What Is an Experience Point Worth?

It seems like a simple question, but the way you answer it may, in effect, determine the metaphysics of your game. Many RPGs use some sort of "experience point" system to model growth and learning. The progenitor of this idea is, of course, Dungeons & Dragons; the Experience Point (XP) system has been a core feature of the game from the beginning.

View attachment 88552​

Yet what exactly an experience point is remains unclear.

Think about it: can anyone earn an XP under the right circumstances? Or must one possess a class? If so, what qualifies an individual for a class? The 1st-edition Dungeon Master’s Guide specifies that henchmen earn 50 percent of the group’s XP award. In other words, they get a full share awarded, but then only "collect" half the share. Where does the other half go? Did it ever exist in the first place?

These esoteric questions were highlighted for me recently when I recreated a 20-year-old D&D character from memory for a new campaign I’m playing in. All I could remember of this character from my high school days was her race and class (half-elf Bladesinger, because I liked the cheese, apparently) and that the campaign fizzled out after only a handful of sessions. If I made it to level 2 back then, I couldn’t rightly say.

I asked my Dungeon Master (DM)—the same fellow who had run the original game for me back in the days of the Clinton administration—whether I could start a level ahead, or at least with a randomly-determined amount of XP (say, 200+2D100). Being the stern taskmaster that he is, he shot down both suggestions, saying instead that I’d be starting at 0 XP and at level 1, just like the rest of the party. As justification, he said that my character had amassed 0 XP for this campaign.

As the character probably only had a few hundred XP to her name to begin with, I let the matter slide. But it did get me thinking: do Experience Points only exist within the context of individual campaigns? Was my DM onto something?

This sort of thinking can in turn lead down quite a rabbit hole. Are classes themselves an arbitrary construct? Do they exist solely for players, or are non-player characters (NPCs) also capable of possessing classes and levels? Different editions of D&D have presented different interpretations of this question, from essentially statting up all NPCs as monsters, with their own boutique abilities (as in the earliest iterations of the game), to granting NPCs levels in "non-adventuring classes" (the famous 20th-level Commoner of 3rd-edition days).

The current edition of D&D has come back around to limiting classes and XP awards to player-characters only—which brings us back to our original question: are Experience Points, like character classes, meant to function solely as an abstract game mechanic, or are they an objective force within the game world? How do you, the reader at home, treat XP in your campaigns?

contributed by David Larkins

 

[pemerton]

As regards to the map example, mostly it doesn't matter where the map is hidden, and having the players' rolls frame the action, is fine. As GM, however, I could have interesting information the players don't know. The map, in this case, has to be in the daughter's bedroom, because that's why her ghost is haunting the room, which ties into some other cool piece of story. Yes, I'm deciding this for my players, but it's a neat piece of the story. Since RPGS are shared storytelling experiences, they should also include the GM. And if I originally put the map in the study, and then realize, of course, it should be in the daughter's bedroom I will change it.

That's a very interesting example of a possible episode of play, thanks!

I'm trying to think of an analogue from my own recent play experience - here's one, though it may not be perfect: in my MHRP game, we have a somewhat fluctuating cast of players and hence of PCs (in part because it's a "backup" campaign, for when we can't all get together for the "main" campaign).

In the first session, Iceman, Invisible Woman, War Machine and Wolverine helped stop a raid on a piece of Stark tech that was on display at the Smithsonian. All that was established, at that point, was that (i) a pro-Super Hero Registration congressman had some sort of link to Titanium Man (I don't really know the canoncial backstory to this character, but in our game he was a Russian operating out of a secret base in Khazakstan), (ii) Titanium Man was connected to the raid on the Smithsonian, and (iii) Dr Doom had something to do with something that was going on, because the PCs confronted a Doombot in the back halls of the Capitol.

