Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[Zak S]

I don't see too many chess players getting emotional about "Check".

Then we play with real different people.

In most RPG's, your character dies and you make a new one.

Yesm and in any game you lose and play again.

But you'd much rather not lose.

In a "pure game" model, there is no reason for those pawns to become characters (rounded or not, well or otherwise) and plenty of reasons not to. Anything constraining the ability to choose the most taxctically effective approach is to be avoided.

A game CONSISTS OF things that limit your tactical choices.

If you're playing soccer you can't use your hands unless you're a goalie but then you need to hang out back field.

If you're playing D&D you can't always Detect Evil unless you're a paladin but then you need to act lawful.

You can nitpick these specific examples but:

your character's personality and style is one example of a challenge your tactical expertise must overcome.

"Real" is the word I want. As in "behaves like a real person, not a pawn on a game board or a cypher".

Lots of real people behave tactically in tactical situations but still have personalities and lives. So this makes no sense.

 

[Maxperson]

your character's personality and style is one example of a challenge your tactical expertise must overcome.

There is no "must" there. I have played characters with no tactical expertise at all. It's rather enjoyable just doing whatever seems fun whether it's the most tactically sound move or not.

 

[pemerton]

There is no "must" there. I have played characters with no tactical expertise at all. It's rather enjoyable just doing whatever seems fun whether it's the most tactically sound move or not.

Obviously I can't speak for [MENTION=90370]Zak S[/MENTION], but I took him to be referring to your tactical expertise (the actual expertise of you, the player), not the (imagined) tactical expertise of your PC.

 

[pemerton]

Stocking a dungeon according to a game design pattern is a time honored tradition of D&D. What are you talking about?

Stocking a dungeon by random roll is a time honour tradition. So is the GM making up rooms, creatures, tricks and traps, etc, non-randomly.

What I claimed is that the number of D&D players who have reasoned backwards, from encounters to the GM's random stocking table, is approximately zero. The GM's random table is not something that most D&D players are trying to work out.

It occurs to me you think anything and everything anyone actually does can be part of playing D&D.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is a reading of your sentence that is true; here it is: Anything and everything a human being can do in the real world is a permissible action declaration by a D&D player. In addition, anything and everything that a human being might do in an imaginary magical world is at least a candidate to be a permissible action declaration by a D&D player.

I also assert: as a matter of actual history, and the practice of D&D game design, the action declarations typically preceded the writing of rules to handle them. The design of D&D's rules was ad hoc and reactive, triggered by actual players at actual tables making action declarations for their PCs.

Marriage is a contract by my understanding, something well established in the history of game design already, but regardless define what marriage is in game terms and assign it to hobgoblins. Put it on an appropriate table for random rolling too. If creatures don't have marriage rites, they don't have them.

Game pieces are in large part defined by their behaviors. Plot all of those on the Alignment Chart according to design per alignment type. Is it lawful, neutral, or chaotic? This has nothing to do with "really existing human beings". This is a game. You only ever need to cover its design. Once you know all the behaviors in the game assign them to pieces with an alignment score. For all non-PC pieces this will cover their behavior. It can be further refined by other stats like intelligence, wisdom, charisma, strength, constitution, dexterity, % in lair, morale, loyalty, and so on. All of these define, limit, what these elements can do.

Ability Scores aren't attributes

I think this is probably the most fundamental point at issue.

I think that adjudicating D&D has always had everything to do with "really existing human beings". And that ability scores have almost always been treated as attributes

For instance, when Gygax says (in his DMG, p 104) that a GM, when playing monsters, should "[c]onsider also cunning and instinct", Gygax is not reminding the GM to have regard to particular game mechanics. The GM is expected to use knowledge of the real world - how, in the real world, people and creatures of varying intelligence and ingenuity respond to various sorts of situations.

 

[Maxperson]

Obviously I can't speak for [MENTION=90370]Zak S[/MENTION], but I took him to be referring to your tactical expertise (the actual expertise of you, the player), not the (imagined) tactical expertise of your PC.

I don't see the difference. If my character is not good tactically, then it would be extraordinarily bad roleplay to be at my best with tactics and overcome his deficiencies. Therefore, I am also going to intentionally be not that good tactically. The imagined expertise of my PC is critical to how I will behave tactically. I will never overcome the PC's tactical limitations, because I'm not supposed to.

 

[N'raac]

Then we play with real different people.

