Li Shenron
Legend
In what areas of the game, and under what rules edition/system, have you found that your decisions as a player really matter, and where do they not matter enough?
I am not trying here to discuss how much players should affect the story versus railroading, but rather to discuss how much players can affect the outcome of a challenge with their own decisions, as opposed to rolling dice. I think this depends on both DM's style of running a game, and the rules system being used.
I'll divide my own observations into the 3 traditional pillars of the game...
Pillar #3: Combat
To make an example, I absolutely dislike solo combat in World of Warcraft. I have played WoW once in a while, but since I only have the free version, I can only play up to level 20, so forgive me if I am unaware that it gets much better later! Anyway, I find that combat in WoW is incredibly flat. All I have to do is a minimal effort at figuring out what is the most efficient sequence of my special abilities for killing a monster as fast as possible, then I can just go into any combat using always the safest possible tactic, i.e. pick one monster at a time, heal yourself, repeat. I never have to make any choices, except occasionally running away (typically when you didn't notice that more monsters were nearby). Different characters employ difference sequences, but the same character has one best and better stick at that. Monsters are practically all the same.
Instead, combat in D&D is very rewarding IMO, because even if you have a preferred combo of spells, there is always (a) a monster which is immune to your best weapon or more vulnerable to something else, (b) a different combination of enemies (solo, small group of equals, boss + minions etc), (c) terrain/weather features that esp. influence movement or can be exploited by the combatants, (d) spells and powers that do something different than damage. Add the fact that you are not alone, and so what your allies choose to do has ripercussions on your own tactics, and I definitely get the feeling that my decisions in combat matter a lot in D&D!
Pillar #2: Exploration
Here things get a little muddy, but only slightly...
In general, exploration gives plenty of opportunities for decisions. It's your fault if you choose to enter the room full of giant spider webs without precautions or pull the level with the "pull me!" sign on it.
OTOH, when you get to the action resolution, it's up to the dice. Sometimes you check for traps in the right place but fail. This is more or less the same as choosing the right action in combat but failing the attack roll or missing with your spell, but the big difference is that combat is a a sequence of decisions, so that it still leaves a better feeling of being in charge of your own destiny compared to searching for traps, jumping over a chasm or unlocking a door mechanism.
Maybe it would help the feeling, if we see the whole exploration of a dungeon as equal to a combat. Maybe it's just my fault of seeing each challenge individually... in any case I sometimes feel like I'm not really "in charge" of the outcome.
Pillar #1: Interaction
Here is where the problem manifests fully...
There are gaming groups which utterly hate having rules for interaction, and perhaps the most common reason may be that they feel rolling dice tend to "neutralize" their decisions. When the rule is blunt such as just rolling a Cha check to see if you bluff the guard, you can't really argue with that. 3e only suggested circumstance bonuses if you had a good idea, 5e may suggest advantage, but it doesn't really change the thing much, only the probabilities.
Some forumists have suggested in the past, that we might need to try seeing all 3 pillars in the same way we see combat i.e. as a sequence of "rounds", each of which calls for a decision that matters, but how to design such thing properly?
In a way, the Exploration rules in the playtest are doing something like that, with a rule for splitting time in rounds and each PC gets to choose an action. It however treats those large rounds as a blunt approximation, so I am not sure how well it works (haven't tried those rules in practice).
Would it be better to go the other route, i.e. taking what is traditionally a single exploration/interaction challenge and break it up into smaller parts?
4e skill challenged did the breaking into multiple checks but IIRC the checks are quite the same... can you make decisions or change something between steps of the skill challenge? Or is quitting the only option?
Furthermore, this approach has a special problem: in combat, everybody is pretty much playing, but in a skill challenge you are most of the time alone, thus stretching the spotlight here might help you get the feeling you're in charge of the outcome, but might bore the idle players.
What do you think?
I am not trying here to discuss how much players should affect the story versus railroading, but rather to discuss how much players can affect the outcome of a challenge with their own decisions, as opposed to rolling dice. I think this depends on both DM's style of running a game, and the rules system being used.
I'll divide my own observations into the 3 traditional pillars of the game...
Pillar #3: Combat
To make an example, I absolutely dislike solo combat in World of Warcraft. I have played WoW once in a while, but since I only have the free version, I can only play up to level 20, so forgive me if I am unaware that it gets much better later! Anyway, I find that combat in WoW is incredibly flat. All I have to do is a minimal effort at figuring out what is the most efficient sequence of my special abilities for killing a monster as fast as possible, then I can just go into any combat using always the safest possible tactic, i.e. pick one monster at a time, heal yourself, repeat. I never have to make any choices, except occasionally running away (typically when you didn't notice that more monsters were nearby). Different characters employ difference sequences, but the same character has one best and better stick at that. Monsters are practically all the same.
Instead, combat in D&D is very rewarding IMO, because even if you have a preferred combo of spells, there is always (a) a monster which is immune to your best weapon or more vulnerable to something else, (b) a different combination of enemies (solo, small group of equals, boss + minions etc), (c) terrain/weather features that esp. influence movement or can be exploited by the combatants, (d) spells and powers that do something different than damage. Add the fact that you are not alone, and so what your allies choose to do has ripercussions on your own tactics, and I definitely get the feeling that my decisions in combat matter a lot in D&D!
Pillar #2: Exploration
Here things get a little muddy, but only slightly...
In general, exploration gives plenty of opportunities for decisions. It's your fault if you choose to enter the room full of giant spider webs without precautions or pull the level with the "pull me!" sign on it.
OTOH, when you get to the action resolution, it's up to the dice. Sometimes you check for traps in the right place but fail. This is more or less the same as choosing the right action in combat but failing the attack roll or missing with your spell, but the big difference is that combat is a a sequence of decisions, so that it still leaves a better feeling of being in charge of your own destiny compared to searching for traps, jumping over a chasm or unlocking a door mechanism.
Maybe it would help the feeling, if we see the whole exploration of a dungeon as equal to a combat. Maybe it's just my fault of seeing each challenge individually... in any case I sometimes feel like I'm not really "in charge" of the outcome.
Pillar #1: Interaction
Here is where the problem manifests fully...
There are gaming groups which utterly hate having rules for interaction, and perhaps the most common reason may be that they feel rolling dice tend to "neutralize" their decisions. When the rule is blunt such as just rolling a Cha check to see if you bluff the guard, you can't really argue with that. 3e only suggested circumstance bonuses if you had a good idea, 5e may suggest advantage, but it doesn't really change the thing much, only the probabilities.
Some forumists have suggested in the past, that we might need to try seeing all 3 pillars in the same way we see combat i.e. as a sequence of "rounds", each of which calls for a decision that matters, but how to design such thing properly?
In a way, the Exploration rules in the playtest are doing something like that, with a rule for splitting time in rounds and each PC gets to choose an action. It however treats those large rounds as a blunt approximation, so I am not sure how well it works (haven't tried those rules in practice).
Would it be better to go the other route, i.e. taking what is traditionally a single exploration/interaction challenge and break it up into smaller parts?
4e skill challenged did the breaking into multiple checks but IIRC the checks are quite the same... can you make decisions or change something between steps of the skill challenge? Or is quitting the only option?
Furthermore, this approach has a special problem: in combat, everybody is pretty much playing, but in a skill challenge you are most of the time alone, thus stretching the spotlight here might help you get the feeling you're in charge of the outcome, but might bore the idle players.
What do you think?
Last edited:
You made a decision at character creation to have a certain CHA modifier or a certain WIS modifier or to train or not train certain skills, and that decision is the decision that comes into play when you roll to see if you convince the NPC.