The second session begain with Nightcrawler turning up in DC and arranging to meet Iceman and War Machine (in civvies) at a bar. (Ie we had two of the orginal players, and a third player who had to be integrated.) There were more Smithsonian-oriented shenanigans as the PCs dealt with two different groups trying to steal the Stark shuttle. One was B.A.D; the other was clan Yashida ninjas led by the Silver Samurai. It wasn't clear which group (if either) was allied with Titanium Man.

In the third session, the PCs travelled to Japan to follow up on the Yashida connection. Wolverine's player had also turned up to that session, and so he needed to be integrated. As the main group of PCs was teleporting into the Yashida Corp skyscraper to steal data from their computers, I explained that Wolverine had been trying to get in touch with his (on again, off again) girlfriend Mariko Yashida, but had heard nothing; hence he was breaking into the Yashida skyscraper to see what he could learn. This created a context for joining the PCs together; it also established some fiction about Mariko.

In the next session, the PCs were back in the US, and following up on some or other lead (the details are hazy, sorry). They discovered that a more-or-less person sized, more-or-less person weight "diplomatic pouch" had arrived recently at the Latverian embassy in Washington, suggesting that Doom was behind Mariko's disappearance. So they staged a break-in to the Latverian embassy, which resulted in Wolverine being captured and fitted with a power-neutralising device.

Anyway, what's the point of the above? Mariko Yashida's actual location isn't known, either by me or by the players. (In the fiction it's not known by the PCs, but probably is known by Dr Doom - unless someone has kidnapped from the kidnapper!, which I guess can't be ruled out.)

But there are various limits that have been established on Mariko's possible location, and part of my job as GM in helping to frame and adjudicate resolution would include managing those limits and making sure they're reflected in the fiction that is being established through play. How far can I go to enfore a cool piece of story that I've thought of but the players don't know about? (Eg can I insist that she's really hidden inside the shuttle in the Smithsonian, so that if one of the rival groups takes it and flies it into space there's a danger that Mariko is going to be asphyxiated/depressurised/badly G-forced?)

I don't know. In my 4e game - a system that doesn't quite have overt "stake-setting" techniques, and so generally relies on a more informal understanding of what is at issue in play - I use my role as GM to stop play getting distracted by low-stakes stuff. So, for instance, if the players have their PCs try for a random loot search "just because" (ie they're hoping for some sort of "drop") but there's no reason (ingame, or thematic) to think that anything of interest is going to be found, I will happily say "You search and find nothing" to keep things moving. (This is easily done in 4e because it has a fairly strict ratio of treasure to level, based on the treasure parcels tables, and so the players don't actually miss out on anything - it's more about managing pacing. When there's something signficant the players are hoping their PCs will find then of course it's a different story.)

I could see managing the location of the map in a somewhat similar way. If the map is established as a "high stakes" item, with some thematic momentum and logic behind it, then the players can't just look in a random sewer and hope to find it - their action declaration has to be framed in the right way to engage with that theme. The room haunted by the daughter's ghost would seem to tick that box. The challenge of your example arises if there are other thematically salient contexts that arise in play, in one of which the players then declare that they search for the map.

I think my own approach would be to allow the map to be found, and then find some other way to integrate the daughter's haunting of her bedroom into the context (eg maybe it's because the map was taken from her room that she's haunting it). But, as I said, I think it's an interesting example.

 

[pemerton]

The only way the player knows for a fact that the DM is not following the rules is if there's significant social impact (e.g it's clear that the player is getting screwed as he or she is not able to enjoy the game due to bias OR the DM makes it a habit of players rolling well with no benefit at all, OR the DM tells the player he or she is cheating.)

This isn't right. In BW, for instance, the player declares intent and task ("I am searching the study for the map.") The GM sets the difficulty, which might involve clarifying with the player precisely what the PC is doing; this will also determine what the skill/ability is that is tested. Then the player rolls the dice, and from that it becomes evident whether or not the check succeeded.

If the check succeeds, and yet the GM then goes on to narrate something which departs from that success, the failure to follow the rules will be evident.

