Rule of the Three (1st of May)

[dkyle]

Simply solved by making the mechanical choices almost nonexistent a la 1e and letting in-game roleplay define the character.

But I'm not content with simply having differences with the personality and background the players come up with. I want differences in what the characters can do.

Mechanical effectiveness is not the be-all and end-all of a character...or at least I sure hope it isn't, as if it is you and I are no longer really playing the same game.

It's not the be-all, end-all, but it's the root of the players' narrative power, at least in DnD-style games. The options available to the player for interacting with the world are best defined by mechanics. The alternative is DM fiat, and that is not acceptable to me.

And is driven by in-game personality and-or decision making.

Of course. But what we can do plays a big role in what we decide to do.

Don't get me wrong - rules and mechanics are necessary to allow for a playable game - but they needs must get out of the way whenever possible. It sounds like (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you see the rules as the world; where I see the DM as the world, aided and abetted by the rules when needed.

I think the answer to this is... we see RPGs quite differently.

First, there's no such thing as rules "getting out of the way". The DM does not need permission from the game designers to use DM fiat. But a good DM, in my opinion, favors using the rules the players know and understand as much as possible.

Second, no, I do not think the DM is the "the world". Not in my preferred way of playing RPGs.

"The world" is an intangible thing, floating in the minds of not just the DM, but the players too. The mechanics are the physics of the world, and provide a common basis for understanding it, for the players and DM. They allow the players to know what they can do with their characters, without having to constantly ask the DM "may I do this".

Basically, I want success or failure in any situation that comes up, to rely as much as possible on the well-defined mechanics that the players can leverage as the see fit, that operate as they expect (to the limits of their knowledge of the world).

Absolutely disagree. The first is roleplaying. The second is game-playing; and role-playing - as in taking on a role and playing it - is pretty much nowhere to be seen.

Well, it seems we have very different ideas of what "roleplaying" is. Balesir's response to this is very much in line with my perspective.

I think we agree that the game world has to operate with a sound internal consistency. Whether that comes from mechanics, DM fiat, player-driven input, or some combination of these and-or other things, is up to both the group and the game system.

Consistent DM fiat just becomes homebrew rules mechanics. Whether rules come from a published book, or were invented by the DM ultimately doesn't really matter. Heck, the main campaign I'm running currently is, outside of the One-Roll-Engine-style die rolling, almost completely my own invention. The important thing is whether the players understand the mechanics a priori, and can use them as tools to accomplish their goals, with a clear understanding of what determines success or failure.

The way to beat the optimzers is to make the mechanics simple enough that there is really nothing to optimize.

Failing that, the only other way to blunt them a bit is to put something loud and clear in the PH about playing to the spirit of the game being hugely preferable over trying to break the game, and then hope each group sees fit to run the optimizers out.

But the problem with this is I love optimizing my characters. I am a powergaming optimizer, and proud of it. This is basically the only aspect of RPGs that I feel DnD 4E does better than any other RPG, so without it, I'd rather play any of a myriad of indie-RPGs.

I don't want optimization gone. I want it to be a fully legitimate way to play the game, that doesn't break it. Because I firmly believe that optimization is 100% roleplaying. We're playing adventurers who routinely put themselves in life or death situations. They'd be daft to not seek out every advantage available to them!

Telling me to "play to the spirit" of the game, and choosing less effective options, is simply metagaming. Does my character know what the "spirit" of the game-world he exists in is? On what basis is he choosing to be less effective than he could be, putting him and his companions at greater risk? If the rules don't fit the "spirit" of the game, then they are bad rules.

Now, as I said, 4E wasn't perfect. However, outside of some pretty clearly malfunctioning combos that got errata'd, and high Epic play, optimization is a legitimate way of playing, that doesn't simply break the game. When I was playing 4E, I could go into the character builder, play around, build the best character I could out of the options available to me, and still play at the same table as the players who just wanted to pick the most obvious options at each level. I'd have a bit of an edge, overall, but mostly just have some neat tricks my character could do. Nothing even remotely close to what would happen if I did the same in 3.5.

 

[Scribble]

The point is that a Theme that is custom designed can have a higher power level than a Theme that is just 5 feats, and still be balanced with a custom choice of 5 feats, because that custom choice is likely to produce a great deal of power.

