What Is an Experience Point Worth?

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]

You insist that corridors always matter. That's simply not true. Read REH's The Scarlet Citadel, or The Hour of the Dragon, or Xuthal of the Dusk. All involve "dungeons". None provides a map. Similarly for Moria in Fellowship of the Ring - no map.

Nuances of paths, holes in the wall, heights of ceilings, are not always the most important things - in life or in fiction.

As for your "But isn't that how you do it?" - no. To repeat: the PCs (voiced by their players) ask the angels to take the to the reliquary. The angels take them there. We then find out what happens at the reliquary, by deploying the action resolution mechanics. No unrevealed backstory has been used to thwart any action declaration.

But you say: relying on unrevealed backstory to determine success or failure means that backstory has now influenced play, and is thus locked in. Obviously it's locked in. My point is - the GM could have changed that backstory to something that allowed the action declaration a chance of success, but didn't. How is that not a railroad?

I'm interested in [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]'s answer to the same question, if she'd like to (Arilyn, I apologise if I've got your gender wrong).

I guess after reading this, I'm left with one question. (and I guess a bunch of downstream ones)

Why does it matter if something is being played "gygaxian" or "non-gygaxian" or "indie" or such? Based on RAW, the final arbiter of how the game is adjucated (sp.) is the DM. Based on commonly accepted social norms, if the players don't like how the DM is running the game, they won't play.

So ultimately the group determines what game they're playing and as long as they all enjoy it, who cares what anyone's opinion is that isn't in the group? Moreover, why do we need to project our desires on the rules system when the RAW already says you don't have to play it the way they write it?

Bottom line, even when a game is universally accepted to play the same way all the time by everyone who plays it. (for a bad example I'll use the NFL) there are refs that will screw it up and the rules will change over time to adapt to mistakes and the viewing audience. It doesn't nullify history or what happened in the past and ultimately the changes make a better game going forward. If it doesn't, rules revert back.

Good thing is at your table with your friends, your game is the way you want it to be.

Thank goodness that doesn't mean I have to play it.

Be well
KB

pemerton said:

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]

You insist that corridors always matter. That's simply not true. Read REH's The Scarlet Citadel, or The Hour of the Dragon, or Xuthal of the Dusk. All involve "dungeons". None provides a map. Similarly for Moria in Fellowship of the Ring - no map.

Nuances of paths, holes in the wall, heights of ceilings, are not always the most important things - in life or in fiction.

Click to expand...

But they are important in the game where things like missile ranges, distance and area of spell effects (both combat and non), line of sight and so forth are constantly being asked by the rules. And sure, there's no map for Moria in the book but that doesn't mean JRRT didn't have one in his notes, to show how things fit together and what could happen where.

But you say: relying on unrevealed backstory to determine success or failure means that backstory has now influenced play, and is thus locked in. Obviously it's locked in. My point is - the GM could have changed that backstory to something that allowed the action declaration a chance of success, but didn't. How is that not a railroad?

Click to expand...

It's a railroad if the DM merely sticks to her material?

Now you're really pushing the definition, close to the point of absurdity.

The DM is in no way obliged to change the backstory to something that would allow a chance of success where none was before; and in fact I posit that were she to do so she'd be violating the integrity of her world. She'd also be making the game easier for her players / PCs as a side effect; and while it's might be an open question whether this is desireable or not the effect still must be noted.

If the map is stowed in a desk in room 14 (a study) then looking for it in a sheaf of papers in room 11 (a library down the hall) has no chance of success. Zero. None; no matter what the PCs try. Put in game mechanical terms should someone want to roll for it, searching the library for the map has a DC of infinity. To me this seems so blindingly obvious I can't understand why I have to spell it out.

Lanefan

Kobold Boots said:

So ultimately the group determines what game they're playing and as long as they all enjoy it, who cares what anyone's opinion is that isn't in the group? Moreover, why do we need to project our desires on the rules system when the RAW already says you don't have to play it the way they write it?

Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiments here, but I have to ask: while 5e (and 1e*) D&D RAW do more or less say you don't have to play it the way they write it, is this true of all RPG systems...or even all editions of D&D?

* - Gygax changed his tune on this one: in the 1e DMG he encourages the DM to - with care and forethought - make whatever changes she thinks necessary for her game, but in later writings he trended ever further toward a RAW-uber-alles position.