If 4e is played using a similar approach, then the same will be true. For instance, in my main 4e game, the players succeeded in a complex dinner-party skill challenge to establish that the Baron's advisor was a villain, without alienating themselves from the Baron in the process. One aspect of this was that, as a result of the final success in the skill challenge, the advisor was goaded into showing his true colours.

That moment was the end of one session; the next session began with the advisor attacking the PCs in front of the Baron and his dinner guests in the banquet hall. Early in that session, I started to describe some reaction or remark from the NPC guests and one of the players pulled me up, reminding me that the players had succeeded in the skill challenge, and one component of their success was that the advisor had revealed himself to be the villain. He was concerned that my subsequent narration wasn't honouring that success.

That player was correct, and I corrected my narration to properly and fully incorporate the players' success.

This wasn't about "significant social impact" of the sort you describe. It was a simple case of the GM (me) making a mistake in my narration by contradicting (in part) the players' prior success, and a player pulling me up on it. It's really no different from me rolling the d20 and reading it as a 9 and then one of the players pointing out it's actually a 6.

The only practice it depends on is having a fair, balanced and experienced or creative DM. I'd also add socially aware to that list as it goes a long way towards compensating for experience.

Again, this isn't right in my experience. For instance, you seem to be assuming that the GM doesn't make rolls where the players can see them (not true in Cortex+ Heroic, in BW or in 4e as I play it). You seem to be assuming that the GM is not under any rules-based constraints on narration (not true in BW, not true in 4e as I play it, as the above example illustrates). Etc.

 

[pemerton]

Good gawd Pemerton, given this and other threads, you argue against pre-written secret backstory

No. I personally don't like GM pre-authored backstory which is used as a basis to stipulate that player action declarations for their PCs fail without consulting the action resolution mechanics.

A consequence of this dislike is (i) that GM pre-authored backstory needs to be fairly sparse, as otherwise it won't be possible to reconcile it with the outcomes of action declaration (for further on this, see [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]'s very interesting post about the ghost and the map, and my reply just a bit upthread of this post); and (ii) that richer initial backstory is best established in conjunction with the players, so that everyone is on the same page and hence understands what the parameters are for action declarations.

you argue against making stuff up on the spot since they are both railroads according to you

No. The particular approach to GMing I've been focusing on over the last few pages of this thread is the following:

(1) The GM is allowed to use his/her pre-written, secret-from-the-players notes to declare that a player's declared action for his/her PC fails; and,

(2) The GM is also allowed to change or depart from his/her pre-written notes if s/he thinks that will improve the game.​

The combination of (1) and (2) prevents the game being like classic Gygax/Moldvay/Pulsipher D&D, because (2) means that the game is not a puzzle/maze for the players to unravel. It also prevents it being player-driven in the "indie" sense of "go where the action is", because (1) prioritises the GM's prior conception of the shared fiction.

It is this combination - which I believe is orthodox in 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf Storyteller RPGing, but became widespread before 2nd ed AD&D and WW (I would say in the early-to-mid 80s) and still retains, I think, a high degree of popularity among RPGers - that I am focusing on when I ask how is it not a railroad? And the reason I ask that is because it seems that all outcomes depend, ultimately, on what the GM wants to happen in the shared fiction.

No one is arguing that our roleplaying games are not affected/influenced by GM's preferences, the only one who might be denying it happens to their table might be you.

The changes you made in B10, not just for the players background (dwarves/minotaurs) but others were changes you made because of your own preferences which DID influence part of the play experience.

I'm not saying that the GM's preferences don't matter. Of course they do. For instance, my players know that if they build PCs with good abilities against undead and demons that is likely to pay off, as I have a known penchant for using lots of both in my fantasy gaming.

I'm talking about a very specific thing: that the outcome of action declarations depends ultimately on the GM's preferences, because - in virtue of the combination of (1) and (2) above - s/he is able to determine whether or not any particular action declaration fails, because at odds with the secret fictional positioning established by the GM's secret backstory, which s/he is permitted to write and rewrite as play unfolds.

