D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand how the fact that person X (where X is not @Campbell) doesn't like something is an answer to Campbell's question in the OP, which is how do we create an environment for skilled play where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play?

I don't understand how you're ignoring that I gave answers to those questions.

And if someone thinks the answer to that question is it can't be done then maybe post that once. No need, I think, to keep reiterating it.

And if someone thinks those solutions are compatible with what D&D is I don't understand why we can't have that debate - when I and others have examined the proposed solutions and found them incompatible.

Anyway, here's a way to make playing a cleric feel like playing a cleric - it's a rule from Burning Wheel: for any prayer to take effect the player has to speak the prayer, in play. This also establishes the casting time (similar to the old Limited Wish and WIsh spells in AD&D).

That doesn't sound one bit like what this thread started off being about. Sorry but I think your trying to turn the OP into something it wasn't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And if someone thinks the answer to that question is it can't be done then maybe post that once. No need, I think, to keep reiterating it.

It's not "can't be done" - it has been done.
It's phrased as "can't be done in D&D" - but, again, it has been done in D&D.

So, really, the assertion can only mean: "it mustn't be done."

And that's not an answer to the question, that's a denial of the right to even ask the question or have the discussion. That's why it needs to be reiterated endlessly. You can't shout down an idea by stating your arbitrary denial of it only once.

 

[FrogReaver]

Heck, push-button neo-Vancian casting can fail by that criterion pretty easily, too.

OMG, 'battle dress,' that takes me back.

It's not "can't be done" - it has been done. It's phrased as "can't be done in D&D" - but, again, it has been done.

So, really, the assertion can only be: "it mustn't be done."
And that's not an answer to the question, that's a denial of the right to even ask the question or have the discussion.

Except the question was adequately answered. Multiple methods were brought up as potential solutions and each of those examined. I'm not sure how that translates into a denial to ask the question.

Is it Strawman day? It should be. Why is Strawman day not an official day?

Oh, I think I get it. It's a denial to ask the question because the answers provided aren't the answers that were being sought after. That must be it! Or is that just my contribution for strawman day?

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't understand how the fact that person X (where X is not @Campbell) doesn't like something is an answer to Campbell's question in the OP, which is how do we create an environment for skilled play where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play?

Yeah.

Its not particularly responsive to the exercise. I go back to my question above. Why when we discuss these hypotheticals do people feel the needle to smuggle in "but do I like it", "but does it hew to my peception of traditional/legacy thing x", "but will casual players accrete to the game or become diminished", "but will it capture market share"?

Its like no game design hypotheticals (hypothetical!) should ever be considered without passing through this gatekeeping buzz-saw!

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah.

Its not particularly responsive to the exercise. I go back to my question above. Why when we discuss these hypotheticals do people feel the needle to smuggle in "but do I like it", "but does it hew to my peception of traditional/legacy thing x", "but will casual players accrete to the game or become diminished", "but will it capture market share"?

Its like no game design hypotheticals (hypothetical!) should ever be considered without passing through this gatekeeping buzz-saw!

Or the issue was with acting like the post was about D&D when it's really wasn't. Almost like a bait and switch...

Anyways, I offered solutions. I analyzed solutions. That my conclusion ended up being that these solutions can't apply to D&D then why do you act like it's the end of the world.

But I think there's some hidden motive because, if the real goal is to get me to think about other mechanics than what D&D uses then the rebuttal to my criticism wouldn't be to fight it but to say okay that may be true but suppose I'm want to create a game of a similar genre to D&D but the sole requirement is that the game allows each class to compete in all pillars of the game. What solution would you pick.

In which case I would be talking about that instead of this argument that's currently ongoing.

 

[Campbell]

@pemerton is wrong about my priorities in this instance. While there are games that I am interested in primarily because of their focus on character defining moments that is generally not what I look to Dungeons and Dragons for. He is right that my focus is not on potency. I am here for the challenge. My focus is on providing martial characters a compelling tool set that feels like the sort of things martial characters would have to overcome challenges. I want to play a fighter well in the same way I can play a wizard well, but in a way where I feel like a fighter rather than a wizard.

