Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[Manbearcat]

See, I guess where you see marginalize, I see deemphasize. And again, I think this is a function of player-type, not system. Even in old-school games, most players I met would simply attack, or look through their magic items. Spellcasters would look over their spells. I've never played in games where players were always looking for chandeliers to swing on or fireplaces to push people into.

The best way to get players to improvise, I've found, is to give them upfront knowledge of the outcome and that attempting to engage with the environment (which is really what improvise means) is their tactically most sound option

I wanted to drop in right quick to address these two points.

It seems that mostly what we're discussing here is the propensity to stunt.

In my 1e games, who was "stunting" the most? The Thief and the Monk. It was quite easy to discern why they were stunting (trying to engage me to make favorable rulings and/or provide transparent odds for success on their wacky stunts) while the Fighters were continuously pressing the "meat-grinder attack button" while the spellcasters were looking through their spells and then pressing the appropriate "problem solving spell button." Its because their default options were terribly ineffectual and engaging in symmetric warfare meant death.

I'm going to fast forward to my present game.

I have a Thief (Rogue) and a "Monk" in my present game. The "Monk" is a Bladesinger who is basically a Jedi with a FIghter/Mage skin. He uses the Bladesong (Force). They are both light armored, mobile, duelists/fencers. One is an Errol Flynn Swashbuckler and the other is a Jedi Knight basically. These guys have a fair bit of functional and thematic overlap due to the nature of the archetypes and how the mechanics go about supporting that:

1) They have above average, passive AC for their level (with the Bladesinger at Defender levels).
2) They have activatable abilities that buff their defenses significantly (especially AC and Reflex). They both have enough of these that they can sustain these defenses for 80 % (or more) of the daily percentage of combat rounds.
3) They both do significant at-will, single target damage (The Bladesinger just under and the Rogue just exceeding of-level, high damage expression).
4) They both have a robust suite of off-turn actions to riposte, deny/subvert attacks against them, or move in response to a trigger.


However, while one gets by on the "aerialist swashbuckler" shtick, the other gets by on "using the force (Bladesong)". When one stunts (invoked p42) to engage what might be an otherwise benign terrain feature, he is going to be deploying his ridiculous Acrobatics (automatically passing the Medium DC and 80 % on the Hard) and doing the sliding down the bannister into a leaping kick, knocking the Ogre into the brazier. The other also has a ridiculous Acrobatics check, but he is much more likely to leverage his "use the force shtick", deploying his ridiculous Arcana (automatically passing the Medium DC and 80 % on the Hard) and force-throwing the brazier (with its burning coals) at the Ogre.

Do they stunt as much as 1e? No. That was literally an every round affair. Do they stunt a lot? Absolutely. And when they do, their stunting is informed by the (i) the mechanical constraints of their PC build tools, the (ii) thematic guidance of their archetype, and (iii) the tier-based, genre credibility test that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was speaking of.

One archetype is (tactically, not strategically) stunting more than ever in my 4e games; spellcasters. They are deploying Arcana, Nature, and Religion with interesting combos riffed off of the baked-in thematics and mechanics of their respective power sources and spells far and away more than I've ever seen before.

 

[Mercurius]

The true issue with rule zero becomes when the DM-enforced changes become intrusive enough to make the players feel deprotagonized. The 2e/WoD mantra was that the DM-story should have a higher precedence that the player's desire to drive the action, which often mandated heavy use of rule zero. That's why such uses of rule zero are frowned upon in indie games, where being player-centric is a major tenet.

Ultimately, what constitutes a fair use of rule zero is an (explicit or implicit) negotiation between the players and the DM.

I agree. If players feel that the DM is overstepping then there needs to be an agreement that they can say so. For better or worse, DM are people too - and not all are mature. I played with one guy some years ago who was mad that I had actually rolled 18/00 Strength - the only time I ever did so, or was aware of anyone doing so. He quickly dispatched my 1st level fighter via two giant scorpions. He was a real prick in other ways, too!

There's nothing wrong with illusionism (making changes to rules that aren't visible to the players) in and of itself. But there's nothing wrong with also expecting the game to do what it says. If a game offers the promise of cinematic battles, but the enemies always die in one round, I'm going to have to resort to illusionism to make the game run the way it was offered (as I don't see a cinematic battle being over in 6 seconds).

This was a problem with 4e combat - the Grind for which numerous DMs resorted to "illusionism." Eventually folks started houseruling to give monsters less HP and more damage output, but even then the pace could be wonky.

But that's not a logic issue. For his preferences, GM meddling taints the game. The GM should set up the encounters, and run them according to the rules. He shouldn't give the enemy 50 extra hit points because it got critical'd by a daily power.

