Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[Reynard]

As an example of basic point in creating this thread, I am currently working on a mega-dungeon using Labyrinth Lord for the base rules set. I've got maps for the first few levels, a background and the general "gist" of the place, a nearby village and so on. I've gone through and "rolled up" the contents of the first level for inspiration and ideas, and have the Dungeon Alphabet, my 1E DMG and a few other resources at the ready. My overall plan is to run the thing at game days, mini-cons and where ever and whenever I can, with each foray by any given group actually occurring in game and in "real time" (that is, if I run it this weekend and then again next weekend, a week has gone on between these two different groups making their forays).

Anyway, as I get ready to roll up my sleeves and do the real design work on the first couple of levels, i have a choice to make: do I assume players will be using the basic Labyrinth Lord rules, or will characters be made with the Advanced Edition Companion (I will be using the AEC -- not to mention other resources -- for monsters, treasure, traps, etc...).

I am actually having some difficulty deciding. I am trying to determine if there is anything to be gained from including AEC character options. Does it improve play in any way? And on the other hand, is there any reason not to? Do I lose anything or does it hurt anything to allow Dwarf Fighters alongside Dwarves?

 

[Ariosto]

Finally, increasing options may actually narrow possibilities.

A key here, I think, is that by "options" what is really meant is "rules written in a rules-book".

Obviously, if that set is identical with the set of permitted possibilities, then it is smaller than that set plus the countless other things that people can imagine!

There is always a set of things that is not defined in the rules-book but rather assumed. This is necessarily vast in an RPG, because the game encompasses a whole world.

So, what does get written down is chiefly things that are expected (or seem likely) not to be understood unless they are written down. The exclusive attitude toward rules -- "if it's not in the written rules, then it's not in the game" -- tends to move things into this class of phenomena. Once a thing is codified, one cannot be sure one is doing it "right" unless one looks up the codification.

This makes for complexity. "Rules lawyers" make for more, as they (like real-world lawyers) require specialized language and precisely constructed logic to keep the "letter" roughly in the neighborhood of the "spirit".

Now, one thing that has made all this more significant in D&D is a shift in where "the game" is located. It has become much more about picking this or that item -- an ability score, a skill, a feat, a spell, even a magic item -- off a menu. How many picks one gets is a set resource, and the value of an investment depends on someone who made a different pick not getting the benefit.

It is not all neatly reduced to "hero points" as in Champions, but it is in essence the same superimposition of a whole second game. I dare say that in some quarters it may even stand as the primary game, overshadowing all that formerly constituted "playing D&D".

 

[Reynard]

It is not all neatly reduced to "hero points" as in Champions, but it is in essence the same superimposition of a whole second game. I dare say that in some quarters it may even stand as the primary game, overshadowing all that formerly constituted "playing D&D".

Nicely put. I think this is where my brain was trying to get to, even if I didn't realize it. If you nearly remove that mini-game (by, say, going back to B/X) you refocus everyone's efforts on the game-game.

 

[Hussar]

Nicely put. I think this is where my brain was trying to get to, even if I didn't realize it. If you nearly remove that mini-game (by, say, going back to B/X) you refocus everyone's efforts on the game-game.

I disagree. I think if you strip away the mini-game, you refocus everyone's attention on the Game the DM-game. After a very short period of time, I'm going to know how you adjudicate certain elements, which means my choices are going to be influenced, not by the game world, but by how you interpret events in the game world.

If, instead, you use a neutral arbitrator of a broader applied rule set, then I no longer have to focus on you, but can go back to focusing on the game world.

We were talking skills and ditch-jumping ability. But what if Bob DMs a dark, gritty and low-magic game versus Suzie who DMs a much less gritty and higher magic game. These DM styles will certainly affect what type of character one might choose depending on DM if these players have played with them before.

But, my point is, why would Bob and Suzie use the same system? There's no reason to. There are so many systems out there that would fit Bob or Suzie's game that it doesn't make sense to use one system to fit all.

This is where the problem starts. Bob wants a dark, gritty, low magic game but chooses to use D&D which does not presume this. D&D presumes a pretty high magic setting - magic items are pretty common treasure, spell casters are not rare, you can pay casters to cast spells for you in any edition of the game. It's not a particularly gritty system either. After about third or fourth level, your character is a superhero, able to absorb attacks from giants for several rounds. Unless the players are 100% on board beforehand, he's going to run into problems.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do what Reynard is proposing and use a different system that fits with the style, rather than trying to pound square pegs into round holes by using a system that doesn't fit?

