteRoleplaying invloves storytelling. Common definition of storytelling not gamer jargon storytelling, which I've been at pains to point out a couple of times.
Well, your using storytelling to describe an activity that has nothing to do with what the word is commonly used to describe, so its your "gamer jargon", but its not " telling a story" to someone.
QuoteGrade school children know a lot of things that are simplifications of more complex truths.
Apparently I was using a term that has special meaning to some of the people on this forum. As was A.T.. Since I've carefully acknowledged that and pointed out that I used the term in its ordinary meaning, I don't think that the problem is on my side.
Hans
You don't use the term in its " ordinary meaning" , however, by which I mean the dictionary definition. It might seem ordinary to you, but then, you might not be that familiar with the English Language.
But as I said, this doesn't interest me. You won't convince me of anything, and you haven't responded to the query I put to you this morning, so I don't see this debate going anywhere worthwhile.
I'll continue to call roleplaying roleplaying, and you can call it what you like.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708607"Game play" isn't a meaningful or seperated term in and of itself. It means nothing , really, other than distinguishing an activity that has a purpose or goal of entertainment from something else.
Quote from: rancke;708375To me you're telling a story whenever you're performing roleplay. When you're matching game units against other game units and rolling dice to decide the outcome, you're gaming rather than roleplaying. Both have a place in roleplaying games and it's not a 'roleplaying game' (compound term) unless it has both.
QuoteWell, your using storytelling to describe an activity that has nothing to do with what the word is commonly used to describe, so its your "gamer jargon", but its not " telling a story" to someone.
I'm using storytelling to mean 'creating narrative'. You may not agree that you're doing that when you're roleplaying, but it certainly matches one common meaning of the word.
QuoteYou don't use the term in its " ordinary meaning" , however, by which I mean the dictionary definition. It might seem ordinary to you, but then, you might not be that familiar with the English Language.
I certainly don't believe that my knowledge of English is flawless. I do believe I'm fairly familiar with it, though, having read English books for 45 years.
QuoteBut as I said, this doesn't interest me. You won't convince me of anything, and you haven't responded to the query I put to you this morning, so I don't see this debate going anywhere worthwhile.
I must have missed your query in the mass of posts.
QuoteI'll continue to call roleplaying roleplaying, and you can call it what you like.
I'll call it roleplaying, then, as I've been doing all along.
Hans
If I say, "I'm hitting that Orc", I haven't just told anyone a story by any definition Id describe as common.
Quote from: rancke;708606Looks like double standards to me.
Does it now? You've been reading english for 45 years, tell me how it looks when two posters show up with a hardon for shared narrative games on the same day.
Meanwhile , weren't we talking about dudes dying a lot in old school games?
Quote from: The Traveller;708603Why are these two trolls not yet banned.
They're traveller posters from citizens of the imperium.
Quote from: dragoner;708616They're traveller posters from citizens of the imperium.
Great, one of them sigged another poster within about ten seconds of arriving here. Perhaps this explains the pervasive popularity of traveller.
Quote from: The Traveller;708610Does it now? You've been reading english for 45 years, tell me how it looks when two posters show up with a hardon for shared narrative games on the same day.
I don't know, and neither do you, since I don't have a hardon for shared narrative games. I simply believe, from my long experience with roleplaying games
- , that all roleplaying involves the creation of narrative content (I'm eschewing the term 'storytelling' in deference to the conventions of this forum).
- I realize that this could be interpreted as an attempt to set up an 'argument from authority'. This is not my intention. I just want to make clear that I'm not grabbing my opinion out of thin air.[/SIZE]
As for why A.T. and I showed up on successive days, there's no mystery. There has been a thread on the Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=31388) forums about promoting Traveller by posting on RPG.net, and 'theRPGsite' was mentioned as a nice friendly place. A.T. reported that he'd checked it out and had been subjected to his first personal attack on his second post. My curiosity aroused, I registered here to see what it was about and simply felt the urge to chime in myself. There was and is no collusion between us and we disagree on many issues, though I do have to admit that we do it politely and don't go about accusing each other of trolling and bad faith.
Hans
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I'll answer anyway.
Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?
Yes, I acknowledge this is a turn-off for many gamers. And guess what? This is quite reasonable. No, they are not "whining, little pussies"....just because they hate racking up a PC body count. It may just be a matter of different expectations. And "old-school" doesn't necessarily mean high-mortality amongst PCs. We sure didn't have high-mortality for PCs in my group. That "Fantasy Fucking Vietnam" horseshit is just another post-modern grognard
myth. Seriously. There was no monolithic grognard hivemind, with only one way of doing things.....though many modern day grogs would have you believe otherwise....
Quote from: RPGPunditHow would you constructively approach this issue, if you have a gamer (whether it be a newbie, or someone who has been "brought up" with more new-school RPGs where there is much greater low-level survival odds) in your group who is experiencing a problem of disenchantment with your game on account of characters he really likes dying off prematurely? What would you say or do to try to deal with the issue? Or is it just "them's the breaks, kid"?
RPGPundit
If they're playing D&D, then one of three things is happening:
(1.) The DM is a blithering idiot, with no way of properly judging how to balance encounters. Yes, even in "old school" games, "balance" exists.
Solution: Create a reasonable ecology for an area, with random encounter tables and whatnot. More carefully imit the lethality of encounters, unless you've suddenly become enamored with playing by yourself.
(2.) The dice hates the players with the fire of a thousand burning suns, and continually curses them beyond all reason. I have occasionally seen this happen, though it's very rare.
Solution: Put the offending dice in the freezer. Then roll them again. If the dice don't seem to get the message, keep repeating the process....until the offending dice learn their lesson.
(3.) The players are consistently tactically stupid to the point of idiocy.
Solution: Have another player take the newbie under his wing, and help teach him "the ropes".
If the player continues to be dissatisfied, then DM and player will probably not be playing together for too much longer without some form of conflict. In any case, I wish both parties luck...
Quote from: rancke;708619I don't know, and neither do you, since I don't have a hardon for shared narrative games. I simply believe, from my long experience with roleplaying games- , that all roleplaying involves the creation of narrative content (I'm eschewing the term 'storytelling' in deference to the conventions of this forum).
- I realize that this could be interpreted as an attempt to set up an 'argument from authority'. This is not my intention. I just want to make clear that I'm not grabbing my opinion out of thin air.[/SIZE]
As for why A.T. and I showed up on successive days, there's no mystery. There has been a thread on the Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=31388) forums about promoting Traveller by posting on RPG.net, and 'theRPGsite' was mentioned as a nice friendly place. A.T. reported that he'd checked it out and had been subjected to his first personal attack on his second post. My curiosity aroused, I registered here to see what it was about and simply felt the urge to chime in myself. There was and is no collusion between us and we disagree on many issues, though I do have to admit that we do it politely and don't go about accusing each other of trolling and bad faith.
Hans
1) I believe you
2) You've done a really shitty job of promoting traveller so far, but if you'd like to start a new thread about it I'd be interested to read it
3) Advise your friend to stop sigging other posters (I will reciprocate) and be aware that there are entire forums dedicated to trolling THIS forum about shared narrative games, so if people are a bit touchy, that's why
Thanks.
Quote from: The Traveller;708610Does it now? You've been reading english for 45 years, tell me how it looks when two posters show up with a hardon for shared narrative games on the same day.
There is really a simple explanation for that.
A post was made to the many members of COTI:
QuoteHonestly, if you can stand the flames and trolling, TheRPGSite has got some of the best tabletop RPG conversation anywhere. Just know that it is the Mos Eisley cantina of forums. Makes the old Political Pulpit look tame by comparison. The Pundit believes in free speech, and it shows.
But there is a sizeable Traveller friendly community there.
... and two idiots were foolish enough to check it out.
So the timing is not coincidental, we were invited at the same time by the same person. From what I've read, you and we are not using the same definitions for terms. Our experiential views on role playing are probably both shaped by our past experiences of the last few decades.
First, the bad news:
Sorry, but I am that same atpollard. You can read the action report from my visit here on Citizens of the Imperium. I am atpollard (short for Arthur T Pollard) everywhere that I post.
Now, the good news:
This might be a place worth lurking, but I am wasting far too much time on pointless arguments here. You seem to be going out of your way to interpret even the simplest statements as a personal attack. I don't know you people well enough to have an axe to grind. I think I'll leave you to fight over minutiae in peace and get back to simpler waters ... I have a Traveller adventure by MJD that I need to finish illustrating.
... and for my parting words:
Goodbye and have fun, because whatever you call it ... if it ain't fun, then what's the point.
(Hans, I'll see you back at COTI).
Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in pissing matches/cock waving contests here.
I generally just ignore list the contrarians and narcissists.
Quote from: The Traveller;708618Great, one of them sigged another poster within about ten seconds of arriving here. Perhaps this explains the pervasive popularity of traveller.
Yeah, well, welcome to my world; there is no love lost between me and those two.