In B10 what if you changed the information obtained about the Iron Ring from one goblin tribe to another (i.e. changing the location of the map from one room to the other).

Are you referring to an actual element of the module - in which case I don't recall it, sorry - or a hypothetical?

In my game, the players knew about the Iron Ring (in general terms) from the PCs' first encounter with them - the Kord worshippers, being enemies of Bane, knew of this sinister Bane-ite organisation. And interrogation of a captured leader of the assailants at the end of that encounter revealed further information.

The only other "mappish" thing I can think of is the location of the ruined city in the middle of the gatefold map. I can't remember how the players learned that in my game - I know at one point they were pursuing a hobgoblin chief and entourage (who were on foot) on horseback, taking their enemies down using "Parthian shots". But I've just checked my campaign notes, and that was before they headed to the ruined city. The only notes I have about how they found the city was that it was a skill challenge that they succeeded in.

So the module as written is railroading and changing the location of the information from one goblin tribe to another goblin tribe is also railroading.

What I've said above mostly answers this; but an additional point to make is that railroading is all about action declaration and outcomes. If the players don't even know or care about the map, then whenever and whereever the GM tells them they find a map is just some framing, either establishing a new situation or laying some groundwork for such down the track.

But if the players are actually hoping to have their PCs find the hidden fortress, then I would regard it as railroading for the GM to dictate that such attempts cannot succeed until the PCs have gone through whatever steps the GM has written into his/her notes as necessary to find the fortress (eg no one can find the fortress without the map; and the map can only be recovered from such-and-such a place using such-and-such a method).

I posit the only way one is not railroading according to Pemerton is if EVERYTIME the party happens upon a goblin lair, they roll for the information to be found (i.e. the map). Because the players certainly don't know and (get this) the DM doesn't know because he is playing to find out.

This is very divorced from any actual play techniques of any RPG I'm familiar with - eg it doesn't seem to involve action declaration by the players in respect of some significant element of the fiction that is at stake in the current situation.

Technically if you were at Pemerton's table, you could attempt to
(a) roll to find all the information about the Iron Ring at one of the Goblin Tribes' Dens and (b) roll to encounter Golthar (The Iron Ring Leader) and roll (c-z) xxxxxxx and essentially complete the adventure - if you rolled high enough because that is the only way you don't railroad.

Again, this seems divorced from actual play techniques that I'm familiar with. Eg it's people who don't know how to run skill challenges, because they don't have a proper sense of how to integrate fictional positioning with action resolution in a closed-scene resolution framework, who characterise skill challenges as "exercises in dice rolling".

Here are three links to acounts of actual skill challenge resolution that illustrate how they work - both how fictional positioning affects the framing of checks and how consequences of failure establish parameters (including new, undesired fictional positioning) for what might come next.

Eg in the first one, you can see that the player of the dwarf fighter has to declare actions on his weak skill/state (Intimidate, for instance) because the fictional positioning doesn't permit him to attain his goals through action or violence (which is what he is better at).

In the second one, you can see how the sudden arrival of a PC permits the situation to be framed in a way that really puts the pressure on the players (ie how can they falsely promise to spare a captive in exchange for information, in the name of the party paladin, with the paladin being present?).

In the third one, involving the manipulation of magical energy, you can see how fictional positioning opens up possible action declarations: because the PC wizard is wielding the Sceptre of Law, he can use it to quell and contain chaotic energies, using a marker of civilisation - an ancient Nerathi stair beside a waterfall - as an "anchor". Mechanically, this makes a Religion check possible to change the orientation of the magical vortex, which otherwise might not to possible.

