Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

[Emerikol]

Sorry for being gone so long. I'm on vacation so my presence here is limited.

I honestly believe that my player that disliked the "challenge" of my games honestly wanted it to be easier. He wanted challenge in an illusionist sort of way. He wanted something that appeared to be challenge but wasn't really challenge.

Now I'm defining challenge here as mental energy and discipline required to achieve good results. If it is high then the challenge is higher. If it is lower then the challenge is lower. Of course what is challenging for one person might not be for another. We don't all have the same level of mental acuity. He felt after a particularly harrowing battle that he was stressed out and he didn't want to be stressed out playing a game. What he was calling "stress" I was calling narrative tension and it is the meat and drink of my playstyle.

You can only judge a campaign as challenging or not based upon the players in that game.

 

[Emerikol]

Also a comment on risk mitigation. Naturally I as DM have opinions on what NPCs and monsters would realistically do. As a result players learn those opinions (opinions I hope are at least cinematically realistic) and construct strategies to overcome them. That is not the be all end all of play though but it is a factor. I like to believe my players if suddenly faced with a real situation like a D&D dungeon would really do better because of the plans they'd put into practice.

You can't remove the DM from the equation. Of course his opinion on reality matters. His opinion in the fantasy world IS reality.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See, from my perspective, you're the one who perceives it as an "attack". And instead of explaining why you feel attacked by the concept, you simply reiterate that it was somehow obvious.

An arbitrary us/them classification that's nothing more than a way of justifying one playstyle preference by contrasting it against a strawman standing in for all other preferences, doesn't have to be leveled at me, personally, to get me to argue against it. I maintain that such false dichotomies are not valid, and that there are not only two ways to play an RPG.

That's why I feel this is simply your personal preferences guiding your interpretation.

I do not have a strong style preference with regard to CaW. I've certainly played in that mode a lot. I just deny that there's only one other way to play.

I keep feeling that, when I describe CaW, you hear "breaking the rules to get away with stuff." Is that what you think?

"Leveraging the rules to assure success" would be a better way of putting it, in the ideal case. Outright 'cheating' presumably wouldn't be out of the question, though, as it /is/ an open-ended, outside-the-box way of improving your chances.

 

[pemerton]

In an encounter based game, the players probably do not have the option or ability to collapse the dungeon with multiple rock to mud spells.

Well, there are issues here about scene-reframing. I'm still not sure why "open-ended" is being treated as equivalent to "can reframe scenes". (In a typical A&D game, the players can't just collapse the multiverse with a few well-placed Unravel Spacetime spells, after all - that is, they can't just reframe the whole campaign at will.)

But once the issue of scene reframing is put to one side, I don't see why not. If the game includes that sort of transmutation magic, then why can't it be used?

Here is an actual play report from my 4e game, of the PCs' assaul on Torog's Soul Abattoir. They used magic to dam the flow of souls, as part of their assault:

The drow sorcerer and tiefling paladin flew to the bottom of the cliff, where the paladin blew his Fire Horn to render the ice more susceptible to heat, while the drow cast Flame Spiral to melt some of the ice, and then cast Wall of Water to block the flow of souls (check-wise, this was an Arcana check by the player of the drow, with a buff from the melting of the ice and use of the wall)​

They also used Wizard's Curtain to get an ambush advantage against Torog:

They made some preparations, in the form of powering up with Wrath of the Gods (+8 to damage) and also preparing a Wizard's Curtain to improve their chances of hiding in the opening round. The sorcerer also got ready to lay down his auto-damage zone for when Torog broke through from beneath the tunnel floor. (Successful Dungeoneering from the ranger had revealed the direction Torog was coming from.)

. . .

The first attack of the combat was delivered by the paladin, who critted with Strength of Ten to push Torog back down (allowing other party members to stay hidden behind the Wizard's Curtain for an extra turn while they took their attacks).​

They also used their various mobility options to significant effect:

I had Torog burst up from beneath the tunnel floor, creating a 130' rift splitting the tunnel in two. That worked fairly well for Torog - with his CB 20 slide 5 attack, he was able to knock first the paladin down, then the ranger, sorcerer and invoker, and then the paladin again . . .

The paladin survived the first fall fine, and was able to fly back up when the ranger threw down his flying carpet. But it wasn't long before he was knocked back down again.