Quote from: TristramEvans;708611Meanwhile , weren't we talking about dudes dying a lot in old school games?
I keep punting the ball back into the court but the train keeps kicking it back out...
Quote from: One Horse Town;708562It really is the thread that keeps on giving.
This is the single best post in this thread, no question.
That being said I think most of the dudes agree on more stuff than they're letting on. It's a bunch of semantics or whatevs getting in the way of agreement, mostly, imho. Hell maybe some are just bored or whatevs.
Fuck sake. This thread is supposed to be about problems with old school mortality.
Pick that ball back up please.
Quote from: One Horse Town;708651Fuck sake. This thread is supposed to be about problems with old school mortality.
Pick that ball back up please.
Well I could
try...
I'm not a proper oldschooler, really, myself, wha' with starting out with 2e, but, well, I have a very strong preferance for pre-3e versions of D&D while also enjoying certain other oldschool games such as Rolemaster, so there's that (and
man is RM ever lethal!
Man!).
I think that, when it comes to lethality, the DM needs to be absolutely sincere with the players. Tell them
"this here setting is just plain bad dangerous, and there's a real risk that one or more PCs dyin' hell the whole party going TPK, have this in mind please unless you want the campaign to be "Gallows Humour: the Campaign"."
Quote from: atpollard;708294... and gaming is all about having fun.
Sometimes that means you have a group that really wants to be bigger than life. So the GM and Players will, by mutual agreement, create a bigger than life adventure with bigger than life problems and impossible escapes. (Holy Odin's Beard, Batman ... that was close!)
Sometimes that means the GM and Players want a gritty realism, with long periods of nothing-happening suspense (Shhh, did you hear that noise? What was it?) followed by short periods of intense action. (Everyone, fall back and we'll fight them in the corridor?)
I have long since stopped obsessing over the dice rolls. I don't give a rip whether your character makes Conan look like a girly-man or they make Peewee Herman look macho ... tell me what your character is like and pick attributes that match your description ... but remember, if a party of demi-gods goes adventuring, they will not be fighting an orc patrol. That's where the group needs a shared vision of what kind of game this will be.
I shall focus on the positive! Welcome new member! :cheerleader:
In the bolded you are very much correct: the table needs a shared vision of what kind of game it will be.
Old skool games have no problem being ran differently, as long as the premise and campaign structure is mutually understood and agreed upon. And there is more than one way to accomplish this as well, with examples in this topic (IIRC) going from "safety of civilization" to "start at a higher level," and everything else in-between. The older RPGs very much reinforced the table's prerogative for fun; they just expected GM and players to communicate that openly than assume through community expectations or exhaustive readings of mechanics.
Anyhoo, enjoy your flamewar! We tend to baptize by fire here. So as long as you survive you'll be fine. :cheerleader:
Quote from: The Traveller;708558I'll be sure and use small, simple words in future.
Use any words you like, you're still talking shit.
Also, tongue my pee hole.
Quote from: One Horse Town;708651Fuck sake. This thread is supposed to be about problems with old school mortality.
Pick that ball back up please.
[I'll give it a try.]Quote from: atpollardDon't let a random roll spoil the adventure.
[Bad Experience: I will never forget a module back in the day where the inexperienced GM played it exactly as written ... we got through the first handful of rooms, everyone failed the check to notice the secret door, we searched for hours, knowing that there had to be more than a few empty rooms. We were never able to enter the remaining 90% of the dungeon, so we went back to town. End of the adventure ... nobody had fun.]
Ultimately, foolish actions need to have consequences and bad luck needs to be cut a break.
Quote from: atpollardThe example, from my personal experience, was not intended to convey any moral judgement on play style. It was intended as an illustration in support of the statement made just before it that bad die rolls should not be allowed to ruin the fun for everyone involved. Which was a comment on the opening topic of excessive mortality rate. If the character is being stupid, then I would hope (as the GM) that the player would learn from the character’s death. If the player made an unlucky roll, then “shit happens” will not generate any positive worthwhile result … so I (as the GM) get to say “screw the dice, sometimes shit don’t happen”.
So I have no problem with PC mortality, but 'excessive' mortality (which I view as mortality which serves no purpose) is unnecessary. An example of an 'unnecessary' mortality would be one in which the player made no error or took no significant risk, but an unlucky combination of random rolls and game mechanics generated a pointless death. It is the prerogative of the Moderator/Referee/GM to step in and override the undesirable results to increase the fun for everyone involved.
On the other hand, all death is not pointless. As an example dear to my heart, Traveller (at least the 1977-1980's Classic version) was famous as the game where you can die in character generation. [now an optional rule in the latest Mongoose Traveller version of the game]. This potential death serves a very real metagame function. In Traveller, characters do not gain levels. Rather characters get to start the game at any level of experience from a new recruit just out of a 4 year stint in the Army, to a grey haired retired Nobleman Admiral with vast wealth and decades worth of acquired skills ... potentially even lands to govern. In Traveller, the 'Apprentice' adventures with the 'Archmage'. Character generation is resolved in 4 year terms with a chance for skills, rank, wealth and death in each term. So there is a metagame balance struck between risking everything you have and gaining a little more. This balance of risk and reward places a check on everyone being a superhero. So the Traveller death in chargen is not pointless, but essential to the ballance of the game system.
Thus I see it as the job of the Referee/GM to decide when a death is pointless (and should be overruled by referee fiat) or serves some point.
[I hope that you found this post on topic.]
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;708620(About player constantly losing characters they like and getting frustrated:)
If they're playing D&D, then one of three things is happening:
(1.) The DM is a blithering idiot, with no way of properly judging how to balance encounters. Yes, even in "old school" games, "balance" exists.
Solution: Create a reasonable ecology for an area, with random encounter tables and whatnot. More carefully imit the lethality of encounters, unless you've suddenly become enamored with playing by yourself.
(2.) The dice hates the players with the fire of a thousand burning suns, and continually curses them beyond all reason. I have occasionally seen this happen, though it's very rare.
Solution: Put the offending dice in the freezer. Then roll them again. If the dice don't seem to get the message, keep repeating the process....until the offending dice learn their lesson.
(3.) The players are consistently tactically stupid to the point of idiocy.
Solution: Have another player take the newbie under his wing, and help teach him "the ropes".
If the player continues to be dissatisfied, then DM and player will probably not be playing together for too much longer without some form of conflict. In any case, I wish both parties luck...
1) Absolutely spot on. Cities tends to struggle when surrounded by tarrasque, great wyrms, beholders, and liches. I have seen such nonsensical setting design by GMs more enamored with playing with random tables than with human beings. (Though I now have tasked myself with making my own thylacine, trained elk, pit trap moose, and pop-up angry badger tables.)
2) Yes, I am that cursed. And no, changing dice does not help. In fact, my touch leaves lingering offense to the dice gods -- the one true gods all gamers must admit are real, for those who take a chance have seen their works! -- and my curse temporarily spreads beyond to other players' dice from casual sharing. Ninety percent success is roughly even odds. ;)
I also learned to play CCGs with the expectation that everything will go horribly wrong statistically...
3) Oddly enough this happens more from veteran gamers who have bad "nu-style" habits to unlearn than completely green players who usually get into the game's descriptions. Old skool veteran might be a good idea, but it's hard to get through to "nu-style" gamers and their expectations. Listening is more than just a thief's skill.
4) I would also chalk up failure to a sense of restricted choice. Seen players take the first hook offered and doggedly pursue until prompted to do otherwise. It's as though the railroad has been internalized. Like horse blinders, the wider world is not even noticed, and the head slamming must continue until one side of the table surrenders. It's the most depressing of all these issues to watch.
Quote from: atpollard;708670[I'll give it a try.]
Rather characters get to start the game at any level of experience from a new recruit just out of a 4 year stint in the Army, to a grey haired retired Nobleman Admiral with vast wealth and decades worth of acquired skills ... potentially even lands to govern. In Traveller, the 'Apprentice' adventures with the 'Archmage'. Character generation is resolved in 4 year terms with a chance for skills, rank, wealth and death in each term. So there is a metagame balance struck between risking everything you have and gaining a little more. This balance of risk and reward places a check on everyone being a superhero. So the Traveller death in chargen is not pointless, but essential to the ballance of the game system.
How does that balance exactly? If the character keeps dying while the player doubles down during creation then its just a matter of time and repetition until an "Archmage" is generated, unless everyone has to take the first character they attempt which means gambling players might end up playing Traveler: The weekend at Bernie's edition. :)
Quote from: atpollard;708670So I have no problem with PC mortality, but 'excessive' mortality (which I view as mortality which serves no purpose) is unnecessary. An example of an 'unnecessary' mortality would be one in which the player made no error or took no significant risk, but an unlucky combination of random rolls and game mechanics generated a pointless death. It is the prerogative of the Moderator/Referee/GM to step in and override the undesirable results to increase the fun for everyone involved.
