Working in the Game Mine

GMforPowergamers · Jul 11, 2012

Libramarian said:
Presenting greater knowledge and control over the game experience alongside less knowledge and control over the game, as equal options, doesn't work. That's not a fair choice.

The problem is, how do you then decide witch set of DMs to market too? Ones that want more or less info?

JamesonCourage · Jul 11, 2012

Fifth Element said:
I would say yes, they are. They don't take long to explain, and provide a new DM with a convenient shorthand to use in selecting and using them.

Do you find the roles difficult to understand?

I'm guessing he understands them just fine. I'm also guessing that he thinks it's easy enough to design encounters without them. Call that a wash?

I'm guessing that he thinks they're not as easy as you think they are for new players (thus his post), since, while grasping the concept is easy enough, it still takes time to learn the nuances inherent to playing different types of creatures well. And, that during this learning time, the same GM could learn to run creatures without roles, too.

As far as I go, personally, I'd like to see roles included (on its own line), even though I don't much like the form they take in 4e. Maybe as some sort of template? Skirmishes can get around opportunity attacks easier, for example. I don't want the bonuses (and penalties) in the template to be set in stone, though, so I'd rather there be set options to choose from, but I gather that that'd be too fiddly for too many people. But, this is my preference on things like solos, too ("want a solo? Slap one or two of these things on it: X, Y, Z, A, B, C")

I don't know what they're going to go with, but I didn't much care for what was described in the article. Seems like it's going to satisfy nobody, and including it in the description of the creature somewhere doesn't hurt anything. But, it is incredibly important that the roles are descriptive, not prescriptive, as has been touched on in this thread over and over again. It's the only shot at real compromise. As always, play what you like

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
(. . .) and including it in the description of the creature somewhere doesn't hurt anything.

Except insofar as they need to design the creatures to fit those narrow parameters which, in and of itself, is restrictive.

Libramarian · Jul 12, 2012

LostSoul said:
That's an interesting point of view. I hadn't considered it before.

How do you keep DMs ignorant over time?

I think you can keep many of them ignorant with relatively opaque system math, and by just presenting randomness as the default for everything: random ability scores, random encounters, random treasure. Or you can emphasize in the DM's advice section that their job is NOT necessarily to make sure that everyone enjoys themselves. It's when you say that that's the DM's job (or just not say that it's not, because it's an intuitive assumption) and then offer them optional tools to take increased control over the game experience that calling them optional is kind of a lie.

Maybe there would be statistical analysis of the monsters online, but that's still a useful distance.

1e and Basic presented very random encounters and characters as the default, and then there were little notes of advice saying you don't always have to roll for everything, and take it easy with the random encounters on the way to the dungeon, etc. That to me is more like presenting the two approaches fairly.

Balesir said:
Really? Wow. OK.

Ah, wait - are you saying that you see this as the game system taking control of the game world away from the GM?

Um, yeah in a sense. Going back to the article, it says the game will present choosing encounters based on "story" (this seems to mean a lot of different things to the DDN designers) and choosing encounters with the mechanical encounter construction tools as equal. Meaning they will present the tools as optional.

To me that's kind of a Hobson's choice, because what am I going to TPK the PCs, or even just trap them in some repetitive or otherwise mechanically boring battle if I could have prevented that by using the encounter construction tools? I would be a jerk as a DM.

One of the things I like about 1e is the PCs have a "long tail" of success probability against more powerful opponents. This I think is for two reasons: one, 1e PCs often have some kind of grenade stashed in their back pocket to get them out of dire circumstances, like a potion of gaseous form or a wand of lightning. They rarely use these resources but they can turn to them if they run into an unexpectedly powerful opponent. Two, if the DM has good chemistry with the players when it comes to adjudicating corner cases and improvisational schemes (1e DMs practice this as a matter of course, for ex. deciding how many segments miscellaneous actions take) then they can subtly become more receptive to the players' ideas and easier on them if the going is unexpectedly tough, so that the group can narrate a way together to get the PCs out of the jam.

I like that better as a solution to the accidental TPK problem.