Suppose a Theme that is simply 5 pre-determined feats has power level X

5 feats chosen by a competent player will always have at least power level X, almost certainly significantly more.

This is an imbalance. What I want is:

Designers build a Theme that is more than power level X, more powerful than the Theme they would design if they could only design Themes as pre-determined packages of feats.

Thus, this new Theme at least has a reasonable chance of being balanced with the custom feats option. Is balance guaranteed? Of course not. But at least there's a fighting chance.

So now this makes more sense. You're asking for the pre-built "theme concept" to be more powerful from the start then a character built with just a collection of feats?

IE if they decide that an average feat built character would be say 50 amps... (just choosing a word here) you'd want the theme to be like 60 or 70 amps?

 

[dkyle]

Wasn't saying that, though you could read it that way.

While it wasn't your intent, I think it is an implication.

If a "Trap" option can become a "not-Trap" purely by virtue of it being simple, that suggests that the player cares about simplicity, but not effectiveness.

Whereas to someone who cares about effectiveness, a Trap can't be fixed just by making it simple. I think the more likely response from most people who like simple character creation would be to ask another player for advice on what they should take instead, using the custom feats. In which case, failure of modularity.

Secret Dungeon Explorer Theme Thingy:
Feats: Jump, Safe Fall, Find Secret Doors, Find Traps, Disarm Traps.

Now, you could swap out stuff (theoretically and hopefully) but what I envision is the prefab theme is the best "Secret Dungeon Explorer" and no combination of other feats tops it* (maybe broadens it).

But are people going to be that willing to be "best Secret Dungeon Explorer", and utterly lack in everything else? Especially if there are feats that only reduce their Secret Dungeon Explorer a little, but dramatically increase their potency in something else? Diminishing returns is very common, and 5 feats on one task is likely to run into that. Confining a theme to a specific task is really just another design constraint, that does nothing to improve the chances of it being optimal.

For example, my guess is that Safe Fall would be the one to go on your list. It's something that can almost certainly be replaced with a magic item, and even without, probably isn't a big deal. Possibly Jump too, depending on how much of a bonus it is.

Find Traps/Disarm Traps allows a character to do something they simply couldn't otherwise, if past editions are a guide. Would there be other feats like that, that allow a character to do something they can't get anywhere else? I would think one of those feats would be better than a feat like Safe Fall, even if it's an entirely different kind of task.

My thoughts...and I believe our opinions may be closer than we think.

Yeah, I think the main difference is my greater degree of certainty that purely pre-fab Themes will suck. It just seems, based on all past experience, effectively inevitable.

So now this makes more sense. You're asking for the pre-built "theme concept" to be more powerful from the start then a character built with just a collection of feats?

IE if they decide that an average feat built character would be say 50 amps... (just choosing a word here) you'd want the theme to be like 60 or 70 amps?

"average character" isn't quite right, because that implies that a significant majority of feat-built characters are being built poorly, since they'd be better off with a Theme. "naively built" would be more like it; a build with a random selection of feats.

Basically, if each feat, taken as an individual, is expected to be 10 amps of power, I'd want the Themes to be at 60 or 70 amps, because I expect the combination of 5 feats, of a players choice, to be more than 50 amps. Partly through synergies, and partly because it's inevitable that some feats will be worth more than others, and the players would be free to cherry-pick the good ones. Ideal balance would be that the average feat-built character is also around 60 or 70 amps, thanks to those inherent benefits of choice.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Of course. But what we can do plays a big role in what we decide to do.

This is in part, a problem.

When decisions made during the build process become more important than the ones made in actual play the rules have become the game.

When customizing , it is natural to want to optimize. Most often this means focus and specialization. With so many resources dedicated to doing a particular thing, it is again, quite natural to want to get as much use out of that thing as possible.

This typically makes a PC into a hammer and every challenge looks like a nail.

Instead of thinking about the in-game situation and possible courses of action everything is reduced to : how do I use X here?

Of course the PCs are all different. A party might consist of a sledge, a ballpeen, a tackhammer, and a rubber mallet. All are constructed to do their thing very well but when its time to act they all just whack away at the mechanics.