So, you are one of the people for whom excessive (and arbitrary) death is a turn-off, per the OP. But, the OP isn't asking whether you
are such a player, but how to attract such players and whether it is right to make concessions when such a player is not feeling the old school death-on-a-stick vibe.
So, should GMs make concessions to attract players, or should it be a school of hard knocks? Clearly you believe the former if the GM should override pointless death.
Edit: also "significant risk" = going down a dungeon.
QuoteOn the other hand, all death is not pointless. As an example dear to my heart, Traveller (at least the 1977-1980's Classic version) was famous as the game where you can die in character generation. [now an optional rule in the latest Mongoose Traveller version of the game]. This potential death serves a very real metagame function. In Traveller, characters do not gain levels. Rather characters get to start the game at any level of experience from a new recruit just out of a 4 year stint in the Army, to a grey haired retired Nobleman Admiral with vast wealth and decades worth of acquired skills ... potentially even lands to govern. In Traveller, the 'Apprentice' adventures with the 'Archmage'. Character generation is resolved in 4 year terms with a chance for skills, rank, wealth and death in each term. So there is a metagame balance struck between risking everything you have and gaining a little more. This balance of risk and reward places a check on everyone being a superhero. So the Traveller death in chargen is not pointless, but essential to the ballance of the game system.
In Traveller a player will have no fond memories of the character in play, so they will not be invested in the character in quite the same way.
Also I believe in Traveller you can fail to re-enlist. That mechanism serves the same function in limiting PC power levels, without the "your PC can die during character gen!" gimmick.
But it's fun, I guess. Personally I like nothing better than generating 500 point GURPS characters and then imagining them dying in varied and horrific ways, before they ever see the light of the gaming table. Sometimes I go through a whole box of tissues in an evening.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708677How does that balance exactly? If the character keeps dying while the player doubles down during creation then its just a matter of time and repetition until an "Archmage" is generated, unless everyone has to take the first character they attempt which means gambling players might end up playing Traveler: The weekend at Bernie's edition. :)
Response moved to a new topic (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=708688#post708688).
The thing is, these topics of conversation are linked. If you are a GM who sets out to construct a narrative with drama and tension from an authorial point of view as you play the game, then it makes perfect sense to override results which would seem "pointless" and "serve no purpose" in building a narrative with a sensible sense of tension and drama. Saying that a death "serves no purpose" is the tell card. No purpose . . . for what? For the sense of drama and tension, for the story as it is being built.
That's what I was addressing earlier here when talking about my own take, role playing the world, and how I construe the impartiality of the referee as the game is played:
Quote from: Benoist;706103It's not about having an absolute exact number of creatures. You can check my advice to build the mega-dungeon, and in my examples I indicate that in some areas you have say, 2-5 orcs here, or 2-12 bandits there.
If there are 2-5 orcs in the room, I roll d4+1 to determine how many orcs there are in the room at a precise moment. What I do not do is decide there would be 2-5 orcs in that room before running the game, and then change it to 2-12 or 5-30 during the game because I think the players are having it too easy up to that point.
Once the game world is in play, I run it as it is, which guarantees impartial and organic developments from the players' actions as they interact with the environment. It is impartial: if I change numbers on the players and change die rolls because I don't like them, I can't claim to be impartial as a referee - I am either for the players on some cases, or against them in others, or partial towards some meta-consideration that has nothing to do with the game world as it is, whether it's "building up tension", or "drama", or "making sure the characters get to the plot", whatever.
Besides, one of the things I appreciate the most when playing is that situations will play out in completely different ways with two different groups because of the choices players made, because of good and bad rolls, because of what happened before, and what happens while they are doing something.
If the group has a hard time after meeting a random group of gnolls and arrives at the Orc Fort to find out there are 40 orcs there, they will use different tactics and fundamentally make different decisions than if there were 20 or 10. And THAT in itself is what I want. To make decisions, as a player, based on the game world and what's going on in it, my choices, my luck or lack thereof, influencing what happens next.
But if the DM decides that our party had a hard time with the gnolls and will put 20 instead of 40 orcs in there because our party would better handle it, then the DM is partial. He's already making choices for us and railroading us towards certain favored outcomes (like taking the orcs head on and surviving), and that fundamentally is illusionism, and railroading. It negates the consequences of the fight we had with the gnolls, and means we'll always meet "threat appropriate" things along the way, so I'll never find out what cool things might have happened if the party had gotten to a fort with 40 orcs after going through a rough time with the gnolls.
That's not what I want from a role playing game.
When the referee decides who lives and who dies based on meta-considerations like "does it make sense to the story?" and "is it dramatic or pointless in regards to the narrative unfolding?" the horse has left the barn and whether specific characters live or die no longer is a function of the game world in play, but a responsibility of the GM who has become partial to whether or not this or that death makes a good death for the story.
I enjoy these types of games much less than the alternative.
I think newbies and people who are not familiar at all with games based on the world with any sort of lethality levels derived from the makeup of the world itself, as opposed to other meta-considerations, deserve to have a shot at this play style and see if they like it or not. That's why I think that lethality in old school games is not necessarily a turn-off, and shouldn't automatically be construed as such. People should be able to get exposed to a variety of game styles and see what they like. If they are boxed into a slanted idea of what RPGs are about, like "all RPGs are about storytelling" therefore "of course the referee MUST override bad luck and outcomes which would be pointless to the story", they have no chance to figure out that there's more variety to role playing out there than these ham-fisted, jargon-laden definitions would imply.
Quote from: smiorgan;708686But, the OP isn't asking whether you are such a player, but how to attract such players and whether it is right to make concessions when such a player is not feeling the old school death-on-a-stick vibe.
So, should GMs make concessions to attract players, or should it be a school of hard knocks? Clearly you believe the former if the GM should override pointless death.
I disagree with the premise that it is an either-or decision.
Back in 1979 (when I first played Basic D&D), it sucked to have a character you liked killed in an unlucky encounter (or through a foolish action) and it sucked to play with a "Killer GM".
In the first case, you generated a new character and were back in the game the next week. In the second case, you found a new GM.
I suspect that both 'old school' and 'new school' players will still feel the same and still respond the same way.
The purpose of a game is to have fun.
The purpose of a GM is to facilitate the group having fun.
Sometimes that means letting the dice fall where they may, and sometimes that means exercising GM fiat.
Quote from: rancke;708605A roleplaying game is an activity that involves roleplaying and game play. Roleplaying invloves storytelling. Common definition of storytelling not gamer jargon storytelling, which I've been at pains to point out a couple of times.
Sorry, but that totally is jargon you are using, as far as I'm concerned.
When I am describing myself typing away at my keyboard right now, I am not telling a story. I am describing what I am doing. Since the point of playing a role playing game to me is to play let's pretend, let's pretend I am this character in the game world and that the GM is the king right now trying to hire me to save his daughter, when I speak as my character, or tell to the game table that I move to the king and kneel before him, I am not telling a story, personally: I am describing my immediate actions in the game world as my character.
Seems people are using the words differently.
To me, the events of the game can be observed by someone, and that person can label it a story that was created.
But as a player, I am not thinking about 'story' I just do what the character would do.
Quote from: Bill;708704Seems people are using the words differently.
To me, the events of the game can be observed by someone, and that person can label it a story that was created.
But as a player, I am not thinking about 'story' I just do what the character would do.
Yep, that's my position too.
The thing is, the definition game shouldn't be important. Words are used in a variety of ways by different people to mean different things. That's why when talking about such things as "role playing", "story", "fiction", "immersion" or whatever, it's very helpful to provide some context to get to the meaning, instead of getting hang up on the words being used.
When you compare the meaning of that which we are describing, talking about our own games, what we enjoy about them, what we are looking for playing them, between people like me, ExploderWizard etc and folks like rancke or atpollard, there is a clear, definite difference of points of view. We are definitely looking for different experiences when playing role playing games, which then informs what we do when character death occurs in the game, and how lethality is integrated into the campaign's concept and structure in the first place.
That's what actually matters, here.
It does answer the original post of this thread, since to me what matters is that people are entitled to search for different experiences and derive their enjoyment of role playing games in their own personal ways. That also means that people who have not been exposed to different play styles and aims playing role playing games ought to be able to find out about them. When you start talking about old school gaming by saying "hey, can we acknowledge that lethality in OS game is a problem?" It's basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater right out of the gate.
NO it's not a "problem". Some people will not enjoy lethal games and that's cool. Some other people will enjoy lethal games, however, but if you are already assuming that lethality is a "problem," then these people who've never played a challenging, lethal game but who might like it if they tried it with a decent DM will never get the chance to play a game that way and will never be aware the possibility even exists.
So. Lethal games, bug, or feature? Definitely a feature to me, definitely a feature for other posters on this thread, and I suspect, quite a few gamers beyond. You don't like that feature and prefer to play less lethal games? That's cool, rock on, game what it is you enjoy. But for those who do enjoy it, or might if they had the chance to find out about such a game style, it should remain a possibility, and a feature of certain games.
