5th Edition and the Female Demographic

[Umbran]

They can, but I can guarantee you that if your expectation is that every player is content with their personal goals being "kill the things the GM wants you to kill anyway," you'll completely miss the boat on a number of players. That doesn't account for things like "build a trade empire," "take over the keep of my father," "found an academy," "become head of my House," "see my daughter married off to a good man who can take care of her," "become a new incarnation of the Lightning Witch" -- all things I've seen players take for themselves.

Quite. And that list of end-goals can be very, very long indeed. Hard to design for all of them.

If you ask a designer to build a game for the goal, "colonize a continent", I'm guessing you'll get something that looks more like Settlers of Catan than D&D. And that's okay - Settlers is a popular game, after all. But Settlers won't flex so well to killing Orcus or becoming a god.

But, if I give you a toolbox that covers the low-level stuff, you can then use it for a variety of high-level goals.

 

[Elf Witch]

Character Flaws :: d20srd.org

I have never seen these before but I have to admit they kind of suck.

The flaws that I liked in Shadowrun were ones like have a phobia, bad reputation, wanted by the law, dangerous secret, have a dependent, addicted to drugs or alcohol.

 

[nedjer]

You seemed to have missed a major point. We aren't defining the party's goals. We are listing goals of individual users.

And, the reason we don't define the goals on such a high levels is that, ultimately, those high-level things are not usually the players root motivations. Exploring a continent, or growing powerful enough to take on Orcus is something we expect to take months, if not years, of play - that payoff is a long, long way off, and hopes of it are not going to keep the player at the table. We need to get at the rewards that people get every time they use the rules, not once in the campaign.

Also, if we dig down deeper, we are getting at things more basic, more applicable to a wide range of longer-term goals. I give you characters that do the sorts of things players want to do moment to moment. You get to determine what they do longer term.

Think of it this way - I'm talking about making sure someone has food and water, and you're talking more about lifestyle choices. Whatever your lifestyle, you need food, water, and air.




Apples and oranges.

I'm not designing a single date, for a specific person. I'm designing a toolkit for assisting dates, that I sell not to you in particular, but to thousands or even millions of people who go on dates. I sell you the rucksack full of stuff, and then on a particular date, you'll pull out the individual items you need to make that one date work.

You really want to go exploring a continent *without* a rucksack full of stuff on hand? I think you'll find your paramour unimpressed when he or she discovers you did drop everything - so you don't have bug spray, and you didn't so much as pack a picnic basket. Hungry and itchy does not make for a good date, you know.

Now, maybe you have worked out how to make bug repellent out of local flora, and how to forage for mangoes. But as I said, I'm not making this for you, personally and individually. I have to think about all those other people who don't have those skills, and need what's in a rucksack.

Some may prefer to think in terms of individual goals, the nuts and bolts of such goals - and itchy bottoms. However, the only large poll I'm aware of from MC's L&L gave play as individuals or play as a party this:

Legends & Lore Poll Results: 10/11/2011

Which of these do you prefer? Group. 2937 82.6% Individual. 618 17.4% Total 3555 100.0%

If this is to be believed, (and it's presumably from fairly recent edition players), many D&D players are interested in playing towards broad, epic collective goals. So, perhaps, any skills/ support some might be looking for is not some much how to make do on the meat and drink of combat encounters, but more how to break out of grind to a place where there's a balance between the authentic and the fantastic?

 

[nedjer]

T if your expectation is that every player is content with their personal goals being "kill the things the GM wants you to kill anyway,"

That was kind of the opposite of what I was saying. 'Taking down' Orcus as a challenge or goal rather than killing Orcus as an incident is a hugely more open approach. My idea of challenges/ goals is pretty much set out at Thistle Games. There's a More Challenges and an Even More Challenges somewhere there.

 

[nedjer]

Quite. And that list of end-goals can be very, very long indeed. Hard to design for all of them.

If you ask a designer to build a game for the goal, "colonize a continent", I'm guessing you'll get something that looks more like Settlers of Catan than D&D. And that's okay - Settlers is a popular game, after all. But Settlers won't flex so well to killing Orcus or becoming a god.

But, if I give you a toolbox that covers the low-level stuff, you can then use it for a variety of high-level goals.

Can you really believe that I could be capable of combining Orcus with 'colonise a continent' and serve-up Catan? This could never be.

Give me a minute . . . OK, this week's news - co-ordinated, covert security activity against #Occupy across US. In moments a nation under surveillance with undead scrying and infiltrating. The PCs arrive during a Kristallnacht event - orchestrated by the ruler of the undead and not a sack of grain in sight.

 

[Barastrondo]

That was kind of the opposite of what I was saying. 'Taking down' Orcus as a challenge or goal rather than killing Orcus as an incident is a hugely more open approach.

Sorry, within the context you were describing of modules promising goals like "go to a drow city" and "kill Orcus" it looked quite a lot like the situation was essentially set by the GM picking up an adventure, saying "I'm running this," and then assuming that the players' preferred personal goals will be "loot the drow city/kill the drow" and "kill Orcus."

My idea of challenges/ goals is pretty much set out at Thistle Games. There's a More Challenges and an Even More Challenges somewhere there.

