Dragon Age RPG: musings on a once-off.
Eero Tuovinen:
Don't take Callan too seriously, Devon - he sort of has an axe to grind about the whole issue of GM power and the use of it. No need to go into that particular discussion if it's not important to you.
Regarding your Dragon Age experience, the game certainly sounds pretty traditional. It occurs to me that one of the features of such a traditional, GM-heavy toolbox game is that GMing technique really, really matters; the very same game will be all over the place, all depending on how it's being run. This is an useful point to keep in mind so as to not unnecessarily ascribe too much of the experience on the specific game in question. For instance, Dragon Age from everything I've heard of it seems like a very normal and straighforward traditional design, so it's no big surprise if it produces good or ill play just like any other game in the same mold. No surprise there.
I also wanted to say something about the dice-rolling combat you criticize: it's true that traditional D&D-style combat doesn't really give you any combat options in the game mechanics, Dragon Age doesn't seem any different from pre-3rd edition D&D in that regard. However, this lack of options doesn't mean that the combat is pointless. There are at least two core values that make this type of combat system work very well for me personally:As Callan already said, you can get a lot of mileage out of the simple randomness of the system, as it allows you to trust in fate and then ascribe fictional color to the outcomes. It's true that there are not many choices involved in rolling to hit, but then you might say that the same is true of roulette. Think of the game as a roulette with fictional stakes instead of a really bad tactical game, and it makes much more sense. Enjoy it when you roll well and get to describe how your character kills the orc in a most gory manner.Aside from the gambling aspect, there is actually much more tactical play happening in your average D&D implementation than is evident from reading a systematized account of the game's combat procedure. This is because the strong GM will play the system somewhat fast and loose in between the rounds of combat, allowing player characters to maneuver, pushing mini-challenges at them and then feeding this fictional content back into the mechanics for the next round of play. For example, if one party of combatants manages to split another so that they only have to face one half of the opposition while the other half dwiddles their thumbs, this fictional achievement (achieved by smart choices regarding character positioning and timing of action in the fiction) has a very direct mathematical effect on the battle's outcome. This sort of thing is very much part of the system even if it's not as mechanical as the grinding logic of initiative, attack roll, damage.I personally find the penchant for ignoring the latter of those two points in modern D&D discussion very interesting. I sort of have a vague and unverbalized understanding of how it's come about, but perhaps I'll only scratch the surface of the issue for now. A simple claim might be that the inability of early game-text writers to honestly and clearly express the non-mechanical ways the game fiction impacts on the game mechanics has left us with a textual tradition where everybody is very careful to look at the to-hit numbers while completely ignoring the equally real ways purely fictional matters influence rpg combat. Hmm... in fact, I'd probably posit that there is a sort of mechanization cycle evident in the history of D&D, as mechanized character resources have taken an ever larger role in determining victory over loss; a +1 magic sword and 18 points in Strength are always on and always relevant, and represent no tactical drawbacks at all, so the introduction of those sorts of mechanics is so massively empowering of player characters that it's not much wonder if they cause players over time to ignore the much fuzzier fictional elements of combat.
Alfryd:
Quote from: Callan S. on February 13, 2011, 05:46:13 PM
Oh, another idea to add a failure sting is like the idea above, but at round number X, the monsters sneak away a significant part of the treasure. That way you don't have the TPK problem from above, as the sting is simply missing out on phat loot/cash-o-la! Nooooo!
That sounds like a very cool idea. I actually commented that it seemed strange the monsters were all, apparently, suicidal, but, eh- that's the ravening slaves of darkness for ya. I'm not certain about the berserker-countdown idea, but the simulationist in me does like the idea of falling into murderous despair as your comrades abandon you- maybe as the 'morale metre', or whatever, goes down, you'd roll for berserking/fleeing responses by the monsters?
I'd have to say I'm still skeptical of the idea that pure randomness can be made exciting from a gamist perspective. As I understand it, gamism is, to a large degree, about personal pride in tactical and strategic problem-solving, with emphasis on the 'personal'. Which is to say, your intervention, your capacity for strategic acumen and risk-assessment, is what matters most. So, giving players options is essential to give them an outlet for that kind of goal-oriented pros-and-cons analysis.
