Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Hypersmurf]

I must have missed that. What was your answer?

An unwounded character can use a healing surge, as long as he is an unwounded character below his maximum hit point total. If he is an unwounded character who is also at maximum hit points, on the other hand, the healing surge will be of no benefit, since the function of a healing surge is not to heal wounds; it is to restore hit points.

If the restoration of hit points includes a narration of wounds healing, well and good. If it does not, also fine.

Holy crap, talk about unbelievably arrogant. These are the ONLY two choices? There is no middle ground? Either suck it up or you're playing wrong? Gimme a break.

Er, read it again. He said "If one of these two things is happening, there is a problem", not "These are the only two things that can happen".

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have always been at war with these two competing ideologies in the game:

1. You want to feel like your actions/decisions are meaningful - if no matter what all characters make it to the evil ritual to stop it regardless of past failures and situations then the idea that the choices i made are meaningful seems an illusion

2. Having players not play the game due to Bob being decapitated on the way to to the ritual...

I used pretty extreme positions for these but in essence these have alwasy been at odd with me as to which one should occur. It tends to switch depending on the game and current mood. This is of course completely connected to simulationist/gamist/narrativist approaches

Thanks; I wouldn't have seen those comments if you hadn't quoted them.

I support the idea that, if there are no meaningful consequences in the game, you might as well be sitting out. Of the choices between (1) and (2), above, (2) is far more preferable, even if it means scheduling an irregular game without Bob so that he can be back in full swing on the next regular game. It might even be possible for Bob to play a one-shot NPC or retainer for that play session.

It may be no fun to miss that irregular session, and it may be less fun to play a one-shot NPC than playing your beloved character, but doing it any other way results in a game that is so much less satisfying that, as a player, I wouldn't want to play. Simply put, if my actions don't determine the consequences of game events, there is no point in deciding what to do at all.

I have no interest in playing Candyland.

I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.

Now, I realize that there are a lot of folks who never had the opportunity to play D&D as it was intended to be played by its creators, Lo these many years ago. And, not having had the experience, I guess that can sound like crazy talk to you.

How can a game where you don't always get what you want be better than a game where you do?

The answer is, simply, that success is sweeter when you know failure is a real option. And both success or failure (not just to stop the ritual, but also to be there to try to stop the ritual) are both far more meaningful -- and satisfying -- when you know that they are the direct result of your choices, interaction with a game world that doesn't change just to meet some predetermined outcome, and the luck of the dice.

I realize that this style of play isn't for everyone, but, well run, it is surprising how many people enjoy it. Again, my nine-year-old daughter seems able, not only to grasp that death means death, but to grasp why death means death makes the game better. Or any other consequence that might occur. Most adults I have met seem able to grasp the same with little or no difficulty. Heck, we certainly had no difficulty with the concepts when I was a teenager.

Indeed, understanding that you can and will have to deal with the consequences that arise in game play tends, IME, to make better players. It also tends to make players who find themselves better able to avoid sitting out due to bad decisions. "Bad decision + get what you want anyway" tends to reinforce bad decision making, in the game or out. It is very easy to make bad decisions. Making good decisions requires effort. Only a paradigm where it is necessary to make good decisions to get what you want promotes good decision making.

IMHO, it was this attitude toward gaming, more than anything, that made D&D a success. I would argue that the strength of the D&D brand is built, more than anything, on the echoes of that approach, coming down to us from OD&D on, that keep the game on top. The game is never advertised as one in which, if you fail, the DM artificial props you up. It is adverted as a game in which your decisions matter.

Again, I know that this isn't for everyone. 2nd Ed specifically tried to promote that "artificial propping" playstyle beause there are some people who wanted it that way. Making good decisions is ultimately hard. Dealing with the results of bad decisions isn't fun. Figuring out how to swing the action to account for unintended consequences isn't easy for a lazy DM.

