Challenge the Player, not the Stat Block (D&D)
Daniel B:
Sounds like a juicy, delicious debate we have goin' on here. X-D
Here's my point of view: it's impossible to challenge a stat-block. A challenge is defined as a simple contest, but the word "contest" implies there is some give-and-take. A stat block is a set of statistics that does nothing on it's own; it's a sheet of paper. Even if the stat-block is run by a computer, the computer is simply following instructions which I'd hesitate to say constitutes a challenge. (That said, I think a game of chess versus a computer opponent is still a round-about challenge, because you're pitting your mind against the programmer's ability to build a program capable of dealing with all possibilities; I would argue this is also true for computer RPG quests, for a similar reason, but that's another thread)
So, putting aside GM-versus-players for a moment, if a stat-block battle actually translates to a challenge between players, how is this so? Well, you're giving players a set of "weapons" or "tools" to use, those tools being the stat blocks themselves. It is up to the players to make good decisions in bringing the stats together, and make more good decisions during combat, in order to succeed. In a way, you could say a 60-card deck composed of cards from a finite pool is a stat-block since, let's face it, each card is just a collection of stats, but no one would say that Magic the Gathering is a game of competition between "stat-blocks". (Err... come to think of it, some people do, but I think the elite champions would argue that deck design is a skill that not something anyone can do, and therefore qualifies as a genuine competition.)
Next question, if RPG battles are always player-vs-player, how is it that some games feel like they're strictly stat-block vs stat-block? In my opinion, this comes about by reducing player input and minimizing the tools available to construct the stat-block pre-combat, or at least by minimizing the number of ways you can build the stat block and be successful. It gets to a point such that a computer very nearly could run the character and still be reasonably successful, or downright kick-ass if the program was optimized. This, unfortunately, limits the options for not just the GM, but the PCs as well, because anything less than a min-maxed character will not do well. "I built this character and the GM can't screw me," when in fact the player didn't so much as build the character as lay down to the will of the system.
(Side note: I wonder how well a computer would do playing Magic TG? Surely, Magic has far more combo-holes, and so a program capable of defeating a Magic champion would be easier to build than a program capable of defeating a chess champion.)
FredGarber, as LandonSuffered pointed out, that "player-vs-GM" ugly style of play can come about in any game with a GM, so it sounds like you've just had a bad set of GMs. In my time as GM, I have tried very hard to accept the consequences of the world as much as the players do, so that the players really do feel like it's the world itself responding to them. As a GM, accepting consequences in this way is absolutely vital because it implicitly shows the players that the world is separate from you, and that the WORLD has power over the GM, and not the other way around. By separating yourself from the world, it creates the illusion that the world is real, which injects the threat of consequence into the game. With genuine consequence (for both players AND the GM), the challenges and risks become far more visceral.
In order to be able to accept consequences, you first have to be able to admit when you make mistakes as a GM. Certainly, this is the most difficult part of GMing, but such mistakes are fairly difficult to hide from players and they're a bit embarrassing. However, hiding the mistake does no one any good, especially since players can usually tell. When the evil genius who is clearly being set up as a long-term character suddenly gets taken out by a PC's stray bullet just as the genius is teleporting away, it's a pretty see-through argument when the GM says
Quote
Err.. OH! And the REAL evil genius, three-feet away, cackles as he says 'HAHA, my clone/illusion/disguised-buddy trick WORKED!'
A good GM will not do this, but instead just say
Quote
Wow, (player A), very, very nice shot. Downright unlikely! With a blood-curdling shriek, the evil genius looks in horror at his wound, realizing all his plans were for naught. He collapses in a gory heap.
Obviously, for the players this is a hollow victory. They feel like they won, but not in that satisfyingly crunchy way. However, it's okay for this to happen once in a while. By broadcasting to the players that you're holding true to the consequences forced upon you by the world and the rules, you develop trust with them. They'll no longer think "I have to play this way to prevent the GM from screwing me," and start thinking "I have to play this way to survive in the world," which is precisely the frame of mind you want the players to be in. As you get good at it, you'll make these mistakes far less frequently and they'll less likely be catastrophic when they happen. Furthermore, the rest of the time you'll secretly be thinking stuff like "Yup, players, that is generally where I expected you to go," or "Wow, players, that's a complete surprise to me, but I'd love to see how it turns out."
