Started by LandonSuffered, May 12, 2009, 04:08:51 AM
QuoteQuite honestly, "stat block" and "the rules mechanics" are two very, very clear and distinct things for me. Nowhere in a stat block does it say "roll a d20 plus modifiers and compare to AC" or "now subtract the results of your d8 from the HP". They are quite clearly to me "tools you have" (things in your stat block) and "things you do with the tools" (actions to which mechanics are applied).
Quote from: Callan S. on May 24, 2009, 03:28:11 AMWell, if character skills, power bounderies etc are chosen by a player before gameplay, and they are more significant in determining whether you win or lose than in game choices, then that is how character skills, power bounderies, etc etc strongly facilitate gamism before rather than gamism now.
QuoteYou didn't have tools that you could choose to use, you were just playing out a statistical simulation where all the important choices were already made. There's not much point in distinguishing 'tools you have' and 'things you can do' when you have no choice about either. It's better to see it as the stat block vs stat block that it actually is.
Quote from: contracycle on May 24, 2009, 03:29:52 AMI don't disagree that this is, at root, a mechanical issue, but you asked for examples of how the system, whether or not we refer to it as a "stat block", can disemplower the player. Yes, I would agree that much of the problem is was implicit from the beginning, and I'm not entirely convinced that reverting to an earlier version would make the problem go away.
QuoteThe question you asked, though, was not phrased as a contrast between mechanics and bloat of those mechanics; rather, you drew the comparison with a CCG and argued that however pre-designed the deck was it did not deny player decision in play. Thus, I was trying to illustrate ways in which the system can indeed deny such decision.
QuoteAnd therefore, it does tend to have a chilling effect on the kind of things players attempt to do.
QuoteYou have pointed out that in the absence of skills there was a lot of GM fiat in play, and I agree with this too; I have no response to that except some sort of cheesy old "happy medium".
QuoteYet we can't just say "creating boundaries is bad"
QuoteSo how can it be a "back in the old days" vs. "in our games today" issue
QuoteComplete disagreement with that characterization and conclusion. Might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater because the water is dirty and the baby is in it? Tools are still separate from mechanics, even if in play they are part of a statistical simulation created by both.
QuoteThe problem, as someone noted up-thread, seems to be that this happens at higher levels. At lower levels, all sorts of tricksy things come into play for use by players in defeating their opponents. At lower levels, it isn't just an attrition game, and tactics (surprise, traps, minor combat bonuses, etc) matter in play, even if one is a dual-sword wielding combat powerhouse.
Quote from: Callan S. on May 24, 2009, 03:28:11 AMAlso, anyone remember progress quest?
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo how can it be a "back in the old days" vs. "in our games today" issueI don't know? Is it? I thought that was just hyperbole and just a way in which Jonathan was making his approach distinct? I mean, were looking at practical, get it to the game table tomorrow issues - the historical order of things just don't matter in terms of that. Atleast for myself I'm not interested in history for this thread (and wont be revising my memory of history based on this thread, if that's a concern)
Quoteagain, I'm not seeing how that maps to skills and feats and ability scores ala a "stat block", things which don't have the level creep problem of hit points and combat (making skill checks doesn't or shouldn't become more difficult as your level rises) and which it seemed the thread was initially talking about.
QuoteJonathan, does progress quest sound a good example of an absolute stat block challenge? Apart from the automation, I mean, rather than people having to roll and add up manually to do the same thing.
Quote from: LandonSuffered on May 24, 2009, 10:11:12 PM1) Recent readings of some of the Old School Renaissance forums (Grognardia, Odeforblackdougal, etc.) as well as threads on other "old school" forums has reminded me of an important difference between old D&D and more recent versions: what I called (perhaps in rather inflammatory fashion): "challenge the player, not the stat block."
Quote from: Callan S. on May 24, 2009, 04:05:07 PMWell, we can. Specifically we can say players deciding boundaries in advance of play, is bad for facilitating gamism now.
QuoteWell, I gave my reasoning for it but you've repeated your position without entering into those reasons.
QuoteI think this may be veering off - your saying the problem is an attrition game, then saying it doesn't apply at low levels. I think we need to keep looking at player choices prior to play (if any) and player choices in play (if any) and which are more important toward winning.
QuoteAnd if you have a problem with creative problem solving in game...well, all I can say is that the mind is a muscle, and you might want to exercise it with some of these old school games. It WILL get stronger.
QuoteQuoteAnd if you have a problem with creative problem solving in game...well, all I can say is that the mind is a muscle, and you might want to exercise it with some of these old school games. It WILL get stronger....and given this kind of patronizing tone throughout--about old school games requiring more challenge and creativity, and the new school games somehow requiring less creativity--and going so far at this point to call me stupid without coming out and saying it. Honestly, wow. Not classy, J. Just not.
QuoteI was rather hoping this thread could turn into a discussion about WAYS to challenge players in play (with examples from other readers Actual Play history), or even ways to incorporate player challenge into game design