I want to make decisions that are consequential, but not based on what either me or my character wants to have happen. I do not want to have a spotlight shone on my character or any other character. I want us all to earn victories through outstanding play of the fiction and the mechanics of our characters. I want coordination, skill, and adaptability to be as necessary to win the day when I play a fighter as it is when I play a spell caster. I want mechanics that bring about unexpected results for everyone and focus the GM's attention on their duty as a referee.

I want to be able to play a fighter poorly and to play one well.

This is what I am looking for:

Challenge (98%): Gamers who score high on Challenge enjoy playing games that rely heavily on skill and ability. They are persistent and take the time to practice and hone their gameplay so they can take on the most difficult missions and bosses that the game can offer. These gamers play at the highest difficulty settings and don’t mind failing missions repeatedly in games like Dark Souls because they know it’s the only way they’ll master the game. They want gameplay that constantly challenges them.

Strategy (94%): Gamers who score high on this component enjoy games that require careful decision-making and planning. They like to think through their options and likely outcomes. These may be decisions related to balancing resources and competing goals, managing foreign diplomacy, or finding optimal long-term strategies. They tend to enjoy both the tactical combat in games like XCOM or Fire Emblem, as well as seeing their carefully-devised plans come to fruition in games like Civilization, Cities: Skylines, or Europa Universalis.

Fantasy (92%): Gamers who score high on Fantasy want their gaming experiences to allow them to become someone else, somewhere else. They enjoy the sense of being immersed in an alter ego in a believable alternate world, and enjoy exploring a game world just for the sake of exploring it. These gamers enjoy games like Skyrim, Fallout, and Mass Effect for their fully imagined alternate settings.

Excitement (87%): Gamers who score high on this component enjoy games that are fast-paced, intense, and provide a constant adrenaline rush. They want to be surprised. They want gameplay that is full of action and thrills, and rewards them for rapid reaction times. While this style of gameplay can be found in first-person shooters like Halo, it can also be found in games like Street Fighter and Injustice, as well as energetic platformers like BIT.TRIP RUNNER.

 

[pemerton]

All the games you are citing the player (not through his character) is in charge of some element of fiction. That element of fiction may be placed behind a die roll or whatever mechanic the game has defined as necessary to push it into being actual fiction - but at the end of the process it's the player that's now in control of that bit of fiction.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

In AD&D a player is "in charge" in parts of the fiction. If the player rolls X on the to hit die, and then Y on the damage die, the goblin is dead. If the player of the MU declares "I cast a magic missile at the orc", then the orc has been hit by a magic missile. If the player of the cleric declares "I raise my holy symbol and speak words of anathema at the approaching skeletons", then that has happened in the fiction.

In other words, all RPGs allow the players to do things that change the fiction.

But not all RPGs allow players to do things that change signficicant bits of the fiction that their PCs aren't changing through their actions. Burning Wheel does. Prince Valiant doesn't. (To give two examples.)

And not all RPGs ensure that changes made by the players to the fiction mean that the players get what they want. An example, which I've posted about before, is the system for on-world exploration in Traveller. But some RPGs do ensure that. And this is a different thing from whether all player-authored changes must be, in the fiction, caused by that player's PC.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to go back and dig down on what I tried to convey above.

"Why is heavy referee curation (in the way of 'tailoring play' and 'spotlight dissemination') a problem for 'Challenge-Based-Play?"

Consider sports competition. Lets go with basketball as most are familiar with that.

A referee has enforced the ruleset neutrally through the first 3 quarters. The outcome of that neutral enforcement is that team x is up by 20 points on team y and the game isn't remotely in the balance. In fact, its basically over.