 

[Scribble]

"average character" isn't quite right, because that implies that a significant majority of feat-built characters are being built poorly, since they'd be better off with a Theme. "naively built" would be more like it; a build with a random selection of feats.

Basically, if each feat, taken as an individual, is expected to be 10 amps of power, I'd want the Themes to be at 60 or 70 amps, because I expect the combination of 5 feats, of a players choice, to be more than 50 amps. Partly through synergies, and partly because it's inevitable that some feats will be worth more than others, and the players would be free to cherry-pick the good ones. Ideal balance would be that the average feat-built character is also around 60 or 70 amps, thanks to those inherent benefits of choice.

Yeah average was probably a bad word. Median would probably have been better- basically what you said.

Ok now I think I'm following where you're going here. Essentially you want themes to be an easier way for non min/maxers to be able to keep somewhat up to speed with the min/maxers?

My question now is, how do you overcome the inevitable anger over not being able to do x without taking x theme? Or from people upset that themes start off more powerful to begin with?

Also isn't it still kind of ultimately saying "some people will just be more powerful unless you learn to min/max" anyway?

Doesn't that kind of make designing your own style of character by using feats a no win situation unless you min/max? (Even more so since now you have to compete with min/maxers AND themes.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Yeah average was probably a bad word. Median would probably have been better- basically what you said.

Ok now I think I'm following where you're going here. Essentially you want themes to be an easier way for non min/maxers to be able to keep somewhat up to speed with the min/maxers?

My question now is, how do you overcome the inevitable anger over not being able to do x without taking x theme? Or from people upset that themes start off more powerful to begin with?

Also isn't it still kind of ultimately saying "some people will just be more powerful unless you learn to min/max" anyway?

Doesn't that kind of make designing your own style of character by using feats a no win situation unless you min/max? (Even more so since now you have to compete with min/maxers AND themes.)

Not in my book. Leave aside for the moment the question of whether a design team can pull that off. (I know, that's like saying, "leave aside for a moment that transfer truck about to slam into you, how do you see this trip going?")

In a well-balanced system, specialization is its own reward.

I see optimizing, power gaming, etc. from a broader perspective than the typical char ops perspective. What's the optimal, mechanical character in a given campaign? One that plays to your strengths, that you enjoy, that has options you use, and so forth. That's why, despite all the discussion, there is practically nothing weaker in 3E than a mid to high level wizard who takes nothing but direct damage spells, seldom even swaps those, and takes whatever feats appeal to him. That guy is infinitely better off playing a sorcerer in that campaign, even if the wizard is much stronger looked at generally.

Or if you want an example further afield, in a game where everyone roleplays Diplomacy according to the player instead of the character, making your Cha your dump stat is optimal. OTOH, if there are mechanical widgets associated with Cha that help with social skills, or the group comes down hard on such play as "not playing your character properly," then dumping Cha probably isn't optimal.

If themes, unchanged, are somewhat stronger, from the char op perspective, but not radically so--and themes are well designed to do what they imply they do via the theme--then you might get this:

• Casual players or those who simply like that kind of thing, pick a theme that sounds right to them, and it will probably work. It's the text that keyed them to get the thing. Exceptions would be mechanical processes that emulate the theme, but not the way the player expected and wants.
• An optimizer picks feats and gets exactly what they want from that perspective. The optimizer now has more challenge, because the handicap of not getting the theme bonus is something that has to be overcome to realize any advantage. A lot of people who enjoy optimization for optimization sake will like this, even if they can only get to around 95% theme effectiveness. (History says they will beat that. But make them work for it.)
• The person who likes customization but is not an optimizer has one huge advantage--they care about customization and have it. This is likely to make them less effective in general from the char op sense, but in a given campaign, the resulting character will be optimal for that player, meaning whatever advantage the character has will be exploited to their fullest.

The gaping hole in that logic, of course, is that sometimes you might have a player with a strong enjoyment out of two of those three, or even all three. I can't think of a game where such a player doesn't have a huge advantage, short of complete homogenity--and not even all of those, given a player that into something is usually more experienced and interested in other parts of the game too. What such a structure could mitigate, however, is the "accidental breaking" possibilities, where huge swaths of the game are distinctly sub optimal in all hands.

