Challenge the Player, not the Stat Block (D&D)
Callan S.:
As far as I can tell this whole stat block/build the deck in advance is basically gamisms equivalent to narrativisms 'story before'. All the step on up happens before the game actually occurs.
In terms of hideous, unsolvable riddles and puzzles, the problem typically is that play just stalls rather than the players losing or losing after X amount of real time if they can't solve it. Usually this occurs because the book didn't tell a new GM he'd have to set this up - and the new GM frankly isn't in the design mindset (lucky them) or roleplay is being treated merely as a social lubricant (like drinking coffee or booze together, play is used as a similar thing to 'sip') and the activity supposedly must go on in the name of the social activity, and yet its uncomfortable and unpleasant to do so. Gamism needs to be able to lose - not just sit in unpleasant limbo while people don't get a puzzle. But when it's punted to the social lubricant level of coffee or booze - well, theres no room for the idea of 'losing' when it comes to drinking coffee. So in that case gamisms been punted to a place that just can't socially support losing.
Quote from: ShallowThoughts
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.
Who's particular imaginative reflexes are tapped can be up for grabs as determined by a ruleset (universalis seems to offer that). But really, if I had described it that the person in question had to cut himself with a knife to facilitate the notion the world is shared, I don't think either of us would consider it still a good idea in order to avoid turtling. When I talk about someone tapping their deep, imaginative reflexes, the stuff that their dreams are made of, but then being socially burned because what they produced is 'wrong', over and over, simply because it doesn't match someone elses imaginative reflexes, I'm talking about cutting something a bit more important than mere skin.
greyorm:
There is a lot of discussion of this "stat block" = "deck building" thing -- where the stat block takes over and nearly no player decisions are required -- and I'm just wondering if anyone has any actual play examples from their own games where this occurred, the circumstances, etc. I've never experienced such a thing or can think of an event I might describe as being similar to it.
I also ask because I play a lot of Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, another CCG, and even after building, there's a very significant amount of strategy, choice, and table-reading that goes into playing. Even back when I played Magic, I don't recall any examples of just sitting back and letting the deck do whatever. There was always trying to do something with your deck, using the hand you had, knowing how your deck worked, responding to the plays on the table with the cards available and strategizing. It isn't at all as...mechanical/robotic as what is being presented here.
So I'm asking because I really and seriously have to wonder if this is an invented bugaboo being chased and feared rather than a real thing that regularly happens around a table? Examples from actual play, please?
Callan S.:
Tons of times? There have been plenty of games I've been in where it's just unloading into the other side, roll after roll?
I'm sure I'm going to get t-boned by 'But you didn't see the other options!'. And then I'd get into whether I didn't see them, or they didn't exist. As much as the other two agendas like to make new rules on the fly, it's not exactly gamist to invent resources/options for yourself. Well, not for free, anyway. Anyway, I'm just reflexively cringing at a perceived t-bone that may not be about to occur.
And it depends what you mean by 'trying to do something' with a CCG deck? You can try really hard to control the outcome of a match, even when you have very little capacity to do so during play and most of your capacity to do so was before play even began. I guess if you don't plan the deck much and do most of your thinking in game, then it's playing in the moment. But really if its part of the design that your strongest influence on winning comes from pre game planning, then it's a game that supports 'game before' or however you might put it.
contracycle:
My ol highschool game had a series of disputes which eventually resulted in D&D being abandoned in favour of a homebrew system. There were two major issues, the first being the inability to punch someone in the head and knock them unonscious, the second being the inability to fatally stab someone with a single blow, short of being one of the classes that get backstab as an ability.
The former arose mostly in fistfights in bars and the like, and was not too serious, becuase the whittling of HP is not totally unlike the duration of a boxing match. But it was also the case that high level characters had so many HP, and the unarmed damage was so low, that this would take forever. Furthermore, resorting to cliches like smacking people with bottles or chairs made little difference. You couldn't, really, do anything except roll dice again and again.
The second arose from the perfectly understanadable perception on the part of the players that if you totally ambushed someone, especially if they were unarmoured, its not unreasonable to think that you could just cut them down. But D&D says no; armour only changes the likelihood of a hit, and damage remains fixed. If the target has enough HP to survive the blow, it doesn't matter under what circumstances it was delivered. This arose in a couple of cases, and resulted in unpleasant arguments.
Both of these problems got solved by moving to a system which was less attritional, and in which armour reduced damage, and that made for much better play in terms of setting up, engaging with a tactical problem, and being able to enjoy the challange presented.
