Game Mecahnics Versus Role Playing Focus

[ExploderWizard]

I disagree. I think the player contributes more in the modern style. What I think you're getting at though is that combat is more systematized. This is a Good Thing (TM). In the old days the only way to learn what your combat options were was asking the DM what he'd allow (or reading his 78 page house rules doc) - and no telling if he'd given any thought as to whether his charge mechanic was balanced or not, or whether he'd allow you to swing from chandeliers. Now the PHB provides that information, which makes it more accessible to the new player and better play-tested for all players.

I don't agree that more systematized always equals a good thing. I don't think cool maneuvers and stunts need to be defined exactly in terms of success chance and effect to make using them cool. Those constraints make combat feel more like a board game and the stunts/maneuvers feel like menu options. As a player it can be fun to just try stuff on the fly without knowing beforehand how likely success will be or what the effects of success or failure are. The whole thing goes hand in hand with combat predictability.

So at the tactical level the player either contributes more or about the same. It was only at the meta-game "What will my DM permit?" level where the old-school player needed to contribute more. Both BECMI and 4E allow players to power attack, swing from chandeliers and try to convince the Orcs to throw down their weapons - and in both editions it's up to the player to decide which tactic to use.

I will admit that more freestyle, seat of your pants combat requires a skilled DM with good judging skills than a more menu-option formula driven type combat does. In the maneuver examples you gave above which system do you think is more likely to produce a choice based on metagame knowledge of what choice is most optimal per the rules?

 

[Cadfan]

In the maneuver examples you gave above which system do you think is more likely to produce a choice based on metagame knowledge of what choice is most optimal per the rules?

Which system is more likely to produce a choice based on metagame knowledge of what choice is most favored by the Dungeon Master?

That's the flip side. Make things too based in DM judgement and you get a game of mother-may-I.

Not that that's always bad. And to a certain degree its inevitable. Even in a hypothetical game where combat was purely mechanistic, the DM would decide who you fight, when, and where.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Which system is more likely to produce a choice based on metagame knowledge of what choice is most favored by the Dungeon Master?

That's the flip side. Make things too based in DM judgement and you get a game of mother-may-I.

Not that that's always bad. And to a certain degree its inevitable. Even in a hypothetical game where combat was purely mechanistic, the DM would decide who you fight, when, and where.

If the DM is running the game as a referee as intended there won't be a favored choice.

Sure, the less defined method of resolution requires a fair and skilled judge. The flipside of the more mechanistic approach is that the design lends itself more easily to the idea of the DM slipping into an adversarial role whereby the DM tries to "defeat" the PCs using the well established rules. Since the DM has more knowledge of the PC capabilities and virtually unlimited resources there is no such thing as a "fair" fight in the first place. This is why the whole "Mother may I" bit falls apart. The actual in game events that lead to this reasoning are the results of players not accepting the DM judgement calls and DMs who fail to listen to the input of players about the basis of such calls.

No matter how detailed and inclusive a rules system, a poor DM will turn it into a bad game. New DMs will make mistakes but pre-writing rules for things that would be better left to judgements doesn't do the new DM any favors in the long run.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think there is a sort of subconscious modern trend among designers, or has been, to think everything has to be reduced to mechanical rules.

3E was the high water mark there. 4E has backed away from that by (essentially) saying that only adventuring-related skills are reduced to rules. The removal of Craft, Profession and Perform from the Skills list and the separation of Rules & Fluff in the Powers section are examples of moving away from a rule-based approach to "roleplaying stuff."

I don't think cool maneuvers and stunts need to be defined exactly in terms of success chance and effect to make using them cool.

As long as we focus on your use of the word "cool", I agree. But defining them exactly (and putting them in a rulebook, not a house rules doc) is necessary to make sure they're more widely playtested and stress-tested than I could ever do working on my own time.

In the maneuver examples you gave above which system do you think is more likely to produce a choice based on metagame knowledge of what choice is most optimal per the rules?

That isn't meta-game knowledge. The PC is a trained warrior (or wizard, whatever). He more or less knows the how "attacking with more power" will effect his odds of success, just a pro baseball player can decide whether to swing for the fences or just try to get a base hit. The PC's not thinking in terms of "-2 Att, +3 Dmg" (those numbers are meta), but the concept of "high-momentum swing" if perfectly knowable within the game.