 

[dkyle]

This is in part, a problem.

When decisions made during the build process become more important than the ones made in actual play the rules have become the game.

When customizing , it is natural to want to optimize. Most often this means focus and specialization. With so many resources dedicated to doing a particular thing, it is again, quite natural to want to get as much use out of that thing as possible.

This typically makes a PC into a hammer and every challenge looks like a nail.

Instead of thinking about the in-game situation and possible courses of action everything is reduced to : how do I use X here?

Of course the PCs are all different. A party might consist of a sledge, a ballpeen, a tackhammer, and a rubber mallet. All are constructed to do their thing very well but when its time to act they all just whack away at the mechanics.

I actually think well-defined mechanics help here. If it's very clear where the sledgehammer can be used, and the player understands, up front, how limited it can be, they're more likely to diversify.

On the other hand, a lot of the "good roleplaying" I see being advocated (for example, that crushed mug example from earlier) really boils down to coming up with justifications for the DM to allow you use the thing you're good at in a wide array of situations. The crushed mug is really an excuse to use Strength to Intimidate in a game where Intimidate is a Charisma skill.

My question now is, how do you overcome the inevitable anger over not being able to do x without taking x theme?

Are people angry that they can't do x without taking x class? It's the same thing.

Also, if this is a big concern, this could be addressed using the "bonus feats" idea I said earlier: a Theme would get 7 feats over 5 levels, and if a "custom feats" build takes enough of those feats, he can get the bonus feats too.

And even with fully custom themes, I wouldn't want them to be the only access to major abilities. Just have a combination of features that can't literally be duplicated by a trivial feat selection.

Or from people upset that themes start off more powerful to begin with?

The thing is, in actual practice, it won't be as clear as "Themes are 70 amps, feats are 10 amps each". Every one will have their own assessments of the various options. If they do it right, being angry over themes being more powerful will be about as common as anger over Slayers being more powerful than PHB Fighters to "begin with". As in, none that I've seen.

Also isn't it still kind of ultimately saying "some people will just be more powerful unless you learn to min/max" anyway?

Doesn't that kind of make designing your own style of character by using feats a no win situation unless you min/max? (Even more so since now you have to compete with min/maxers AND themes.)

First off, I seriously doubt even the Themes I'm advocating for will end up requiring serious optimization to beat. I don't think that most feat selections would wind up being the "naive" ones that are inferior to Themes.

A person can easily screw themselves over with poor feat selections, even if the Themes suck. Overall, I think it's better to have good Themes, for non-character-building-minded players to use, than have bad Themes they won't want to use, and thus be forced to use feats if they actually care about being effective.

This is a game. If someones not good at playing the game, then that's unfortunate. But as long as there are options, good options, that make the game easier to play, I think that's all that can really be done. In any game with significant customization ability, there will always be opportunity for players to screw themselves over. But I think there's a bigger problem when the mechanics meant to give them a lifeline, and make it easier to build their character, end up producing a lousy character.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I actually think well-defined mechanics help here. If it's very clear where the sledgehammer can be used, and the player understands, up front, how limited it can be, they're more likely to diversify.

On the other hand, a lot of the "good roleplaying" I see being advocated (for example, that crushed mug example from earlier) really boils down to coming up with justifications for the DM to allow you use the thing you're good at in a wide array of situations. The crushed mug is really an excuse to use Strength to Intimidate in a game where Intimidate is a Charisma skill.

I don't much care for skills to be inflexibly joined at the hip to a stat. Lets use the intimidate example. There are various forms of intimidation. A professor might intellectually intimidate a student based on INT. A thug might use STR, and a mobster might use CHA.

Other skills can be variable as well. Take climbing for instance. Pulling your weight up a rope seems STR based alright but scampering up a tree through the branches might be more DEX based.

The escape skill? Could be STR based to break your chains, DEX based to wriggle free of a sloppily tied knot, or even INT to figure out how to use limited resources to get a cell open (I'm thinking of Sean Connery in 'The Rock' here).

Flexibility in this regard to adapt the mechanics to the reality of the situation IMHO makes for better flowing play than rigid stat/skill mapping. It also has the side effect of making skills more useful and applicable in more than certain proscribed situations.