 

[IronWolf]

I disagree. I think if you strip away the mini-game, you refocus everyone's attention on the Game the DM-game. After a very short period of time, I'm going to know how you adjudicate certain elements, which means my choices are going to be influenced, not by the game world, but by how you interpret events in the game world.

If, instead, you use a neutral arbitrator of a broader applied rule set, then I no longer have to focus on you, but can go back to focusing on the game world.

Is this really avoidable though? There are lengthy debates in rules forums on these very boards where we are all reading the same text, yet come up with different rulings. As long as things continue to happen like that, there is always going to be a difference between DMs of a game.

But, my point is, why would Bob and Suzie use the same system? There's no reason to. There are so many systems out there that would fit Bob or Suzie's game that it doesn't make sense to use one system to fit all.

There are many systems out there, but with communication it is pretty easy to get the feel out of the D&D system that you want.

For sake of discussion let's say we both decide grim and gritty and low magic is a poor fit for D&D and not worth considering. Even with that I still think one is going to have a different feel between DMs in a standard magic campaign. Some DMs will be in favor of "magic shops", some won't. Some will let random tables decide their treasure, some won't. Campaigns can still have a very different feel even under the same rule set. It varies by DM and that DMs style.

This is where the problem starts. Bob wants a dark, gritty, low magic game but chooses to use D&D which does not presume this. D&D presumes a pretty high magic setting - magic items are pretty common treasure, spell casters are not rare, you can pay casters to cast spells for you in any edition of the game. It's not a particularly gritty system either. After about third or fourth level, your character is a superhero, able to absorb attacks from giants for several rounds. Unless the players are 100% on board beforehand, he's going to run into problems.

D&D can still work in a dark, gritty, low magic game. The DM needs to make adjustments to encounters and such as things advance to make sure he has accounted for the lower power level of the characters, but it is possible and not entirely difficult.

I agree that if the DM is going to run a dark, gritty, low magic game that this needs communicated to the players. I have certainly done so before games I have started letting the players know what the feel of the game would be before we started. Communication is always of importance in RPG gaming.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do what Reynard is proposing and use a different system that fits with the style, rather than trying to pound square pegs into round holes by using a system that doesn't fit?

I think D&D has worked for the style of games I have run, which vary from dark and gritty to the more normal abundance of magic and such. Of course, maybe my version of dark and gritty isn't as dark and gritty as others which is what allows D&D to work for my needs.

 

[Hussar]

Is this really avoidable though? There are lengthy debates in rules forums on these very boards where we are all reading the same text, yet come up with different rulings. As long as things continue to happen like that, there is always going to be a difference between DMs of a game.

I think we're simply arguing a difference in scale. Of course one DM's game will feel different than another. It should. It would be a very poor world if it didn't. Heck, I would hope that each of my own campaigns, even featuring the same players, still have their own distinct feel.

However, that being said, while you cannot have everyone playing exactly the same game, nor do we want that, I maintain that trying to use one system to run completely different style games is a bad idea.

I also maintain that if you have large areas of the game where common actions are adjudicated solely through DM fiat, two things happen: One, DM's fiat simply becomes an add on to the rules as the DM makes his way through common events. Jump becomes a Save vs Paralysis is Bob's game and a Dex check in Suzie's game. The ad hoc rules become table standards for that table and people proceed according to those standards. If I play Bob's game and I have a poor Paralysis save, I'm never going to willingly attempt to jump. OTOH, if I want to make a character who can jump (say a swashbuckling type), I'm going to choose classes which have good paralysis saves, and not choose the class because of in game thematic reasons.

Conversely, I will only play swashbucklers with high Dex scores in Suzie's game. So, likely, my swashbuckler will be a fighter in Bob's game and a Thief in Suzie's. Not because I particularly want to play a fighter or a thief, but because those choices under those DM's give me the best results.

Essentially, I no longer have a wide open system any more. Instead of the rules telling me what the best choice is, it's the DM. From the player's perspective, it doesn't really matter. In both cases, I'm being told how to create my character from a mechanical standpoint.

The second issue comes into play if you have newer players who haven't seen the rulings that the GM will make. If I don't know how Bob will adjudicate jump, I've found that most players simply won't risk it. You can't possibly go through an exhaustive list before character generation, mostly because it's too long and partially because the DM might not know himself. So, everyone makes generic characters based entirely on the known rules of the game.