The 130' fall would have killed the invoker, who was already unconscious from other damage taken, but the ranger managed to grab hold of him as he fell beside him (successful Acro check) and then between his strong Acro and amulet of reducing falling distance (I can't remember its proper name) kept the damage they both took to 20 hp only.

And the sorcerer's Acro kept him alive too.

Regrouping at the bottom of the pit while the fighter solo-ed Torog (using second wind to get +8 to all defences, with a Defending polearm, which meant that Torog missed at least two of three attacks, making for another ineffectual turn), the ranger-cleric healed them all with a Word of Vigour. The invoker-wizard then leapt onto the carpet (which the paladin had readied for him), flew up with a double move and opened an Arcane Gate linking the bottom of the pit to its top. The others rushed through and Torog was dead.​

4e is supposedly the poster-child for "CaS" in contrast to "CaW". Presumably, therefore, the various events I've just described are examples of CaS. But they don't strike me as lacking open-ended options. Unless, by "open-ended" is meant "scene reframing".

 

[Savage Wombat]

An arbitrary us/them classification that's nothing more than a way of justifying one playstyle preference by contrasting it against a strawman standing in for all other preferences, doesn't have to be leveled at me, personally, to get me to argue against it. I maintain that such false dichotomies are not valid, and that there are not only two ways to play an RPG.

Again, you do not support your argument that a strawman is involved, or that the dichotomy is false. A lot of people thinks it describes the games they've played quite well. You're just asserting your dislike of the topic.

I do not have a strong style preference with regard to CaW. I've certainly played in that mode a lot. I just deny that there's only one other way to play.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't sound to me like that's what you're arguing. If there's more than one end on this continuum, what CaX would you suggest?

"Leveraging the rules to assure success" would be a better way of putting it, in the ideal case. Outright 'cheating' presumably wouldn't be out of the question, though, as it /is/ an open-ended, outside-the-box way of improving your chances.

Ok, good. That's not what Combat as War is. That might explain why you dislike the discussion.

4e is supposedly the poster-child for "CaS" in contrast to "CaW". Presumably, therefore, the various events I've just described are examples of CaS. But they don't strike me as lacking open-ended options. Unless, by "open-ended" is meant "scene reframing".

1. People have said that 4e is strongly dedicated to CaS in contrast to CaW. That does not mean that one is equivalent to the other. The existence of the phrase "Combat as Sport" is not intended as a slap at 4e. (Portions of the article do suggest the writer's distaste for 4e - that's not the same thing as the core topic of the article.)
2. Open-ended might indeed mean "scene reframing", since the latter is a level of game criticism language I've not fully grokked. To the best of my understanding:

In Combat as Sport, the DM sets a scene "you see an ogre in the cave" and the players are generally expected to directly engage the ogre in some fashion (combat, magic, diplomancy, whatever) or retreat. In Combat as War, the DM's "you see an ogre in the cave" could become "we lure the ogre out of the cave and into the nearby guardpost so he can be shot with ballistae". And of course, nothing about a particular edition is required here one way or the other.

If that's scene reframing, then it's scene reframing.

 

[Daztur]

As far as CaS/CaW being edition war material I can see how it can be used for ammunition for that but that really wasn't my intent. Basically I wanted to explain to 4ed fans why I want to play a different sort of game then most of them want to play in a way that 4ed fans could get behind. Basically the reaction I wanted was "aaaah yes, CaW doesn't sound fun at all to me and CaS sounds like the kind of game I want to play." Now obviously I wasn't 100% successful at this (cue Tony Vargas) but quite a few people on the original thread said "yup, CaS is just the kind of game I want to play" which means I got my idea through to at least a few people.

In the mean time I've played more 4ed and found it better roleplay fodder than my first go-round (had a lot of fun re-fluffling my powers in a way that fit fit my PC, it was a kaiju game and my PC was a shardmind brawler fighter refluffed as a Tremors worm with the personality of Darla from Finding Nemo which was I found to be rather awesome) but the same sort of things that made it easy to refluff my powers made it a bit harder to get into CaW-style play so instead I had CaS-style duels with giant robots and whatnot which I think worked very well and took advantage of the best aspects of the 4ed ruleset.

As far as CaW being cheating. Yup, that's exactly what it is. A lot of classic CaW maneuvers are basically the same thing as computer game exploits which sucks in PvP play but can be great fun if the only ones getting the raw end of the exploits are NPCs. And as far as AD&D having problems with CaW play because some classes don't get good CaW toys to play with, yup that's a problem with AD&D. In my ideal D&D rule-set there'd be proficiencies that would be very narrow, reliable and very powerful that'd allow the mundanes to cheat just as much as the casters.

