Challenge the Player, not the Stat Block (D&D)
contracycle:
Quote from: Callan S. on May 12, 2009, 02:47:11 PM
So that hasn't solve the problem, except perhaps in the commercial area, ie modules were sold - the writer being paid for his work regardless of whether it was played, and the group being able to write off an expense should they wish not to play it.
Thats not a terrible solution though, modules - parting with a few bucks is very different from spending hours with the graph paper and filling notebooks with details, and much morte accessible. The inability to play and continue is much less onerous if its "only money" rather than personal investment that is lost. Sometimes we sit through a movie we don't, or get a computer game we can't comnplete, and for the most part we just treat that as unfortunate outcomes, and fire up the next one. It's the combination of personal creation and wasted material that was explosive; if that creation is impersonal and external, it's much more palatable.
LandonSuffered:
You know, thinking back on those old games, even our personal dungeons/creations were impersonal. That is to say, we (well, me for sure) had no emotional investment in what I had created. For example, the biggest, baddest dungeon I designed…a sprawling double or triple digit encounter scenario featuring a twice- or thrice- powerful beholder as the big bad…was only ever used once and the was never completed. The party suffered too many losses early on and then we never got around to returning to the dungeon at a later date. The group just got preoccupied with other dungeons to explore.
Did I feel me investment of time and energy had been wasted? No. The adventure simply got filed along with my other adventure modules to be played at a later date…presumably with the same players, perhaps with the same characters though maybe not. Adventures, especially purchased modules, were easily and often recycled for repeat play. If the Tomb of Horrors had never been conquered in a particular game world, then it sat there like a blight on the land…perhaps ignored or avoided, but still available for adventure. This is one of the great things about the “locale based” adventure…and one of the fun things about old school D&D. Your “party” is basically a group of looter/merc types looking for their next score. This aspect of game play is definitely informed by Howard’s Conan stories, even as the party of strange classes/races is informed by Lord of the Rings.
No, I perhaps misspoke when I was talking about “bottle-necks”…I never used them myself in adventures, though several old school modules did (the throne room in Tomb, the riddling sphinx in White Plume Mountain, the gateway to the Abyss in Vault of the Drow). I was just tossing the idea out as a stop-loss to save on...uh…”emotional investment.” But really, the original game was NOT to be played with a lot of emotional attachment. I mean your characters DIED (at least they did in my campaigns). A resurrection spell was used as another gamist measure to try and “win” the game (a more powerful and useful version than “raise dead”)…it was not specifically designed to save a beloved character (though I know even we gamist-types used it for this). Characters were cheap (time-wise) to make, back them…it didn’t take hours to select skills and feats and class options and back story.
Anyway…challenging the players, IMO, gives you much more bang for your buck as far as intense entertainment. I think it showcases what a table-top RPG can do (as opposed to a video game). Old school D&D was encouraging and (by example) masterful of this style of game play. And it attracted a lot of players to it that didn’t simply “give up” when a paper avatar went down with a poison needle in his neck.
greyorm:
Hrm, but isn't the stat block the method through which one challenges the player? I guess, for me at least, I like skill lists and character-based challenges. I'm still the one using the pieces I have to solve the puzzles, after all.
And I say that because I don't like being relied on myself to come up with solutions that my character would know even if I, the player, am clueless or unskilled. Such as my guiding example: the social arena. I'm no smooth-tongued diplomat, but if I run a character that is? Then they better BE, regardless of my personal ability or performance (I'm not LARPing, fer chrisakes).
I've been burned in the kind of games you mention when my high CHA character fails because I stutter and bumble, which I found incredibly distasteful. In some cases to the point where I don't even feel like playing any longer because my character wouldn't stutter, or my character WOULD know what to do even though I don't (that's why I took those skills, after all).
My question always has been: why should my character's success depend on player skill at some task?
Seriously, I'm not asked to actually learn orcish in order to have my character know orcish, and if I manage to solve a piece of the dungeon puzzle because my character has the key to it (knows orcish, or has an 18 intellect, or is a puzzle-master, etc), I don't see that as not challenging me. I'm winning through the use of an optimal character build for the situation, which is itself a challenge: "Oh yeah? Let's see how THIS works in your grimy dungeon!"