Yeah, that's more comprehensive. The player goals I find that are not as frequently addressed by published adventures and save-the-world situations are those that involve building something. Founding institutions, starting families (by marriage, adoption or even forging blood-oaths with companions), crafting artifacts, turning run-down or broken settlements into healthy, happy places -- leaving their mark on the world not by subtracting big threats, but by adding positive elements. There's less support for them, because it's a lot easier to support the subtractive "remove a threat" gameplay. And also they're goals that can be accomplished only in full-bore campaign play, which is not always assumed.

But I think they have something to do with that whole demographic concept: even something as trite as Farmville shows that there's a lot of interest in gameplay that builds things. And man, it makes for interesting campaigns, so I'm an absolute supporter of the approach.

 

[Umbran]

Some may prefer to think in terms of individual goals, the nuts and bolts of such goals - and itchy bottoms.

Note how I said that no design is going to be able to serve all goals?

However, the only large poll I'm aware of from MC's L&L gave play as individuals or play as a party this:

Legends & Lore Poll Results: 10/11/2011

Which of these do you prefer? Group. 2937 82.6% Individual. 618 17.4% Total 3555 100.0%

If this is to be believed, (and it's presumably from fairly recent edition players), many D&D players are interested in playing towards broad, epic collective goals.

What you ask, and how you ask it, matters a great deal in how the answer comes out. I'm pretty sure that poll didn't ask the right question about the right type of goal to reflect on what I'm saying.

"Which do you prefer: group goals or individual goals?" will have players answering in terms of the same timescale and scope: They're thinking about character goals, probably in the long term. They're assuming the question is more, "Do you prefer long term group goals or long term character goals." The short term, and the players separate from the characters, probably won't enter their minds. So, this is apples and oranges again.

There has been some research that reflects on player short-term desires. WotC did it back in 1999: Breakdown of RPG Players

Ask instead, "What is your personal goal tonight (your own goal, not your character's) in sitting down at this particular session? What do you, Joe or Jane Player, want to get out of play tonight? Do you want to feel excitement, solve a puzzle, beat a BBEG, play a miniatures wargame, or eat pizza and joke around with your friends? What about tonight's session will have you coming back next week?" Or, if you are trying to compare: "What are you more concerned about when you sit down tonight - having fun tonight, or setting yourself up for something three months from now?"

I suspect most folk will goggle at you, and wonder why they are related. That's because they aren't very related. Long-term goals are things typically handled on the adventure and campaign design level, not in the core game engine. Can you give folks a handle on that longer term stuff? Sure. That's a large part of what the DMG is about.

 

[nedjer]

Sorry, within the context you were describing of modules promising goals like "go to a drow city" and "kill Orcus" it looked quite a lot like the situation was essentially set by the GM picking up an adventure, saying "I'm running this," and then assuming that the players' preferred personal goals will be "loot the drow city/kill the drow" and "kill Orcus."



Yeah, that's more comprehensive. The player goals I find that are not as frequently addressed by published adventures and save-the-world situations are those that involve building something. Founding institutions, starting families (by marriage, adoption or even forging blood-oaths with companions), crafting artifacts, turning run-down or broken settlements into healthy, happy places -- leaving their mark on the world not by subtracting big threats, but by adding positive elements. There's less support for them, because it's a lot easier to support the subtractive "remove a threat" gameplay. And also they're goals that can be accomplished only in full-bore campaign play, which is not always assumed.

But I think they have something to do with that whole demographic concept: even something as trite as Farmville shows that there's a lot of interest in gameplay that builds things. And man, it makes for interesting campaigns, so I'm an absolute supporter of the approach.

Chose a clumsy example I was meant to be spending the afternoon doing more last checks on my clone, but you don't turn down the opportunity to hear Umbran's views on something that's a part of the design you're working on.

I've taken a remix of the various challenges and put a slim XP overlay option into the gameplay. There's more to it now than posted at the site; but the principles are the same, i.e. try to offer a solid framework for defining and rewarding wider goals by suggesting what might result in certain rewards (or penalties). I.e. going some way towards breaking it down into Umbran's necessary ingredients; but then leaving it up to the GM/ group to decide just how many ingredients fit in the wrap.

Attempting to do this in 3e or 4e - mind-boggling for the reasons you guys give. However, in Old School leaving the GM to cut a bit more of the cloth is cool.

In terms of the OT, I think it's worth experimenting with how we offer and combine several types and stages of 'reward', for PCs and for players, to invite more players into the hobby - and to keep it fresh for ourselves

 

[nedjer]

Long-term goals are things typically handled on the adventure and campaign design level, not in the core game engine.

Yeah, I'm on very dodgy ground calling on the L&L stats - the independent variable left the room in a huff.

Wouldn't put a huge amount of work into a clone if I didn't get to take the engine out of the core game and attempt to replace it with a Spitfire engine

 

[AngryMojo]

Character Flaws :: d20srd.org

I've always dislike the variant in d20 that incorporated flaws, mostly for opening with this line:

A flaw must have a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities. Flaws with primarily roleplaying or story effects have unpredictable effects on game balance.

I think this winds up illustrating a large point of why I have difficulty claiming D&D as the game that scratches my itch. In most sci-fi/fantasy literature, most literature in general, a character's defining flaws are rarely based on their capabilities. Aragorn in Lord of the Rings is constantly burdened by his rapidly approaching destiny and sometimes makes bad decisions due to his apprehension. Harry Potter has the ultimate BBEG gunning for him from day one. Hugh the Hand is just a really bad guy.

While it's very possible to play a character with visible foibles, having a mechanical benefit for taking those flaws certainly encourages people to roleplay. At least in my experience.

Off-topic rant over.