 

[Libramarian]

This is where I disagree. Unpredictable consequences might snowball into dramatic showdowns, but, because they're unpredictable, most often won't. After all, "dramatic showdown" is just one of several scenarios and frequently not even the most likely since as soon as they become most likely, it's not longer CaW but CaS. That's what CaS is supposed to do after all. The fact that you point to save or die as dramatic I think points to a basic disconnect in what people consider dramatic as well.

Well yeah, the dramatic showdowns are rare. The players spend most of their decision points trying to shift the odds in their favor. This contrasts with a game where the players at their decision points make definite, incremental progress towards their goals. I'm suggesting that association football, poker, and OSR D&D are examples of the former, while basketball, chess, and 4e D&D (played in a gamist way) are examples of the latter. Maybe learning to play guitar vs. learning to play Guitar Hero, as well. I think this captures everything I want from the CaW/CaS distinction, without the distraction of war vs. sport. I guess I would call it risk management vs. efficiency optimization (not as catchy). Shooting a dude with a scimitar and using an Owlbear to steal honey is how risk management play is realized in D&D.

There was an interesting exchange between Umbran and Majoru Oakheart last week that has informed my thoughts in this thread:

As I said in my post on the first place, extremely vague rules tend to drive me completely bonkers. It's like trying to play Chess when the rules say "Pawn can move in whatever directions pawns move in. Ask your DM which direction he feels they should move in."

I think it's because I feel a game should have tactical choices of some sort to actually qualify as a game. One where you weigh the positives and negatives of each choice and try to come up with the "best" option. That's how you win.

When the rules REQUIRE GM arbitration in order to function all the time then it is impossible to make these sorts of tactical decisions because you have no basis for them.

Most of the games that require these sorts of arbitration tend to hide behind "well, everyone knows how dangerous a gun is, so we don't need a rule to tell us how dangerous it is. Everyone can base their decisions off of their real life experiences." However, my experience in attempting to play in these sorts of games is that everyone's perception of reality and their real life experiences are COMPLETELY different from one another.

One can make an argument that all game play is, in essence, a exercise in risk management. In the kind of game you seem to prefer, a large portion of the risk is defined by the rules, and dice probabilities. Once you get an intuitive grasp of the numbers, you're good to go in making informed choices to manage your risk vs reward.

So, do you play poker? Even if you don't, do you figure that poker players don't make tactical decisions? Remember that poker is only partially about the rules and card probabilities. It is also about reading your opponent, divining their intentions. In poker, much more of the risk is in another person. You can still observe, and gain an intuitive grasp of the situation, and thus make informed choices to manage your risk vs reward. There is a basis for decisions, there is simply another source of uncertainty as well.

I don't. For almost precisely the reasons you state here. Although there ARE tactical decisions involved, too many of the factors are hidden from you to make a good decision entirely from facts. Sometimes you just have to go with your "gut". Which is to say, guess...with some experience to back you up. But it's still guessing. I don't like to guess, I like to KNOW.

I don't like to gamble with anything that I can't predict at least 70% of the time. I like things to be predictable. That's why I don't buy lottery tickets or go to casinos. Everything is rigged so as to have horrible odds.

4e was definitely designed to remove randomness from the game and "tighten the feedback loop" for player decisions, as [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] put it earlier.

I really like the gambling aspect of 1e D&D, primarily because it's fun to watch as DM. I enjoy watching the players suffer, just as I enjoy watching a soccer player miss the net. It fills me with wincing glee.

I have a death save houserule for 1e that replaces the rule that if you fall into negative HPs you need to rest for a week. I say that if you roll equal or less than your negative HPs on a d6, the character dies. If you roll over, your character lives and can be healed and continue adventuring without the week of rest. Just last session one of my players had to make a death roll. Their character was only at -1 HP so they had to roll a 2-6 to survive. They rolled a 1 and then without saying anything left the room for a minute. It was amusing.

Of course I like watching the players succeed and make miraculous escapes too.

I like your analysis. I don't know that I agree with the connection to WF, though - goofing off isn't necessarily about "having an experience". I think it can often be about "authorship", about achieving some communicative effect in the real world. (Eg making a point about your PC, or about someone else's, or making a point about what is at stake.)