If you find people who are emotionally impacted by the "danger" the King is in because they are placing themselves in the shoes of the King, I suppose so. Now, if you also then decide your King panics and makes a less than optimal move as a consequence (rather than YOU panicking about the prospect of losing the game and moving the king in a less than optimal manner), then we're getting into a role playing game. But chess is not designed as an RPG.

Yesm and in any game you lose and play again.

In most games as in "classic board games", when the player loses, he is out of the game until a new game begins. D&D does not have to end for me to play again - the game continues and I rejoin it.

But you'd much rather not lose.

Actually, a heroic death in D&D (or a very much in character and meaningful death) can be a marvelous capstone to a character's career. Insipidly creeping along making "the best tactical choice in each situation" is infinitely worse. In chess, there is no such thing as a "heroic death", though, as there is no personality to the playing pieces, and no sentimental attachment to them.

your character's personality and style is one example of a challenge your tactical expertise must overcome.

Playing within the character's personality and style is a challenge I embrace. If that means his tactics are not as sound (or at least not the same) as my own, so be it. I've enjoyed playing numerous characters, with numerous flaws, and seen many others enjoy the game, and create memorable gaming moments, in similar fashion. Some that come to mind:

- the character designed specifically to believe, and expound on, old wives' tales. On his first outing, he charged an Umber Hulk. "How, exactly, are you facing it?" "Why, looking it straight in those four eyes (as best I can with my two), just as any TRUE warrior would - so it can see I have no fear of it!" I knew exactly what Umber Hulks do. I fully expected to be denied a save (my dice, however, were also role playing well and threw a '1').

- "While the rest of you search the rest of the room, I will search the featherbed - start by checking it carefully for lumps with my back!" [There turned out to be a ghoul on the overhead canopy - but my character was a lazy smartalec, so what are you gonna do?

- I've had more than one character for whom I've tracked initial and ongoing reactions to party members, and who then unconsciously make choices in combat on that basis (sure, I know the warrior doesn't need my help as much as the thief/wizard, but the thief/wizard ticks my character off and the warrior does not) - I recall a specific encounter when one character moved from "a danger to himself and others - we should kick him to the curb" to "you have a problem with him, you have a problem with me" - because that character made a pretty lousy tactical choice, but one that showed he had guts and heart.

- the character is "impetuous, impulsive and impatient", so I roll willpower-type rolls (this wasn't a D&D game) if he tries to hold an action, or to avoid taking the first action that comes to mind, even if a moment's thought shows it to be sub-optimal.

- the Overconfident character (not mine - I was running the game) in a Superhero game who challenged an opponent with a rep to "One on one combat - if you're brave enough". The opponent, in game world, would never refuse such a challenge - but was also known to be more than powerful enough to challenge the whole team. [The player insisted on making a willpower-type check to convince himself to dodge, at one point, so he could stay in the fight]. Actually, I recall the same player being asked his DCV (equates to how hard he is to hit). He specified a low figure, and someone else called him on it. "Well, it's really twice that - but this nobody (a completely unknown opponent to player and character) can't be a threat to ME!" Those date back well over a decade, maybe two, and are still cited in our games.

I could keep citing recollections for pages. Those are CHARACTERS, not playing pawns. "I never make a tactical error" characters may sometimes be appropriate, but they're not all that fun. Can you name, say, three from fictional source material?

There is no "must" there. I have played characters with no tactical expertise at all. It's rather enjoyable just doing whatever seems fun whether it's the most tactically sound move or not.

BINGO

I don't see the difference. If my character is not good tactically, then it would be extraordinarily bad roleplay to be at my best with tactics and overcome his deficiencies. Therefore, I am also going to intentionally be not that good tactically. The imagined expertise of my PC is critical to how I will behave tactically. I will never overcome the PC's tactical limitations, because I'm not supposed to.

This is a classic dichotomy between ROLE PLAYING and "Roll Playing". The roll player will minimize his character's drawbacks. The Role Player embraces them. Out of character activity because it's tactically sound is the epitome of horrible role playing.

 

[howandwhy99]

Not one action taken as part of the rules of a game take place outside of it. They are all part of the game. When a referee at a football game makes a call, he does so via game rules and the both the call and the ruling are part of the game. You know what actions happen during a game session, but are outside of playing the game of D&D? Ordering pizza or Chinese food.

You are ignoring the role of a referee (umpire, etc.) in a game. They stop the game, usually, to make a call. It can be done while the game continues on, but the actual players who are playing the game to achieve goals in it need to be informed of the judgment calls. Of course, most players are refereeing themselves and others too, but neutral referees are used - as in D&D - to insure adherence to the rules.

