Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[Neonchameleon]

A game show.

Nope. An improvised comedy show loosely based around the format of a game show.

There are many noncompetitive games that share a lot in common with D&D,

You assume that D&D is non-competitive. This is not always the case and it certainly isn't how D&D was designed.

Of course, many competitive games also aren't balanced between participants/competitors. Take Mafia for example; several defined (and totally unequal) roles create an engaging dynamic.

Mafia has defined roles and asymmetric balance. Sounds a lot like 4E...

What about good ol' basketweaving? Is that supposed to be on the same level as using a sword?

Nope. Use of a sword is a core ability.

On the other hand basketweaving fails as a skill because it's supposed to be on the same level as move silently or use magic device.

So...if magic is restrained, everything's fine right? I mean, no one anywhere is arguing for unrestrained magic (which to me, sounds synonymous with at-will spells, so maybe someone is).

Do you have any idea how restrained Gygax made magic and his wizards?

What you're referring to as asymmetry however, while it may be a perfectly good model for wargames, is not appropriate for a roleplaying game. A roleplaying game is about the characters, not the players, and should be judged in terms of the characters' world and not the players' experience. The players certainly aren't competing with each other

Right. You've just declared oD&D and Paranoia to not be RPGs.

You're going to have to accept that I don't see it that way at all. 4e, to me, represented an imbalanced approach to role playing gaming - emphasizing the game play aspects of it to a extreme that had not been present in D&D before.

I don't care how you see it.

When we are producing statements from Gary Gygax that are explicitly in favour of the "imbalance" you talk about then your statement that it had not been present in D&D before is quite clearly false. If you want to say that "4E represents a return to the gamist roots of D&D and we moved away from them for a reason" feel free. But saying that the roots weren't there is a reflection on you not on the game.

Yup. And if you feel that removes too much agency from your hands, what do you do?

Ah, the travails of the DM. Never as powerful as they want to be despite the fact they control almost all the world. People talk about "Entitled players". I've never met one, despite spending more time in the DM's chair than as a player. I've met a lot of entitled DMs.

Oh sometimes they aren't. But I remind them, "Fair is fair". If they want Diplomacy to be non-magical mind control, then it works both ways (and really 3e Diplomacy can be insanely effective as non-magical mind control with a good enough roll).

In short you houserule something that isn't broken. Because as DM you want more power.

And I'll be running FATE as my next game and that system actually has Social Combat where losing means you lose.

And has a system to do with controlling how you give in.

But of course this Gygaxian/Pulsipherian technique isn't about establishing a "living, breathing world". It's about posing a certain sort of challenge.

I'm not sure when the move to "living, breathing world" happened. I'm guessing it became widespread in the early to mid 80s.

I'd have said so too. I'd also have said that one of the things that set D&D apart from later RPGs is that it doesn't do this. It's set up to be what it is.

I would probably find it disruptive. From a metagame perspective, knowing the minion rules, I would figure it out. But I'd be kind of disappointed as well that the DM decided to put the ball on the T rather than throw some heat across the plate. Haven't I shown I can hit his pitches by beating these monsters before? Throwing 200 of them at us but nerfing them as minions when they've been a tough challenge before would end up being pretty unsatisfying

200 minions would be more of a challenge than 200 monsters that only hit on a natural 20. And this is what you continually miss. When you minionise something it gets +8 to hit and +8 to defences and is almost exactly as much of a threat as it was before.

When I watch an episode of Justice League where the entire League nearly gets their butts handed to them by a handful of Manhunters at the beginning, and an hour later are ripping through six of them with one attack - I find it compromises my suspense of disbelief. So I suspect I'd feel the same way about your scenario.