Quote from: The Traveller;708424Immersion is the waking dream my friend, a more potent form than that experienced by moviegoers enthralled by a captivating production, forgetting all their cares and worries for the duration, forgetting even that they watch a movie. It's chasing the polyhedral fairy, absinthe for the soul, a visceral experience more of the gut than the intellect, possession of a most persuasive variety.
You in no way become a real adventurer. But your mind believes you do, for a while, and that in the final analysis is all that matters.
You certainly have a rather romantic/poetic/flowery view on immersion. Do you reach this level of
wonderment in all the campaigns you run/play in? Or is this a goal that is achieved on occasion - in the uncommon instance when the veil parts; the Cheetos, Mountain Dew, and dice are left behind; and
immersion-apotheosis commences?
I think there's a bit of a sliding scale when it comes to the term, immersion. Your view being on one of the poles. To each their own, I guess.
Quote from: atpollard;708670So I have no problem with PC mortality, but 'excessive' mortality (which I view as mortality which serves no purpose) is unnecessary. An example of an 'unnecessary' mortality would be one in which the player made no error or took no significant risk, but an unlucky combination of random rolls and game mechanics generated a pointless death. It is the prerogative of the Moderator/Referee/GM to step in and override the undesirable results to increase the fun for everyone involved.
A hobbit PC died in my game on Wednesday, poisoned by a giant spider. The PC hadn't really made any errors or taken any foolish risks; but another PC, a Fighter, had deliberately set fire to the giant spider webs blocking the tunnel ahead. The scorched spiders passed a morale check and angrily attacked. The hobbit wanted to run but the Fighter grabbed his collar and told him to stand and fight. A bunch of unlucky dice rolls later, he was dead.
Do you think that's acceptable mortality? Does it matter whether it's an old school dungeon exploration game?
Quote from: Benoist;708700Sorry, but that totally is jargon you are using, as far as I'm concerned.
When I am describing myself typing away at my keyboard right now, I am not telling a story. I am describing what I am doing. Since the point of playing a role playing game to me is to play let's pretend, let's pretend I am this character in the game world and that the GM is the king right now trying to hire me to save his daughter, when I speak as my character, or tell to the game table that I move to the king and kneel before him, I am not telling a story, personally: I am describing my immediate actions in the game world as my character.
Bingo. Thus, it has ZERO, nada, nothing to do with "story telling". Same for a sports announcer. He isn't 'telling a story'. He is relating in real time what is people are DOING.
Quote from: Bill;708704Seems people are using the words differently.
To me, the events of the game can be observed by someone, and that person can label it a story that was created.
But as a player, I am not thinking about 'story' I just do what the character would do.
Except your character has far more information than what he would normally have access to.
Quote from: Sommerjon;708741Except your character has far more information than what he would normally have access to.
Nah. In general, characters tend to have
lessinformation available than they would if they were actually there. Its easy for a GM to fail to impart setting information that the character could easily pick up on.
Quote from: S'mon;708732A hobbit PC died in my game on Wednesday, poisoned by a giant spider. The PC hadn't really made any errors or taken any foolish risks; but another PC, a Fighter, had deliberately set fire to the giant spider webs blocking the tunnel ahead. The scorched spiders passed a morale check and angrily attacked. The hobbit wanted to run but the Fighter grabbed his collar and told him to stand and fight. A bunch of unlucky dice rolls later, he was dead.
Do you think that's acceptable mortality?
Good question. How does it make you and them feel? Does everyone wish that it hadn't been so? Is it spoiling the fun for all of the players? Can everyone live with it as just a bad break and better luck next time?
If you'all can live with the result, then it is acceptable.
If everyone left the game wanting to play a little less than when they started, then it was (imho) not acceptable.
I don't play tournament style. Strict adherence to published rules is not my first priority. Fun for the group is. There is a satisfaction in overcoming adversity that the players are robbed of if the game is too heavily rigged in their favor, so I would not save everyone all of the time because I would not want to cheat them of their victory later on, and I would not feel obligated to let any die roll rob everyone of the fun of playing.
I wasn't there and don't know the group, but you were and are, so that is not my call to make ... it is yours.
Does that make sense?
QuoteDoes it matter whether it's an old school dungeon exploration game?
Nope.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;708742Nah. In general, characters tend to have lessinformation available than they would if they were actually there. Its easy for a GM to fail to impart setting information that the character could easily pick up on.
Yeah, they do. They have access to more than just the senses of the character.
Quote from: Sommerjon;708741Except your character has far more information than what he would normally have access to.
How so? Can you explain in more detail?
Quote from: Bill;708776How so? Can you explain in more detail?
You know your hit points, you know the the amount of damage a fall or something similar will take, you know the 'game physics', you know(unless every time something happens to another PC that player and Dm leave the room) what happens to other PCs, and so on.
These are all things that your PC doesn't have knowledge of, but the player does. These things all influence what you the player do with the character.
Quote from: Sommerjon;708783You know your hit points, you know the the amount of damage a fall or something similar will take, you know the 'game physics', you know(unless every time something happens to another PC that player and Dm leave the room) what happens to other PCs, and so on.
These are all things that your PC doesn't have knowledge of, but the player does. These things all influence what you the player do with the character.
Agreed. I thought you had said the character knows all that, not the player.
Some people are just much better at minimizing usage of ooc info than others.
Quote from: Bill;708806Agreed. I thought you had said the character knows all that, not the player.
Some people are just much better at minimizing usage of ooc info than others.
While the ideal may be to just play what the character has knowledge of. unfortunately that ideal will never be actualized.
This is a game, as a game you need that ooc info as a player in order to play the character.
Just like the 'impartial referee' it's a non-reachable ideal.
Quote from: atpollard;708755Good question. How does it make you and them feel? Does everyone wish that it hadn't been so? Is it spoiling the fun for all of the players? Can everyone live with it as just a bad break and better luck next time?
If you'all can live with the result, then it is acceptable.
If everyone left the game wanting to play a little less than when they started, then it was (imho) not acceptable.
I felt a mix of sadness and joy. :D Overall I enjoyed the session a lot, and the death felt appropriate, I think. The player loses a lot of PCs IMCs, whereas the other two players that night have never lost a PC. He tends to do stuff like not wearing the best armour, or play characters with a strong 'theme' that's not very optimal for survival. I think he was ok with the death though.
Edit: I've often seen players unhappy at PC demise, though. You would say that in general the GM should then intervene to prevent/reverse the death?
Quote from: Sommerjon;708813While the ideal may be to just play what the character has knowledge of. unfortunately that ideal will never be actualized.
This is a game, as a game you need that ooc info as a player in order to play the character.
Just like the 'impartial referee' it's a non-reachable ideal.
Agreed.
For me, the closer to the ideal I get, the more fun I have.
Quote from: S'mon;708823Edit: I've often seen players unhappy at PC demise, though. You would say that in general the GM should then intervene to prevent/reverse the death?
That is really a hard question to answer ... even just what would I want for my dead character.
I think that the answer is generally, no.
**********
I once had a Cavalier that was my pride and joy and had a retainer and glorious adventures and defeated the final foe in an epic man-to-man combat and as we were heading out, the temple started to collapse. He ran back to save the retainer who had been badly wounded in the fight and was crushed by a million tons of stone. It was literally months before I felt like playing again.
Was letting the circumstances stand worth a month of depression?
I don't know.
What I do know is that saying "that never happened" would have felt like cheating and ever after tainted the character.
On the flip side, letting the entire party miss the dungeon adventure because a bad die roll caused the thief to fail to detect the secret door that was the only way in or out of the dungeon ... I would change in a heartbeat.
One of the cinematic tools that I have used to good effect is the old 'obscure death' rule. If you don't recover the body at the moment of death, then you don't really know for sure that the character is dead. For the Cavalier, the Referee played it straight from the module and I made the stupid move (it was the right move in character, but still a stupid move). Were I to Referee the same adventure now with some other player, I would probably use GM fiat to declare that everyone saw the temple collapse on them, but the floor below them gave way and they fell into a natural cavern complex below the temple. Carried along by the icy torrent, they find themselves cold, wet and alone in an underground cavern. The NPC slowly dies in his arms, and the Cavalier must now struggle alone to survive and escape.
The player would probably never know that I had fudged the rolls, but I think that the adventure would have been made better for the fudge, not worse.
*********
Sorry, that's kind of a wishy-washy answer, but it is the best that I have.
Every instance of "bad break intervention" in which I have been involved has ended poorly.
Cheap or heroic, let the death stand. Take any lessons away that are available (whether the GM made a mistake, the player made a mistake or no mistakes were made) and move on. Some lessons are harsher than others...and sometimes it is even more harsh when no mistakes were made.
It's all part of the risk-award system inherent in roleplaying games. When there is no risk, the rewards are flat and unsatisfying. When there is risk, the rewards are more satisfying, but the flip-side is that emotions might be just as intense when something negative occurs.