Heck, why even try find the goblin den? You should be able to complete the adventure from Misha's Ferry before you even reach Sukiskyn or better yet, that moment in the tavern when you got propositioned to to deliver the horses. That sounds like a swell adventure because there were no railroads and everyone (including the DM, again) rolled to find out stuff. Some more

Imagine if the Hobbits could have just solved the entire problem with the ring from the Shires, what a great book that would be. So much railroading in the original.

You seem to be arguing that the players will only declare boring actions, and nothing interesting will happen in the game, unless the GM railroads them. That's not my personal experience.

Just to give two examples of the independence of "interesting stuff" from any particular predetermined pathway: in the case of the interrogiation of the NPC, if the fiction had been different (ie the paladin PC didn't arrive on the scene) but the skill challenge failed, I would have had to find some other narration to explain the failure. I don't know what that would have been. It might have been less interesting; or perhaps it might have been more interesting! The main thing is that the game would have been different, with the dynamics beteen the PCs, the Baron and the priestess of Torog unfolding in a different fashion.

And in the "vortex of chaos energy" skill challenge, maybe the player - who is rather creative - would have found some other way to frame a Religion check even if his PC wasn't wielding the Sceptre of Law. In which case the game, again, would have had a different fiction which was interesting and creative in some different respect, and perhaps would have headed in a different direction.

My personal experience is that players of RPGs are keen to declare interesting actions for the PCs they're invested in, and will respond to vivid framing of scenes with equally vivid and engaged action declarations.

 

[pemerton]

I'd suggest you quote sources. You're interpreting Gary a certain way that fits your worldview and that's very easy to do when only looking at the rules in a paragraph to paragraph way, but it's pretty clear that Gary's intentions were "Game as a Whole", "Your Campaign", and "Your Players" in that order.

There are two main passages in Gygax's DMG where he discusses GM authority in relation to dice rolls. Here they are (pp 9, 110):

The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them. If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance. The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play.

Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this gome, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. . . .

In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such things as melee hits or saving throws. However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, eg a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

Examples of dice rolls which should always be made secretly are: listening, hiding in shadows, detecting traps, moving silently, finding secret doors, monster saving throws, and attacks made upon the party without their possible knowledge.

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can be done by assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides.

Now and then a player [sic] will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!​

Four examples of manipulating dice throws are given. Two pertain to content introduction, namely, wandering monsters, and finding a secret door that will lead to a new part of the dungeon. In both cases the GM is granted express permission to manipulate this content introduction in the interests of encouraging enjoyable play: ignore wandering monster rolls that would result in the PCs not making it to the part of the dungeon they are heading for; allow the PCs to find a ssecret door that will lead to a particularly entertaining part of the complext.

The two other examples pertain to action resolution, namely, mitgating PC death by treating it as some lesser form of incapacitation/disablement that "takes into account what the monster has done"; and allowing the PCs to kill wandeirng monsters easily or to escape from them "unnaturally". The GM is permitted to do, though gently discouraged from doing, the former; the GM is instructed not to do the latter, which would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". What's the difference? The former mitigates the long-term impact of a monster's victory, but maintains its short-term impact (because it takes into accouint what the monster has done); whereas the latter bestows a victory on the PCs (and thereby the players) that they did not earn.

Notice also that emphasis is placed on respecting skilled play. If a party is being unskilled in their dungeoneering (ie not travelling quickly and quietly to their planned destination) then they deserve to have wandering monsters inflicted upon them. If a player's PC died because the player played carelessly or recklessly, than no mitigation of consequences is warranted and the GM should let the dice fall where they may.

These examples of when it is or is not proper to mitigate consequences, or override wandering monster rolls, inform our understanding of the more general remark that the referee may override the dice. Clearly it would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game" to do this so as to allow the players to win a conflict (so no fuding of enemy hit points, to hit rolls etc). This is reinforced by the GM being told not to seriusly harm the NPCs or monsters in overriding the dice.

The GM is also told not to seriously harm the PCs by overriding the dice, which seems to rule out fudged capture scenes, NPC/monster escapes, etc. (This is also consistent with the idea that only skilled players are entitled to consequence mitigation, and even then only in a form that still "takes into account what the monster has done.)