ShallowThoughts wrote:
Quote
Not in principle. But when "gamist" = "the stat block can be so weighty, so significant, that player decisions matter very little", then most definitely yes.
But I don't think that's particularly "gamist" at all. I agree with Callan that its like story before; at best, it's a KIND of gamism, and I'm not averse to spending a fair bit of time on character buillds, and have even been known to defend min-maxing. But I certainly don't think that when it becomes the dominant factor, it means you are getting gamism at the table.
LandonSuffered:
Raven: congrats on your placement in the EO art challenge, by the way…that was a cool pic!
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. You don’t like mental challenges (for the record, I’m not talking about “puzzles” specifically…I’m talking about the ability…hell, the necessity!...of learning to improvise in order to overcome challenges), and I don’t like being constrained by limited skills and feats. You want rules that “fairly adjudicate” Intelligence and Wisdom…I just can’t help but say, “gaaaah!!”
I KNOW there can be issues when things are left to DM fiat, yeah…it’s always possible to have a crooked umpire when you’re playing a game. But failing to play by the spirit of the rules, is…well, against the spirit of the rules. And DM fiat can play a part it even the highest statted games (doesn’t the DM get to assign situational bonuses and penalties in D20?).
Okay, you asked:
Quote
There is a lot of discussion of this "stat block" = "deck building" thing -- where the stat block takes over and nearly no player decisions are required -- and I'm just wondering if anyone has any actual play examples from their own games where this occurred, the circumstances, etc. I've never experienced such a thing or can think of an event I might describe as being similar to it… So I'm asking because I really and seriously have to wonder if this is an invented bugaboo being chased and feared rather than a real thing that regularly happens around a table? Examples from actual play, please?
Um, I’ll give you a two different AP examples, both from D&D3:
1st As A DM: Players were asked to create an 8th level character (or thereabouts) for a dungeon adventure, using the standard building rules for creating an advanced character in the DMG (including gear allowed). One guy shows up with some fighter or fighter-ranger wielding double two-handed +1 falchions of sharpness with his feats chosen to allow him to crit on a…what, a 12+ roll, I think? Simple min-maxing, sure…did his min-maxing inform how his play would occur in the adventure? Sure it did. Was he limited in how he could play based on his character choices? Sure he was. But he made the best “stat-block” he could…he found his challenge, PRIOR to game play. His character was useless in the adventure except in melee combat where he utterly trounced.
2nd As a Player: I created a mid-level level wizard (I don’t remember now…somewhere between 5th and 8th level) to play in someone’s adventure. I based his character and spell selection off of Gandalf from LotR. I tried to make him a bit of a utilitarian, kind of advisor-type. Our party couldn’t even get into the damn dungeon! Why not? Because you needed to have access to the fly spell to get in. It was assumed that any mid-level wizard would have the spell (or levitation), because it is so "useful" and "utilitarian." I didn’t even carry it in my spell book. The entire party failed, because the one magic-user (me) failed at the “stat block” creation level. The DM didn’t offer any alternatives…he looked over my character sheet and asked something like, “why is your guy so sucky?” There was another adventure like this where we didn’t have the ability to build a raft…because no one had enough “craft boat” skill (or whatever the fuck it’s called).
Raven wrote:
Quote
To me, it seems you want more of a war-game feel than an RP feel to play: sure, there are some stats, but they don't matter as much as the tactics the player is using in the engagement.
To this I say: what the fuck? D&D facilitates a gamist agenda (well, except maybe AD&D2, though 2.5 was definitely beginning the stat-block building exercise). But I never even used miniatures prior to needing to count 5’ steps and full-attack actions and flanking and blah-blah-blah.
I do enjoy the occasional game of WH40K, but when I play that I want people spot on about the rules (ranges, line of sight, base-to-base, etc.). Wargaming is NOT about improvising…wargaming is about using tactics with the resources at your disposal.
An RPG of the old school variety can be plenty gamist, but it’s a lot more open-ended than a war game. And I’m not saying, “oh it has more options,” ‘cause that ain’t it. I’m saying you can choose to wine and dine your opponent or fight ‘em or run away (is there a “run away” skill in D&D4? Maybe there’s a feat…). You can bait and bribe cheap monsters with food or reassure, you can create your own pit traps…the difference, though between the old school and new school is: do you need to make a “craft traps roll” to dig that pit? And one question I have is: does a player think to TRY to dig a pit if they don’t have the requisite digging skill on their character sheet?
Contracycle: I echo your final sentiment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page