That latter case is by far the most fun. Some of my best memories of games I've GMed are from games where the players took a turn I didn't expect. Check out this Case In Point
Daniel
(PS, how the heck do you do those smileys? I haven't bothered to figure that out yet)
Callan S.:
Just for clarity, I wasn't debating with Michael, just illustrating a different way of doing things that none the less shared certain qualities. I'd sort of assumed Michael meant somthing by challenging the character and indeed I had penciled in that he meant something like the integrity of an idea challenging the integrity of another idea. Kind of like having Batman vs Hulk - it's idea vs idea (meme vs meme?). I was thinking he mean something like gamism or nar, with something kind of like a sim spine to it, otherwise something feels like it's missing. While I refered to gamism with a nar spine, or nar with a gamist spine, or otherwise it felt like something is missing. Some paralels there, which are interesting and a bit feel good - unless I didn't understand Michael at all. Michael?
Quote
As a GM, accepting consequences in this way is absolutely vital because it implicitly shows the players that the world is separate from you, and that the WORLD has power over the GM, and not the other way around.
I feel like someone who is anal about safety in the workplace and has to comment when they see a 'mangler'.
The functional and safe operation as I see it, is that the GM simply works off his reactions to prior narrated material. These are his imaginative reflexes. The same sorts of imaginative reflexes that actually create dreams while sleeping. The world doesn't have power over him - he just tries to work true to reflex. This isn't such a big deal except where the GM pushes to ignore pre agreed rules because the 'world' is in charge.
The mangler as I see it is that the 'world' is seen as a shared object in the group. But a persons own imaginative reflexes are his own - they don't nescessarily match anyone elses. But with the perception it's a shared world, if the GM's imaginative reflex goes against someone elses imaginative reflex, the GM gets told he is cheating. Or the GM tells the player they are cheating. Or being a jerk, or a number of things. They get socially sanctioned for their natural, artistic creativeness/reflexes. I think I'm almost heading towards Ron Edward style brain damage, in saying what that can do to a developing mind. Peh, even an adult mind, given time.
The safe operation, as I see it, is that the GM simply expresses things exactly as he sees it (staying within pre agreed rules - and if those rules are percieved as even slightly ambiguous by anyone, everyone is sympathetic towards everyone else on what staying within those rules means). The vulnerability everyone else faces is that no one is actually capable of policing the GM - you just have to trust him to go with his reflexive imagination rather than rig everything. That trust might seem a doddle to forge people, but if you look at the D&D 'What's a DM to do' forums you find the regular recomendation that if the players are doing something you don't like, hit 'em with monsters till they learn not to do it.
Anal safety advocate, over and out! :p
Vulpinoid:
...The apocalypse is truly nigh, Callan and I seem to actually agree on something...
Hmm...reading through this last couple of posts has made me rethink some of my earlier assumptions.
This is never a bad thing.
If anyone's been watching the development of Vincent Baker's clouds and boxes theory, this might make a bit more sense.
My first set of assumptions were very simplified.
Characters are challenged through the stat box.Challenges to the character's stat box are typically resolved by the comparison of a stat to a difficulty (or another character's stat), with some kind of randomiser user as a filter.Success from a character sense result from situations where a character's stat plus random filter overcomes the number it is compared to.Players are challenged by methods not involving the stat box.A challenge to a player often involves morality, or the types of abstract thought process that dice and numbers handle poorly.Success from a player sense depends on what the game was trying to achieve and how successfully this was resolved.
It makes me think of the saying that appears around here every couple of months...
A game isn't about the the aspects covered by the rules. A game is about the aspects that players have to make up for themselves to fill in the gaps.
This has been restated in a few different forms, but that's the general idea. I haven't actually had the chance to play Dogs in the Vineyard, but from what I'm aware it's a game that really delves into questions of faith and morality, but it leaves the answers to these questions purely in the hands of the players rather than including any kind of "Faith" statistic.
