Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[buzz]

Right, if the end is already set, i.e. the choices made trough the way are not significant, you have neither challenge nor drama.

True, but knowing the end doesn't necessarily mean that choices can't be meaningful en route. For example, a supplement for the RPG Sorcerer has an option for a PC to have a specific destiny, meaning that the player may know full well that their PC simply cannot die until that destiny is achieved. Does that make the game boring? No, because now the PC can be faced with a number of hard choices made harder by the fact that sacrificing themselves isn't an option.

Granted, not knowing the outcome is probably more consistently fun.

(Which reminds me that it's unfortunate that most non-dungeon-crawl adventures for D&D that I've seen are so heavily plotted. One of the reasons I will not pull punches as a DM is because PC death is too often one of the few variables left in an adventure.)

 

[marune]

True, but knowing the end doesn't necessarily mean that choices can't be meaningful en route. For example, a supplement for the RPG Sorcerer has an option for a PC to have a specific destiny, meaning that the player may know full well that their PC simply cannot die until that destiny is achieved. Does that make the game boring? No, because now the PC can be faced with a number of hard choices made harder by the fact that sacrificing themselves isn't an option.

Yeah, just after I wrote my post I thougt of such an exception. But that's not the kind of "setted end" you find in D&D modules.

 

[DonTadow]

That's not a question of personal style, that's how the game is built.

You can always do something else with it, but YMMV.

But we disagree on how the game is built. You call the player's losers if they fail an encounter, my players don't consider this. If they don't defeat an encounter and no one dies then they try another method. Unless it is the final game of the campaign, I"ve rarely heard a player say "man we loss that game of d and d".

We often have a joke at our table where someone says "I just won' d and d", because for usit is absurd. There are no winners or losers with our style.

 

[DonTadow]

Right, if the end is already set, i.e. the choices made trough the way are not significant, you have neither challenge nor drama.

Sadly it's seem that many groups don't try to get better than this "enjoy the ride" playstyle.

Edit : BTW, the ride is often seen in the Realm of Fudging.

I think DMs start to feign off when they present themselves too much into the adversarial role. An adversary is someone who directly opposes you. I do not oppose the party. The villian whose actions i control does. I am simply following the tactics predetermined by the villian, the players are actually determining their actions in real time.

If a vampire fights until the end that is predetermined by me. He players however, can decide to retreat then change their mind then change their mind again.

 

[Zaruthustran]

But the game also says, "According to my rules, you can spend an action point to succeed at a failed roll." Or whatever.

How is that cheating?

Action points are designed to allow players a mechanism to screw with the normal game mechanics. It's cheating within the rules. That's why I said that Action Points are in the game specifically to allow the players to cheat.

Since Action Points are themselves rules, it's not *actual* cheating. Maybe I should have put quotes around "cheat".

 

[marune]

I do not oppose the party. The villian whose actions i control does.

Ok re-read this aloud.

I am simply following the tactics predetermined by the villain, the players are actually determining their actions in real time.

Okay, if you are giving up the control of the villain and instead following a kind of predetermined course of action, you're having a "sim" playstyle that is not adversarial.

Here, don't confuse the "predetermined course of action" with the "tactics round by round" found in some MM.

The first one is built according to the fictional world "internal logic", the second one according to the CR system.

 

[LostSoul]

Action points are designed to allow players a mechanism to screw with the normal game mechanics. It's cheating within the rules. That's why I said that Action Points are in the game specifically to allow the players to cheat.

Since Action Points are themselves rules, it's not *actual* cheating. Maybe I should have put quotes around "cheat".

Action Points are usually "metagame" mechanics - while you can say, "It's the Force" like I did the first time I saw them in play (Star Wars d6), I now tend to think of them as a resource that a player draws upon to act on player goals, instead of an ability of the character.

Maybe that's why they are "cheating".

On adversity:

I think DMs start to feign off when they present themselves too much into the adversarial role. An adversary is someone who directly opposes you. I do not oppose the party. The villian whose actions i control does. I am simply following the tactics predetermined by the villian, the players are actually determining their actions in real time.

I think that one role the DM has is to provide adversity for the players (doing so through his NPCs or environment). It's the adversity that allows the players to make meaningful choices.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying the villian predetermines his actions; the villian doesn't exist, so how could he?

 

[marune]

I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying the villian predetermines his actions; the villian doesn't exist, so how could he?

A good example would be "Monster X would never surrender because of Y or Z" or "Monster A is too intelligent to ever fight to death", etc.

Of course those sentences are not written in the MM but part of a sub-culture of the D&D players.

 

[marune]

I think that one role the DM has is to provide adversity for the players (doing so through his NPCs or environment). It's the adversity that allows the players to make meaningful choices.

In D&D yes, but that's not the only way to do it.

And I'll would add again that if it's not possible for them to fail agaisn't these challenges, there is no meaningful choices.

On top of it, XP should reward the good choices that made them succeed (So they can level up to fight bigger challenges).

 

[DonTadow]

A
I think that one role the DM has is to provide adversity for the players (doing so through his NPCs or environment). It's the adversity that allows the players to make meaningful choices.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying the villian predetermines his actions; the villian doesn't exist, so how could he?

The DM's role is to provide adversity and challenge, not become that adversary. Understanding this is detrimental to being a DM. It is not the DM against the party. If it were, then no DM should provide things like treasure, and technically, the every sessions should end in a tpk. Now, the DM can provide adversaries without being the adversary.

PCs think in real time, they have full control over what their characters do. DMS control NPCS with predetermined personalities and in most combat cases tactics. DMs can control a character without being the adversary themselves. When I control the red dragon, the red dragon's strategy in the combat is determined by a tactical pattern that is predetermined.

example: The party's rogue steals a green gem of life that the dragon wants. During the combat, the dragon fights the party. The Dragon knows the party has the gem and because he's smart he is going to take out the wizards and fighters first, partly because he doesn't know which one the rogue is nor that the rogue has the gem. The dm knows this. The dm sees this the whole time. Heck the rogue told the dm he was doing this. So if the dm were the true adversary, then the red dragon would immediately attack the rogue and take the gem back and not risk his life on the wizards and warriors.

That is the different between the DM being an adversary and the dM controlling adversaries. I had a conversation last night about this very subject where i was mentoring a dM who had a problem with a player whom could not figure out that the DM was not the enemy. At every point he could he'd dispute what the DM had to say, and in some cases would not believe the abilities of the DM.

Of course my advise was the boot the disruptive player for the sake of your other players. Just an example of how important it is for both players and dms to understand that the dm is not the enemy.