Do you "save" the PCs?

[Ariosto]

So you're saying D&D is a better game when the challenges are level-appropriate?

I'm saying that my impression is that Gygax thought it was a better game when you needed all your skill just for a chance to get out with treasure, or maybe even alive -- rather different, I think, than what "level appropriate" means since even the 3e designers' view got shot down as too tough.

 

[Sammael]

Once upon a time, I tried to save the PCs in my game, and I think I did it too often, because I liked the characters too much.

Since then, I've changed two things: I roll all dice in the open (to resist the temptation to fudge) and PCs have a limited number of Fate Points which can be used to avoid otherwise deadly situations (examples of use: change critical hit to normal hit, add +10 to AC against a single attack, reroll a failed check, add +10 to a check in advance, etc).

I think this is working nicely - the players can control their characters' destinies and I don't have to fudge myself. Of course, there is a limit on the number of times Fate Points can be used (1/encounter, no more than 2/session), and Fate Points are a very limited resource, so players tend to really save them for the "use this or die" type situations.

 

[The Shaman]

In this case, we have the universe of the "strict simultion-ist" and everyone else.

Actually, it's you and Janx playing the "no true Scotsman" card.

I'm done with this thread now. See you in the funny papers.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, it's you and Janx playing the "no true Scotsman" card.

We'll have to defer to Doug on that one, I think.

 

[Reynard]

There's a really clear example of this from Dragon #26, Notes From A Very Successful D&D Moderator (sorry Janx)

That's a great story and underscores how an adversarial game can be great fun for the right group. The "arms race' can in fact be the point, be where the fun is found. Not for all groups, or even the majority of them, but certainly for some. Being competitive in nature, it is both challenging and rewarding for the DM in ways that a more "referee" or "storyteller" style can't. It's also hard: it is way too easy for an adversarial DM to "win" unfairly, which isn't fun for anyone.

As to the issue of whether EGG thought the game should be "level appropriate" I always got the sense that the milieu should be "simulationist" (he wouldn't say that but in the way we use the term today, i think it fits) but the game should be tailored (but if the PCs wander down too many levels in hopes of great rewards, they are on their own).

 

[pawsplay]

The old crazy dungeon with its traps arms race, and the new tailored encounters are both examples of gamism. Encounters are always a challenge, no matter what counter-measures the PCs employ or what level they are, relative to where they go. Both are criticised for a lack of verisimilitude. The counter to this is simulationism - ear seekers don't exist, traps don't escalate, encounters aren't tailored.

There is another counter... basic unpredictability. If it is taken as a given that monsters may have surprising capabilities, and there is no good way to know when, if, and how an area is trapped, players have to resort to logic. The end is still to challenge, but within the logic of the setting. This is an area where simulation and game-oriented constructs converge, and thus another example of where GNS both fails to differentiate between the agendas and fails to describe what works about D&D (since GNS claims D&D doesn't work). Appropriate level challenges need not be implausible or arbitrarily manipulated.

Risk aversion is futile, as Gygax pointed out with his hyperbolic and fairly humorous example. But equally, as he acknowledges, good decision-making should be non-trivial, as well.

I think the single thing that fuels so much contention in these debates is a disagreement on which way the ball rolls down the slippery slope. Does excessive fiat lead to unsatisfying, arbitrary resolutions dictated by the GM? Does a slavish reliance on dice rolls lead to discontinuity, illogic, and anticlimax? Either saving the party or letting them perish could serve a useful entertainment purpose. There is no right answer based simply on what school of thought you belong to with regard to resolution. The question is almost wholly one of lethality, in most cases. I would not fudge a die roll to deal with such a situation, but I might deal with it in another way. Another GM might fudge a die roll to achieve a similar end.

How you feel about TPKs and how you feel about fudging are almost entirely two separate issues.

 

[LostSoul]

There is another counter... basic unpredictability. If it is taken as a given that monsters may have surprising capabilities, and there is no good way to know when, if, and how an area is trapped, players have to resort to logic. The end is still to challenge, but within the logic of the setting. This is an area where simulation and game-oriented constructs converge, and thus another example of where GNS both fails to differentiate between the agendas and fails to describe what works about D&D (since GNS claims D&D doesn't work). Appropriate level challenges need not be implausible or arbitrarily manipulated.

It really doesn't. If the end is to challenge then it's "Step on Up", aka Gamism. I like this blog post about it: Challenge-based adventuring « Game Design is about Structure It's a pretty good run-down of impartial DMing, I think.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It really doesn't. If the end is to challenge then it's "Step on Up", aka Gamism. I like this blog post about it: Challenge-based adventuring « Game Design is about Structure It's a pretty good run-down of impartial DMing, I think.

There is also the important difference when discussing the idea of challenge. Whom or what are you challenging? A set of mathematical probabilities (the character), the abilities of a person (the player), or both?

 

[Doug McCrae]

There is also the important difference when discussing the idea of challenge. Whom or what are you challenging?

Gamism is always, I believe, about challenging the player. But there are many different ways a player can be challenged. Some would say that 3e primarily challenges character 'build' skills, whereas 4e is also rules-based but much more to do with mastery of the tactical battle game. You can't 'win' 4e at the build stage as you can with 3e. 3e is won on the character sheet, 4e on the battlegrid.

The above is an exaggeration ofc, battlegrid mastery is not unimportant in 3e, liberal use of 4e's famous pg 42 could completely change the way combats are won, and, depending on play style, many other skillsets can be challenged too. One could be challenged to solve a riddle or logic puzzle for example, or by political intrigues or a murder mystery. But it serves to highlight different forms of gamism.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Some interesting quotes from Gary Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery, published in 1987. Page 48-49.

The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined.

there are times when the GM will bend or break the rules of the game system in order to allow his players to maintain their characters. Just as he sometimes metes out punishment for infractions, the GM at other times intervenes benevolently, spreading his aegis over the PCs to save them from probabilities gone awry. To put it bluntly, when play is at a low ebb, or it is quite likely that the players' characters are about to suffer undue loss or extinction, the GM cheats and decrees otherwise. Opponents miss their blows, PCs manage to strike their foes, and various sorts of miracles occur. This is wrong only when it is done too liberally or when it is unwarranted.

And from page 43

What sorts of challenges are appropriate? How stiff should the opposition be? Generally, these are questions the GM will answer by examining the game materials, assessing the prowess of the PCs and their players, and then selecting and combining elements of the game rules and the milieu so that the strength of the opposition is tailored to the capabilities of those who will contest against it.

Interestingly, the 3e DMG uses the exact same word, 'tailored', when drawing a distinction between tailored and status quo encounters.