What Is an Experience Point Worth?

Kobold Boots · Jan 21, 2018

pemerton said:
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:
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.

My opinion is that the designers opinion of how his or her rules set should be run is irrelevant the minute it goes to sale and others are playing with it. EGG clearly understands this but offers advice to maintain game balance and enjoyment for the group.

So feel free to use the term Gygaxian to mean early play in line with OD&D and first ed, but it's probably wise to keep it away from RAW discussions.

pemerton · Jan 21, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
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.

If I've understood this properly, this is not what I'm talking about.

Upthread, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] (I thinks) and [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] all endorsed the follow two propositions:

(1) If some bit of fiction (let's call it X) is written down in the GM's notes, but has not yet been established, the GM is permitted to change it to something else (Q) during the course of play, if s/he thinks that Q will make the game better.

(2) If X is written down in the GM's notes, and during play a player declares an action for his/her PC that cannot succeed if X is true (eg the player looks for the map in the study, but the GM has already written down in his/her notes that the map is hidden in a bread bin in the kitchen), then the GM is entitled to rely on X to declare that the declared action fails (and so can, for instance, tell the player that the search for the map in the study fails without having regard to the outcome of any action resolution mechanics).

I assert: in a game that is GMed in accordance with propositions (1) and (2), the outcomes depend primiarliy upon the GM's opinion as to what makes for a good game. If s/he likes Q, then Q can come about. If s/he prefers his/her pre-authored X, then X is how it is and player actions will fail because of it.

I'm waiting for anyone else to address this point - ie the interaction of the two propositions. As best I understand your post you haven't, because your example is about X already having been established in play (you use the past tense: "gave him or her information about the original storyline that conflicts with the new, better storyline" - ie X is already established in play).
[MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] haven't, because they haven't posted again in this thread since I asked the quetsion. And [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] hasn't, because he only responded to (2) - asserting the GM's entitlement to uphold the integrity of his/her world - but without discussing it's relationship to (1) - ie the GM's entitlement to change from X to Q if s/he likes.

It is the combination of (1) and (2) that I am asking about.

Kobold Boots said:
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.

It's not true that there's potential for railroading in every game. A GM who plays Moldvay Basic in accordance with the rulebook can produce a boring experience, but not a railroad, because the outcomes will depend upon the interaction between the GM's pre-authored notes - which establish a maze with various "puzles" (in the form of monsters, traps and treasures) within it - and the players' action declarations in their attempt to solve those puzzles.

The game will be boring if (i) the players don't like puzzles the focus of their RPGing (eg that's generally me, as far as RPGing is concerned - I have zero patience for scouting, mapping, optimised looting, etc) or (ii) the GM writes a boring dungeon (that's also me - I'm as bad a Gygaxian GM as I am a player).

A GM who plays Burning Wheel in accordance with the rulebook can't produce a railroad either, although (again) it might be boring if the GM does a bad job. It can't be a railroad, because - if the GM is following the rulebooks - then (i) every situation is framed by reference to the Beliefs, Relationships, etc that the players authored into their PCs; and (ii) the GM either says "yes" or calls for a check - so if it is a map at issue, and a player declares that his/her PC searches the study for the map, then either the GM declares that the PCs finds it (if the momentum of the game is such that there is nothing at stake in finding the map itself, such that failing to find the map would be a fizzle) or the GM frames a check (depending on context, this could be Perception or Study-wise or Map-wise or something else) and the outcome of that check determines whether the map is found, or whether some new obstacle or complication emerges instead (which the GM will narrate by reference to those Beliefs, Relationships etc plus whatever more immediate stakes are at issue in the situation as it is unfolding at the table).

A BW game will be boring if the GM can't think of compelling situations, or can't think of compelling ways to frame checks (saying "yes" to everything makes for a boring game), or can't think of decent consequences for failure. But it won't be a railroad.

This is why I am trying to bypass misleading generalities, and hone in on the pair of propositiongs I've identified above.

pemerton · Jan 21, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
So feel free to use the term Gygaxian to mean early play in line with OD&D and first ed, but it's probably wise to keep it away from RAW discussions.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What is a "RAW discussion"?

This thread (for the past 8 pages or so) has been primarily about RPG design and GMing techniques. It is possible to play games in a fashion similar to how Gygax advocates in his PHB. Playing a DL game using the published DL modules has almost nothing in common with a game played in that fashion, other than that both are RPGs (ie both involve players engaging a shared fiction "administered" in some fashion by the GM, using individual characters as their vehicle for that engagement).

