Payn's Ponderings; System mastery and the concept of fair fight.

[payn]

Which drives right back to my challenge. Everyone wants both system mastery and fairness.

Now there are times to dial back system mastery in favor of other considerations, say verisimilitude or preventing a never ending arms race between dm and player, but why would system mastery ever interfere with fairness?

From the OP;

One player, I'll call him Sandy, is a deep system mastery driven player. He is a walking encyclopedia of rules mechanics blended with narrative flavor. He prides him self on latest, most complex, force building in BT. Many folks are not up to that level of play, so we often limit the complexity era as a means to deliver a more fair match based on player experience. The tighter we grip on the reigns, the less interested Sandy becomes.

I used this example from my experience to answer that very question. Its not that Sandy doesn't want any aspect of fairness, but he wants to use system mastery to his distinct advantage. The less opportunity Sandy has to do that, the less interested in the game he becomes. Thus, his priority is system mastery over fairness, but not to its exclusion. That is very different than my perspective and makes games between Sandy and I difficult to set up.

Neither of us are wrong about this. I am not looking for an argument of positions, im looking for a discussion of interests.

 

[FrogReaver]

From the OP;

I used this example from my experience to answer that very question. Its not that Sandy doesn't want any aspect of fairness, but he wants to use system mastery to his distinct advantage. The less opportunity Sandy has to do that, the less interested in the game he becomes. Thus, his priority is system mastery over fairness, but not to its exclusion. That is very different than my perspective and makes games between Sandy and I difficult to set up.

You realize that in Sandy’s example you are setting up fairness and system mastery in opposition? That system mastery cannot occur with at least some unfairness. That’s the exact part I’m challenging.

I’d suggest Sandy views both the high opportunity for system mastery games and the low ones as all fair (the same fairness). I don’t think Sandy wants to play in a less fair game than you. I think you’ve got Sandy’s motivations around fairness wrong.

Neither of us are wrong about this. I am not looking for an argument of positions, im looking for a discussion of interests.

Sounds good to me.

 

[payn]

You realize that in Sandy’s example you are setting up fairness and system mastery in opposition? That system mastery cannot occur with at least some unfairness. That’s the exact part I’m challenging.

I think for some players that is true. The system mastery game is working within the bounds to give yourself a decisive advantage as the winning condition. Find the right winning combo and apply it, instead of just playing the game for its own sake.

That may be true for Sandy, that doesn't mean its right or wrong for anyone else or challenges the entire concepts themselves. This just happens to be the motivational recipe for Sandy.

I’d suggest Sandy views both the high opportunity for system mastery games and the low ones as all fair (the same fairness). I don’t think Sandy wants to play in a less fair game than you. I think you’ve got Sandy’s motivations around fairness wrong.

I might, but he simply wont play games he cant use his system mastery to his advantage. What am I to make of that?

 

[Emerikol]

This is an interesting bit. I dislike rolling ability scores becasue of the unfairness that results for players. I found it very challenging to build encounters as a GM for a varied party. One person rolls very well, and thus needs more challenging encounters. It's either too hard for the others, or a cake walk for the above average. Then, of course, the next step was to build in a ton of fail safes in stat gen so that this didnt happen. Problem is it stops feeling random at all and is more illusory at that point. I've come around to point buy in crunchy games like D&D. For me this hits the fair match motivation for me.

I think scores are highly overvalued when it comes to being able to perform in a game. I do think a fighter shouldn't have an 8 strength though. But a 14 or higher is fine. The need for an 18 is a myth. My system still provides some randomness but it likely produces what would be typical outcomes. Are wizards going to mostly be very smart? yes. It bothers me more that dump stats are always low.

That said, I do also dislike the SAD design modern fantasy RPGs seem to have taken. Time for the system master in me to step forward. I like classes MAD where you need to diversify stats. Also, you can build any number of fighters and they will work differently from one another. No more pump str and con then dump everything else, for every single fighter.

I think more MAD would be good and that is another way to address the problem. It's really hard though to do that well. Few games do it that I see.

 

[payn]

I think scores are highly overvalued when it comes to being able to perform in a game. I do think a fighter shouldn't have an 8 strength though. But a 14 or higher is fine. The need for an 18 is a myth. My system still provides some randomness but it likely produces what would be typical outcomes. Are wizards going to mostly be very smart? yes. It bothers me more that dump stats are always low.

I think there is the idea of what a fighter and wizard should be that informs the norms. Why cant a fighter have a 8 str and a high dex? Maybe they are a swashbuckler or a ranged specialist? Why must Wizards be intelligent? I know the sorc being the "its in ma blood ; not ma readin" element reinforces the idea, but I dont see why all wizards must be smart? If you want to rid of dump stats and cookie cutter chargen, I think you need to tackle the idea of what a class is conceptually in relation to stats. At some point, stats went from being a character's physical and mental make up, to being their ability to be good at stuff based on class alone.