I get the general impression that players do not like 'big events' to hinge on a handful of dice rolls, and the outcome of life-or-death combat tends to be a fairly 'big event'. Unfortunately, if you instead make it the outcome of many rolls, then: Law of Averages + Hit Points == fairly predictable fight duration and outcome, and you're back at square one.
To my mind, randomness here serves mainly as a kind of 'spice' to prevent things from getting too deterministic, so that battles can't be won solely through advance planning. (Of course, simple lack of information or the inherent unpredictability of human decisions can play the same role.)
I think we'd have to establish whether we're assuming the presence or absence of resurrection mechanics, before we can analyse this much further.
Quote
Anyway, did it seem like by and large you were going to win and it was just a matter of how much HP you'd lose? Which no doubt would be healed by a sleep at the inn or some friendly cleric anyway, so in win/lose terms, meaningless?
Bingo. Yes. Absolutely.
I should remark, however, that the GM said he intended the final 'boss fight' would have killed off one or two PCs, but we ran out and he just narrated the outcome. (Quite well, in fact. It was more exciting than the actual combat.)
Quote
Hooo boy! Because the dice are just deployed to fabricate a sense of tension based on the idea events are uncertain, when really the GM is utterly, utterly deciding them (and probably terrorfied of being a bad GM if he doesn't!). But c'mon, you knew that, right? Even as your seeing straight through the illusion?
Yeah, I kinda guessed, though in this case it wasn't really an illusion- the GM admitted pretty openly that the scenario was fairly linear right from the start, and I'd been asking for open declaration of difficulty numbers, so in a sense, it was my fault. :) Otherwise, he might have been able to just fudge the rolls to hide the fact of failure.
That said, interestingly, the same guy who made all those perception checks agreed afterwards that he agreed with having things above-board, so to speak.
Quote
Well this all hinges on what sort of thing the GM is hanging out for. Imagine you said what you said, the GM nods and then a few corridors latter the GM goes "Ha, you didn't look around and a XXX wacks you!". Under the usual traditional RPG rules, that's valid GM stuff. Taking it as valid, well then the 'defensive' player would actually have been, gamism wise, right and you, gamism wise, wrong in your approach.
On the other hand, trying to second guess the GM every few minutes gets pretty tiresome.
Yeah, that's pretty much my point. I mean, is a GM going to make the operating assumption that PCs are going about blindfolded with earplugs in unless otherwise noted? ...That's pretty retarded.
Quote from: Devon Oratz on February 14, 2011, 11:52:24 AM
As a GM, I decide events by fiat really, really, really sparingly. At the very least, if I do fudge at this point none of my players are going to expect it, because numerous times I've let PCs die anticlimactic, story breaking deaths because the dice say so...
As a matter of fact, I deeply, deeply struggle with going against "what the dice say" sometimes as much as I hate how it impacts the story. I suppose you could call that hardline simulationism.
Speaking personally, I don't have an inherent problem with the GM (or players in general) having the right to distort probability (i.e, fudge outcomes,) as long as it's done in a rationed, above-board fashion. e.g, you can only do it so many times per session, or under such-and-such highly specific circumstances, or have to do X and Y or Z in order to earn 'fudge points'. It's the Sword-of-Damocles effect of knowing that the GM could overturn otherwise binding results at any time, for any reason, that really tends to have a big effect on player engagement, as Callan has pointed out.
Quote
...I try to adjust the story to roll with it though, and it usually leads to some very interesting twists and turns that are much more unpredictable than your standard Hollywood plotline, rather than just flat anticlimax and dissapointment.
Speaking personally, I think I would have fucked your party without hesitation if you had REPEATEDLY failed stealth tests. It's certainly what I've done to my own players, time and time again. Of course, I generally run games where there is almost ALWAYS some resource the PCs can expend to survive such slip-ups.
That's actually very interesting, because that's the exact same general policy that Mouse Guard, for example, formalises as an explicit rule: in case of mechanical failure, either let players succeed, but inflict some kind of deleterious condition or cost on them, or come up with some alternate route for the story to take (i.e, a twist.) And Mouse Guard is very much a narrativist game, by all accounts.