For me personally, I prefer rules light systems which have universally applied mechanics. 3:16 for example, has two stats. One for combat and one for everything else. If I want to kill something, I use one stat, if I want to do anything else, I use the other one. And, generally, I know my chances of success based on my abilities. There's no mystery factor. Other than the GM setting difficulty, I know exactly how well I can do something. If I have a very high non-combat score, I'm going to succeed more often at non-combat actions.

With rules-absent rules sets, I have no way to judge how successful my character can be at a task before that task is undertaken. Is jumping the ditch a Str or Dex check or Paralysis save? I dunno beforehand. If I guess wrong, then my chances are out of my hands.

I like putting a lot more control back into the player's hands. Makes for happier players IME.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For me personally, I prefer rules light systems which have universally applied mechanics. 3:16 for example, has two stats. One for combat and one for everything else. If I want to kill something, I use one stat, if I want to do anything else, I use the other one. And, generally, I know my chances of success based on my abilities. There's no mystery factor. Other than the GM setting difficulty, I know exactly how well I can do something. If I have a very high non-combat score, I'm going to succeed more often at non-combat actions.

Light? Ha! I see your 3:16 and raise you TWERPS. One stat to rule them all baby!!

 

[Ariosto]

I disagree. I think if you strip away the mini-game, you refocus everyone's attention on the Game the DM-game. After a very short period of time, I'm going to know how you adjudicate certain elements, which means my choices are going to be influenced, not by the game world, but by how you interpret events in the game world.

It's not what this is about, but I think that as a matter of fact a DM in 2e or 3e or 3.5e or 4e is as free as ever to set probabilities anywhere between 0% and 100%.

Whatever the case, that does not change here. Whatever the case, it is not the point here.

What does change is that you no longer have/get to play the sub-game outside the role-playing game that determines how much better than your neighbor's character your character is. "We've both got less than no chance, but I'm at only -5% while he's at -10%! Thanks, Character Optimization!"

Luck of the dice determines what you get to start. The combination of player skill and luck of the dice determines what you get thereafter. "GM judgment" means as much as ever, and is as even-handed as ever.

There certainly can still be skill ratings to train up, even special techniques to learn, and spells to acquire, and superior arms and mounts, and magical artifacts.

Try old (1st-3rd ed. Chaosium) RuneQuest sometime. It has no levels, and (more to the point) no "leveling". The emphasis really is not especially different from old D&D just because of the "skills system".

 

[Hussar]

Luck of the dice determines what you get to start. The combination of player skill and luck of the dice determines what you get thereafter. "GM judgment" means as much as ever, and is as even-handed as ever.

How do you define "player skill"? After all, isn't gaming the DM a player skill? If know that Bob adjudicates X in a certain way, as a player won't I base my decisions on that knowledge?

So, how is that different from basing it on a known rule from the rule book? If I know Bob will use a Save vs Paralysis to jump, or if I know that it's the SRD jump rules, what difference does it make to me as a player? In either case, I maximize my chances based on out of game knowledge, or "player skill".

It's just that in the case of DM setting the mechanics, I can't make that judgment in advance. Once it's established (after the first time usually) then there is no difference. The rule is made.

It's not about what the exact number the DM sets. It's about the fact that once the DM sets a particular number, that is the number that will always be used. IOW, it winds up being exactly the same thing. Instead of optimizing based on my knowledge of the written rules, I simply optimize based on my knowledge of the DM.

In both cases, I'm still optimizing my character. Optimization is not about being better than the guy next to you. Who cares if he fails or succeeds? It's about maximizing your chances of success vs obstacles in the game. I would argue that every single player of a TTRPG has engaged in this. If you roll 3d6 in order to create your character and Dex is your highest stat, most people pick thief. If Int is highest and you have a 6 Str, very, very few people choose Fighter.

If everyone ignored optimization, and simply chose character on concept, why would people fit their class to their stats?

 

[Ariosto]

On the other hand, I think that typically neither the random factor nor development in play makes as much difference to skill ratings in Call of Cthulhu (or Elric!) as the initial distribution of points.

The attention paid in those (and similar) games to a lengthy skills list does seem to involve a bit more concern (than in, e.g., RQ or Stormbringer or Hawkmoon) over establishing a standard set.

Still, I think the degree of definition skill by skill falls rather short of being as nearly complete as Hussar plainly desires. D&D 3.5 might well go notably further.

There's an element of selection in the game culture. The CoC culture's ethos is not, I think, really focused on exactly how many points to put into which weapons (or anything else) to make an "optimum" character.