I don't think I'd ever want to experience a character death in the manner that you did, but at the same time I have to nod knowingly that you successfully brought a character to life.
EDIT: As to the secret door fiasco... it wasn't a good design for a scenario I would like to run. If so much hinged on the dice roll, either make sure there are other means into the scenario OR other options for the players to keep playing.
The whole question looks much different in the original, where it's a skirmish wargame, there is no fixed "group," and each player has several characters (usually because one night you said "I want to try playing a cleric, can I try to roll one up?")
Like for instance, the "secret door that is the key to the scenario" does not exist. Maybe the Tuesday group finds the secret door, maybe the Friday group finds it, who knows. Or maybe nobody ever finds it.
Quote from: Benoist;707587Or significant treasure, apparently. They seemed to make the assumption that the more profitable treasure would be accessible in rooms with multiple entrances OR completely unguarded, since they would systematically spike doors with monsters and a single exit.
Do you remember the DM making any kind of roll related to the spikes? Did the creatures in the rooms try to bust doors open or break through, and if so, how often were they successful?
Sounds like you didn't have much fun. The point about the directions the doors are revolving is interesting, as well. What are the circumstances that led you to bring this up? When/how did you bring it up?
Given that opening doors is a noisy business in and of itself (requiring by default open doors checks), I'd assume wedging a door open or close with iron spikes can be messy business as well.
I can see logistics issues with the SOP Sommerjon is describing as well: how many iron spikes is the group carrying? Iron spikes are described in the PH as "spike, iron, large". Note "large." Is there a character who's carrying a large bag full of iron spikes? Are they loose in the bag? What weight does that represent? And so on.
Were they playing with the same DM? I'd rather look at the way the guy was running the game in terms of patterns that developed over time.
Okay. Now you are losing me. Are you saying that the party would casually carry doors around to place them in openings that wouldn't have some? Would all the openings automatically fit the door they were carrying? Were they carrying several doors of different sizes just in case? How many doors were they carrying, exactly? What were they made of? What weight does that represent? Did all the characters have exceptional strength?
As screwy as this spiked doors thing might seem, I do remember players in one of my old groups carrying around wooden wedges for the express purpose of jamming doors shut and/or hanging strings with bells outside the doors to sound the alarm should someone or something walk out. I remember it worked fairly well against dumb or mindless opponents who, in my view as DM, wouldn't catch on very quickly if at all. Dry nutshells that go crunch when stepped on in dark corridors were a real lifesaver, too.
As far as the notion that "all doors are stuck" is concerned, that's really just shit for the birds.
Quote from: S'mon;708732A hobbit PC died in my game on Wednesday, poisoned by a giant spider. The PC hadn't really made any errors or taken any foolish risks; but another PC, a Fighter, had deliberately set fire to the giant spider webs blocking the tunnel ahead. The scorched spiders passed a morale check and angrily attacked. The hobbit wanted to run but the Fighter grabbed his collar and told him to stand and fight. A bunch of unlucky dice rolls later, he was dead.
Do you think that's acceptable mortality? Does it matter whether it's an old school dungeon exploration game?
This sounds to me more like one PLAYER throwing his weight around while the other meekly lets him. That hobbit should've shoved a dagger up that fighter's ass for double damage, then run like hell.
Quote from: jibbajibba;707809the depth = danger trope is just the same as the CR trope no difference.
Different means to the same end. Just as the likelihood of doors being stuck or easy to open really should depend on any number of factors (where is the door? why is it there? what is it made of?), the types and numbers of monsters should depend on whether they make sense in your scenario. The 1st floor could be inhabited by a terrible dragon while the lower levels are full of goblins toiling in the dark, trying to avoid being eaten by the dragon.
I put bears in the temperate forests in my setting because that's what one would reasonably expect to find there. I give less than half a shit that a bear is a 5+5 HD monster and the PCs are all 1st level. If it makes sense to have a monster in a particular place and time, it has a good chance of being there. A company of 200 brigands will turn up wherever one might expect to find large numbers of deserters/mustered out troops/etc -no matter what level the PCs happen to be. If they're low level they had best avoid the brigands or come up with a clever plan to defeat them. If they're high level, you have a squash match against them.
Quote from: Old Geezer;708915The whole question looks much different in the original, where it's a skirmish wargame, there is no fixed "group," and each player has several characters (usually because one night you said "I want to try playing a cleric, can I try to roll one up?")
Like for instance, the "secret door that is the key to the scenario" does not exist. Maybe the Tuesday group finds the secret door, maybe the Friday group finds it, who knows. Or maybe nobody ever finds it.
Its still not a very good design when the rest of the adventure is locked off because no one finds the whatziz that progresses the adventure.
Still, not as bad as the recent tournament module where you have to kill a group member to progress.
Quote from: Omega;708991Its still not a very good design when the rest of the adventure is locked off because no one finds the whatziz that progresses the adventure.
In the original game design, "the adventure" is what the PCs do, not what the GM pre-writes. The area beyond the secret door is just one possibility for exploration; there should be many equally viable things the PCs can do within the scope of the campaign in any given session. The GM designs the area beyond the secret door as a hidden area that may be discovered and explored - or not.
When I ran Lost City of Barakus, a large old schoolish dungeon, about ten years ago, there was a hidden area the PCs never did discover in thirty sessions of play. That was ok, it didn't cause the adventure/campaign to stop.
On the newer design approach which started with tournament modules, there is only one thing to do and the PCs have to go do it. I ran an early example of this a while ago, "The Ilhiedrin Book" by Judges Guild - a necesary chunk of the adventure lies beyond a secret door. I agree it would certainly be frustrating if the PCs were forced to spend hours of real time unable to progress. The best way to use these modules though is to drop them in as options in a larger sandbox campaign setting, so you get back to the older design where nothing is ever compulsory.
Quote from: S'mon;708996In the original game design, "the adventure" is what the PCs do, not what the GM pre-writes. The area beyond the secret door is just one possibility for exploration; there should be many equally viable things the PCs can do within the scope of the campaign in any given session. The GM designs the area beyond the secret door as a hidden area that may be discovered and explored - or not.
Correct, its not a biggy for those little odd alcoves with the vorpal sword in a box.
But it is a problem when its cutting off the rest of the adventure as it were. Id like to hope that getting to the rest of the area didnt revolve around a chance roll and that there were options to get in via other means. Otherwise it is a potentially poor design. Only if the area cut off it the rest of the module/session. Otherwise as said. Not a problem. (Well unless a player obsesses over looting every square inch of dungeon.
Quote from: Omega;709000Well unless a player obsesses over looting every square inch of dungeon.
The "ULTIMATE TREASURE" at the very bottom of Castle Greyhawk was a Staff of Wizardry. Yeah, it was that big a deal.
Rob Kuntz spent two and a half HOURS of real time searching for the secret door, figuring from the shape of the dungeon it "had to be there somewhere."
Quote from: Omega;709000Correct, its not a biggy for those little odd alcoves with the vorpal sword in a box.
But it is a problem when its cutting off the rest of the adventure as it were. Id like to hope that getting to the rest of the area didnt revolve around a chance roll and that there were options to get in via other means. Otherwise it is a potentially poor design. Only if the area cut off it the rest of the module/session. Otherwise as said. Not a problem. (Well unless a player obsesses over looting every square inch of dungeon.
You are not paying attention. Your answer reads like you haven't read S'mon's post at all. It's a shame, because it actually answers every single one of your concerns.
Quote from: The Traveller;708483Well now, isn't that interesting.
Gentlemen, it appears that the children of the ron have been busy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game).
This has been a long-standing problem. They have consistently made sure for years that RPG-related stuff in Wikipedia has a decidedly forgist bent. Its why there's entries for a number of obscure Forge writers, RPGs no one has ever played outside of the Forge or perhaps never played at all (Grey Ranks, Nicotine Girls, the Mountain witch) and for the Forge itself (under the heading of "indie roleplaying games" thus misappropriating the entire concept) but not one page for theRPGsite, the RPGpundit, of any number of games that have sold far better than the Forge bullshit.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Benoist;709037You are not paying attention. Your answer reads like you haven't read S'mon's post at all. It's a shame, because it actually answers every single one of your concerns.
That was why I started off with "Correct" ? As in I agree with what he said? Perhaps you missed that part?
Quote from: RPGPundit;709056...but not one page for theRPGsite, the RPGpundit, of any number of games that have sold far better than the Forge bullshit.
Wikipedia is about having large numbers of dedicated supporters who know how to manipulate the rules (especially 'notability') to their advantage. Your problem is a lack of cultists willing to put in the hours for you. Ron has plenty of cultists. If anyone tried to do a page on theRPGsite or RPGPundit it would be deleted for non-notability. Heck, I've seen everything from fairly important conservative political organisations to celebrity Page 3 girls deleted for non-notability, presumably by SJW types.