And this is where your analogy falls apart. You are equating a dozen levels to a single episode. Now I don't know how fast your PCs level in your games. But a dozen levels is several series in mine. Just because Buffy herself has problems even with newborn minion vampires at the start of Season 1 doesn't mean that Willow and Xander can't take them out without too much trouble in Season 5. I'd object if it happened across the course of one episode, but not if it does across multiple series.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When I watch an episode of Justice League where the entire League nearly gets their butts handed to them by a handful of Manhunters at the beginning, and an hour later are ripping through six of them with one attack - I find it compromises my suspense of disbelief. So I suspect I'd feel the same way about your scenario.

Some people like those rules and some don't. I don't think one is objectively better - but I think it's pretty clear from these debates that neither group gets over that "seems wrong to me" feeling easily.

ok, but what about when you sit down to watch a 5 season run of Justice league, and the end bad guy of season 1 is a Manhunter, and half way through season 3 they fight three man hunters... and the season 4 finaly is 200 manhunters, and right before the fight there is an obvious up grade in powers (superman sun dips,Green lantern becomes Ion, ect) because that is much closer to my example...

Most people I know would consider it awesome that we showed how there characters grew... how the biggest most powerful threat they saw at level 1, something they had to run from...became later just part of the army they slaughtered... by the way the leader of the Army was "Kingdom" and he was a level 21 solo+ (my own design with 3 full initative counts, hp over level, and interrupts and reactions for each set of actions)

That's a good example of what I was talking about.

In my own game I've never done the full solo to minion transition, but with hobgoblins I've done standard > minion > swarm, as the PCs levelled and took on more and more of the hobgoblin army at once.

well I skiped standard in the equation, but it was a lot of fun to do it that way.

I don't get this, for the same reason as the poster you're replying to.

Here are the base stats for a 16th level minion and an 8th level standard (which are XP equivalents):

Level:      8 standard     16 minion

Hp:          90-ish                1 (but immune to damage on a miss)

AC:         22                    30
F/R/W:      20                    28 

To hit:     +13                  +21

Damage:    16                    12

At 11th level, the PCs will have to hit bonuses vs AC of around +16, and AC of around 25.

So the typical minion will take around 3 attacks to drop (roll needed of 14+), and will hit .85 of the time, for expected total damage output of a smidgeon more than 29 hp.

thank you for posting this... once again by increasing level and decreasing secondary type (solo elite minon) you creat MORE INTRESTING AND HARDER fights... not putting anything on a T

In other words, framing the combat in terms of higher level minions rather than lower level standards is not "putting the ball on the T". It is choosing a mechanical framing that will make the game run more smoothly - in this particular instance, it saves the GM having to track hit point totals on 200 creatures, by shifting their defensive heft from hit points to AC and F/R/W - and in the process also shifts their offensive heft from the damage number to the attack bonus.

could not say it better myself...

 

[Sadras]

Flexible backstory, of the sort I use, is anathema to this Gygaxian/Pulsipherian style of play, because flexible backstory keeps the pressure on the PCs, and hence the players, regardless of the choices they make! (Of course, those choices change the fictional content of the pressure.) Which is great for thematic play, but tantamount to cheating in gamist exploration play.

Flexible backstory? Are we saying players can change their characters backgrounds every x period of time or when they fee like it? Or is it flexible due to the allowance of increasing character backstory content?

I'm not sure when the move to "living, breathing world" happened. I'm guessing it became widespread in the early to mid 80s. To me, it seems like a case of continuing to follow practical advice given by Gygax, Moldvay etc (eg write stuff up and record it in the GM's notes) but changing the rationale - it's no longer to support gamist exploration play, but rather for some other purpose. What I personally don't have a great handle on is what that other purpose is: it's to do with a certain sort of immersionist verisimilitue (including, perhaps, for the GM in the course of actua play!), but I'm probably not the best person to describe it.