There's an element of logic in seeing something as black and white that has more nuance than that. It isn't just a matter of preference to think that a bag of 10 apples is basically the same as a bag of 40 apples, or a touch versus a ton of mustard von the sandwich ruins it if you don't like mustard.

But that isn't really fiat. You have a house rule that criticals do max damage plus an additional narrative effect. You've negotiated with your players to take back some narrative authority upon certain resolution results. It's not indie or anything, but I don't think of it as fiat. Fiat is "Sorry, your vorpal sword can't cut off this guy's head because he's wearing armor that covers his neck." It's the imposition of DM preference (whether in the cause of story or greater simulative "fidelity") to override a player's rules-granted authority to shape the fiction.

We didn't actually have a specific house rule. It was just that I would sometimes embellish things with description and added effects. So in a sense the "house rule" was that I had freedom to do so. Sometimes a critical miss would result in a dropped weapon; sometimes it would result in a possible hit on an ally (with another roll, of course), depending upon the situation and location of the characters. The point being, it was up to my judgment. It wasn't about me being power-hungry or a jerk, but augmenting the drama.

I think your thesis would be stronger if you could identify what the "something" is. To be honest, the campfire story is kind of lost on me, since I never really did that. (I could invoke "Are you Afraid of the Dark?" on 90s era Nickelodeon, but that might just prove your point! ) I've seen similar arguments about animation styles, especially hand-drawn versus photorealistic CGI. Or possibly between novels and graphic novels, where in reading you have to generate your own images, but a graphic novel does it for you. I've always found novels to be immersive, and graphic novels not to be (I generally find them a waste of money, as I read too fast for them to provide much value), but I don't think that's anything else than a product of my own style of cognition.

A lot of those examples I used up thread, or in the OP - e.g. hand-drawn animation versus CGI. I think the point of the "something" is that it isn't easily identifiable or definable...and I think that's part of the point, that as soon as you define or identify, you lock it in. "It" is an opening in consciousness, an imaginative aperture that is closed, or at least narrowed, the more "technology" intrudes.

See, I guess where you see marginalize, I see deemphasize.

I've used both words throughout the thread.

And again, I think this is a function of player-type, not system. Even in old-school games, most players I met would simply attack, or look through their magic items. Spellcasters would look over their spells. I've never played in games where players were always looking for chandeliers to swing on or fireplaces to push people into.

I think its both - player-type (and cognitive style) and system, which facilitate different types and styles to greater or lesser degrees. But as Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. Technically guns don't kill people, people kill people through their intention, but guns are made to kill living organisms, including people, so the "message" is inherent in the "medium." The system (medium) and play experience (message) are, if not synonymous, then certainly entwined.

The best way to get players to improvise, I've found, is to give them upfront knowledge of the outcome and that attempting to engage with the environment (which is really what improvise means) is their tactically most sound option.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I would never want to give players knowledge of the outcome - talk about destroying drama! Maybe I don't get what you mean?

You're right that 4e powers are reliable, so that people will default to them. I certainly think 4e powers could be improved by adding in narrative conditions to triggers rather than a reliance on the ED part of AEDU system and reskinning. (My own 4e hack has no encounter powers, for example). But I've never found any other D&D system to do a better job. When we played OSR, people just attacked, and hoped I gave them a bonus. They told me in our last OSR session that they were bored because there was nothing for them to choose in combat, they just told me what they were doing and hoped it work. They wanted control. So we're back to a (hacked) 4e.

I'm wondering if anyone ever came up with "improvised powers" - some kind of system where a player determined intended effects based upon a power/level/AEDU type grid, then roll for it. Sounds complicated but maybe worthwhile once up and running.

 

[TwoSix]

This was a problem with 4e combat - the Grind for which numerous DMs resorted to "illusionism." Eventually folks started houseruling to give monsters less HP and more damage output, but even then the pace could be wonky.

I agree grind is a problem with 4e combat. A 13th Age style escalation die and stronger powers that trigger on escalation die values help with that lot, I've found.

There's an element of logic in seeing something as black and white that has more nuance than that. It isn't just a matter of preference to think that a bag of 10 apples is basically the same as a bag of 40 apples, or a touch versus a ton of mustard von the sandwich ruins it if you don't like mustard.

I think you vastly underestimate [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] if you think he sees the issue with no nuance.

We didn't actually have a specific house rule. It was just that I would sometimes embellish things with description and added effects. So in a sense the "house rule" was that I had freedom to do so. Sometimes a critical miss would result in a dropped weapon; sometimes it would result in a possible hit on an ally (with another roll, of course), depending upon the situation and location of the characters. The point being, it was up to my judgment. It wasn't about me being power-hungry or a jerk, but augmenting the drama.