Lanefan

Lanefan said:

I agree with your sentiments here, but I have to ask: while 5e (and 1e*) D&D RAW do more or less say you don't have to play it the way they write it, is this true of all RPG systems...or even all editions of D&D?

* - Gygax changed his tune on this one: in the 1e DMG he encourages the DM to - with care and forethought - make whatever changes she thinks necessary for her game, but in later writings he trended ever further toward a RAW-uber-alles position.

Lanefan

Click to expand...

Logic says yes.

Here's why: Any desire of the owner or writer of a game to follow the rules exactly as written can never be enforced once the rules are in the wild and used by players. It's the same thing as writing a law or policy without any ability to enforce it. People will do what they want.

Arguing otherwise is not defensible, but it will certainly up the post counts.

Thanks,
KB

Adding a few things to help folks. Mostly doing this because I have a slight issue with Gygax's name being thrown around without context, and my memory of him has nothing to do with strict RAW philosophy in combination with a rules-dense system.

In original D&D there was a clear mindset towards the rules being as complete as could be allowed within the page counts and that interpretation and house rules were a given due to this.

These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity — your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination — the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned. New details can be added and old “laws” altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable. Gygax

Click to expand...

Later in 1E D&D it was clear that the same idea was in play, granted with a much larger set of rules to consider. The goal was to maintain game balance internally to any given group of players, then within the campaign and more largely within the rules set. He addresses these three things in reverse, from the perspective of the author. However the interpretation should not be that the game rules come first.

It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.” EGG

Click to expand...

In 2e, EGG was not part of that play but you can find comments from Zeb that echo. The big shot to the system comes from Gygax's opinion of 3rd ed. It's pretty clear that he was of the opinion that the game went too far in the rules direction and wasn't in the best interest of game, group or campaign.

The new D&D is too rule intensive. It’s relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It’s done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

– Gary Gygax, GameSpy interview, Pt. 2 (16 August 2004)

Click to expand...

So I'd sum all of this up with, if you're using the term "Gygaxian" to label rules-as-written in opposition to DM fiat, you're doing him wrong. All he ever supported was game balance to ensure the best experience at the table.

Be well
KB

pemerton said:

But you say: relying on unrevealed backstory to determine success or failure means that backstory has now influenced play, and is thus locked in. Obviously it's locked in. My point is - the GM could have changed that backstory to something that allowed the action declaration a chance of success, but didn't. How is that not a railroad?

Click to expand...

If I can step in here; it's simple. They had choices. It's not a railroad if they chose something that does not work. As long as they had choices. Or do you consider it a "railroad" if it doesn't work? I gather not, so what is the difference between slim (and did not work despite "a chance") and none (as in can't / didn't work due to existing world setting background)?

On other things...

As for the corridors / empty spaces, it can be very instructive. I run a sandbox game. It's entirely possible for the PCs to wonder into something over their head. A TPK in the making. I try to avoid that. The scenery along the way to a Dragons den (dead burned bodies, skeletons, broken weapons, scorch marks etc.) served to convince the PCs to make another choice. Unless they are suicidal or really dense it works. Or ready to take on a Dragon. They weren't (at the time) but were convinced by the otherwise relatively uneventful journey to go elsewhere.

As for making it up along the way... I find it better to prepare and world build. My campaign world started out before D&D (I developed it as a setting for fantasy miniature campaign using Chainmail) and has had pretty continuous development since then. I've developed the world, it's geography, cultures, history, economy etc. ever since. Have I changed things? Yes. Have I altered things based on PC input? Yes. But not to overturn or change established (to the PCs) facts or to make major changes to the world / setting. I have updated / adapted the world with new editions of D&D (and personal experience / knowledge as I got older and earned degrees etc.), usually moving my timeline forward if possible. I did skip 4E because it didn't fit my game that well (although it looked OK, just not a game I was prepared to run).

This gives me the option of letting my PCs follow an adventure I've established / prepared, or run a game on the fly, that fits in, due to setting knowledge. My players can't tell the difference. I have combined both as well. My players ran into a random encounter in the wilderness once; Orcs. They defeated the Orcs and those who survived fled. My players decided to pursue them (having a Ranger helps). There was a pre-prepared end part of an adventure nearby; a ruined fortress being used by Orcs to prepare for an invasion of Human lands. The original adventure was planned as a mission from the local Duke to investigate the area and report back to him. There was a fairly long run up to the end game. It made sense for the Orcs to run to other Orcs, and the PCs followed. They came sideways into this adventure at the end. And ended up eventually reporting their findings to the local Duke while skipping the extensive first part of the adventure. Existing background material and geography combined with player choice to yield a somewhat different adventure. This only worked because I had both the pre-prepared material and the willingness to improvise and revise.