I will make an attempt although I speak with no real authority on the matter. Perhaps 'living, breathing world' allows for players to make more informed decisions, based primarily on their previous experiences and knowledge.
The characters are much more imbedded into the setting - with the deities laws, dangerous locales, belief of superstitions...etc

In the absence of 'living, breathing world' everything is possible at the get go since one is continuously running level-based combat challengers which is, one could argue, but an exercise in die rolling. Sure there is the illusion of meaningful choices being made, which ability to use first in combination with which allies' abilities, how to use terrain..etc and the consequences are the same, worst case scenario one's character dies BUT one knows that EVERY challenge is based on their level and it doesn't have to be intuitive with the world at all.

How would you discourage players deciding that their 1st level characters from crossing the Altan Peaks (dangerous group of mountains for 1st levels in Mystara)? I mean they already know every encounter is based on level not on an intuitive world, so the dragons they will encounter will be of a comparable level as will the giants?

I can totally see hating AEDU. That's fine. It's a very different play thing that hasn't been seen before in D&D. But AEDU, or minions, or fast healing, isn't a sim issue. That's not the problem here. Because sim has never, ever been part of D&D. It's only been since the release of 4e that I ever even heard anyone seriously talk about D&D as a sim game. Any sim based player I ever talked to would laugh themselves silly if someone seriously tried to point to D&D (any edition) as a sim game. There's a REASON GURPS and other games exist. It's because people who actually wanted to play sim games wouldn't touch D&D.

Yes and no, D&Ders have been making house-rules for the sim-approach for years. Wounds, Fatigue, DR, Recovery rates...etc just to name a few. Even 4e has it's inherent bonus - trying to emulate a setting which I dare say lends towards a sim-approach.

Ah, the travails of the DM. Never as powerful as they want to be despite the fact they control almost all the world. People talk about "Entitled players". I've never met one, despite spending more time in the DM's chair than as a player. I've met a lot of entitled DMs.

The way I see it sports continues to evolve, adding more regulations and limitations not so much for the refs but for the abusive players. D&D isn't the exception, where humans just become these amazingly creatures, this gene must be isolated to rpgers
There is the option of arguing the monetary incentive involved in sports...but are you going to go that route?

In short you houserule something that isn't broken. Because as DM you want more power.

What is and isn't broken is dependent on the group, but non-magical charm (diplomacy) is not an isolated incident.

 

[Hussar]

Well...there's a really good reason for that: if the physicists' math says that something exists and they don't find it, then some element of the model they're using is simply wrong.

This is just flat out wrong. Math uses root -1 right? It's a very, very important part of math. Try to find that in reality.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Flexible backstory? Are we saying players can change their characters backgrounds every x period of time or when they fee like it? Or is it flexible due to the allowance of increasing character backstory content?

If I've understood [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s meaning, the clearest cut example of Flexible Backstory is Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World. In it the GM is instructed to prepare absolutely nothing before character creation. How the world actually works is revealed to both the GM and the players in the course of play.

And Apocalypse World and its spinoff Monsterhearts are the two most immersive RPGs I know, with in play the two most immediate worlds and with the characters being embedded in the setting in a way that no pre-existing world can match.

How would you discourage players deciding that their 1st level characters from crossing the Altan Peaks (dangerous group of mountains for 1st levels in Mystara)? I mean they already know every encounter is based on level not on an intuitive world, so the dragons they will encounter will be of a comparable level as will the giants?

This is a strawman. If you want higher level areas have higher level areas.

Yes and no, D&Ders have been making house-rules for the sim-approach for years. Wounds, Fatigue, DR, Recovery rates...etc just to name a few. Even 4e has it's inherent bonus - trying to emulate a setting which I dare say lends towards a sim-approach.

4E is in my opinion the best fantasy sim edition of D&D ever.

The way I see it sports continues to evolve, adding more regulations and limitations not so much for the refs but for the abusive players. D&D isn't the exception, where humans just become these amazingly creatures, this gene must be isolated to rpgers

If the ref started kicking the ball around they wouldn't just be a referee. They'd be a player as well. The second the DM picks up the dice they cease to be an entirely disinterested referee. This is a bug in some styles of game (really old school dungeon crawling) and a feature in others (White Wolf calling the GM the Storyteller) - but in all it is a fact of life. There is far more scope for a player who can send other players off to be abusive than there is for one who can't.