And frankly if "coming up with justifications for the DM to allow you use the thing you're good at in a wide array of situations" means actually describing what is happening in the game world then sign me up!

 

[Lanefan]

This is kinda responding to both you and [MENTION=70707]dkyle[/MENTION] but all the quotes are yours.

Mechanical choices for my little guy in Monopoly are 'practically nonexistant', but that doesn't make it a good roleplaying game. You can roleplay in Monopoly, but the scope is really limited.

You can roleplay in D&D too, and the scope is pretty much limited only by your imagination.

And the decision making has to be based on an understanding of how the world and the character's abilities work. That understanding can be really efficiently delivered to the player by the rules and systems.

True, also by trial and error.

So much of this all depends on the DM in one regard: a less-than-stellar DM needs the rules to deliver that understanding in part because he cannot, or will not. A better DM can and does deliver that understanding, helped by the rules perhaps but not always.

In a roleplaying game, the "reality" of the imagined world is shared - or else it has no meaning as a "game" at all. All of the players - including but not limited to the GM - therefore deliver input to the "shared imagined scenario". The rules, therefore, do far, far more than "aid and abet the DM" - they form the shared language, based upon which these contributions can build the shared "reality".

Oh, don't get me wrong - the rules aid and abet the players too. But are they a shared language, or just a series of limits? Are they the foundation to build on, or the walls to hold things in?

Without written rules you have the GM trying to convey the entirety of the world as they envision it to the assembled players - each of whom undoubtedly has a selection of preconceived ideas about the world generated by the first descriptions and what those descriptions trigger based on their earlier experience. This cannot happen perfectly in a 300+ page book; expecting it to happen in a few hours of conversation is, at best, wildly optimistic.

So, what generally results is (i) players relying on how well they know the GM to guess what picture of the game world the GM holds in his or her head, (ii) players having to repeatedly revise their own vision of the game world as it becomes clear that it does not accord with what the GM was thinking all along, (iii) some players doing better than others in the game, because their own world models more closely align with the GM's world model than other players, (iv) some other players frustrated because they need constantly to adjust their world model to fit a concept that makes limited sense to them, and a variety of other effects.

To some extent I think you're going to see those effects regardless of how rules heavy or rules light the game is.

We may be coming at this from different perspevtives in another way as well: campaign length. If a campaign's only intended to last for a year and go from levels 1-30 in that time then yes, every aid to learning how the world works needs to be brought to bear ASAP. But if the campaign is open-ended then you've all the time in the world to learn how things work; and that's how I run.

Absolutely disagree . The difference between the two has nothing to do with "roleplaying" by the definition used by you in the earlier parts of your post! "Roleplaying" has to do with making decisions and portraying the personality of the character - both of the examples given do that. Now, one of them does it with more flavour and from a more in-game-world point of view, it's true - but both display the character's personality and represent an in-character decision.

Where to me, one is roleplaying and one is roll-playing; and the wheels come off the discussion at about that point...

If you want game-world focussed flavour (and I take it from your comments here that you do), then I suggest taking a look at why the player might, quite rationally and not out of some (lazily) assumed fault like "laziness", choose to announce a "use of Intimidate" and not a more colourful description of the character's actions. And I suggest that this relates directly to the "rules" and "DM fiat", curiously enough. If a player has a character who is good at Intimidation, but not good at, say Bluff, and the skill used is to be decided by the DM based on (the DM's conception of) the character's actions, then I can quite understand the player saying "Intimidate" quite explicitly as part of their action description. Saying "I use my strength to crush a mug, hoping to make the little rat fear me" leaves the door open for the DM to (honestly and without malice, perhaps) see this as a use of "Bluff" rather than "Intimidate" - and the player and character both are hosed.

OK, I see what you mean here.

Of course, the DM could forego any roll at all and just have the "little rat" react in its own character...

Personally, however, I have for some while used Hârn for this style of "world basis sharing" because it has, in my opinion, done a better job of it (more world supplements than rules, fixed time point for all description, etc.).

This is not the first time I've heard good things about Harn - one of these days I'll have to look further into it.

Lanefan

 

[Balesir]

So much of this all depends on the DM in one regard: a less-than-stellar DM needs the rules to deliver that understanding in part because he cannot, or will not. A better DM can and does deliver that understanding, helped by the rules perhaps but not always.