Because what's the point of "Intelligence" or "Charisma" or whatnot, if all such really is are stats for "extra languages" or "spell power" and "number of henchmen"? Why not just call it that, then, and avoid the whole illusion of it being something it isn't? If "Intelligence" doesn't really mean how smart your character is?
Note I say all this coming from an old school background: I loved and played the heck out of old D&D and AD&D. I still love OD&D, dungeon crawls, pure Pawn-stance Gamism. So I really wonder if this is "the difference" because I'm not attracted to what you're saying at all, yet love the same old stuff. I'm guessing I'm the flip-side of the old school that James is presenting, and I--well, I'm surprised to admit--I guess I find it slightly distasteful(?) that he's presenting his version of old school play as THE way we did it or thought about it back-in-the-day.
LandonSuffered:
Heh…don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying JM’s blog is THE way to play. I’m just saying I think some of his observations are right on…and I don’t think he’s presenting something as THE way to play (his whole Dwimmermount campaign is an “experiment in organic rules evolution,” after all).
: )
Still, I think that some of your concerns are un-founded. For example, all the old school versions I played had NPC “Reaction” tables that were modified by a character’s CHA value. If you wanted to interact with an NPC (as opposed to charging, sword drawn), you’d roll the dice and hopefully your suave-tongued character would talk his way out of a bad situation. Depending on your DM, you might receive a bonus to this roll depending on how you phrase your negotiation (backed up with armed might or convincingly with bribe in hand)…all without requiring you to put on a performance or use a fake accent.
When I say challenge the player, I’m talking intellectual challenge…I mean, it’s an intellectual game right? Hitting monsters isn’t based on your ability to do push-ups and a bard’s charming ability isn’t based on YOUR ability to sing!
Yes, any action that requires a random roll is going to based on some “stat” of your character (one of the reasons characters have stats…to determine game world capabilities)…I suppose the “fleshing out” of characters with extensive skill lists could be seen as a way to reduce negative reaction to DM fiat (“I have craft boat at Rank 12…I should definitely be able to build a raft out of these giant mushroom stalks!!”), but it also has an unfortunate tendency to become a crutch that waters down the game play, IMO…at least with regard to “challenging the player.”
I guess my point (as relates to the Forge) is that from a design standpoint, I think it is an interesting design choice and one that doesn’t get enough consideration in 21st century game design. I remember getting a copy of Dragon Quest (the RPG) and thinking it was cool that there was no “Intelligence” stat…I assumed that characters were simply as smart as their players, which fit with my perspective of RP’ing at the time. But looking back at as an adult, I can’t help but think D&D modeled things just fine with its limited attribute list. I know plenty of “Intelligent” people that are not particularly clever or quick-witted…some that aren’t even well educated, and certainly ones that don’t speak well. Likewise, I know people that are charismatic and very likeable without being able to write a speech, improve a rhyme, or form a logical argument.
Limiting the amount of info on a character sheet PLUS adding challenge forces players to come up with creative solutions. They WILL find a way to use that 10’ pole or that sack of iron spikes, necessity being the mother of invention and all. As long as there is an understanding between the folks at the table (i.e. players are going to be challenged, DM should allow leeway for creativity), I think great fun can be had by all.
You can stat up your character to the Nth degree, but I’m not sure it’s going to improve the “fun” quotient. Or to be perfectly blunt, I’ve found in my DND3+ games that it doesn’t.
JoyWriter:
Do you think there is any way to make rules for this stuff? As in GM prep aids that help them to build internal logic to their dungeons so that people can work out puzzles from each other, or flag systems so that GMs can see what kind of puzzles they like defeating? See to me that sounds like a perfect use for the mental stats! Or something close to them. So if my character has high tactics rating, then put in more grid combat, if he has a high linguistics or literary-ness or whatever, give him more word puzzles. If you allow players to choose say 3 of these and rank them, then you can use them as a way of keeping track of GM loads. I'm not sure which is harder, lots of players who are good at the same stuff, or who are good at everything. But perhaps there are methods that could be used to make a GM who is good at dealing with one better at another.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page