That makes sense to me. I don't think that Pulsipher is familiar with the narrativist approach to RPGs, or if he is he didn't try to find a place for it here. In GNS terms I would say this is about light gamism vs. hardcore gamism.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar is under the mistaken impression that putting false words in someone's mouth makes them true.

so after, once again, putting false words in my mouth you go into a change-the-subject song and dance.

You said:

I replied: Do you mean "to you"?

So, do you mean "to you"?

Nope. I'm meaning this pretty generally. Since your description of your game dovetails nicely with what I've said I'm frankly at a loss as to what you are on about.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I really like the gambling aspect of 1e D&D, primarily because it's fun to watch as DM. I enjoy watching the players suffer, just as I enjoy watching a soccer player miss the net. It fills me with wincing glee.

This is interesting, because, as a DM, I absolutely hate that. The players are my friends, and when they suffer, I feel bad (even if they aren't my friends, as humans, I don't enjoy their suffering). If they do something dumb or nasty and consequences slap them in the face, that's great, or if they're being lazy and assumptive, I don't mind them getting walloped. But if they are genuinely trying, if they are putting their all into it, then I feel nothing but vague guilt and sorrow at them suffering. So I particularly loathe the gambling element of 1/2E, where you could do everything right and still lose easily because the dice disliked you.

I mean, I have and will TPK a party who play like morons, or decide to stick with an obviously losing strategy out of stubborn-ness or the like, but I want that to be in part my decision, in part theirs, not really "Whoops that's a lot of natural 20s!", which caused a number of TPKs in my early AD&D days (and lead to me starting to roll behind a screen and fudge).

risk management vs. efficiency optimization

I like these terms, but like, I've never seen a party trend really strongly towards one or the other. My experience in 4E is that there's a lot of risk management. Example: party wanted to clear out some cultists from the sewers in a city, because they wanted to use the sewers as an escape route later (it's a long story!). The cultist-clearing wasn't an objective they were hired for or anything. So rather than risk their hides fighting the cultists (despite this being 4E and there being this supposed expectation that all fights are safe/sport, an expectation I guess I must have successfully subverted), they wrangled an elaborate situation which caused the city guard to fight the cultists for them. Extreme risk management! The key player behind this has never played an RPG but 4E, either.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think that Pulsipher is familiar with the narrativist approach to RPGs, or if he is he didn't try to find a place for it here. In GNS terms I would say this is about light gamism vs. hardcore gamism.

Agreed on both points.

As I'm sure I've mentioned to you before, I think the borderline between light narrativism (which is all I would claim for my 4e game) and light gamism is pretty thin. Edwards's formal definition of narrativism is all this heavy stuff about theme, meaningful questions etc but then he includes as an example of narrativism The Dying Earth, which is pretty light-hearted (in a cynical way). In Dying Earth the aim of play is to set up opportunities to spout Vancian quips (because this is how you earn advancment points). That's ultimately not very serious, and could be easily be seen as gamist, in the mode of charades or dictionary.

I enjoy watching the players suffer, just as I enjoy watching a soccer player miss the net. It fills me with wincing glee.

I have a death save houserule for 1e that replaces the rule that if you fall into negative HPs you need to rest for a week. I say that if you roll equal or less than your negative HPs on a d6, the character dies. If you roll over, your character lives and can be healed and continue adventuring without the week of rest. Just last session one of my players had to make a death roll. Their character was only at -1 HP so they had to roll a 2-6 to survive. They rolled a 1 and then without saying anything left the room for a minute. It was amusing.

as a DM, I absolutely hate that.

I think I'm a bit softer than Libramarian, but I definitely see where that approach is coming from. I feel sorry for my players when they go for a big set-up and then someone rolls a 1. But I also laugh (or at least giggle - and sometimes taunt).

It's especially amusing when it's the sorcerer's player who rolls a 1. As a chaos mage, he pushes everyone within 5 sq 1 sq on a 1 (and at our table I, as GM, decide where they get pushed to). In a recent session, the roll of a 1 knocked Vecna over the side of an earthmote, just after they had come up with a plan that relied on holding Vecna in place. It was funny!

I wanted to explain to 4ed fans why I want to play a different sort of game then most of them want to play in a way that 4ed fans could get behind. Basically the reaction I wanted was "aaaah yes, CaW doesn't sound fun at all to me and CaS sounds like the kind of game I want to play."

I'd be interested in any comments on post 164, and/or the episodes of play that are linked to.