*edited* for clarity and additional information...

Kobold Boots said:

Why does it matter if something is being played "gygaxian" or "non-gygaxian" or "indie" or such?

Click to expand...

Well, in one sense it doesn't.

But this is the General RPG forum on a leading RPG message board. I think it's reasonable for posters her anallyse play techniques.

I'm espeically interested in this idea that the GM might change the (as yet unrevealed) fiction to make the game "better", or might instead stick to what s/he pre-authored and, on that basis, declare an action declaration a failure with no check. To me, that seems to make the shared fiction that results from play very much the product of the GM's preferences. I'm waiting for anyone else to post his/her view of it.

Kobold Boots said:

Any desire of the owner or writer of a game to follow the rules exactly as written can never be enforced once the rules are in the wild and used by players.

Click to expand...

This is true of games in general. It's not unique to RPGs.

Nevertheless, the opinion of a designer as to how s/he thinks his/her game works might be relevant.

Just to give one example: the 4e designers knew what they were talking about when they discouraged getting bogged down in minutiae of non-combat situations. Because if you do, then you eliminate the flexibility that is needed to narrate successes and failures in skill challenges.

EDIT:

Kobold Boots said:

if you're using the term "Gygaxian" to label rules-as-written in opposition to DM fiat, you're doing him wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm using Gygaxian to describe a type of play that he explains in detail in the section of his PHB called "Successful Adventuring". The same style of play is discussed extensively by Lewis Pulsipher (who describes it as the "wargaming" style) in his numerous essays in early White Dwarf (late-70s, early 80s). You can also see the same style exhibited in Gygax's sample dungeon, and example of play, in his DMG. Moldvay Basic is also buitl to support this style of play.

This style of play is based on the GM having a dungeon map and a key to it, which - once written - it is "locked in". The reason it's locked in is so that the players can engage with it: by searching, divining (there's a reason that short-range detection items are staples on the magic item lists in these games), etc; then taking out the best loot. Both endeavurs, but especially the second, will require avoiding or defeating monsters.

I think this style of play is reasonably uncommon in contemporary RPGing. It's not clear if it was ever the majority of played D&D. But it's very clearly the style of play that Gygax wrote AD&D to support. (Hence, for instance, there are rules for determining how likely you are to find a secret door if you search for it; but not rules to determine how likely a merchant is to have a bardiche for sale if you ask for one. If you actually catalogue the action resolution rules in Gygax's AD&D, you can see both (i) how many of them there are (many more than one might at first suspect), and (ii) how oriented they are towards the particular sort of "skilled play" that he advocates.

pemerton said:

Well, in one sense it doesn't.

But this is the General RPG forum on a leading RPG message board. I think it's reasonable for posters her anallyse play techniques.

I'm espeically interested in this idea that the GM might change the (as yet unrevealed) fiction to make the game "better", or might instead stick to what s/he pre-authored and, on that basis, declare an action declaration a failure with no check. To me, that seems to make the shared fiction that results from play very much the product of the GM's preferences. I'm waiting for anyone else to post his/her view of it.

Click to expand...

It's really not that hard to fathom, is it?

GM writes something up. Lets' say it's a mystery about someone being murdered.
Player or players in the course of role-playing or adventuring come up with a common narrative that links a previous adventure that had nothing to do with the current one back to it (ie. Remember so and so, this looks like his work)

GM realizes that it makes sense and opens up an opportunity to add depth to his game. One problem.
Different player rolled a successful skill check that gave him or her information about the original storyline that conflicts with the new, better storyline. Player knows it was successful. Now the GM needs to have it not conflict.

GM needs to think fast and handle this with good writing OR, do the wrong thing and railroad the skill check player into a direction that doesn't make sense to him. This invalidates the check.

The fact that railroading happens in bad games is known. The fact that the potential for it happens in every game is known. The solution is the GM doing their job the right way to make sure everyone can enjoy themselves. That's why there's skill involved in being one.