Challenge the Player, not the Stat Block (D&D)
LandonSuffered:
Hmmm…while I remember seeing the Hobbit animated film probably BEFORE I picked up my 1st D&D set, I had neither read the Lord of the Rings, nor knew its story. But check out how the Hobbit informs game play:
- You have basically a one-off adventure (sure there are a bunch of wilderness encounters along the way, but there’s only one campaign objective)
- More than half the characters die, including at least one of the main ones (i.e. Thorin)
Nothing about the story indicates players have a particular right to survive and see the “story” to completion.
Of course, rolling up characters was pretty quick in the old days, and survivability wasn’t a big deal until a character had some XP under his or her belt…and by the time a character had developed a history and “personality” they generally had more options (e.g. raising the dead) for increasing character survivability. But I digress…I’m pretty much in agreement with the Mr. Meliszewski that old D&D wasn’t designed to play out huge story arcs or metaplots (like the Lord o the Rings or even Dragon Lance…though the latter DID inform play when I was younger). Without a need for metaplot or “epic storytelling” the dungeon environment can be used to challenge the players who, inevitably, will use their favorite characters.
The only time players of my old campaigns worried about story arcs and metaplot was AFTER retiring from standard dungeon delving (i.e. as part of high level, “end game” play). Then there’d be intrigue and machinations between domain holders and rival rulers. Again, this was still a challenge to players rather than characters, though one may accuse our campaigns of suffering from narrative agenda drift.
Caldis:
Quote from: LandonSuffered on May 12, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Hmmm…while I remember seeing the Hobbit animated film probably BEFORE I picked up my 1st D&D set, I had neither read the Lord of the Rings, nor knew its story. But check out how the Hobbit informs game play:
- You have basically a one-off adventure (sure there are a bunch of wilderness encounters along the way, but there’s only one campaign objective)
- More than half the characters die, including at least one of the main ones (i.e. Thorin)
Nothing about the story indicates players have a particular right to survive and see the “story” to completion.
Again different perspective. All the characters survive until the very end where some end up dieing in dramatically appropriate fashion after they do the right thing and come out of the mountain to help battle the goblins. Along the way the main character pc finds a magic item just lieing around that helps him survive and makes his further adventures possible, the characters are rescued by an npc if they screw up (the Trolls) or are in over their heads (the eagles rescuing them from goblins). There's not a lot there to suggest they should pay for their mistakes.
I guess my point is that the "old school" style of play wasnt universal and from what I remember of the books not really indicated as the default style of play. Many people I gamed with and talk to had a different version and it was closer to what 2nd edition D&D drifted towards although what I think I was always looking for was something that supported narrativism in the vein of Tolkien/fantasy adventure rather than the gamism that "old school" style play supported or the simulationism that we managed to drift the D&D system to.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Quick correction: I actually mixed the trad games up there, Labyrinth Lord is an OD&D retro-clone and not a new design, what I meant was Castles & Crusades. Whatever, you get what I mean.
- Frank
Callan S.:
Quote from: LandonSuffered on May 12, 2009, 07:09:09 AM
Quote from: Callan
I think the need to generate material to actually play within plus the practical ramification that dead PCs might mean a significant portion of that material doesn't gets used or seen (and all the heart and effort in it essentially get discarded) was a conflict of interest against gamist play that was set to boil over,
Well, one of the things I’ve realized from Mr. Maszewski’s blog (fairly well researched it seems to me) is the preponderance of the “mega-dungeon” as the central campaign piece to these earlier gaming groups…a dungeon (like “Blackmoor” or “Castle Greyhawk”) that could never be completely cleaned out and which would be constantly revisited by the player characters during the course of the campaign.
Actually, reminds me a bit of the background for Dragon Fire Castle if anyone’s familiar with the old Dungeon Quest board game.
Anyway, I can certainly say that when I created “dungeon adventures” back in the day, I put my coolest encounters/traps at “bottle neck” points which makes certain characters will encounter them if they are going to “complete” or “beat” the objective of the dungeon. I believe this is inherent in old school game design…some encounters are neat may be circumvented, some cannot. I recall specifically the Hidden Shrine of Tamochan…there is a vampire encounter (probably the strongest monster in the dungeon) that plays no central part to the adventure objective (i.e. “finding a way out before poison gas kills you”) and which can be completely bypassed without any repercussions in the game. On the other hand, some of the cooler traps/puzzles (the animated “ball game” the imprisoned quetzacoatl) require the players (note: PLAYERS, not characters) to solve them in order to progress…they cannot be avoided in game play.
The root problem isn't so much funneling play toward content once play is underway. The problem is the group gets killed in the first corridor/misses alot of material and doesn't play again. Or they decline to play at all. These are valid gamist outcomes. But they clash with having prepped all that material - without play, it's like a canvas half painted and uncompleted. Atleast if you write short fiction but no one reads it, you can say you did finish writing some short fiction. With the dungeon material, you can't say to yourself you've completed anything - it sort of sits in limbo. Add on top of it the heart and effort often use and it's a major clash with gamist priorities. Bottlenecks and forced challenges work to show material only if someone is playing at all.
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.
LandonSuffered:
Callan:
Ahh...I see your point.
Yes, I guess for the thing to work, you have to have players willing to play the game, and the challenge presented has to be commensurate to the players' ability (note: PLAYERs' ability, not characters). Certainly, I can recall players that would horribly fail/die no matter how many what cool magic items they or exaggerated ability scores they possessed...for the most part, though, the challenge was just about right, perhaps because my friends and I were all within about the same age, from the same socio-economic background, and educated in the same type of schools...we had a certain pool of (real world) experience to draw upon, so it was a fairly even playing field with regard to player ability.
Still, while you'd need to gage the abilities of your players (perhaps with a warm-up adventure or two), and gradually scale up your challenges (certainly many of the old adventure modules with connecting threads did this).
But if your players are just going to throw up their hands and leave, or if they are looking for a different style of gameplay, well then "old school" D&D is NOT necessarily the right game for them.
Still, I really do think it's a worthwhile notion to keep in mind with regard to game design...do you want your game to challenge the player or the character? Does your system appear to (inherently) skew towards one or the other? Or to put it another way: do you need to do a lot of EXTRA work to facilitate one form of play? With the original D&D game, I think that the same amount of work gets used whether you're challenging the player OR the character (whether you're stocking an adventure with a devious trap or a devious monster makes no nevermind). On the other hand, I think it is much harder to craft a D&D3 adventure that challenges players and not just their character stats...and you have to really work hard if you want to find non-rule breaking ways to pull off certain effects.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page