The questions of what the character can do are defined by the stat block, the questions of "why" are answered by the players in the context of the narrative.
It's still a very trite way of looking at things, so I'll expand my assumptions.
Characters are challenged through the stat box.Challenges to the character's stat box are typically resolved by the comparison of a stat to a difficulty (or another character's stat), with some kind of randomiser user as a filter.Success from a character sense result from situations where a character's stat plus random filter overcomes the number it is compared to.Players are challenged by methods not involving the stat box. Challenges to players don't directly involve the stat box.A challenge to a player often involves morality, or the types of abstract thought process that dice and numbers handle poorly.Success from a player sense depends on what the game was trying to achieve and how successfully this was resolved. (eg. a game intending to tell a good story can still be considered a victory if all the characters died in a dramatic fashion that really got the players thinking...)Players are typically capable of manipulating the stat box through XP, meta-game currency and actively narrating their actions to maximise the potential of their stats.The stat box can often apply restrictions to the actions and thought processes of a character. A player's actions within the narrative need to be limited according to these filters.Challenges can come in one of four forms:
1. Challenges purely involving the character/stat box. (eg. GM picks a stat, player rolls a die, compare result to target number)
2. Challenges where the player's actions are filtered through the stat box. (eg. Player manipulates the narrative, picks the best stat for the job, rolls a die, then compares to target number)
3. Challenges where the player's mind is tested through the context of the character. (eg. Character gets into a morally challenging situation and the stat box indicates that the character has an aversion to one of the outcomes, the player must choose another outcome that works within the story)
4. Challenges purely involving the player (eg. Event unfolds leaving a question that simply isn't covered by the rules, the GM asks the player "What do you do?")
Suddenly there's a spectrum of challenges from those purely involving characters to those purely involving players.
Quote from: ShallowThoughts on May 21, 2009, 01:45:49 PM
Quote
Wow, (player A), very, very nice shot. Downright unlikely! With a blood-curdling shriek, the evil genius looks in horror at his wound, realizing all his plans were for naught. He collapses in a gory heap.
Obviously, for the players this is a hollow victory. They feel like they won, but not in that satisfyingly crunchy way. However, it's okay for this to happen once in a while.
Is this a hollow victory? Yes. Is it completely hollow? It depends a bit further on the context.
If a game system allows anyone to attempt anything (even the impossible becomes possible through highly exaggerated target numbers), then an average Joe off the street might be able to pick up a crossbow and kill a dragon outright with a shot through the eye and straight into the brain cavity. Highly unlikely, and there was no skill involved on the part of the character's player, just some damned lucky dice rolling.
Imagine a different system. One which specifically precludes certain events from happening, but allows a player to pick the right combination of skills/abilities to pull a fantastic situation from the realms of the impossible to the highly improbable. Suddenly the player gets a little sense of pride that their character build allowed the situation to be overcome, even if it was mostly through sheer luck.
One player adjusts their character's stat box in a way to help them confront issues that the player is interested in. Another player adjusts their character's stat box to help the team confront a specific type of issue because it's an obvious weak spot in the group. Both are manipulating the probabilities and helping to confront challenges that haven't even been posed yet.
The characters aren't the players, but they aren't completely divorced from one another either. Both have an impact on one another, through play styles, narratives and probabilities. Responsibility is shared between the two.
How many players do you know who have sworn at their character for failing a die roll? The player doesn't claim any responsibility for the actions because it wasn't actually the player performing the action. Then in a later session, the same player claims full responsibility for the natural 20 super-critical hit that killed the dragon. If the responsibility is spread between the character and the player, then a player can separate themselves from the bad while embracing with the success.
If the player and the character are completely separate, you might as well go and watch a movie.
If the player and the character are one, then why are you rolling dice? Just do it.
Different games play with this degree of separation at different levels. Different games offer challenges to players and characters with different amounts of bias between the two extremes. In like of this, I'd say that most traditional games focus more on challenges to the stat-block and the character, while many of the new generation of games have less complex rules and thus focus on issues that resonate more strongly with the players.