3rd intentionally emulated 1e to save the hobby from where 2nd Ed had left it. Don't think so? Go back and read the Dragon articles, look at the designers' statements, and then flip through a copy of the 3e DMG while flipping through the 1e DMG. Does that dungeon look familiar? Some of those pictures? That play example? "Back to the dungeon" was specifically a call back to play where the players made choices, and the dice fell where they would. And it did very, very well.

But they didn't kill the 2nd Ed "scaled world" meme, and it is back with a vengeance.

When I look at the 3e books, I see them as an intentional analogue to 1e. When I look at the 4e books, I see an unintentional analogue to 2e. Even some of the modules contain the same contrivances, where opponents act in illogical ways in order to protect the PCs and maintain the story.

Anyway, I wouldn't have ranted so long if the question hadn't been asked.

Do I support the idea that the mechanics of the game should encourage players to become spectators?

No, but I support the idea that, should the actions of the players cause them to become spectators, then that is what happens. I absolutely support the idea that the mechanics should allow for that possibility, and that the possibility should be transparent enough that the players know it. When their characters win, it should have meaning. When they lose, it should have meaning. Satisfying is more important than fun.

I have been pretty clear that I don't feel that "any deviation from [my] chosen playstyle is wrongbadfun and must be stamped out."

But I do have a strong sense, having played with a great many people since Christmas 1979, in several US states and in two countries, having had players look me up years later to tell me how much fun they had, having been paid to run games, and having heard about how players described my games from third parties (who did not know that they were speaking to the DM in question), I have a pretty strong feeling that I understand what will make a satsifying game to the average gamer.

That doesn't mean that it's for everyone, or that you never end up unhappy about dealing with the consequences of your actions. That doesn't mean that it's always great fun.

But it does mean that (for the average person) it's always satisfying, and that its never Candyland.

But then, I don't describe myself as a "lazy DM", and I've never been in a position where I might be laughed off the table for setting the parameters of a campaign world. Quite the opposite, actually. So maybe what I prefer wouldn't work for everyone, even if they would find it satisfying. I suppose that can make one a bit arrogant as the years roll by.


RC

 

[cwhs01]

I aim to please.

Was it good enough for cwhs01?

Pretty much

But even with the explanation, i don't really get why people accept HP without healing surges and don't accept HP with healing surges.

i get it that the 3.x hp model, you can describe wounds as they are being dealt (5 HP is a shallow wound to a 100 HP fighter, a deep stab in the gut for a low con wizard etc.). But if the aim is realism/believability, why then ignore any game mechanical penalties? If the wound is lifethreatening, shouldn't it incur penalties beyond the PC expressing a wish to have his character flee from combat? even a wound that wasn't lifethreatening could reasonably be expected to affect the character.

IMO HP are problematic unless you accept it as a gamist construct, and narate HP loss as minor cuts and bruises until the final HP loss that kills the character. And IMO its a small step from accepting that PC's don't ever get severely wounded until they get killed, and to accepting that they have gods watching over them/luck/willpower/moxie enogh to soldier on despite being heavily wounded. Which could happen if a 4e character getting up after being hit into the negatives and rolling a 20 on the death save. This, coupled with acceptance that we aren't attempting to model anything but DnD fantasy, should be enough to accept any HP model of any edition. IMO etc

 

[El Mahdi]

. . . I have no interest in playing Candyland. . .

Then you probably won't ever be qualified to be President. I guess it depends on what your opinion towards Chutes & Ladders is?

 

[LostSoul]

I have no interest in playing Candyland.

I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.

I don't think that all the talk of "fun" means "sacrificing satisfaction" as you describe it - or good "Gamist" play as I would call it.

The answer is, simply, that success is sweeter when you know failure is a real option. And both success or failure (not just to stop the ritual, but also to be there to try to stop the ritual) are both far more meaningful -- and satisfying -- when you know that they are the direct result of your choices, interaction with a game world that doesn't change just to meet some predetermined outcome, and the luck of the dice.