Indeed, the comment about "major precepts" together with the comment about "tak[ing] into account what the monster has done" together with the invocation not to seriously harm PCs or NPCs/monsters are all read together, overriding the dice in circumstances of conflict seem to be ruled out.

So what sort of dice rolls might the GM override, consistently with everything that is said? Here are some examples that I can think of:

* Finding a secret door in the course of exploration (that is Gygax's example; note that the GM fiating the finding of a secret door if the PCs are losing a fight seems to be ruled out, as that would be allowing them to escape "unnaturallY' and would not "take into account what the monster ha[ve] done").

* A thief PC automatically succeeding on a check to climb a wall in the course of exploration (this is similar to the secret door example; and again, in an escape context it seems to be ruled out for the same reaons);

* A roll to find an item in cases where the item is not worth gold or XP (and so will not constitute a reward that is at odds with the precepts of the game) but rather is a plot device of some sort, like a key to a lower level or the password to a magical portal;

* A roll made to determine whether or not some monster turns up, or some similar untoward event occurs (like the example of the wandering monster roll Gygax discusses, this should not be done if the players have invited it - eg they walk into a room with a big gong in it and strike the gong - but might be applicable if the GM's notes say something like "This dining hall is normally empty, but there is a 20% chance that 6 goblin warriors are in here feasting").​

These are all instances of content introduction, whether consequent on action declarations (the first three examples) or consequent on GM-side processes (like wandering monsters and the fourth of my examples).

It's also noteworthy that all Gygax's examples of secret GM dice rolls pertain to content introduction - either searching, or otherwise establishing that the PCs are aware of the monsters/NPCs, or establishing that the monsters/NPCs are aware of the PCs.

I think this paints a pretty clear picture of how Gygax envisages the game being played, and the relationship between GM authority and the dice, and it is with all the above in mind that I made the remark, upthread, that:

Gygax has a lot of discussion of this sort of thing in his DMG - for instance, he contrasts the GM exercising control over content introduction, which he thinks is permissible in certain circumstances, with the GM exercising control over action resolution, which he opposes except for a narrow case of a skilled player having his/her PC die unluckily - and then the exercise of control Gygax permits will be overt to the player, as the GM will narrate death from hp loss as maiming or coma instead.

 

[Kobold Boots]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

Thank you for going through the process of finding the areas of the book that support your argument.

Suffice to say that I appreciate the effort but disagree with your interpretation in a few areas. Mostly this has to do with the definition of skilled and smart play and the amount of latitude that is given in the rules set. Too many people that I played with in the 80s missed the part about the point of the game being to have a good time and used a similar interpretation to yours to treat others poorly. Too many games ended due to not having an understood social contract for the group.

I've learned over the years that the way around that is to make sure that everyone who joins a table understands the lethality level of the game and agrees to that as part of the social contract of the table. Doing that has pretty much eliminated any misunderstandings of what the group's idea of "fun" is; but it's lacking from the advice given in the rulebooks of the era.

Again thanks, but I fear that if I continue this we're going to add another six pages to the thread going back and forth. I'm going to bow out and declare you the winner Too much work to do this week to be on the forums heavily.

Side note: I've put a bunch of people on ignore this week. If you reply to anything I did in the most recent powergamer thread, I won't be able to reply to it. Get me via PM instead.

Be well
KB

 

[pemerton]

Suffice to say that I appreciate the effort but disagree with your interpretation in a few areas. Mostly this has to do with the definition of skilled and smart play and the amount of latitude that is given in the rules set.

Are you saying that Gygax said something different from what I attribute to him? Or that you disagree with what he says?

The latter would not be very surprising - I don't think many D&D players in the 80s were playing in the Gygaxian style. (And I certainly was not.)

But the former would be - Gygax's references to skilled play, to what player do or do not deserve, etc, seem pretty unambiguous to me.