Quote from: RPGPundit;709056This has been a long-standing problem. They have consistently made sure for years that RPG-related stuff in Wikipedia has a decidedly forgist bent. Its why there's entries for a number of obscure Forge writers, RPGs no one has ever played outside of the Forge or perhaps never played at all (Grey Ranks, Nicotine Girls, the Mountain witch) and for the Forge itself (under the heading of "indie roleplaying games" thus misappropriating the entire concept) but not one page for theRPGsite, the RPGpundit, of any number of games that have sold far better than the Forge bullshit.
RPGPundit
Im sure they would argue you aren't notable enough for an entry. (hah! S'mon beat me to it!)
You could log in and point out that they are effectively self referencing to skew the entry. Which is against Wiki rules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;709056This has been a long-standing problem. They have consistently made sure for years that RPG-related stuff in Wikipedia has a decidedly forgist bent. Its why there's entries for a number of obscure Forge writers, RPGs no one has ever played outside of the Forge or perhaps never played at all (Grey Ranks, Nicotine Girls, the Mountain witch) and for the Forge itself (under the heading of "indie roleplaying games" thus misappropriating the entire concept) but not one page for theRPGsite, the RPGpundit, of any number of games that have sold far better than the Forge bullshit.
As S'mon noted, there's a problem with this community, if it can rightly be called a problem.
We're here to talk about and play games. It's not a political crusade for us, escalation strikes most people around here as mildly ludicrous, and rightly so. An equivalent situation might be train set enthusiasts being informed that their hobby is too representative of exploitative 19th century imperialism; most are baffled and a bit pissed.
Unfortunately those others, those storygamers do view their actions as being one strand of a wider tapestry of social reform, a very political movement which seeks to obey the dictates of its scripture by making people
better in any way possible, even if they have to burn the village to save it.
So they are better organised, more motivated, and more focused. This is no slight on actual gamers, we're just getting caught up in the wholesale fuckery that appears to be gnawing at the edges of western civilisation.
Recognising this fact and getting better organised is the only remedy.
Wikipedia hates us? Storygamers are ending Western Civilization?
Okay kids, time for everyone to check their meds. Or ask your dealer to stop lacing your weed.
Pundy, if you want a RPGsite entry on Wikipedia, then write one up. You are smart enough to write a clear, accurate entry without any histrionics and smart enough to include a plethora of documentation.
Quote from: Spinachcat;709094Wikipedia hates us? Storygamers are ending Western Civilization?
Why do you hate roleplaying?
Gosh, it really
is very easy to argue with points nobody was making!
What was that old bit of poetry: the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity. Seeing as even TBP generally greets forgist language with disdain, I think the forgies are too crazy to fool anyone for long.
Quote from: therealjcm;709098What was that old bit of poetry: the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity. Seeing as even TBP generally greets forgist language with disdain, I think the forgies are too crazy to fool anyone for long.
Yeah, but personal crusades are pointless unless you have some group to crusade against
Quote from: therealjcm;709098Seeing as even TBP generally greets forgist language with disdain
Has it been challenged at all lately?
Quote from: therealjcm;709098I think the forgies are too crazy to fool anyone for long.
That's why the forge is gone and shared narrative gamers are trying to put as much distance between themselves and edwards as possible. Nonetheless the momentum keeps them going.
Quote from: The Traveller;709102Has it been challenged at all lately?
Well I haven't gone there at all in the last few months, but it used to be challenged fairly quickly when I saw it brought up.
Who knows though, that site has become a creepy mockery of itself - so activist moderators banning people for finding "rpg theory" to be kind of silly wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Quote from: atpollard;708845It was literally months before I felt like playing again.
Pathetic wanker.
Quote from: Spinachcat;709094Pundy, if you want a RPGsite entry on Wikipedia, then write one up. You are smart enough to write a clear, accurate entry without any histrionics and smart enough to include a plethora of documentation.
We've already explained that such an entry would be deleted for (a) non-notability and (b) self authorship. Does not matter how much documentation you have.
Quote from: S'mon;709165We've already explained that such an entry would be deleted for (a) non-notability and (b) self authorship. Does not matter how much documentation you have.
Has that already happened, or is it an assumption?
And why is Wikipedia suddenly being regarded as a reliable source of info?
Quote from: atpollard;708845That is really a hard question to answer ... even just what would I want for my dead character.
I think that the answer is generally, no.
**********
I once had a Cavalier that was my pride and joy and had a retainer and glorious adventures and defeated the final foe in an epic man-to-man combat and as we were heading out, the temple started to collapse. He ran back to save the retainer who had been badly wounded in the fight and was crushed by a million tons of stone. It was literally months before I felt like playing again.
Was letting the circumstances stand worth a month of depression?
I don't know.
What I do know is that saying "that never happened" would have felt like cheating and ever after tainted the character.
On the flip side, letting the entire party miss the dungeon adventure because a bad die roll caused the thief to fail to detect the secret door that was the only way in or out of the dungeon ... I would change in a heartbeat.
One of the cinematic tools that I have used to good effect is the old 'obscure death' rule. If you don't recover the body at the moment of death, then you don't really know for sure that the character is dead. For the Cavalier, the Referee played it straight from the module and I made the stupid move (it was the right move in character, but still a stupid move). Were I to Referee the same adventure now with some other player, I would probably use GM fiat to declare that everyone saw the temple collapse on them, but the floor below them gave way and they fell into a natural cavern complex below the temple. Carried along by the icy torrent, they find themselves cold, wet and alone in an underground cavern. The NPC slowly dies in his arms, and the Cavalier must now struggle alone to survive and escape.
The player would probably never know that I had fudged the rolls, but I think that the adventure would have been made better for the fudge, not worse.
*********
Sorry, that's kind of a wishy-washy answer, but it is the best that I have.
It's perfectly legitimate, and you shouldn't feel the need to justify your playstyle as long as you're not taking potshots at others.
Quote from: TristramEvans;709176Has that already happened, or is it an assumption?
It's happened to plenty of other pages for stuff a lot more notable than therpgsite. It's what Wikipedia 'editors' do, with rules justifying it. It's particularly certain where a topic has SJW enemies. Eg when I wanted to find out about prominent men's rights advocate Karen Straughan recently I had to go to the tvtropes wiki, which had a comprehensive entry. Despite the popularity of her youtube channel, Internet radio stuff etc there is no wikipedia page. As an anti-feminist, she is officially 'Not Notable'.
Quote from: TristramEvans;709176Has that already happened, or is it an assumption?
And why is Wikipedia suddenly being regarded as a reliable source of info?
Yes, it happens sufficiently often on Wikipedia that it is gradually becoming its own trope. I do occasional edits and fixes over there and ever so often will bump into the self authoring being used for terms of deletion. There was even a news article up a few years ago where I believe a reporter had a wiki entry and discovered it deleted because he, a reporter wasn't notable enough.
The one I first ran into was when they flagged a popular Swedish comic artist as not notable. Because Sweden had no electronic evidince that this guy, who has been in comics in the US as well, existed.
And no. Wikipedia isn't remotely reliable. Movie companies will edit pages to skew things in their favour. Games Workshop has been dilligently sweeping under the rug any attempts to point out their ill deeds.
And now I have no idea how to punt the ball back into court...
er... um...
Dont fight kobolds armed with daggers when you are a 1st level MU!
There...
Quote from: TristramEvans;708589(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll237/bprdhellboy/Memes/null_zps6286aae3.jpg)
Well that's the thing, isn't it? Both sides are imagining.
The Regular RPG gamers want to Imagine that they are adventurers in a real fantasy world.
The Storytelling Swine want to Imagine that they're profoundly mature intellectuals by pretending to be adventurers while staying fashionably detached from it all.
The only difference is that when Regular RPG gamers stop the roleplaying session, we KNOW we're not real fantasy adventurers; while Storytelling Swine actually never stop playing makebelieve that they're artistic/intellectual geniuses and wake up to the fact that they're just untalented pretentious losers who've wasted their lives.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;709210Well that's the thing, isn't it? Both sides are imagining.
and you're imagining you're the heroic defender of the hobby against the [strike]communists[/strike]storygamers and their plots to sap and impureify it's precious bodily fluids. glass houses=>stones ;3
What was this discussion about anyway :?
Edit
Well answering the OP, Mortality rates are really an issue of personal taste and desired experiences. There's totally a scale of PC awesomeness that goes from investigators(who are generated quickly and frequently die or get unreconizeably changed) to superheroes (who take a long time to create and tend not to die as often). Where on the scale a game sits is an issue of personal taste.
Quote from: atpollard;708845I once had a Cavalier that was my pride and joy and had a retainer and glorious adventures and defeated the final foe in an epic man-to-man combat and as we were heading out, the temple started to collapse. He ran back to save the retainer who had been badly wounded in the fight and was crushed by a million tons of stone. It was literally months before I felt like playing again.
Was letting the circumstances stand worth a month of depression?
I don't know.
What I do know is that saying "that never happened" would have felt like cheating and ever after tainted the character.
