Challenge the Player, not the Stat Block (D&D)
greyorm:
Since I'm being asked directly, I'll answer. To me, this is indicative of part of the problem: clearly, we're speaking different languages, because (though I'll agree I see how the terms I used could be taken to be polarizing) I just don't agree that what you're saying the thread started as and what it is now is what it always has been about.
Quite 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).
I have been approaching this from the standpoint that the thread began with complaints about character detailing rules (such as skills, feats, or otherwise) creating a state of "gamism before" where play is pre-ordained and no choices are made in play because the options are set--now you just push buttons--contrasted with how we supposedly did it in the old days when characters didn't have feats or skills or big blocks of stuff on their sheet, and it was loose, and freeform, and open-ended.
But the only example I've seen thus far showcasing how things get futzed up because of character stats has been one of: hit points making the combat portion of the game into one of attrition.
How does a problem with the mechanics of combat making hit points cause breakdowns in player choice at high levels support or bring one to conclude that the problem is that skills, feats, and various other character stat bits cause gamism before?
This seems to me to be two very separate issues being confounded as a single issue. Or at least a number of very different issues being discussed under the heading of one single issue. Because right now I'm seeing: the stat block problem (ie: character detail) = gamism before problem = problematic rules issues. Based on some very flimsy and tenuous connections that aren't necessarily true.
It seems to me--given the thread beginning with the claim that "hey, in the old days we didn't have all these details on the sheet...I think they are the source of this problem I'm looking at"--the claim is being made that "skills/character detailing = broken mechanics/gamism before", when I'm looking and seeing "broken mechanics = gamism before" and nothing to do with the inclusion of skills or character detailing/power boundaries/expressed options and limits/etc. at all.
Callan S.:
Well, 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. Because the player is choosing them before gameplay begins and they matter the most in terms of whether you win.
Though if the character skills, etc, didn't mean much towards the result of play, then it's true, they wouldn't matter much in determining whether it's a gamism before or gamism now game. I'll grant that.
Quote
Quite 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).
I think your seeing more choice involved than there is? If I give you three options, one gives you fifty bucks and the other two give you one and two bucks respectively, do you have three options? No, it's an illusion of choice. Combat in D&D and other RPGs usually broke down to one superior choice - and thus there was no choice. You 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.
I'm thinking either you always gameplay where what was the optimal choice was largely uncertain rather than a forgone conclusion, or you only thought you did. That's a hard thing to ponder.
Also, anyone remember progress quest?
contracycle:
I 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.
The 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.
Has the subsequent bloat over the years made the problem worse? I suspect so, especially when I see an example given of a starting character appearing with swords "of sharpness" - and, two of them no less. The response to the problem that the system over-determines character action seems to have been to slather on yet another layer of determination.
The question of skills and stuff is less system specific, and I agree with the general point that if there is a "pit digging" skill in the rules, then by implication anyone without that skill trying to dig a pit would accrue some sort of unskilled penalty - however silly we may feel that is. And therefore, it does tend to have a chilling effect on the kind of things players attempt to do. You 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".
greyorm:
Quote from: Callan S. on May 23, 2009, 11:28:11 PM
Well, 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.
Completely agreed.
But here's my problem with the thread discussion: aren't ability scores and classes already a power boundary? Thus where does it end...at complete freeforming? I know you wouldn't claim that. Yet we can't just say "creating boundaries is bad" or "fewer boundaries are better". How few? What's the litmus test? Etc?
So how can it be a "back in the old days" vs. "in our games today" issue--as per the idea it seems the thread started with--when we're talking about something that has always been because of the fundamental design of the games in question?
Consider: high level gameplay in old D&D, or in similar combat systems, has always been about attrition. I don't think detail-creep has made this either any worse or any better.
That's what I'm trying to figure out.
I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I'm looking for acknowledgment that "you know, this isn't really about the old days versus today", or an argument that supports the original contention of "it is about the old days versus today" that accounts for the above.
Quote
You 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.
Complete 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.
The 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.
It seems: the nature of the stat block changes as the stat block passes a certain power-threshold in relation to the mechanics.
Quote from: contracycle on May 23, 2009, 11:29:52 PM
I 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.
Ok, I'm with you there, and I certainly agree about the last line.
Quote
The 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.
Ok, understood.
Quote
And therefore, it does tend to have a chilling effect on the kind of things players attempt to do.
Well, that is one of the statements I disagree with based on personal observation of play over the years--though dependent on system design--but I do agree with this:
Quote
You 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".
Callan S.:
Quote
Yet we can't just say "creating boundaries is bad"
Well, we can. Specifically we can say players deciding boundaries in advance of play, is bad for facilitating gamism now.
I think there's a bit of a blur here where your talking about putting in boundaries at all, but then using that as a support for the idea of players deciding boundaries. Presetting boundaries as a designer and players choosing boundaries (from a preset list) are quite different. I think obviously designers preset boundaries - but that doesn't say anything about players needing to decide any.
Quote
So how can it be a "back in the old days" vs. "in our games today" issue
I 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)
Quote
Complete 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.
Well, I gave my reasoning for it but you've repeated your position without entering into those reasons.
Quote
The 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.
I 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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page