Deciding that it would be better for team y and for viewership if the game was still in the balance, the referee begins tailoring their adjudication of events (and disseminating spotlight as a byproduct) such that team y cuts the lead in half with 8 minutes left to play. With 4 minutes left to play its a 2 possession game. Perhaps they start adjudicating the always difficult "block/charge" call in favor of team y. Maybe they let team y get away with more physical (illegal) defense, which leads to turnovers and failed offensive possessions for team x. Maybe they start calling more soft fouls on team x.

Viewership re-engages.

Team y feels good about things as does their fans.

Team x (and team x's fans)? Not so much.

And, most relevant to our discussion, the actual competitive integrity, the actual emergent property of the authenticity of two forces colliding and getting to find out which prevails...that is all damaged irreparably...due to the signal of referee intervention.

THAT is why "tailoring of play" and "spotlight dissemination" are completely dysfunctional with the sort of Challenge-Based-Gaming that @Campbell is invoking. The apex priority of play is rendered obsolete.

Challenge-Based-Gaming does't possess the apex play priority of "tell a fun, collective story with a lead-storyteller who adjudicates toward the most/best fun." Hopefully fun emerges out of play as a byproduct...but the primary aim is the satisfaction of finding out who wins/overcomes (team PC or team Obstacles) in a competitive environment.

And who wins/overcomes doesn't just mean the players. It also means finding out who wins/overcomes amidst the PCs and what to make of those PCs after they win/lose, overcome/relent. If a GM and the table wants to find out if PC x overcomes their addiction or falls ever deeper beyond the point of return...then no punches can be pulled by the GM...no tailoring of play. The only thing that the GM can do is frame the situation, play the adversity, and play by the rules until we find out if we have a story of absolution, redemption, or a story of crushing loss.

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton is wrong about my priorities in this instance. While there are games that I am interested in primarily because of their focus on character defining moments that is generally not what I look to Dungeons and Dragons for. He is right that my focus is not on potency. I am here for the challenge. My focus is on providing martial characters a compelling tool set that feels like the sort of things martial characters would have to overcome challenges. I want to play a fighter well in the same way I can play a wizard well, but in a way where I feel like a fighter rather than a wizard.

I want to make decisions that are consequential, but not based on what either me or my character wants to have happen. I do not want to have a spotlight shone on my character or any other character. I want us all to earn victories through outstanding play of the fiction and the mechanics of our characters. I want coordination, skill, and adaptability to be as necessary to win the day when I play a fighter as it is when I play a spell caster. I want mechanics that bring about unexpected results for everyone and focus the GM's attention on their duty as a referee.

I want to be able to play a fighter poorly and to play one well.

This is what I am looking for:

It's not D&D, but it is relatively D&D-influnenced fantasy: Rolemaster (or its lighter but not light cousin HARP).

There is certainly such a thing as playing a fighter well or poorly in that system - OB can be allocated, round-by-round, to attack, defence, initiative (in some variants at least), critical adjustment (in some variants at least), etc.

Magic is on a point system. In some variants it is possible to gamble on spending fewer points at a heightened risk of failure.

While the underlying ethos is RQ-style hyper-simulationism, the features I've described (which are absent from RQ) allow player decisions to make a big difference. (For good or ill.)

Have you ever tried it?

(EDIT: by character-revealing I was trying to capture you reference to "there [being] little in the way of being able to distinguish yourself . . . where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play".)

 

[Manbearcat]

Or the issue was with acting like the post was about D&D when it's really wasn't. Almost like a bait and switch...

Anyways, I offered solutions. I analyzed solutions. That my conclusion ended up being that these solutions can't apply to D&D then why do you act like it's the end of the world.

But I think there's some hidden motive because, if the real goal is to get me to think about other mechanics than what D&D uses then the rebuttal to my criticism wouldn't be to fight it but to say okay that may be true but suppose I'm want to create a game of a similar genre to D&D but the sole requirement is that the game allows each class to compete in all pillars of the game. What solution would you pick.

In which case I would be talking about that instead of this argument that's currently ongoing.

Actual D&D and direct D&D derivatives have actually done all of these things. There is no bait-and-switch.

And you go ahead and keep motive-hunting. I'm going to talk about the subject of the lead post.