Kobold Boots · Jan 21, 2018

pemerton said:
Upthread, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] (I thinks) and [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] all endorsed the follow two propositions:

(1) If some bit of fiction (let's call it X) is written down in the GM's notes, but has not yet been established, the GM is permitted to change it to something else (Q) during the course of play, if s/he thinks that Q will make the game better.

(2) If X is written down in the GM's notes, and during play a player declares an action for his/her PC that cannot succeed if X is true (eg the player looks for the map in the study, but the GM has already written down in his/her notes that the map is hidden in a bread bin in the kitchen), then the GM is entitled to rely on X to declare that the declared action fails (and so can, for instance, tell the player that the search for the map in the study fails without having regard to the outcome of any action resolution mechanics).

I assert: in a game that is GMed in accordance with propositions (1) and (2), the outcomes depend primiarliy upon the GM's opinion as to what makes for a good game. If s/he likes Q, then Q can come about. If s/he prefers his/her pre-authored X, then X is how it is and player actions will fail because of it.

I must be dense, because I don't understand why we have to find and discuss the confluence point between the two items.

So if X means that Y can not succeed. It should not succeed.
e.g. X is that a map is in the bread box and a player looks in the study and makes a good skill roll he won't find it. If it's my game and he makes a great skill roll he may get a clue that it's in the bread box. (Parchment and ink on the table and the crumby remains of a scone or something).

If it's decided that X changes before Y happens, the player will never know.
If it's decided that X changes after Y happens, then you have the situation I declared with the skill check guy in my post above.
If it's decided that X changes during Y happening, then that's an issue only if the player finds out about it.

So if the answer is either: The GM has to make X and Y feasible together OR The player never knows about the sleight of hand, then you have your answer. If the GM changes things mid flight and actually tells the player in process; then he or she is daft.

Also, rail roading can happen in any game with plot and a referee. The rules have zero to do with it. It's a social problem.

Be well
KB

Kobold Boots · Jan 21, 2018

pemerton said:
I don't understand what you mean by this. What is a "RAW discussion"?

This thread (for the past 8 pages or so) has been primarily about RPG design and GMing techniques. It is possible to play games in a fashion similar to how Gygax advocates in his PHB. Playing a DL game using the published DL modules has almost nothing in common with a game played in that fashion, other than that both are RPGs (ie both involve players engaging a shared fiction "administered" in some fashion by the GM, using individual characters as their vehicle for that engagement).

"RAW" - Rules as Written

Be well
KB

pemerton · Jan 21, 2018

Lanefan said:
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.

Sure. But this is not true of Cortex+ Heroic, not true of Burning Wheel, not true of Classic Traveller outside of combat (eg you can resolve all of an interstellar trading exercise without need to know anything but world stats and jump distances - I know because I've done it), and not true of 4e outside of combat (eg skill challenges in 4e don't depend upon that sort of information for their resolution).

Lanefan said:
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.

But upthread you said that, if this hasn't already been established in play, the the GM can change it (from X to Q).

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

If the GM is prepared to change those materials if s/he thinks it woudl be more interesting, but equally sticks to them when s/he prefers them, how would you describe it?

Lanefan said:
The DM is in no way obliged to change the backstory to something that would allow a chance of success where none was before

That may be true - I'm not talking about what a GM is obliged or not obliged to do.

But if the GM is permitted to do that, and does so when s/he thinks it would be fun, but doesn't do so when s/he prefers what s/he already wrote, then isn't it the GM who's deciding how the situation resolves?

Lanefan said:
I posit that were she to do so she'd be violating the integrity of her world.

But you already said that s/he's allowed to change it if s/he wants to.

Again, if what you're saying is that the GM's opinion about the integrity of his/her world takes priority over player action declarations, how would you distinguish that from a railroad?

Lanefan said:
She'd also be making the game easier for her players / PCs as a side effect

That's an open question.

One form of difficulty is guessing what the GM wrote in his/her notes. Another form of difficulty is having to engage the fiction from the perspective of your PC and declare actions. I think many players would find 2nd ed AD&D less demanding than Burning Wheel.

R_Chance said:
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?1

There are two main reasons something "doesn't work" - ie an action delcaration (eg "I look for the map in the study") might fail. One is because the check is framed, the player rolls the dice, and they come up unluckily for the player. THe other is because the GM decides, by reference to fiction that has not yet been established (eg his/her notes state that the map is hidden in the kitchen), that the PC cannot find the map in the study.