Leaving the rules unwritten creates confusion and ambiguity that some players will exploit and others will be handicapped by. Putting the rules in writing (whether in a book or house rules doc) equalizes the ability of all players to make tactical decisions. The benefit of written rules is equal access to knowledge. The benefit of "in the book" rules is superior access to playtesting.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Leaving the rules unwritten creates confusion and ambiguity that some players will exploit and others will be handicapped by. Putting the rules in writing (whether in a book or house rules doc) equalizes the ability of all players to make tactical decisions. The benefit of written rules is equal access to knowledge. The benefit of "in the book" rules is superior access to playtesting.

The handicapped will only be so by choice. Those who cannot have a character react to a situation without a pre-written option or worse, needing those options carefully documented with all odds of success and risks known will certainly be paralyzed by indecision. Such knowledge makes for a smoother more predictable combat. Thats a perfectly valid playstyle. I prefer more chaos and randomness personally.

 

[Cadfan]

No matter how detailed and inclusive a rules system, a poor DM will turn it into a bad game. New DMs will make mistakes but pre-writing rules for things that would be better left to judgements doesn't do the new DM any favors in the long run.

I agree with the part in bold. I probably disagree with you on what would be better left to DM judgment.

As for "mother may I" versus adversarial DMing, if the only thing adjudicating whether your actions succeed or fail is the DM's judgment, then you are playing Mother-May-I. Full stop. End of debate. It doesn't matter whether you like the DM's judgment, whether you accept it, or whether the DM listens to your feed back. You. Are. Playing. Mother. May. I.

That doesn't mean you're not having fun!

It also doesn't mean your game is poorly designed!

There are entire games that are essentially Mother May I with context and flavor, and some of them are fine games. But you can't really pretend that rules heavy systems encourage rules metagaming but DM judgment based systems don't equally encourage metagaming about the DM's predilections. We weren't born yesterday.

 

[Ashrum the Black]

For me it was 3e. I'm an inveterate, funny accent using role-player and even I got sucked into the character-building mini-game in 3e (PrC's, mulitclassing, feat chains, oh my!).

It really brought out my inner gearhead.

Differant strokes and all. While I liked playing with the prestige classes and all, I used them to build on the charater type I wanted. I wanted to play a deadly two weapon fighter I may go to the dervish prestige class, but then I modified the back story to make it an ancient elvish fighting style from the time when the elves of eberron still favored fighting with steel, and not magic.

On the flip side I keep seeing a 4e character build as very very contraining to my sense of being able to tailer the class and come up with back story. I pretty sure it's just the way my brain works the 3e tickled that creative nerve more than 4e seems to have so far. I think a lot also has to do with the fact that so far I've only been able to play 4e as a one off.

But so far it just seems to feel like a very tight jacket that is limiting my creative freedom with bringing out a character that can do what I want with a crazy backstory that tickles my inner bard. I know this isn't fair, but it is simply the way me brain works every time I start looking at a character for 4e. Abilities, check. Stats, check. Items, check. Now what cool things can I do with my character? My brain just never seems to move beyond that, and get to the cool back story that can tie all of it together.

-Ashrum

 

[ExploderWizard]

I
As for "mother may I" versus adversarial DMing, if the only thing adjudicating whether your actions succeed or fail is the DM's judgment, then you are playing Mother-May-I. Full stop. End of debate. It doesn't matter whether you like the DM's judgment, whether you accept it, or whether the DM listens to your feed back. You. Are. Playing. Mother. May. I.

On the other side we can say that using a complex involved rules set that both the DM and the players use to adjudicate whether your actions succeed or fail means that you you are playing a DM vs players adversarial game. Full stop. End of debate. It doesn't matter if the rule makes much sense, if you are happy with the rule or not. You. Are. Playing. DM. vs. Player.

 

[DandD]

On the other side we can say that using a complex involved rules set that both the DM and the players use to adjudicate whether your actions succeed or fail means that you you are playing a DM vs players adversarial game. Full stop. End of debate. It doesn't matter if the rule makes much sense, if you are happy with the rule or not. You. Are. Playing. DM. vs. Player.

You also do that in the Mother. May. I.
You just don't have any rules that are at least on your side...

 

[ExploderWizard]

You also do that in the Mother. May. I.
You just don't have any rules that are at least on your side...

Hahaha! A good one, but if you are thinking in terms of sides than the dark side has already dominated your destiny.