Sure - it's all about communication of the world setting, in this respect. But I would then say that part of "being a stellar DM" is selecting and making known the rules to all the players. It goes right to the heart of "the rules are the language", which I'm beginning to see as a useful and appropriate analogy in several respects.

Oh, don't get me wrong - the rules aid and abet the players too. But are they a shared language, or just a series of limits? Are they the foundation to build on, or the walls to hold things in?

I think they are very akin to a shared language in many respects. Even with a shared language, though, some concepts can be difficult to communicate clearly; you only have top look around here to see that! In such cases, you just have to do the best you can, using words that mean only close to what you want to say, or using sign language and other forms of illustration if you are face-to-face. This strikes me as very like an RPG rules system. Every system will have concepts that is struggles with; you just have to use the systems you have, mixed with general explanation and additional non-verbal/non-system communication to resolve the issue.

And it's true that you can start without any shared language - maybe with just one person knowing (some of) the language - and develop a whole new tongue as you go along. That can even be fun.

If I buy a dictionary and grammar for a language, though, I don't want a few root words and some vague paragraphs about grammar - I want some proper textbooks!

To some extent I think you're going to see those effects regardless of how rules heavy or rules light the game is.

As I say, I think the "langauge" analogy is not bad. You will get misunderstandings and confusions even where all parties to a conversation are fluent, but that's not really even comparable to the situation where most of them don't speak the language being used at all!

With experienced players, as well as GMs, this can be slightly easier - to stretch the analogy even further, this is because most roleplayers eventually pick up a good deal of "practical linguistics"!

We may be coming at this from different perspevtives in another way as well: campaign length. If a campaign's only intended to last for a year and go from levels 1-30 in that time then yes, every aid to learning how the world works needs to be brought to bear ASAP. But if the campaign is open-ended then you've all the time in the world to learn how things work; and that's how I run.

Not really - I run and play all sorts, from one-offs to convention scenarios to mini-campaigns to full campaigns, but my yardstick for rules systems is, by default, the "full campaign". A 1-30 level 4e game just about counts, since you would be hard pressed to do it in a year; 2 years, maybe, but we don't get to play quite that frequently (that would need to be > 1 session per week).

Where to me, one is roleplaying and one is roll-playing; and the wheels come off the discussion at about that point...

This might be why that "roll-playing" phrase sometimes bugs me; I see no useful purpose in conflating two quite separate issues. The first issue is failure to roleplay - which is to say, failure to portray a character through decisions and actions - which I find actually to be pretty rare. The second is lack of game-world flavour in action declaration, which I generally think is caused by a flaw in the way the game mechanics are working - usually at the "who decides what mechanic to apply" level.

Of course, the DM could forego any roll at all and just have the "little rat" react in its own character...

In which case you have a social contest between the player and the GM. If you GM the same players for years, that eventually gets old, because you (eventually) realise that the same people win out in those situations every time. Then, you might try adding in some more meta-type rules (e.g. "I deliberately screw over Fred in some contests because he usually convinces me every time"). At that point, as someone else put it very eloquently, "consistent DM fiat = houserule system".

Although, saying that, even "if you can persuade the GM in a one-on-one negotiation you win" is a system - and quite a consistent one. The question I ask myself is "is it a better system than one based explicitly on character abilities and die rolling?" In general, my answer is "no".

This is not the first time I've heard good things about Harn - one of these days I'll have to look further into it.

I thoroughly recommend it (for what that's worth! ). It doesn't even need to cost you a penny: this site has a whole boatload of free "fanon" articles. Just to be clear; the guy who created Hârn, Robin Crossby, tragically died of cancer in 2008 (he lived in Maple Ridge, just outside Vancouver, so it looks like you might have been near neighbours!) Since then, a dedicated group of writers, editors and developers have been keeping Hârn growing in the tradition originally set by him. The original publishers (there are two - long story which you can read about on the site I linked to) still publish this stuff - but the same writers also create the fanon. This is not the usual highly variable quality of fanon you see commonly - it's vetted and edited and it's amazingly good stuff.

But I'll stop the gushing commercial at this point...