I would have been bummed by something like this as well, and saying "that never happened" would actually have HUGELY disappointed me if I were playing that game. What I would have done instantly after the character's death would have been to wonder how I could use this event to come up with a new character and make the best RP-wise out of it. Sometimes it means that creating a character related to the dead PC or linked with the death or circumstances surrounding it will be best. Other times it'll mean creating a fresh character that gets into this situation and finds out what happened. Whatever the case may be, I'll try to use the event to rebound and come up with something cool to play next.
Quote from: atpollard;708845On the flip side, letting the entire party miss the dungeon adventure because a bad die roll caused the thief to fail to detect the secret door that was the only way in or out of the dungeon ... I would change in a heartbeat.
That is the kind of thing which, to me, should be utterly avoided when coming up with the adventure scenario, place of exploration, etc, in the first place. Having a bottleneck the PCs HAVE to go through in order for them to survive and/or the adventure to continue: bad. Period.
I go on about it at length in my advice to build the megadungeon and the campaign around it (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466), if you are interested.
Quote from: atpollard;708845One of the cinematic tools that I have used to good effect is the old 'obscure death' rule. If you don't recover the body at the moment of death, then you don't really know for sure that the character is dead. For the Cavalier, the Referee played it straight from the module and I made the stupid move (it was the right move in character, but still a stupid move). Were I to Referee the same adventure now with some other player, I would probably use GM fiat to declare that everyone saw the temple collapse on them, but the floor below them gave way and they fell into a natural cavern complex below the temple. Carried along by the icy torrent, they find themselves cold, wet and alone in an underground cavern. The NPC slowly dies in his arms, and the Cavalier must now struggle alone to survive and escape.
That's the kind of thing I hate to see happen in a game. I absolutely despise these sorts of things. If I play my Cavalier and for role playing reasons I make the dumb mistake to get back in because I want to save my henchman and that MEANS something to me, the danger and potential death situation, then if the walls collapse and the dice indicate a catastrophy, PLEASE, DM, KILL MY CHARACTER. That's why what I did was so stupid and meaningful to me as I played it in the first place.
If you save my character by changing the world, if you switch the tables on me and make this a situation where there was no actual danger to lose my character in the first place, you are ROBBING me of that decision I made, and ROBBING me of that moment I really wondered whether I'd do it or not to decise "yes, fuck it, I love this guy, I'm going to try, rush in, and save him if I can." That's MEANING. By switching the tables on me and making it so that my character survives, you're ensuring that this situation will NOT happen in my mind in the future, because I will know that if I fuck up badly or make a fateful decision that you happen, for whatever reason that has fuck all to do with my own reasons, to disagree with, you are going to save my character again. So it's POINTLESS for me to role play my character as though there was an actual risk of death in this game anymore.
Quote from: atpollard;708845The player would probably never know that I had fudged the rolls, but I think that the adventure would have been made better for the fudge, not worse.
First things first, I WOULD know. No matter how clever the GM thinks he is, I will know when that happens, trust me. I might miss the first time if the GM is like the Houdini and Master Illusionist of RPGs or something, but I won't miss the second and third, I can tell you that. And that WRECKS my pleasure playing the game, as far as I'm concerned. I really hate this type of things: if I want to read a book and empathize with the hero, I can do that by reading a novel, thank you very much. I play role playing games because my decisions, smart or dumb, have consequences, including paying the ultimate price that is the character's death. If you are robbing me from this, you are stealing a HUGE part of the enjoyment I derive from playing role playing games. I might stick around to play with my buddies, but subconsciously at least, I'll give up on the game.
To be clear here, atpollard: you are totally entitled to your own answers and if you have fun that way at your game table, then cool, again: rock on, that's fine. I am indicating what my own reactions are as far as the same situations are concerned, were I in your place, so that you can see how different my take is from yours.
We had a GM who would always ask us how many hit points we were on, if we had taken a pounding and had just been hit again. None of the players ever told him and after the third or fourth time, he knew well enough to leave the dice where they fell.
He was always a good GM, but once that one thing was ironed out, he was a great one.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;709137Pathetic wanker.
First response: I am a lot older now than I was then (and potentially less of a 'pathetic wanker'.)
Second response: "Those who chain their passions, do so because their passions are small enough to be chained."
Quote from: One Horse Town;709231We had a GM who would always ask us how many hit points we were on, if we had taken a pounding and had just been hit again. None of the players ever told him and after the third or fourth time, he knew well enough to leave the dice where they fell.
I ask my players how many hp their PCs have left so my monsters can target the weakest ones. :D
Quote from: Benoist;709227I would have been bummed by something like this as well, and saying "that never happened" would actually have HUGELY disappointed me if I were playing that game. What I would have done instantly after the character's death would have been to wonder how I could use this event to come up with a new character and make the best RP-wise out of it. Sometimes it means that creating a character related to the dead PC or linked with the death or circumstances surrounding it will be best. Other times it'll mean creating a fresh character that gets into this situation and finds out what happened. Whatever the case may be, I'll try to use the event to rebound and come up with something cool to play next.
99% of the time, me too ... it's that other 1% of the time that I would consider intervening. Since most of my fantasy RPG experience is 'back in the day playing AD&D 1ed', it tended to involve inexperienced or semi-experienced players and referees using old school modules. This included experiencing a lot of bad module design and fail one save ends the adventure moments. Back then, I was obsessive about doing things by the book. Now I can see that a bad roll or book had stolen more opportunities for having fun than I am now willing to part with.
I really can understand the desire to do everything 'however the dice fall' ... no matter what, but I can also see some merit in placing fun higher on the scale than simulation verisimilitude. So I have no stones to throw at either camp.
QuoteThat is the kind of thing which, to me, should be utterly avoided when coming up with the adventure scenario, place of exploration, etc, in the first place. Having a bottleneck the PCs HAVE to go through in order for them to survive and/or the adventure to continue: bad. Period.
100% agreement. Unfortunately, time limitations sometimes force us to suffer through a published adventure ... Which have been known to contain a few less than ideal design elements from time to time.
QuoteThat's the kind of thing I hate to see happen in a game.
[snip]
To be clear here, atpollard: you are totally entitled to your own answers and if you have fun that way at your game table, then cool, again: rock on, that's fine. I am indicating what my own reactions are as far as the same situations are concerned, were I in your place, so that you can see how different my take is from yours.
Yup. That's why ice cream comes in so many flavors. So each person can enjoy his favorite.
When you say "I can see some merit in placing fun over simulation verisimilitude", you don't understand that to me, the risk of death happening IS part of the fun, and that my character dying makes playing other characters after that even MORE fun because I know the game isn't rigged in my characters' favor, even in that "1%" of cases which really makes the whole difference to me between a game I really enjoy and a game I might tolerate if playing for other reasons primarily.
At some point you will have to own it: we do see part of the pleasure in playing role playing games very differently you and I, and that's okay. Just don't tell me we're doing the exact same thing, because that is wrong, and condescending, the same way that the GM pulling an illusionist trick to save my character is hugely condescending, either thinking I'm not mature enough to accept my character's death, or favoring other aims, such as "the story," over my own choices in the game. Either way it stinks when I am at the receiving end of that condescension, I don't like it, and I don't inflict it on the players at my own game tables.
PS: don't put me in a "simulationist" box, please. I am not a "simulationist."
Quote from: Benoist;709252When you say "I can see some merit in placing fun over simulation verisimilitude", you don't understand that to me, the risk of death happening IS part of the fun
I do understand. I am just stating that that is NOT true for me ... or more accurately, the death of a character because some roll says so is NOT the absolute most important thing to ME.
It is indeed a point on which our tastes differ.
QuotePS: don't put me in a "simulationist" box, please. I am not a "simulationist."
If we allow all game related terms to be assigned variable emotional baggage, communication will quickly become impossible. When I said 'simulation verisimilitude', I mean nothing more than maintaining the absolute integrity of the artificial world being created at all costs. You seem to place the integrity of your 'world' as the absolute highest priority in your games. If the GM miscalculated and the entire group of adventurers dies as a result ... you would find that an acceptable outcome as long as it remains true to the 'laws' governing that world.
In contrast, I would place the fun of the players (which might mean allowing all of the characters to die, or it might mean involving GM fiat) above the integrity of the 'world'.
Quote from: S'monI ask my players how many hp their PCs have left so my monsters can target the weakest ones
Similarly, I sometimes ask my players how many hp they have left in order to get a better mental picture of the battlefield. Even with abstracted hp, I figure that characters at lower hp would be visibly wounded, fatigued, shaken, bruised & battered, etc. Some monsters might be able to smell blood or sense fear, and intelligent monsters may factor in the state of their enemies when prioritizing attacks - either to finish off a weak enemy or to concentrate on more robust enemies and let henchmen target the wounded ones.
I keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.
Quote from: atpollard;709260In contrast, I would place the fun of the players (which might mean allowing all of the characters to die, or it might mean involving GM fiat) above the integrity of the 'world'.