Libramarian · Jul 12, 2012

GMforPowergamers said:
The problem is, how do you then decide witch set of DMs to market too? Ones that want more or less info?

I think you have to push less info. I see a lot of anxiety among D&D DMs over "railroading". The game should strongly present a default mode of play that makes it impossible for the DM to railroad. Wouldn't that be better?

LostSoul · Jul 12, 2012

Libramarian said:
I think you can keep many of them ignorant with relatively opaque system math, and by just presenting randomness as the default for everything: random ability scores, random encounters, random treasure. Or you can emphasize in the DM's advice section that their job is NOT necessarily to make sure that everyone enjoys themselves. It's when you say that that's the DM's job (or just not say that it's not, because it's an intuitive assumption) and then offer them optional tools to take increased control over the game experience that calling them optional is kind of a lie.

That makes sense.

What role does PC growth have to play in this? I wonder if you could add to that ignorance by having PCs who develop through events in play - gaining special abilities, odd magic items (like a Decanter of Endless Water), boons and curses from tricks and traps - instead of through "builds".

Fifth Element · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Except insofar as they need to design the creatures to fit those narrow parameters which, in and of itself, is restrictive.

You snipped out the next sentence, which was: "But, it is incredibly important that the roles are descriptive, not prescriptive, as has been touched on in this thread over and over again."

Describing things is not restrictive. It can, however, occasionally help you realize that the monster you've just designed might not work in play.

Balesir · Jul 12, 2012

Libramarian said:
Um, yeah in a sense. Going back to the article, it says the game will present choosing encounters based on "story" (this seems to mean a lot of different things to the DDN designers) and choosing encounters with the mechanical encounter construction tools as equal. Meaning they will present the tools as optional.

Yes, I get the impression that "story" should be read as "a load of wibbly wobbly stuff that we can't really say what it is, but we're going to stick a label on it because that makes it sound like we have a coherent concept in mind"...

Libramarian said:
To me that's kind of a Hobson's choice, because what am I going to TPK the PCs, or even just trap them in some repetitive or otherwise mechanically boring battle if I could have prevented that by using the encounter construction tools? I would be a jerk as a DM.

Right - that's pretty much why I use the tools for games where the principal player objective is overcoming the monsters, whether by combat or by some other means. I'm picking up that you have some other player aim in mind, but I'm not clear what it is, yet.

Libramarian said:
One of the things I like about 1e is the PCs have a "long tail" of success probability against more powerful opponents. This I think is for two reasons: one, 1e PCs often have some kind of grenade stashed in their back pocket to get them out of dire circumstances, like a potion of gaseous form or a wand of lightning. They rarely use these resources but they can turn to them if they run into an unexpectedly powerful opponent. Two, if the DM has good chemistry with the players when it comes to adjudicating corner cases and improvisational schemes (1e DMs practice this as a matter of course, for ex. deciding how many segments miscellaneous actions take) then they can subtly become more receptive to the players' ideas and easier on them if the going is unexpectedly tough, so that the group can narrate a way together to get the PCs out of the jam.

I like that better as a solution to the accidental TPK problem.

Okay, but what are the players aiming for in all this? Where is their enjoyment coming from? I get so far that they are supposed to be going around, sometimes fighting stuff, and presumably doing other stuff, too - but why? What are the players getting out of the deal? What do they think of themselves as doing?

Mark CMG · Jul 12, 2012

Fifth Element said:
You snipped out the next sentence, which was: "But, it is incredibly important that the roles are descriptive, not prescriptive, as has been touched on in this thread over and over again."

Describing things is not restrictive. It can, however, occasionally help you realize that the monster you've just designed might not work in play.

With inherently restrictive aspects like combat roles it doesn't matter how much ketchup you slather on them. That's why I didn't bothering leaving in any of the qualifiers in the quote.

JamesonCourage · Jul 12, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Except insofar as they need to design the creatures to fit those narrow parameters which, in and of itself, is restrictive.

Not necessarily. It really depends on what those parameters are. If it's merely a tactical approach to combat, it's not really restrictive if they are willing to list more than one role, and the roles don't lock them into anything. As always, play what you like