That's a good summary of "Gamist" play.

When I look at the 3e books, I see them as an intentional analogue to 1e. When I look at the 4e books, I see an unintentional analogue to 2e. Even some of the modules contain the same contrivances, where opponents act in illogical ways in order to protect the PCs and maintain the story.

Here's where I disagree. I think that 4e is geared to provide gamist "fun" (or satisfaction). I don't think it provides the same techniques for Exploration (what people have called "making sense") though, and it doesn't make Exploration the main priority. I think that's why it fails to support Simulationist play.

What elements of the 4e modules are you talking about, by the way?

 

[Delta]

(Re: RC's last post) And there was much rejoicing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Pretty much

But even with the explanation, i don't really get why people accept HP without healing surges and don't accept HP with healing surges.

i get it that the 3.x hp model, you can describe wounds as they are being dealt (5 HP is a shallow wound to a 100 HP fighter, a deep stab in the gut for a low con wizard etc.). But if the aim is realism/believability, why then ignore any game mechanical penalties? If the wound is lifethreatening, shouldn't it incur penalties beyond the PC expressing a wish to have his character flee from combat? even a wound that wasn't lifethreatening could reasonably be expected to affect the character.

IMO HP are problematic unless you accept it as a gamist construct, and narate HP loss as minor cuts and bruises until the final HP loss that kills the character. And IMO its a small step from accepting that PC's don't ever get severely wounded until they get killed, and to accepting that they have gods watching over them/luck/willpower/moxie enogh to soldier on despite being heavily wounded. Which could happen if a 4e character getting up after being hit into the negatives and rolling a 20 on the death save. This, coupled with acceptance that we aren't attempting to model anything but DnD fantasy, should be enough to accept any HP model of any edition. IMO etc

It is not a matter of achieving perfection with the system. It is just a point where things go too far for some.

Tough. You fought some kobolds and you died.



Tough. You fought a mummy, and there were consequences.



Tough. You either go on without Bob, or drag his critical-hitted person along with you, or you don't stop the ritual.



Sorry, but this is exactly what I mean about real accomplishment. You describe player goals, and then things that can derail those goals. Well, things that can derail those goals are part of the game. It is only when one of two things occurs that there is a problem:

1. The DM sets up a scenario wherein if the PCs do not do X, Y will happen....and she can't accept Y happening. Solution: If you can't accept Y happening, don't set it up as a consequence of failure.

2. You are playing Candyland and calling it D&D.


IMHO, of course.


RC

I expected such a counter-point, but I didn't feel a way to better express myself.

I agree that there must be consequences. I am not playing Candyland.
I agree that if I don't want a certain consequence, I shouldn't even allow it. But why should this mean I can't use, say a Mummy? Why do the mechanics have to get in the way of what I want?

A problem of accepting any consequence defined by the rules is that you often end up in such situations that aren't "believable" or at least feel strange.
For example, using raise-dead to recover dead team members. It cheapens death, and creates a bizarre world - I think the world is stranger then having a few Inigo Montoya moments.
Or some random stranger arrives just close to the very dungeon where you just have lost a friend, and he is so trustworthy and willing to help you that he will become part of your party and goes on monster and treasure hunting.

Yes, this is all because we didn't want some consequences to happen. Maybe that makes it a "candyland" world, but it is the only way the game can actually work - you don't want to roll up new characters every time another PC dies, and you certainly don't want to go through all the hoops again to introduce that PC in the campaign and the party.

The consequence of failure in combat can be imprisoment, retreat, or just having three characters out of five rolling their death save and barely survive. The tension of facing death is there. This doesn't feel like a win. *
If I later want to say that, after enduring such hardship, the characters want to rest instead of immediately stumbling to the next adventure, then this is a consequence the player decided, not one the rules forced on them.