I don't think anyone is saying that the integrity of the world should take priority over the fun of the players. I think the point is that for some people, the fun of the players is derived
from the integrity of the world. You can't sacrifice one for the other because they are intertwined.
Other people such as myself feel similarly about no GM fudging. It's not that we prioritise dice rolls over our fun, rather that our fun is in part drawn from having events play out randomly with no-one secretly at the tiller.
Quote from: Tristram EvansI keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.
I try to do this too, but in my main game I have 6-7 players and many fights involve 8-12 enemies or more (plus various effects, spells, potions, wand charges, etc to record), so I do occasionally lose track and need to check in to update my numbers.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;709137Pathetic wanker.
Could you imagine the hours of despondent sobbing he'd have gone through if he played team sports and his team had lost a game? He'd be another statistic on one of Pat Pulling's lists!
Quote from: Elfdart;709272Quote from: Black VulmeaPathetic wanker.
Could you imagine the hours of despondent sobbing he'd have gone through if he played team sports and his team had lost a game? He'd be another statistic on one of Pat Pulling's lists!
These comments are as valuable and insightful as they are polite.
Hans
Quote from: TristramEvans;709265I keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.
I track hp in my online games (AD&D, BX etc). It's not practical in my tabletop 4e D&D game.
1) If a player wants a game a given GM doesn't want to run, then the solution is for that player to find (or become) an alternative GM.
2) If a GM wants to have players, then the game had better be one that appeals to somebody who is actually available to play.
I've come across a few cases of a couple of buddies who simply GM for each other, because they can't find anyone else who wants to play the way they do. Most people are more likely to get into mutual compromises with a larger group of friends: on one hand alternating games that suit different preferences, and on the other hand excluding games that are too unacceptable in that particular mix of players.
Quote from: Steerpike;709269I try to do this too, but in my main game I have 6-7 players and many fights involve 8-12 enemies or more (plus various effects, spells, potions, wand charges, etc to record), so I do occasionally lose track and need to check in to update my numbers.
My PCs rarely have more than 10hp max anyway so it's academic. ;)
Quote from: TristramEvans;709265I keep track of my player's HP so I don't have to ask them meta game questions.
Same.
Quote from: soviet;709266I don't think anyone is saying that the integrity of the world should take priority over the fun of the players. I think the point is that for some people, the fun of the players is derived from the integrity of the world. You can't sacrifice one for the other because they are intertwined.
Other people such as myself feel similarly about no GM fudging. It's not that we prioritise dice rolls over our fun, rather that our fun is in part drawn from having events play out randomly with no-one secretly at the tiller.
Exactamundo.
Quote from: soviet;709266I don't think anyone is saying that the integrity of the world should take priority over the fun of the players. I think the point is that for some people, the fun of the players is derived from the integrity of the world. You can't sacrifice one for the other because they are intertwined.
Other people such as myself feel similarly about no GM fudging. It's not that we prioritise dice rolls over our fun, rather that our fun is in part drawn from having events play out randomly with no-one secretly at the tiller.
Yes. Thank you.
Somewhere... the Conan D20 game perhaps... I encountered a "Left for Dead" rule where a dead PC would be not quite dead.
We decided collectively to put that rule into our Star Wars d20 game with the proviso that you had to have at least 1 Force Point.
Last game of the campaign, my charcter was indeed "killed" so I spent a FP to be "left for dead."
But it was a real anti-climax. I now realize I'd have been perfectly happy to have a die roll for it. Even if I had a 99% chance of surviving, that die roll means all the difference; there is a CHANCE of dying, even if you DO have a Force Point left, or whatever. Especially since we won the combat so there was never any doubt I survived. I guess had everybody THOUGHT I was dead, and then found out I was only Mostly Dead, and had to rescue me, THAT would have been more interesting.
But if I EVER incorporate a "Left for Dead" rule again, there WILL be a chance of failure. Looking back, I ... almost would rather my character had died. And that was one of my very favorite characters ever.
(Worst attribute scores of anybody in the group -- I started the campaign with exactly one attribute over 12. And I ended up the most renowed Jedi in the galaxy, because I PLAYED like a Jedi, not a putz.)
Quote from: Steerpike;709264Similarly, I sometimes ask my players how many hp they have left in order to get a better mental picture of the battlefield. Even with abstracted hp, I figure that characters at lower hp would be visibly wounded, fatigued, shaken, bruised & battered, etc. Some monsters might be able to smell blood or sense fear, and intelligent monsters may factor in the state of their enemies when prioritizing attacks - either to finish off a weak enemy or to concentrate on more robust enemies and let henchmen target the wounded ones.
If youy can't keep track of half a dozen numbers that only change in relation to PC , moster or environmental actions what sort of GM are you :)
I never ask my PCS their HPs but I always know within a tight (+/- 10%) range what their HP are at currently.
I rarely let it effect what the other guys do unless I am playing with kids. So if I am running a game for little ones and I know the elf has 8 HP I will have the guy attacking deal 1d6+1. I want them to feel threatened but not to die in one hit.
Quote from: jibbajibbaIf youy can't keep track of half a dozen numbers that only change in relation to PC , moster or environmental actions what sort of GM are you
Like I said, I do keep track of PC hp, but with 6-7 PCs and often a dozen or more monsters plus spell effects, items, etc I do occasionally lose track if I haven't scribbled it down in awhile. If I wrote down every single effect currently on various PCs stats (poison damage, energy drain, disease, spell ability damage, non-lethal damage) I'd spend all of my time record-keeping and the game would move at a snail's pace, which I don't consider good GMing either.
Quote from: Steerpike;709306Like I said, I do keep track of PC hp, but with 6-7 PCs and often a dozen or more monsters plus spell effects, items, etc I do occasionally lose track if I haven't scribbled it down in awhile. If I wrote down every single effect currently on various PCs stats (poison damage, energy drain, disease, spell ability damage, non-lethal damage) I'd spend all of my time record-keeping and the game would move at a snail's pace, which I don't consider good GMing either.
I was joking :) Well mostly .....
To be honest of late I have been playing out combats using sheets of A 1 paper our stuff was wrapped in when we packed to move to Singapore.
I stick it on the table sketch out the area use coins for locations of the various folks. I track initiative on my end of the sheet and scribble down damage to NPCs or whatever down the bottom.
The current game is pretty combat heavy, being a Strontium Dog game with that fast paced high action feel. Although we had one session that was a court trail and for the last half of yesterday the PCs were investigating a murder having spent the first 90 minutes resolving the bank heist from last time.
Typically combats are taking about an hour but they are combats with 3 PCs +2 war drones vs 12-20 bad guys. The last one included a chase through a shopping Mall. I would say one 10 second combat round takes about 10 minutes to play out with each PC taking about 3 minutes and the bad guys about a minute. Making use of Advantage/Disadvantage has made a huge difference as wrangling over possible modifiers and then doing a bunch of mental arithmatic has been replaced with 'Sure you have advantage' or 'you have double disadvantage' or whatever. Makes it a lot smoother.
Thinking on it... Isnt anyone bandaging and aiding the fallen to, ya know, prevent them from shuffling off the mortal coil?
Convenient raise dead temples might not be so common in some groups campaigns, or even non-existent. But are players really not taking steps themselves to assist eachother when down?
Quote from: atpollard;709238I am a lot older now than I was then (and potentially less of a 'pathetic wanker'.)
You assume that other gamers will act just as childishly if their characters are killed in the game, and that they must be protected from the same middle-school melancholia that led you to be the young pathetic wanker you once were, but are no longer . . . potentially.
Quote from: atpollard;709238"Those who chain their passions, do so because their passions are small enough to be chained."
You know that going from pathetic wanker to pretentious douchebag is a lateral move, right?
Quote from: rancke;709274These comments are as valuable and insightful as they are polite.
I'm sorry, did I miss atpollard's safe word or something?
If you announce to the world that you pouted for months over losing a game as if that's somehow relevant to anything, yeah, expect ridicule.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;709353Quote from: ranckeThese comments are as valuable and insightful as they are polite.
I'm sorry, did I miss atpollard's safe word or something?
No, you just made a rude and inane comment.
Hans
Quote from: Omega;709326Thinking on it... Isnt anyone bandaging and aiding the fallen to, ya know, prevent them from shuffling off the mortal coil?
Convenient raise dead temples might not be so common in some groups campaigns, or even non-existent. But are players really not taking steps themselves to assist eachother when down?
In 'death at zero hp' systems it's not an issue.
This is just the antibody phase, newcomers! As long as you avoid appeals to authority or decorum like swim floaters as if this is the kiddie pool, you should be fine. Remember, don't be that whiner with scraped shins. Stick it out, it gets better! We believe in you!
:cheerleader:
Quote from: rancke;709366No, you just made a rude and inane comment.
Hans
For your support in atpollard's trolling, and for ruining trav's image everywhere, here is a golden gnome, you earned it:
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/eyesangel/image%20gallery/goldengnomes_zps8c8395a2.jpg)