On the need for an 18 being a myth, thats largely dependent on the system. 5E is fairly forgiving of a spread out stat array, but PF2 would be down right punishing. The system math is so tight in PF2, if you fail to maximize, your PC will be completely ineffective. That was a design choice. Interesting enough, PF2 doesnt use rolling for stats, but a system that determines make up based on ancestry, background, and class. However, the choices seem to matter at face value, but all usually come out the same int he end. There really is only 2-3 functional arrays in PF2.

I think more MAD would be good and that is another way to address the problem. It's really hard though to do that well. Few games do it that I see.

I think 3E/PF1 had the concept correct, it was the math that was a total mess.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think for some players that is true.

I’m not sure why you feel the general concept you introduced depends on any particular player.

Like sure, not every player prioritizes system mastery at the expense of everything else, but the notion that prioritizing system mastery to such a high degree can even come at the expense of fairness is a general concept that can be discussed without talking about specific individuals.

The system mastery game is working within the bounds to give yourself a decisive advantage as the winning condition. Find the right winning combo and apply it, instead of just playing the game for its own sake.

And there’s nothing unfair about doing that.

Its worth noting here chess was a fair game by your standards, but studying tactics, end games and book openings can give one a huge advantage over someone that doesn’t. Its one of the reasons chess grand masters are soo good at the game. So yes, chess has major system mastery potential.

That may be true for Sandy, that doesn't mean it’s right or wrong for anyone else or challenges the entire concepts themselves. This just happens to be the motivational recipe for Sandy.

my whole point was that it’s not true for Sandy either.

I might, but he simply wont play games he cant use his system mastery to his advantage. What am I to make of that?

And why does ‘using system mastery to his advantage’ mean he wants more unfairness than you?

 

[payn]

I’m not sure why you feel the general concept you introduced depends on any particular player.

Like sure, not every player prioritizes system mastery at the expense of everything else, but the notion that prioritizing system mastery to such a high degree can even come at the expense of fairness is a general concept that can be discussed without talking about specific individuals.

Im avoiding generalization because im not planting stakes in any position. Im interested in what motivates individual players because on these subjects, ive varied from other folks.

And there’s nothing unfair about doing that.

Its worth noting here chess was a fair game by your standards, but studying tactics, end games and book openings can give one a huge advantage over someone that doesn’t. Its one of the reasons chess grand masters are soo good at the game. So yes, chess has major system mastery potential.

my whole point was that it’s not true for Sandy either.

And why does ‘using system mastery to his advantage’ mean he wants more unfairness than you?

An even match bores Sandy. They simply wont play one. Its not because they studied the basics of the game, and formed strategies, its solely based on leveraging tactics others have not. That is the distinction here, and why Sandy has prioritized system mastery in a way I have not.

 

[Piperken]

@payn

This series of articles discusses these play styles, although framed through the lens of video fighting game genre, which admittedly does not have the same goals that ttrpgs do.

Others may be familiar with it outside of ttrpg space, as it's rather seminal. The beginning/intermediate sections are the ones that pertain to what's been mentioned here.

 

[Piperken]

...Are wizards going to mostly be very smart? yes. It bothers me more that dump stats are always low...

Re: craving system mastery or fairness.

When faced with rolling a character's stats where the game's rules limited how much dice or rolls you could use, what I rolled shaped what kind of wizard etc. I would play. That is, in the process of creating a character, I never thought, oh, this is where my two lowest scores etc should go.

Dump stats as a concept, is now ubiquitous in many spaces besides ttrpgs, and very much integral in how-to-play or how-to-build guides.

We build characters now; there's something to be said about that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Im avoiding generalization because im not planting stakes in any position. Im interested in what motivates individual players because on these subjects, ive varied from other folks.

I think you are doing just that, maybe unwittingly, but still.

Nevertheless, we’ve beat this dead horse enough, unless someone else wants to breathe some fresh life into it.

An even match bores Sandy. They simply wont play one. It’s not because they studied the basics of the game, and formed strategies, it’s solely based on leveraging tactics others have not. That is the distinction here, and why Sandy has prioritized system mastery in a way I have not.

I’d challenge almost all this as well. Sandy isn’t bored by even matches or at least there’s no evidence of that.

I’ll give an example. I’m pretty good at a custom game type on StarCraft 2 called Nexus Wars. It’s a tag of war auto battler where you build buildings that auto produce units and auto sends them. I have a high system mastery for that game. But I dont solely play the most OP combos I know. I like to experiment and test novel tactics and strategies and learn when certain tactics that are generally viewed as bad can work.

I do the same kind of thing with most games. Lots of analysis and then test out the hypothesis. A fair game without major house rules and option limitations is essential to this process.

And then there’s an even more fundamental question, What is a fair match, especially in d&d?