If the GM is obliged to write everything down in his/her notes, and stick to those notes, so that the aim of play for the players is (more-or-less) to "crack" the GM's notes, then it is not a railroad - it's a type of complex maze/puzzle game. This is what Gygax advocates in his PHB and DMG.

But if the GM is permitted to make stuff up on the way through (which is, in practical terms, inevitable once the imaginary scope of the game extends beyond the rather artificial dungeon environment), and/or is permitted to rewrite his/her notes during play, based on what s/he thinks might be good for the game, then it's not a puzzle game anymore - because there's nothing for the players to crack. In this latter case, it seems that what happens depends very heavily on what the GM likes eg does s/he want to stick to X in his/her notes, or change it to Q (maybe the map is in the study) depending on what s/he thinks is better/more fun.

To me, that appears to be a railroad, because it is the GM who decides the important outcomes in the game. (The fact that the players can choose to have their PCs look for the map in the study seems not very signficiant - that won't actually change the outcomes, given that they only have a chance of finding it if the GM decides that Q would be more fun than the X that s/he wrote in his/her notes.)

pemerton · Jan 21, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
"RAW" - Rules as Written

I'm familiar with the acronym. That doesn't tell me what you think a "RAW discussion" is, or how the notion is relevant to this thread.

Kobold Boots said:
I must be dense, because I don't understand why we have to find and discuss the confluence point between the two items.

Well, when it comes to leisure activities like RPGing, we don't have to do much of anything. And you're not obliged to post in this thread. It's just the question I'm asking.

Kobold Boots said:
So if X means that Y can not succeed. It should not succeed.
e.g. X is that a map is in the bread box and a player looks in the study and makes a good skill roll he won't find it. If it's my game and he makes a great skill roll he may get a clue that it's in the bread box. (Parchment and ink on the table and the crumby remains of a scone or something).

If it's decided that X changes before Y happens, the player will never know.
If it's decided that X changes after Y happens, then you have the situation I declared with the skill check guy in my post above.
If it's decided that X changes during Y happening, then that's an issue only if the player finds out about it.

So if the answer is either: The GM has to make X and Y feasible together OR The player never knows about the sleight of hand, then you have your answer.

So it seems that the answer is that it's railroading, and the GM should be trying to keep the moments of railroading secret from the players.

Kobold Boots said:
Also, rail roading can happen in any game with plot and a referee. The rules have zero to do with it. It's a social problem.

Cheating is a social problem. But presumably we're talking about playing a game in accordance with the rules and guidelines.

There is no plot in Moldvay Basic or BW until play actually occurs (in Basic, it's a side effect; in BW, having play generate a plot is an important goal of play).

If the GM in a Moldvay Basic game changes things in his/her notes without telling the players, that's cheating. 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.

If a GM in BW sets a difficulty, and then tells a player whose dice roll beats it that nevertheless s/he doesn't get what s/he wants, well again that's overt and the player will know that the GM is not following the rules.

The particular method that you set out in your post that I've quoted depends upon a whole lot of practices - eg a player can succeed on a check to find the map in the study and yet not get what s/he wants (instead, the GM gives the player some clue). There are plenty of RPGs that use different practices (of the ones I GM, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller and Cortex+ are different; and 4e can be played in the same (different) way which is how our group plays it).a

Lanefan · Jan 21, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
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.

Quite true.

My question was, however, how many games other than 5e and 1e (sort of) actually endorse kitbashing right in their rulebooks?

Lanefan · Jan 21, 2018

pemerton said:
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.

In your opinion. I think they were diong the game a disservice.

Because if you do, then you eliminate the flexibility that is needed to narrate successes and failures in skill challenges.

While at the same time maintaining the flexibility to role-play such that things don't get to skill challenges; which - while not that bad of a mechanic in themselves - are the sort of thing resorted to when other options have failed. If the first thing that happens when engaging with a situation is a skill challenge then it's an ironclad guarantee that a bunch of stuff has been skipped, on both sides of the screen.

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.

Maybe it's because we're in vastly different parts of the world, but round here it's as common as dirt.

It's not clear if it was ever the majority of played D&D.

Until late 1e it's a safe bet that it was, with the likely exception of those playing Dragonlance. Once 2e hit, playstyles started to splinter but even then I'd suggest the majority stayed with something vaguely - by your terms - Gygaxian.