Many games don't know where their challenges are actually aimed (at the players, at the characters, or somewhere between), hence this issues of conflicting creative agendas, drift, inability to identify a game's true goals...etc.
I still think I'm missing something in my definitions, but I'm starting to ramble.
So I'll leave it here for the moment.
V
LandonSuffered:
ShallowThoughts wrote:
Quote
So, putting aside GM-versus-players for a moment, if a stat-block battle actually translates to a challenge between players, how is this so? Well, you're giving players a set of "weapons" or "tools" to use, those tools being the stat blocks themselves. It is up to the players to make good decisions in bringing the stats together, and make more good decisions during combat, in order to succeed. In a way, you could say a 60-card deck composed of cards from a finite pool is a stat-block since, let's face it, each card is just a collection of stats, but no one would say that Magic the Gathering is a game of competition between "stat-blocks". (Err... come to think of it, some people do, but I think the elite champions would argue that deck design is a skill that not something anyone can do, and therefore qualifies as a genuine competition.)
Daniel: this is exactly what I'm talking about.
If the challenge to a player is "how do you build the best possible character" before play...you know, like trying to build a 60 card Magic deck before a tournament?...then the main thing being challenged IN play is the "stat block" of the character. In other words, the challenge moves from "how do I overcome this challenging dungeon/adventure?" to "how do I design the best possible character to meet the challenges of the dungeon/adventure?"
Look at your recent post (the "funny little anecdote") where you wrote:
Quote
I was getting a bit tired of the PCs winning combat flawlessly, as in, barely over a couple of rounds and with few to no injuries. Maybe the PC's had min-maxed enough to throw off the CR's or something.
It would appear your players are expert at creating great decks...er, stat blocks...er, characters. That's great...it allows them to blaze through a dangerous dungeon like superheroes with their pants on fire. Um..."kewl."
But for me, I prefer a different style of game play. Um...that was kind of the point of my whole original post. Gamist creative agendas can be facilitated in different ways. Challenging players to create the best possible character BEFORE play (and this includes planning and scheduling how one chooses feats and skills, all of which occurs between play sessions, not during) is one way to satisfy a creative agenda. In my opinion this is pretty watered down compared to stepping up to challenge IN play. I'm pretty sure I've explained why I feel this way in previous posts on this thread.
I guess I wasn't clear before on what I meant by challenging the player and not the stat block. Sure, a player creates that stat block, and that's a "challenge" in and of itself. But once you've satisfied that challenge (picking feats, distributing points to skills, picking the classes/prestige classes, selecting spells, choosing equipment), all that gets challenged IN PLAY is that bundle of choices you made (i.e. the "stat block," that collection of all those choices). I prefer challenging the player IN PLAY. Hopefully, this is clearer now.
Daniel B:
Actually Jonathan, I didn't intend that to be a counter, and in fact totally agree with you. I guess I've GMed too many games that eventually turned gamist despite their promising beginnings. But I see your point. And although it all reduces to player challenges, I have come to agree that calling it a stat-block challenge is a good way of talking about preplay-generation competitions. (I'll shut up now.)
Quote from: Callan S. on May 21, 2009, 03:40:37 PM
The mangler as I see it is that the 'world' is seen as a shared object in the group.
Oh? X-)
I'm going to hideously misquote you .. apologies in advance.
Quote from: Callan S., hideously misquoted on May 21, 2009, 03:40:37 PM
The mangler as I see it is that the CHARACTER is seen as a shared object in the group. But a persons own imaginative reflexes are his own - they don't nescessarily match anyone elses. But with the perception it's a shared CHARACTER, if the PLAYER's imaginative reflex goes against someone elses imaginative reflex, the PLAYER gets told he is cheating. Or the PLAYER tells the GM they are cheating. Or being a jerk, or a number of things. They get socially sanctioned for their natural, artistic creativeness/reflexes.
This is way off-topic but I couldn't resist. The world is no less shared than are the characters, and clearly the characters MUST be shared. The GM that asserts absolute authority over "his" world generates turtle-players.
Daniel
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page