The indie play style isn't really about protecting players from jerk DMs, it's about the fact that giving the players greater authority leads to a different play experience. Not an objectively better or worse one, just different.

A lot of those examples I used up thread, or in the OP - e.g. hand-drawn animation versus CGI. I think the point of the "something" is that it isn't easily identifiable or definable...and I think that's part of the point, that as soon as you define or identify, you lock it in. "It" is an opening in consciousness, an imaginative aperture that is closed, or at least narrowed, the more "technology" intrudes.

I think when you replace a less detailed concept for a more detailed concept, you lose the opening to fill in those details. But simultaneously, you gain the ability to use that more detailed concept as a building block for yet more varied concepts. I think having both finely and coarsely grained imaginative concepts in one's personal repertoire is probably the ideal.

I think its both - player-type (and cognitive style) and system, which facilitate different types and styles to greater or lesser degrees. But as Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. Technically guns don't kill people, people kill people through their intention, but guns are made to kill living organisms, including people, so the "message" is inherent in the "medium." The system (medium) and play experience (message) are, if not synonymous, then certainly entwined.

Sure. Honestly, a system that isn't pushing for a particular play experience probably isn't doing a very good job! That's one of the concepts animating indie games, after all.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I would never want to give players knowledge of the outcome - talk about destroying drama! Maybe I don't get what you mean?

I mean being upfront that if they push the enemy into the fire, it's going to do 6d6 damage. If there's an edge of a cliff, getting pushed over it means a 200 ft drop. Let them now the mechanics and probabilities of the stunt before they attempt it.

I'm wondering if anyone ever came up with "improvised powers" - some kind of system where a player determined intended effects based upon a power/level/AEDU type grid, then roll for it. Sounds complicated but maybe worthwhile once up and running.

I've seen tables swapping damage dice for different effects, based on level and the frequency type of the power.

 

[pemerton]

DMG 2e pp. 172-173 Rules for getting lost in wilderness
PH pp86 Tracking
In the first place to find a hidden temple the PC should have some reason to believe/suspect it is there. So they either follow some clues or try to follow the trail of somebody. The DM may be rolling the "lost" chance, but the PCs can influence the probability.

DMG pp. 97-99,157 Morale rules and their uses for bribing NPCs
DMG pp.140 PH pp. 25 & 59 (bard) Encounter/NPC reactions
Opening the gates to me implies either:
1. A dereliction of duty, resolved by the Morale rules, triggered by either a bribe or a threat.
2. If the NPC being contrary or not, which is a encounter reaction.


While those might not be rules you like, but they are there. So lets be fair.

These seem very similar to the comparable rules in 1st ed AD&D.

In the case of the guard and the gate, there is little to no mechanical support for the PCs persuading the guard, by way of argument (be it reasoned, impassioned or both), that the gate should be opened.

In the case of the wilderness temple, I think the searching rules are somewhat underdeveloped (eg if you enter a 6-mile hex are you aware of all temples in it?), but they are more robust than the social rules. If somewhat frustrating to apply for those who don't enjoy hex crawls, but youare correct that that is a matter of taste.

 

[pemerton]

What you describe as the DM "cheating" has nothing to do with style of play, but who the DM is as a person

I don't agree with this. The example I gave was a GM changing the dungeon map not for ingame reasons but for metagame reasons.

In Gygaxian play that is cheating - it invalidates the players' strategic choices. But in other playstyles - including the one I happen to prefer - it may be quite permissible, if it doesn't invalidate the players' thematic choices and in fact increases the weight and force of those choices.

I think the main issue is how skillfully (or tactfully) the GM employs fiat, and for what end.

The equation of "skill" with "tact" still leads me to think that you are talking here about illusionist play - ie the GM creating an illusion that game events are unfolding for reasons to do with mechanical resolution, when they are really unfolding for reasons to do with the GM's fiat override of that mechancial resolution.

 

[Balesir]

Charm Person from 1E: This spell will affect any single person or
mammal it is cast upon. The creature then will regard the druid (or magic user) who cast the spell as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected.

OK, "trusted friend and ally" - but that still leaves open a whole gamut of possibilities that I, as GM, have to pick from and that will decide the power (or uselessness) of this spell.

Contrast that with the "Charm Person" spell we used in our homebrew of the time, where casting the spell initiated a willpower battle with the target. Winning the willpower battle gave complete control of the target's actions (but not use of their skills or knowledge) as long as the link was maintained. Doing other things - particularly casting spells - would initiate a renewed willpower battle with penalties for the distractions. The result was a useful and suspenseful spell that was explicit in its effects and not overpowering in its effects.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

OK, "trusted friend and ally" - but that still leaves open a whole gamut of possibilities that I, as GM, have to pick from and that will decide the power (or uselessness) of this spell.