Alfryd:
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on February 15, 2011, 12:02:33 PM
I also wanted to say something about the dice-rolling combat you criticize: it's true that traditional D&D-style combat doesn't really give you any combat options in the game mechanics, Dragon Age doesn't seem any different from pre-3rd edition D&D in that regard. However, this lack of options doesn't mean that the combat is pointless. There are at least two core values that make this type of combat system work very well for me personally...
Well sure, describing how a given interaction plays out in terms of nicks and cuts and gouges and scratches can certainly help to add colour- but I mean, it's not like DitV, where the descriptions are absolutely integral to bringing in new traits and belongings- here, I know it's mechanically irrelevant. More to the point, I have great difficulty swallowing the 'death by a thousand cuts' descriptions inherent in a HP-based system.
Of course, you can make much the same critique of a game like Mouse Guard, but it at least involves less housework and more imagination, since the interpretations are both more open and more important (particularly in social conflicts.)
Speaking personally, I don't get any thrill out of roulette. In any context. That might just be me, though.
As you point out, battlefield positioning was at least potentially interesting, though I felt the lack of miniatures made it awkward to keep track of interactions.
So, is it just a case of- 'nothing to see here, move along?'
Callan S.:
Hi Alfryd,
Quote
As I understand it, gamism is, to a large degree, about personal pride in tactical and strategic problem-solving
Well, that's the myth. Gamism is about WINNING. If I can beat you by just pressing a single button, am I going to go and instead form some elaborate, multi turn strategy to beat you instead? Only if I was trying to simulate gamism. No, I'm gunna press the button, because gamism is about winning! Your right on the personal part, as in it's you winning and me losing, for example. It really comes down to people and that positioning. Although some people actually use such things to determine thier and others real life pecking order, which just gets stupid and basically unfun.
Lately I've been thinking along the lines of how rolling multiple times for a win that you could have just rolled once for, is pretty pointless. So I was thinking of a mechanic where you can roll once, but you have slightly lower odds of winning than if you roll multiple times, ie, play out the battle. And you choose which you do - single roll or multiple rolls. I think it can be fun to play out a multi roll battle, particularly imagery wise/fiction wise. But there's the option to see if you win or lose that battle in a single roll (with it having slightly reduced odds to make this a choice rather than a default position).
Devon, if it really is a social faux pas to point out a possible mistake in someone elses estimation, I predict a dire future. I can only think that you believe I'm aiming some moral accusation at you and that's what you don't like. I'm not, I'm describing the mechanical process involved (as I estimate, which itself could be wrong, in practical terms (rather than in some social terms)).
Eero, likewise when people don't judge what was said but instead who said it, I predict a dire future.
Eero Tuovinen:
I'm sorry about what I said, Callan. My intent was to point out that there is an ongoing discussion behind your angle of approach on the whole matter of traditional GMing technique, not that your contribution itself is somehow false. Take it as a comment on Devon's perception that he needs to engage your opinion aggressively more than as a comment on you, particularly. It seemed to me at the time that Devon's taking your strong turns of phrase too seriously because he's feeling that you're attacking him instead of just re-elaborating your view on GM fiat.
As for gamism vs. luck, what Callan said - it's not a given that everybody would or should enjoy the hand of fate as a primary director of play, but there definitely are many very functional gamism-supporting roleplaying games that are dominantly fortune-based. The uncertainty before the moment of truth and the opportunity to embellish the results in the fiction are fun, and so is the decision to dare that the player gets to make when he announces that his character is going to do something, anything, that might cause the GM to call for a saving roll. The paralyzed hesitation of players who know that the wrong move will likely be a cause of death, and the brave risk-taking when somebody dares to grab the dice, all of that is very playable and very common in a certain sort of game. (I'm couching this in D&D terms because old-school D&D is just this sort of game in many ways.)
But, as has already been said, not all things are for everybody, and this sort of traditional game set-up depends hugely on group and GM skills anyway, so it's no surprise if people have different reactions to it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page