*) And it's not really as if the tension would be more meaningful if characters _really_ die. You can still roll up a new character at any time. You are not out of the game forever, especially since there is no rule saying: "If a players character dies, he has to sit at the side-lines and watch so he can reflect about his failures and how he can learn from the consequences." That's just something that happens because it takes too long till we find a "believable" entry point for the new PC, or until we "role-played" us to the position where we can raise the dead character.

 

[MerricB]

Quick note: I've killed three PCs so far in 15 sessions of D&D 4e play. All died due to HP loss, and they all had healing surges left.

I completely reject any notion that 4e isn't a deadly system if you run the encounters right. Consequences? The system has them. (Just check the disease rules, and the potential of killing someone when trying to cure them!).

The design that healing surges mean that a party can continue for longer without a cleric is something that has been embraced by my players and myself.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

But I do have a strong sense, having played with a great many people since Christmas 1979, in several US states and in two countries, having had players look me up years later to tell me how much fun they had, having been paid to run games, and having heard about how players described my games from third parties (who did not know that they were speaking to the DM in question), I have a pretty strong feeling that I understand what will make a satsifying game to the average gamer.

I find the above quote very funny, considering that many people in this thread have exactly as much or even more experience DMing as you do, with equally, if not more people in more places than you do, yet, you claim to know what is satisfying to the average gamer implying that others don't.

And, please, don't drag in other conversations that are completely off topic. I know how hard it is to argue against an idea and not the person, but, ad hominem attacks are really beneath you aren't they?

See, you simply say, "Tough noogies" and move on. I disagree with that point. Not because I never kill PC's or because I'm playing in Candyland, but because I realize that forcing all sorts of very strange elements into the game, as Mustrum_Ridcully rightly points out - ressurection, "Oh, you look a trustworthy sort" style introductions of new PC's - is not a very good answer.

The funny thing is, you've quoted EGG twice now with:

If you had just read the 1e DMG you could have saved yourself the bother. I believe that, when Gary describes why hit points provide the best simulation without getting in the way of the game, he has already made your point for you.((Bold mine))

EGG himself places gameplay ahead of simulation. The primary concern is play at the table over simulation. If it's good enough for someone who "had the opportunity to play D&D as it was intended to be played by its creators", why is it not good enough for you?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I expected such a counter-point, but I didn't feel a way to better express myself.

Happens to me all the time.

I agree that there must be consequences. I am not playing Candyland.
I agree that if I don't want a certain consequence, I shouldn't even allow it. But why should this mean I can't use, say a Mummy? Why do the mechanics have to get in the way of what I want?

If by "mummy" you mean "creature that causes mummy rot", you've got a problem. But, if you don't want to accept mummy rot as a consequence, you shouldn't include mummies that cause mummy rot. The game is malleable; you can set up the challenges you want.

(Under the OGL, this was more true for 3rd party products than it is under the GSL as we have it. I guess you could just publish an adventure using "koboldics" instead of "kobolds" when you want to change stats.....?)

A problem of accepting any consequence defined by the rules is that you often end up in such situations that aren't "believable" or at least feel strange.

For example, using raise-dead to recover dead team members. It cheapens death, and creates a bizarre world - I think the world is stranger then having a few Inigo Montoya moments.

Agreed. If you allow the rules to dictate the world, you can have some extremely bizarre things happen. However, if the world dictates the rules, this doesn't have to be so. If you don't want the consequence of dead people being raised, excise it from the game.

I could keep responding, but I don't really think we have any real disagreement here.

Quick note: I've killed three PCs so far in 15 sessions of D&D 4e play. All died due to HP loss, and they all had healing surges left.

I completely reject any notion that 4e isn't a deadly system if you run the encounters right. Consequences? The system has them. (Just check the disease rules, and the potential of killing someone when trying to cure them!).

Cool. I killed quite a few PCs (and had quite a few of my own die as well) in 2e, despite the fact that TSR was invested in the "prop 'em up" meme at the time. What is going on with the game designers isn't necessarily what's going on at your table.



RC