I've put a bunch of people on ignore this week. If you reply to anything I did in the most recent powergamer thread, I won't be able to reply to it.

I don't know that thread, but if I'm now on ignore - well, farewell!

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know that thread, but if I'm now on ignore - well, farewell!

If you can read his post here, you're not on ignore I don't think. (though if the thread-starter of the thread referred to has been 'ignore'd then he might not be able to see the thread at all any more)

 

[Kobold Boots]

Are you saying that Gygax said something different from what I attribute to him? Or that you disagree with what he says?

The latter would not be very surprising - I don't think many D&D players in the 80s were playing in the Gygaxian style. (And I certainly was not.)

But the former would be - Gygax's references to skilled play, to what player do or do not deserve, etc, seem pretty unambiguous to me.

I don't know that thread, but if I'm now on ignore - well, farewell!

@Pem - You are not on ignore. Others are for now. @Lanefan is correct that if you put someone on ignore that's started a thread, then you can no longer see the entire thread.

On your other ask: It is entirely possible for two people to read the exact same passages, have those passages be pretty black and white, and through the lens of their own experiences walk away with different shades of gray scale. We're not going to see eye to eye on this particular topic so I'm resigning the matter.

Be well
KB

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the answer is - that check can't succeed. (This is a variant of the notorious chamberlain example from years ago - a good GM, it was said, will veto any attempt by the players to have their PCs persuade the chamberlain to grant them an audience with the king, because verisimilitude and *the plot* demands as much. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] will have fond memories of that incorruptible, unpersuadable chamberlain!)

If it can, then your (final) rhetorical question goes through with full force.

I've started a thread about "what's worldbuilding for" to try to tackle some of these issues from the point of view of analysis rather than advocacy.

EDIT: I encountered this reply:

This answers [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s question - a successful Diplomacy check gets interpreted in a way that accords with the GM's secret backstory, rather than with the player's intention for the action declaration.

But imagination and intention are. I can imagine that the reason an NPC is doing such-and-such is X; but then discover, through play, that it was Y. Charles Dickens rewrote the ending to Great Expectations when his editor suggested the original was too sad.

Just copying and pasting the reply from the other thread because its relevant here. An important segment of the conversation was definitely about leveraging backstory to veto an action declaration due to yet to emerge backstory or internal causality (I recall folks bringing up the, poor, example of this in the 4e DMG1 where the Intimidate check outright fails?); eg a steward/chamberlain should deny mundane efforts to beseech him to see the king, merely on conceptions of orthodox administration of the affairs of royalty.

I want to say it was one of the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards threads of yore! I believe that (as relates to this thread), the pair of contentions you, I, and others were making were the following:

* In D&D systems with (a) Vancian casters with Enchantment spells (especially with prolific spell load-outs) and (b) noncombat action resolution governed by a process sim (internal causality rather than genre logic) task resolution (rather than conflict resolution), Wizards/spellcasters are going to be inevitably dominate noncombat action resolution.

* The only way this doesn't take place is for GMs to either (a) preemptively protect crucial plot-points/NPCs by pulling out the classic (eye-roll-inducing to any hardened, long term player) blocks (secret backstory) or (b) make up and deploy those blocks on the spot when its clear their carefully sewn plot efforts are about to be undone by a few key spell power-plays.

* Limited backstory/malleable setting (the only thing that is firm is what has been established in play), nerfed Vancian Casting (in both breadth and potency), and conflict resolution mechanics that are governed by genre logic are a functional way to deal with these issues.

Our efforts showed a pretty orthodox example of how an obstinate chamberlain who is denying access to the king can have his efforts upturned dramatically without:

a) Spellcasters dominating the action.

b) Immersion being shattered (in fact, when your conception of your archetype is realized in play by your deft action declarations meeting successful action resolution, I would say that is a big + for immersion!).

c) Firm backstory having to be the reference point for the GM's role in adjudicating action resolution and evolving the fiction afterward.

