[D&D 4e] Combat and Reward Systems
Natespank:
Quote
This sounds like he's complaining about the very principle of gamist conflict and the hurt of losing?
At the moment, he's rewarded with XP almost only through fighting. Most of his loot comes indirectly from a fight, but I changed that- but still, at the moment, he levels up by fighting, and leveling up is part of the goal in D&D.
However, fighting weakens you and causes seemingly unnecessary pauses in gameplay- a week or two in town to recover. Returning to town and reengaging over and over seems like a pointless complexity without time-limited quests.
Given time-related quests, it still seems like a pointless and angry complexity, because entering combat is both the source of XP, yet also the source of game failure due to attrition- you fail your quests because you want to grow stronger. That's not a very good conflict- it's a really annoying choice to have to make. It might be an okay choice, but I don't want to reward combat too much- I want a game where combat is the means to other ends, like quest completion or exploration or treasure hunting. That's why I want to use "XP bombs"- that way, fights are nothing but obstacles or means to an end, and the game revolves not around fighting but around achieving goals.
Quote
With #1, didn't you say they can choose between a D20 and 3D6? Personally your desire for a bell curve and to 'correctly model skill' smacks of heading toward simulationism, to me? Just wondering how far you'll take it?
Yeah. Not just simulationism though- it helps cut back on weird moments where a level 1 character can backhand a dragon out of the air 5% of the time. Helps with game balance.
Quote
But it seems like if he can't win D&D at character creation, like he did with the ranger before, he's not really interested in engaging conflict and hurt?
Less interested. To be fair, the bulk of a player's success in 4e depends on character creation. Further, the greatest bulk of ruled, interesting choices are also in the character creation component. More of the PHB is dedicated to char creation than to anything else. The game provides for players who want to succeed by min-maxing.
I just don't like that sort of game. I want in-game skill to replace out-of-game skill. I think he recognizes that the out-of-game options available to him are "richer" by default.
To play based on in-game skill rather than char builds is to play an entirely different game than before. That works for me because the other way I dislike.
On another note, since they're so lazy and refuse to DM, yet like D&D so much, I sort of get free reign to change the game as I need to in order to enjoy it myself. The main limiting factor is what the players will accept. I've asked them to DM- if they want to have a certain kind of game they'll have to negotiate with me, or run it themselves.
Sounds iron-handed, and it is, but I also consider the game a failure if nobody enjoys themselves so I'll aim for a really fun game nonetheless.
Callan S.:
Quote
Given time-related quests, it still seems like a pointless and angry complexity, because entering combat is both the source of XP, yet also the source of game failure due to attrition- you fail your quests because you want to grow stronger. That's not a very good conflict- it's a really annoying choice to have to make.
I don't understand? They don't fail because they 'want to grow stronger'. They fail because either their in the moment skill wasn't sufficient, or the gods of fate were against them in the gamble elements of play.
Well look, if I were a player in your game, all I see is that your taking the difficulty meter and sliding it upwards. If I can't handle that, I wont complain, I just wouldn't play - not because the game is bad, but because I'm not tough enough to handle it. But since I think I can take it, I'd play! >:) Which sort of player do you want - one that acts like me, or acts like them, when the difficulty slider is pushed up?
Quote
Not just simulationism though- it helps cut back on weird moments where a level 1 character can backhand a dragon out of the air 5% of the time. Helps with game balance.
No, that's the entirety of simulationism (well, the seeds of it). Change to mechanics purely for avoiding damanging the dream/the package.
Quote
Sounds iron-handed, and it is, but I also consider the game a failure if nobody enjoys themselves so I'll aim for a really fun game nonetheless.
To be honest, you don't sound iron-handed enough.
Look at your goal post that you've set yourself here - that the game is a failure if nobody enjoys themselves.
Okay, guess what - the players know how to shift the goal posts. They know how to be sad to try and get what they want, sending you in the direction they want simply by pushing the goal post that way. The fact is, this isn't 'bad players'. This is standard human behaviour, to game ambiguity and socially manipulate. humans always do this sort of stuff. By default, anyway.
I don't think you can win this. They will act sad every time you change play to in game tactical skill - you will then see them not enjoying themselves and try and change something, but it'll go against what you find fun (that in game tactical skill).
While I think these guys could play chess with you alright, it takes a certain sympathy with the other person to think 'okay, they want X and I don't really want that, but I'll compromise toward it a bit'. I don't think these guys have any such sympathy. That's not the mark of a bad person, BTW, it actually just means such sympathy, where it's found, is to be treasured instead of treated as ones due.
Anyway, I think they can and will keep shifting the goal posts on you. You can't conquer this with the goal post you've set yourself. Though it probably sounds like a gamist come on to say you can't, so it might just prompt you to try harder.
Natespank:
I'm beginning to realize how "incoherent" my game is in GNS terms and I'm noticing the arising problems.
For one, there's a conflict between powergaming and playing well, not so much between me and the players as between the players themselves. The things they say about each other...
Could somebody recommend a coherent simulationist RPG similar to D&D and a coherent gamist RPG similar to D&D?
The only alternative I can think of besides splitting the game into two or redefining the game is to make the players roleplay power game characters- ex, roleplay a character who is essentially a power gamer.
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Nate,
Some good gamist games to look at:
Agon - Agon does a neat trick of putting players against each other in play, even as they're cooperating to beat the monsters. Like 4E, it's pretty easy to put together fiction-first actions, though players will often try to angle for their best skills often. The trick around this is smart use fo Vows between players to get opponent's to help you on your weaknesses.
Beast Hunters- Beast Hunters is very much in the model of "old school" D&D, except it explicitly tells you the process of play is to come up with actions/plans and the first step is the GM applies common sense to say, "Oh, I guess that just works!" or ask you to go to dice.
Rune- Rune has players take turns GMing. They actually earn xp while GMing, based on this criteria- you get the MOST points by almost killing the PCs, but you get the LEAST points by actually killing them. So it becomes a thing about trying to balance the encounters to be as close to deadly without actually making it so.
Mostly, though, the thing is, 4E is pretty coherent on it's own. The question is whether your group can come to a common place to play.
Chris
Natespank:
Quote
4E is pretty coherent on it's own.
Every rule is gamist and oriented towards combat or skill challenges. However, over half the books are about flavor and setting information. There's extensive information about role playing and staying in character. New versions of the monster manuals (monster vault) imply a lot of setting information, and there's a lot of new information about monsters' personalities. It's a gamist system portraying itself as a roleplaying system- ie, simulationist (unless my terminology is mixed up). That created some playing conflict within the group.
For example, one player made a character strictly who would be interesting to roleplay. 1 purely powergamed a character, and the other compromised and is sort of roleplaying a powergamer. They complain about each other all the time- the other's aren't "playing right."
Sounds incoherent to me. I'll need to blatantly reframe the entire game to deal with it- we're not playing an RPG, we're playing a game with win conditions, etc- or, we're not playing a game, we're role playing (sim).
Know what I mean?
Of the games you mentioned, which are the coherent sim, which are the coherent gamism ones? I'll check em out sometime.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page