Lanefan

Lanefan · Jan 21, 2018

pemerton said:
Upthread, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] (I thinks) and [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] all endorsed the follow two propositions:

(1) If some bit of fiction (let's call it X) is written down in the GM's notes, but has not yet been established, the GM is permitted to change it to something else (Q) during the course of play, if s/he thinks that Q will make the game better.

(2) If X is written down in the GM's notes, and during play a player declares an action for his/her PC that cannot succeed if X is true (eg the player looks for the map in the study, but the GM has already written down in his/her notes that the map is hidden in a bread bin in the kitchen), then the GM is entitled to rely on X to declare that the declared action fails (and so can, for instance, tell the player that the search for the map in the study fails without having regard to the outcome of any action resolution mechanics).

I assert: in a game that is GMed in accordance with propositions (1) and (2), the outcomes depend primiarliy upon the GM's opinion as to what makes for a good game. If s/he likes Q, then Q can come about. If s/he prefers his/her pre-authored X, then X is how it is and player actions will fail because of it.

Simply put, (1) can only happen until and unless (2) happens for the very first time. At the time (2) happens, if the DM has already changed X to Q in her notes etc. then Q is what will be used and locked in and X goes away. If she hasn't, then X will be used and locked in and Q never sees the light of day.

However, there's a clause in (2) that needs a closer look, which I've bolded. The DM in this case doesn't even need to invoke any action resolution mechanics: she can, if she wants, just use her knowledge of X (or Q if Q has been subbed in at some earlier point) to flat-out say the action fails. Now most DM's IME wouldn't do it like this as it gives away information (that the action is currently impossible) that the PCs have no reason to know. Instead, having already established in house that the DM makes these sort of rolls, she'd go through the motions of rolling and narrate a failure. This leaves the PCs (and by extension, players) in a more realistic position: they don't know if they've failed because of lack of competence or luck, or because success is impossible.

The game will be boring if (i) the players don't like puzzles the focus of their RPGing (eg that's generally me, as far as RPGing is concerned - I have zero patience for scouting, mapping, optimised looting, etc) or (ii) the GM writes a boring dungeon (that's also me - I'm as bad a Gygaxian GM as I am a player).

While from the DM side I'm every bit as capable - maybe more so - of writing a boring dungeon as the next guy, as a player the whole scouting-mapping-exploration bit is a huge part of the game.

This is something the 5e designers really got right, at least in theory: the game has three pillars, of which exploration is one.

A GM who plays Burning Wheel in accordance with the rulebook can't produce a railroad either, although (again) it might be boring if the GM does a bad job. It can't be a railroad, because - if the GM is following the rulebooks - then (i) every situation is framed by reference to the Beliefs, Relationships, etc that the players authored into their PCs; and (ii) the GM either says "yes" or calls for a check - so if it is a map at issue, and a player declares that his/her PC searches the study for the map, then either the GM declares that the PCs finds it (if the momentum of the game is such that there is nothing at stake in finding the map itself, such that failing to find the map would be a fizzle) or the GM frames a check (depending on context, this could be Perception or Study-wise or Map-wise or something else) and the outcome of that check determines whether the map is found,

So either way, on a say-yes or a successful check the map is found in whatever location the PCs happen to be when they declare they're looking for it. It just appears there.

So what happens in this situation: we're searching a known-to-be-empty manor house for a unique map we know we'll need later. There's four of us, and we're in a bit of a hurry so in the interests of time efficiency we split up; Abercrombie says he'll search the upstairs bedrooms, Barnacle says he'll search the living and dining areas and the closets, Cadwallader says he'll search the library, and Delmionndia says she'll search the study and drawing room. If nobody finds anything we'll reconvene and search the basement and storage sheds together.

But something odd happens on the way to the forum: all four individual searchers roll mighty successes on their checks. But it's already been established that the map is unique - there's only one - which leaves our DM in something of a bind: four people somehow just found one map in four different places.

A bind, note, that she wouldn't be in had she pre-placed the map in a particular room.

A BW game will be boring if the GM can't think of compelling situations

This is probably true of just about any game, not just BW.

Lan-"and saying that four maps were found - the one being looked for originally and three other different ones - invalidates three of the four success rolls"-efan

What Is an Experience Point Worth?

Kobold Boots

Banned

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Kobold Boots

Banned

Kobold Boots

Banned

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Similar Threads

Related Articles