Contrast that with the "Charm Person" spell we used in our homebrew of the time, where casting the spell initiated a willpower battle with the target. Winning the willpower battle gave complete control of the target's actions (but not use of their skills or knowledge) as long as the link was maintained. Doing other things - particularly casting spells - would initiate a renewed willpower battle with penalties for the distractions. The result was a useful and suspenseful spell that was explicit in its effects and not overpowering in its effects.

That sounds both overpowering and unnecessary. Total control? That's not what I would expect a "charm" spell to do. In 1E, you get a trusted friend. He'll do things you'd expect from your best friend. You can't control his actions.

Originally posted by 1e DMG:

"Remember that a charmed creature’s or person’s priorities are changed as regards the spell-caster, but the charmed one’s basic personality and alignment are not. The spell is not enslave person or mammal. A
request that a charmee make itself defenseless or that he/she/it be required
to give up a valued item or cast a valuable spell or use a charge on a valued item (especially against the charmee’s former associates or allies) could allow an immediate saving throw to see if the charm is thrown off. In like manner, a charmed figure will not necessarily tell everything he/she/it knows or draw maps of entire areas. A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer. Also, a charm spell does not substantially alter the charmee’s feelings toward the charmer’s friends and allies. The charmed person or creature will not react well to the
charmer’s allies making suggestions like ”Ask him this question . . .” The charmee is oriented toward friendship and acceptance of the charmer,
but this does not mean that he/she/it will put up with verbal or physical
abuse from the charmer‘s associates."

Seems simple enough to me without being overpowered. And it keeps the flavor of a charm spell, as opposed to a dominate spell. I just ask myself, would I do this for my best friend - if the answer is yes, then the charmed creature does it. If not, then he doesn't. It ain't rocket science.

 

[Balesir]

Let me reprise a little. I wrote:

My problem is really with rules that require GM fiat, not because the rules don't cover a specific effect, situation or action but because the designers apparently thought that an arbitrary decision by the GM would be the best thing for the game.

I'm thinking here of:

- "Charm" type spells where the target "viewed the caster as a friend". What sort of friend? The sort of friend a lifeboatman is to a drowning sailor he's never met? The sort of friend J.R. Ewing was to his brother Bobby? The sort of friend Short Round was to Indiana Jones? What does this effect mean? The GM has to decide, because the rules simply don't say.

<snip>

To which you replied with some points regarding what the Charm spells wording was precisely in the AD&D books in general (when I wasn't talking specifically about AD&D but of D&D style rules in general.

After this deviation you sum up your case with this:

I just ask myself, would I do this for my best friend - if the answer is yes, then the charmed creature does it. If not, then he doesn't. It ain't rocket science.

Indicating that you, as GM, use fiat. Which was my original point; this spell can be used in play only if the GM uses fiat decisions, based on something other than the game itself (in this case your opinion of what you might or might not do for your best friend), to adjudicate its use.

What point are you trying to make, here? You have just stated, in effect, that my original inclusion of this example of something requiring fiat adjudication was correct - so why the comments?

If your message is "GM fiat is fine - I have no problem with it" then cool - I never said you couldn't. I just said that I do have a problem with it - and your not having a problem with it doesn't help with that in the slightest.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Sounds like you want a game with no dm at all, then. If the dm doesn't make decisions, what, exactly, is his job? To memorize page numbers? Fact is, there can't be a rule for everything that might come up in game. Every rpg has to have the dm make an off the cuff ruling at some point, though I don't see that charm person requires very much. 4e went away from this, and that's why it failed.
You house rule charm person to not be charm person any more, and call it "fixed." Regardless, you asked what sort of friend charm person referred to. The AD&D version has hard rules for that. It requires no more dm fiat than a dm ruling whether or not it's cloudy enough for call lightning to work, or if yelling loudly will waken a sleeping companion. It just takes a little common sense.

Also, suppose there's no charm spell involved. How is the dm supposed to role play a "trusted friend and ally?" I don't think I've ever seen a hard coded rule for that in ANY rpg.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Fact is, there can't be a rule for everything that might come up in game.

Actually, there is. It's called "Rule Zero". The DM interpreting situations, making rulings, and even changing or ignoring published rules is not "fiat", it's DMing, as the rules themselves define it.

The "fiat" term is meaningless; either every word out of the DM's mouth is fiat, or none of it is.

Thus I agree with what you're saying; the DM determining the behavior of a charmed NPC is no different than the DM determining the behavior of a non-charmed NPC.