:howandwhy, do you consider the Prussian Free Kriegsspiel to count as a 'game'? Here you have defined victory conditions, but the 'rules' are essentially 'the judge decides'. Does that count as a game?

Kreigsspiel is a great game. "Free" Kriegsspiel isn't a game the same way the Calvinball isn't a game. People can attempt to treat such as an illusion as a game, but as I said before to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], most folks wouldn't play such as an actual game except ironically.

Like two old folks playing Chess where the dog knocks pieces off the board and no one notices.

I could just as easily say that "A game has predefined victory conditions which, once achieved, results in the end of the game." That's not D&D - there are no predefined victory conditions

But there are points scored and definitive endgame conditions for every player and the campaign itself. Specifically, retirement or loss of character individually and as a whole).

If you defined games as exclusively needing a winner determined, then perhaps Name Level could be assigned for each player. I think this could be detrimental to cooperative (not collaborative) games. D&D is after all not about winning, but about succeeding. About players actually improving themselves according to the test which is the game design. IMnshO, D&D's initial design is at the heart of what games are. Quite unlike group storytelling.

Judgement refers to assessing the state of the game board according to the rule pattern preset. New DM material comes from die roll generation to determine outcomes. All new player material need only be defined as needed to deal with the current action, with all the rest abstracted.

Emphasis added. Why did they continue playing for months if it was "not fun"?

Neither of us could know, right? Because they still so wanted to play a game, even a broken one? Because no one knew how to fix it without ruining the game, (i.e. the mechanical balance)?

First, the fact that "you said" anything does not deem it to be correct. You seem to limit the term "fictional positioning" to spatial relationships. Even there, the map does not indicate whether the Hobgoblin has his sword high in the air to bring it crashing down, or low to the ground to slash at his foe's leg. It certainly does not indicate the "fictional positioning" which may influence negotiations with the Hobgoblins. What do the rules say the modifiers are if these Hobgoblins know the PC's previously wiped out a neighbouring tribe? Nothing. They certainly do not rule whether that neighbouring tribe were allies (logically making these Hobs less friendly) or enemies (so perhaps we have ingratiated ourselves), much less whether the Hobgoblins should be better disposed to us because we removed a competitor tribe, or worse disposed because they may well be next. Now, add in the manner in which the PC's approach the hobgoblins (perhaps threatening, or maybe negotiating with what a great thing we did to help them).

You're questions make no sense. You're asking where are the rules for "this behavior" in a game that doesn't have those game elements as having that behavior?

Show me any edition that says:

- Players cannot move a "playing piece" (many groups use miniatures and players move their own miniatures);
- there must be a screen;
- there must be a maze;
- the maze must be mapped (I recall a great RPG that noted you don't really need a map if nothing interesting happens between key locations - the wandering players simply locate a key location at random, and having located it know how to return to it *).

#1. Of course, the pattern behind the screen can be drawn out in front if players can receive all that information under the rules. This is well known. Players can attempt to take actions like movement, but they still require the referee to determine if such attempts are possible. That the player moves the piece is partly like players rolling the dice. But minis also enables players to more fine tune their description attempts for how they want to move.

#2

Preface
What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee.

This is most blatantly obvious when we recognize the rest of the world understands game walkthroughs to beat computers games as cheating rather than attempting to play the game for one's self.

#3 & #4

3. The underworld
Before it is possible to conduct a campaign of adventures in the mazey dungeons, it is necessary for the referee to sit down with pencil in hand and draw these labyrinths on graph paper.

The referee must do several things in order to conduct wilderness adventure games. First, he must have a ground level map of his dungeons, a map of the terrain immediately surrounding this, and finally a map of the town or village closest to the dungeons (where adventurers will be most likely to base themselves)

Also, boardgames are mazes because they represent a geometric design for a game. Some folks can toss the chess board aside and still continue the game because the pattern is in their imagination. Something every D&D player struggles to do better.

Being as it is simple, please provide an example of such a stat block.

I believe 2e finally included in the statblocks cultural behavior like alignment for reaction checks, ability scores, organization, % in lair, environment, morale, and loyalty adjustments. Monster Manual 1977 included all kinds of social organizational designs in the descriptions. Those are suggestions for a DM to use in their design. Many are very good.

And we return to "playing pawns, not playing characters". We have a game, but not a role playing game, as we have removed the roles to play.

