Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm pretty convinced by now, that the "perfect game" doesn't excist

Perfection doesn't exist. Yet we will always strive for it.

I know that some people on these boards (Raven Crowking and GnomeWorks) for example are considering or trying to come up with "their" perfect system. While trying to do so, it would be wiser to set intermediate goals and identify "priorities" and then continually raise the bar and expand. I suppose at least RC is trying that (in the forked thread "shaking it off", he says he is aiming to facilitate sandbox play). I would set very different priorities and and intermediate goals as him, but that doesn't make his attempt doomed...

As far as consequences go, I am in the "death is boring and counter-productive" camp. There's lots more to consequences of failure than death (aka "get raised after a time out" or "you get to change your build now, including name!").

I agree, and I wish to subscribe to your synonym newsletter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Bob is playing a fighter.

Bob's fighter is charged by an orc with a greataxe.

The orc rolls a natural 20, critting Bob for 51 damage.

Bob fails his Fort save.

If you like, replace "orc with a greataxe" with any one of the many spells from the 3E compendium that may as well read "save or die", from color spray on up.

The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?

You know, I have never ran nor played in a game of D&D where a character was charged by an orc with a greataxe without making any decisions that got him to that spot.

Bob should have picked a better DM.



RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, I have never ran nor played in a game of D&D where a character was charged by an orc with a greataxe without making any decisions that got him to that spot.

Bob should have picked a better DM.

Are you getting a little nit-picky here, or do you thing there is no difference between deciding to open a door to see what is making the noise (and if you can't kill it and take their stuff) and between making a tactical decision in combat that leads you to be the receiving ends of your enemies nastier (or just more numerable) attacks?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you getting a little nit-picky here, or do you thing there is no difference between deciding to open a door to see what is making the noise (and if you can't kill it and take their stuff) and between making a tactical decision in combat that leads you to be the receiving ends of your enemies nastier (or just more numerable) attacks?

Given

The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?​

I have to assume that Bob took no other action. If you intentionally avoid including anything that could look like a decision from your example, it isn't nitpicky at all to say either (1) Bob did make meaningful decisions that got him to that point, or (2) Bob wasn't allowed to make meaningful decisions because the DM sucks.

Pick one.

If (1), then Bob should suck it up. If (2) then Bob should have picked a better DM. Or run the game himself.

Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game. You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own. If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again. As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."

Yes, there can be consequences other than death. Yes, you can enjoy other playstyles. But if you go back to the post, to which I was responding, what you see is some whining about having to sit out due to in-game consequences which, generally speaking (at the very least), are the results of the players' choices. IOW, "I took a risk, it didn't work out, and now I want my fighter to be able to go stop that ritual with you! Why should I have to sit out?" Contingent on that attitude is the idea that, having chosen to take a risk, you shouldn't have to accept the consequences of taking that risk...which you knew or reasonably should have known before taking it.

Exploring old ruins is dangerous. Hunting orcs is dangerous. Or at least these things can be dangerous, and players should have reasonable means to access that danger beforehand (rumours, gather information, divination spells, scouting, clues left by the DM). Crying about it afterwards is simply childish.

And, yes, my nine-year-old daughter understands that consequences make for a better game, and understands why. This isn't to "prove" that any particular set of consequences is the "bestest" or that there is only one way in which consequences appear. However, the game where your decisions have no consequences strips your decisions of meaning, and I would say that game would not only be unpalatable, but I question whether it would be a "game" at all.

If you don't want death as a consequence, set up a game where you can't die. House rule it. But don't tell your players that they face death, while fudging all the dice behind your screen. Players have a right, IMHO, to expect that their decisions are meaningful.

Set up the game that is satisfying to you by all means (and satisfying is not co-equal to fun), but once you've set up that game, and once you are playing in it, you really shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your whining about how unfair it is that you don't win at everything, all the time.

If you want to win at everything, all the time, Candyland is designed that way. You can dress it up however you like, but it's still Candyland.

(And, of course, it should go without saying that if you prefer Candyland, hey, that's cool too. Whatever your gaming preference happens to be is what it is, and that's okay. Just don't try to turn my game into your game.)


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Given

The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?​

I have to assume that Bob took no other action. If you intentionally avoid including anything that could look like a decision from your example, it isn't nitpicky at all to say either (1) Bob did make meaningful decisions that got him to that point, or (2) Bob wasn't allowed to make meaningful decisions because the DM sucks.

Pick one.

If (1), then Bob should suck it up. If (2) then Bob should have picked a better DM. Or run the game himself.

Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game. You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own. If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again. As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."

Yes, there can be consequences other than death. Yes, you can enjoy other playstyles. But if you go back to the post, to which I was responding, what you see is some whining about having to sit out due to in-game consequences which, generally speaking (at the very least), are the results of the players' choices. IOW, "I took a risk, it didn't work out, and now I want my fighter to be able to go stop that ritual with you! Why should I have to sit out?" Contingent on that attitude is the idea that, having chosen to take a risk, you shouldn't have to accept the consequences of taking that risk...which you knew or reasonably should have known before taking it.

Exploring old ruins is dangerous. Hunting orcs is dangerous. Or at least these things can be dangerous, and players should have reasonable means to access that danger beforehand (rumours, gather information, divination spells, scouting, clues left by the DM). Crying about it afterwards is simply childish.