What is and isn't broken is dependent on the group, but non-magical charm (diplomacy) is not an isolated incident.

Neither is the DMPC. Nor the Monty Haul DM. Nor the Railroading Storyteller. Nor the DM's Girlfriend. Also using diplomacy is a matter of using the rules as they were designed. That's a game design issue.

 

[evileeyore]

Ah, the travails of the DM. Never as powerful as they want to be despite the fact they control almost all the world. People talk about "Entitled players". I've never met one, despite spending more time in the DM's chair than as a player. I've met a lot of entitled DMs.

So have I. I don't play with them for long.

Oh, were you making some sort of insult towards me? Heh.

In short you houserule something that isn't broken. Because as DM you want more power.

It was that or let someone else run and deal with two problem players. You know the type: They say they're going along with the mission, but they decide half-way to the "mission area" they need to do something else, derail everything, run around in circles, or just be obstinate?

Luckily for me one of them was very "By The Books" and was surprisingly okay with being coerced via Diplomacy/Bluff/whatever checks into deciding to "go along with what the NPC was asking the group to do". Hence the ruling.

The other player I just started ignoring. He eventually fell in line with what the group wanted to do.



My natural tendency for "convincing the characters" is to drop into meta-speak. I just ask, "What would it take to get you guys to go along with this?" and we negotiate. Works as long the players aren't dicks. But then you get players like the two I mentioned above...

And has a system to do with controlling how you give in.

And I'm specially keen to see how this plays with my current group. I have a terrible feeling FATE will not gain traction with them. It's too "soft" and "narrativy" for them. But we'll see. One of them's a LARPer and you get any softer or narrativy than LARPing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Flexible backstory? Are we saying players can change their characters backgrounds every x period of time or when they fee like it? Or is it flexible due to the allowance of increasing character backstory content?

If I've understood [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s meaning, the clearest cut example of Flexible Backstory is Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World. In it the GM is instructed to prepare absolutely nothing before character creation. How the world actually works is revealed to both the GM and the players in the course of play.

And Apocalypse World and its spinoff Monsterhearts are the two most immersive RPGs I know, with in play the two most immediate worlds and with the characters being embedded in the setting in a way that no pre-existing world can match.

How would you discourage players deciding that their 1st level characters from crossing the Altan Peaks (dangerous group of mountains for 1st levels in Mystara)? I mean they already know every encounter is based on level not on an intuitive world, so the dragons they will encounter will be of a comparable level as will the giants?

This is a strawman. If you want higher level areas have higher level areas.

Yes and no, D&Ders have been making house-rules for the sim-approach for years. Wounds, Fatigue, DR, Recovery rates...etc just to name a few. Even 4e has it's inherent bonus - trying to emulate a setting which I dare say lends towards a sim-approach.

4E is in my opinion the best fantasy sim edition of D&D ever.

The way I see it sports continues to evolve, adding more regulations and limitations not so much for the refs but for the abusive players. D&D isn't the exception, where humans just become these amazingly creatures, this gene must be isolated to rpgers

If the ref started kicking the ball around they wouldn't just be a referee. They'd be a player as well. The second the DM picks up the dice they cease to be an entirely disinterested referee. This is a bug in some styles of game (really old school dungeon crawling) and a feature in others (White Wolf calling the GM the Storyteller) - but in all it is a fact of life. There is far more scope for a player who can send other players off to be abusive than there is for one who can't.

What is and isn't broken is dependent on the group, but non-magical charm (diplomacy) is not an isolated incident.

Neither is the DMPC. Nor the Monty Haul DM. Nor the Railroading Storyteller. Nor the DM's Girlfriend. Also using diplomacy is a matter of using the rules as they were designed. That's a game design issue.