Maybe you don't know about roleplaying in the 50s-70s after the war, but it wasn't about fictional personas. D&D is the iconic RPG as the term roleplaying was used in army wargame simulations. They taught soldiers their role. D&D is a game where players improve their ability to perform their role (class) by mastering the game system it refers to. They can prove this and increase needed class abilities to more easily overcome and accomplish higher level challenges and objectives by scoring points relating to their roleplaying.

Improvising a personality wasn't part of roleplaying in the RPG community until the 80s. Personality stuff was also fun to do, but like in any game it can interfere with a person trying to play a game.

Enjoy your game (whatever it may be). With the limitations you have placed on it, it is not an RPG, such as D&D. But I like playing a board game (hidden board or otherwise) every now and then too.

I'm glad I could help you learn more about where the hobby we're in comes from and what D&D is. I too, am not trying to stop you from having fun your way - collaboratively telling stories with your friends.

 

[howandwhy99]

Stocking a dungeon by random roll is a time honour tradition. So is the GM making up rooms, creatures, tricks and traps, etc, non-randomly.

Read my signature from another board:

Why we need DMs to play D&D
"Although it has been possible for enthusiasts to play solo games of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS by means of 'Wilderness Adventures', there has been no uniform method of dungeon exploring, for the campaign referee has heretofor been required to design dungeon levels. Through the following series of tables (and considerable dice rolling) it is now possible to adventure alone through endless series of dungeon mazes! After a time I am certain that there will be some sameness to this however, and for this reason a system of exchange of sealed envelopes for special rooms and tricks/traps is urged. These envelopes can come from any other player and contain monsters and treasure, a whole complex of rooms (unfolded a bit at a time), ancient artifacts, and so forth. All the envelope should say is for what level the contents are for and for what location, i.e. a chamber, room, 20' wide corridor, etc. Now break out your copy of D&D, your dice, and plenty of graph paper and have fun!"
--The Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 1

This is why D&D is listed as requiring 3 people to play minimum. 1 as a referee, and at least 2 to be a cooperative game between multiple players. Like cooperative Mastermind.

What I claimed is that the number of D&D players who have reasoned backwards, from encounters to the GM's random stocking table, is approximately zero. The GM's random table is not something that most D&D players are trying to work out.

Well that's a hell of a claim you couldn't possibly back up. How do you prove by reference every player playing in every D&D game ever? I mean, that is stuff even people do when playing videogames, primary stuff. Like recognizin the patterns in levels of Pac-Man or Tetris or BBEGs to beat them. But you just the need to make sweeping generalizations about the D&D population for 40 years? What's your purpose for starting this thread?

I'll get to the rest of your post tomorrow.

 

[pemerton]

Read my signature from another board

<snip sig>

This is why D&D is listed as requiring 3 people to play minimum. 1 as a referee, and at least 2 to be a cooperative game between multiple players. Like cooperative Mastermind.

That doesn't seem to me to address my point, which is that from the beginning of D&D GMs have stocked dungeons other than by random methods.

Well that's a hell of a claim you couldn't possibly back up.

It's conjecture, but conjecture based on a long experience playing the game, talking to others who play the game, reading magazines about playing the game, etc.

Your post is literally the first time I've heard it suggested that part of the aim of play, as a player, is to reason backwards to the GM's random table for stocking the dungeon. Partly because players would assume that not all of the dungeon was randomly stocked. Partly because having that information doesn't really help with exploring the dungeon, where what matters is actuals - what things are in which rooms - rather than likelihoods.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see the difference. If my character is not good tactically, then it would be extraordinarily bad roleplay to be at my best with tactics and overcome his deficiencies.

This depends very much on table expectations. I can think of many tables where part of the tactics of playing a tactically poor character is finding opportunities for his/her tactical ineptness to manifest itself in play.

This is a classic dichotomy between ROLE PLAYING and "Roll Playing". The roll player will minimize his character's drawbacks. The Role Player embraces them. Out of character activity because it's tactically sound is the epitome of horrible role playing.

I tend to find this rather judgemental, especially from someone who has fairly recently posted criticism of someone else in this thread for "one true way-ism".

I prefer a game in which drawbacks for the character aren't drawbacks for the player but, rather, opportunities for the player.

Roger Musson had begun to work out this approach in 1981, when he wrote "I believe that the restrictions on some character classes, though they might be viewed as disadvantages, are more the reverse. Restrictions make it easier to play "in character" by dictating necessary attitudes. A paladin should be noted by his largesse and flamboyant acts of charity; these make him more interesting than a stereotyped fighting man."

If you roleplaying really bumps into or cuts across your "roll playing" then, to me, that tends to suggest that your mechanics aren't really doing their job of facilitating the desired play.