 

[Nagol]

Just copying and pasting the reply from the other thread because its relevant here. An important segment of the conversation was definitely about leveraging backstory to veto an action declaration due to yet to emerge backstory or internal causality (I recall folks bringing up the, poor, example of this in the 4e DMG1 where the Intimidate check outright fails?); eg a steward/chamberlain should deny mundane efforts to beseech him to see the king, merely on conceptions of orthodox administration of the affairs of royalty.

I want to say it was one of the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards threads of yore! I believe that (as relates to this thread), the pair of contentions you, I, and others were making were the following:

* In D&D systems with (a) Vancian casters with Enchantment spells (especially with prolific spell load-outs) and (b) noncombat action resolution governed by a process sim (internal causality rather than genre logic) task resolution (rather than conflict resolution), Wizards/spellcasters are going to be inevitably dominate noncombat action resolution.

I would adjust this statement to: " In D&D systems with (a) Vancian casters with prolific access and (b) noncombat action resolution governed by a process-based or outcome-based sim (internal causality rather than genre logic) task resolution (rather than conflict resolution), users of magic are going to be inevitably dominate noncombat action resolution."

Another way to distribute the ability to engage with non-combat encounters is to distribute magical effects more widely among the group members through the inclusion of magical devices, consumables, and NPCs (factions, favours, and followers).

* The only way this doesn't take place is for GMs to either (a) preemptively protect crucial plot-points/NPCs by pulling out the classic (eye-roll-inducing to any hardened, long term player) blocks (secret backstory) or (b) make up and deploy those blocks on the spot when its clear their carefully sewn plot efforts are about to be undone by a few key spell power-plays.

Such blocks should have back-story, but not necessarily be secrets. Everyone may know the chamberlain is a drow and thus 50% resistance to magic cast by an 11th level caster, or perhaps the PCs previously sold a ring of spell turning to the same man, or perhaps it is widely known (and the players were told in advance) that the position, being one with both access to power and public face, comes with its own perks and protections. Then again, maybe it was a secret and until it was unearthed by the PCs investigation (or not and is still a secret). Secret backstory is usually not unknowable back-story.

* Limited backstory/malleable setting (the only thing that is firm is what has been established in play), nerfed Vancian Casting (in both breadth and potency), and conflict resolution mechanics that are governed by genre logic are a functional way to deal with these issues.

Our efforts showed a pretty orthodox example of how an obstinate chamberlain who is denying access to the king can have his efforts upturned dramatically without:

a) Spellcasters dominating the action.

b) Immersion being shattered (in fact, when your conception of your archetype is realized in play by your deft action declarations meeting successful action resolution, I would say that is a big + for immersion!).

Immersion breaking is subjective and I do believe you'd get some people eye-rolling this form of play much like you indicate eye-rolling for blocks, above.

Other ways that exist to get around an obstinate public official that are open to most character types:

• Is a bribe expected or customary? Pay it.
• Is there anything he cares about more than blocking you? Threaten it or offer protection in a persuasive way.
• Is there something that must occupy his attention completely? Cause it to happen and deal with his fill-in.
• Is there something in his life that causes him angst? Solve it and earn a favour in return.
• Is there a reason he doesn't like the PC group in particular? Change it.
• Is the obstinacy to further his own interests or to work against the realm's? Expose it.

Basically, step one is discover why you are being stonewalled. Step two is resolve that issue.

Even if the obstinacy is unbreakable, go around it:

• Connive an "accidental" encounter at a public event or appearance.
• Persuade a friendly guard/servant/official to deliver a hand-written note begging for an audience or spelling out the threat.
• Talk to someone the chamberlain cannot refuse (like the head of the priesthood, sister of the king, powerful noble, foreign embassy, and anyone else the king meets with) to bring you or your message to the king.

Nothing on these lists prevents a wide variety of GMing styles for being applied.