 

[Sadras]

If I've understood @pemerton's meaning, the clearest cut example of Flexible Backstory is Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World. In it the GM is instructed to prepare absolutely nothing before character creation. How the world actually works is revealed to both the GM and the players in the course of play.

Ah thanks. Will check out the references. I've seen this style before in the RPG Summerland and it formed part of the system, perhaps the idea was taken from Apocalypse World.

This is a strawman. If you want higher level areas have higher level areas.

Manbearcat and Pemerton were discussing their style of play as opposed to the 'living, breathing world' and the benefits that stem from it. I was attempting to reflect the benefits of 'living, breathing world' as opposed to designed encounter level challenges. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my example. I will await Pemerton's reply.

If the ref started kicking the ball around they wouldn't just be a referee. They'd be a player as well. The second the DM picks up the dice they cease to be an entirely disinterested referee. This is a bug in some styles of game (really old school dungeon crawling) and a feature in others (White Wolf calling the GM the Storyteller) - but in all it is a fact of life. There is far more scope for a player who can send other players off to be abusive than there is for one who can't.

Fair enough.

Neither is the DMPC. Nor the Monty Haul DM. Nor the Railroading Storyteller. Nor the DM's Girlfriend. Also using diplomacy is a matter of using the rules as they were designed. That's a game design issue.

Yes, but one would make house-rules to change that, from my perception to curb player abuse stemming from bad game design, while presumably you indicated that the house-rule was used to increase DM control.

 

[Savage Wombat]

ok, but what about when you sit down to watch a 5 season run of Justice league, and the end bad guy of season 1 is a Manhunter, and half way through season 3 they fight three man hunters... and the season 4 finaly is 200 manhunters, and right before the fight there is an obvious up grade in powers (superman sun dips,Green lantern becomes Ion, ect) because that is much closer to my example...

Most people I know would consider it awesome that we showed how there characters grew... how the biggest most powerful threat they saw at level 1, something they had to run from...became later just part of the army they slaughtered... by the way the leader of the Army was "Kingdom" and he was a level 21 solo+ (my own design with 3 full initative counts, hp over level, and interrupts and reactions for each set of actions)

The thing is - you could have had that exact same storyline in other editions of D&D without changing the monsters' stats from level to level. The PCs start out at 1st level fighting something like, say, a humanoid with ogre stats (still too weak?) and then by 11th level, that's no challenge any more. Your example does not actually support a need for minion rules - just that you used the minion rules as intended by the designer.

So my point remains - for some people it works, and for some it doesn't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah thanks. Will check out the references. I've seen this style before in the RPG Summerland and formed part of the system, perhaps the idea wasn't taken from Apocalypse World.

It wasn't - and Summerland predates Apocalypse World. In AW Vincent Baker wrote down what he does in his best games and made them DMing guidance (along with quite a few other good ideas).

Yes, but one would make house-rules to change that, from my perception to curb player abuse stemming from bad game design, while presumably you indicated that the house-rule was used to increase DM control.

And in cases like Diplomacy I blame the game designers.

The thing is - you could have had that exact same storyline in other editions of D&D without changing the monsters' stats from level to level. The PCs start out at 1st level fighting something like, say, a humanoid with ogre stats (still too weak?) and then by 11th level, that's no challenge any more. Your example does not actually support a need for minion rules - just that you used the minion rules as intended by the designer.

So my point remains - for some people it works, and for some it doesn't.

OK. You don't like minion rules? Don't Use Them! It's quite simple. There is nothing saying you must minionise monsters at higher level - almost the reverse. For those of us who like them they improve the game - but there is literally nowhere in the rules saying that the DM must make this choice. However for some of us it adds interest, challenge, and immersion to the setting and breaks away from the utterly artificial, Order of the Stick like nature of hit points.

Why are you objecting to us having tools we like?