And, yes, my nine-year-old daughter understands that consequences make for a better game, and understands why. This isn't to "prove" that any particular set of consequences is the "bestest" or that there is only one way in which consequences appear. However, the game where your decisions have no consequences strips your decisions of meaning, and I would say that game would not only be unpalatable, but I question whether it would be a "game" at all.

If you don't want death as a consequence, set up a game where you can't die. House rule it. But don't tell your players that they face death, while fudging all the dice behind your screen. Players have a right, IMHO, to expect that their decisions are meaningful.

Set up the game that is satisfying to you by all means (and satisfying is not co-equal to fun), but once you've set up that game, and once you are playing in it, you really shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your whining about how unfair it is that you don't win at everything, all the time.

If you want to win at everything, all the time, Candyland is designed that way. You can dress it up however you like, but it's still Candyland.

(And, of course, it should go without saying that if you prefer Candyland, hey, that's cool too. Whatever your gaming preference happens to be is what it is, and that's okay. Just don't try to turn my game into your game.)


RC

You seem to assume there are only extremes. There is a room for death in every game. The goal is to avoid sudden, uncontrolled death. And yes, an Orc critting a healthy Bob and dropping is the kind of extreme that I want to avoid. And game mechanics can do that.

The hit points role in a way is to provide predictability. Bobs player knows that he can open a door with some noise behind it because whatever there is, it can't kill him in the first round. But it might be able to do so in the second round, but he can react and maybe he does the right thing (close the door, run away, or ask Galstaff to cast Wall of Force between him and the opponent)
If he expected it could, he would look for precautions to avoid them. If there are no such precautions, then there is no real challenge - it's just "ignore or face a chance of random death". It might be realistic, but I say it is not good for the game. There is neither character nor player skill involved in such situations, it's just blind luck.

Heck, I remember an experience from Shackled City that went like this. My character was just "Magic Jared" and stolen, and I got a replacement character (an NPC Deva or something like that). She had just told the PCs what was going on, and we were still in the room of the "body-napping". The Bard decided that he should check out those vases in the room - and triggered a trap that killed two characters, including my temporary replacement. (Save or Die)

 

[Raven Crowking]

You seem to assume there are only extremes.

Not at all. I was responding to an extreme example, where the only action, apparently, was an orc critting Bob out of the blue. The action was divorced from any context. Either there was context that it was divorced from (in which case Bob made choices) or there was not (in which case Bob made no choices, and the DM probably will end up lonely and frustrated ).

If "an Orc critting a healthy Bob and dropping is the kind of extreme that [you] want to avoid" you shouldn't be using mechanics that provide for that sort of extreme.

However, if you choose to use mechanics that provide for that sort of extreme, it is childish to complain about that sort of extreme occurring. Not childish to examine, not childish to discuss, not childish to modify more to your liking. I feel certain you understand the difference.

And, having been on EN World long enough, you should know that there are people out there whose games do not include a room for death.


RC

 

[Fenes]

And, having been on EN World long enough, you should know that there are people out there whose games do not include a room for death.

4E did something for the "raise dead means we can't really kill anyone" "raise dead means we can just raise the king, and ask who killed him" "without raise dead the game is too lethal" "with it it's too surreal" Debate.
The "Only those with a destiny, aka PCs, can be raised" rule is a neat way to allow PCs to come back from the dead, yet avoids the "why don't you just raise your dead wife" or even "let them kill the hostages, we'll true ress them afterwards" problems.

Thatr's a good example for a mechanic that solves a game problem - safety net for PCs - and avoids flavor trouble (no one can be killed for real!) for the setting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

4E did something for the "raise dead means we can't really kill anyone" "raise dead means we can just raise the king, and ask who killed him" "without raise dead the game is too lethal" "with it it's too surreal" Debate.
The "Only those with a destiny, aka PCs, can be raised" rule is a neat way to allow PCs to come back from the dead, yet avoids the "why don't you just raise your dead wife" or even "let them kill the hostages, we'll true ress them afterwards" problems.

Thatr's a good example for a mechanic that solves a game problem - safety net for PCs - and avoids flavor trouble (no one can be killed for real!) for the setting.

That's not inconsistent with what I said.

There are still people out there who simply don't want PC death in their games, period. They don't want anyone raised. Or they want PC death to only be possible when the player agrees. Or a whole host of other things.

This is far different from "I was in a game where I knew there was mummy rot, I knew death and other bad things happen, I fought a mummy and got mummy rot, now I have to get cured instead of going on to the next dungeon like I wanted to, woe is me!"


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not at all. I was responding to an extreme example, where the only action, apparently, was an orc critting Bob out of the blue. The action was divorced from any context. Either there was context that it was divorced from (in which case Bob made choices) or there was not (in which case Bob made no choices, and the DM probably will end up lonely and frustrated ).

If "an Orc critting a healthy Bob and dropping is the kind of extreme that [you] want to avoid" you shouldn't be using mechanics that provide for that sort of extreme.

Hence me preferring 4E over 3E, obviously.

Of course I lost track - how did we end up here?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hence me preferring 4E over 3E, obviously.

Of course I lost track - how did we end up here?

"All roads lead to Rome."

Or, in this case, "All roads lead to play what you prefer, but don't whine about what you're playing."


RC