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

[FrogReaver]

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.

LIAR@! This quote here is not about the subject of the lead post

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Amazing how your still acting like I'm talking about something else when your describing the exact thing I'm talking about. You have a really uncanny ability to do that.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I would counter that playing RPG's aren't like 2 basketball teams meeting up on the basketball court at all.

The more accurate assessment would be - imagine playing basketball on the holodeck of the enterprise. Where the person that is the referee also gets to choose exactly what the opposing team you'll be facing looks like.

So IMO - you can't get away from tailoring of play. It's an inherent part of RPG's. But you can after you've created the opposing team, impartially referee the game that's underway.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

LIAR@! This quote here is not about the subject of the lead post

Hes right though.

I would counter that playing RPG's aren't like 2 basketball teams meeting up on the basketball court at all.

The more accurate assessment would be - imagine playing basketball on the holodeck of the enterprise. Where the person that is the referee also gets to choose exactly what the opposing team you'll be facing looks like.

So IMO - you can't get away from tailoring of play. It's an inherent part of RPG's. But you can after you've created the opposing team, impartially referee the game that's underway.

What playing rpgs is supposed to come as close as possible to/resemble as perfectly as possible is the experience of real life but as a different person in a different world (typically). Any tailoring should feel non aparent. Any aparent tailoring is just the flaw left behind by the dm being human with human limitations thus not being able to create perfect internal consistancy. So the best comparison is life (made in some way fun. That doesnt have to come in the form of success for the character). Considering this (and the fact the bulk of IRL functional adult people are basically someone with 2 to 5 commoner levels and rarely about 1 to 3 of those levels being pc levels instead) its easy to over tailor things seeing as you already have done so before even beginning to play by having made people generally purely non commoners right away to start off. Just my 2 cents.

 

[FrogReaver]

@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:

The types of things I could see a fighter doing or having -

Inspire comrades
Inspire others to fight
Highly respected/feared
Sense Danger
Perceive Danger from far off
Know battle tactics
Size up opponents
Rage
Recklessly attack
Defensive stance
Extremely athletic
Great at sneaking
Lands on his feat
Jumping Manuevers
Creates and takes advantage of combat opportunities
Runs swiftly


I guess my vision - while not D&D would be to have D&D style casters and a few different martial classes that use a unified martial mechanic that allow them to take abilities from a list like the one above and use them some scaling number of times per short rest.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hes right though.

What playing rpgs is supposed to come as close as possible to/resemble as perfectly as possible is the experience of real life but as a different person in a different world (typically). Any tailoring should feel non aparent. Any aparent tailoring is just the flaw left behind by the dm being human with human limitations thus not being able to create perfect internal consistancy. So the best comparison is life (made in some way fun. That doesnt have to come in the form of success for the character). Considering this (and the fact the bulk of IRL functional adult people are basically someone with 2 to 5 commoner levels and rarely about 1 to 3 of those levels being pc levels instead) its easy to over tailor things seeing as you already have done so before even beginning to play by having made people generally purely non commoners right away to start off. Just my 2 cents.

Proof: If DM's don't tailor then why doesn't he throw Tiamat at level 1 PC's? Why doesn't he throw a group of 4 goblins at level 20 PC's?

There's no justifiable answer - because tailoring happens and is unavoidable.

 

[Campbell]

The context that got me to start this thread was commentary in the Pathfinder Second Edition Actual Play thread about the "over correction" of spell casters. Pathfinder Second Edition maintains the structural differences between spell casters and martial classes, provides niches for spells and skills so they do different things, and spells have been curated to have more dynamic and less certain results although you always cast the spell. It's just the range of results that are more varied. Martial classes get more potent at will abilities as they level and many of the things that used to be rationed simply have a cost in terms of the action economy or cause you to become fatigued.

Rather than argue about that specific implementation I wanted to focus on ways to achieve skilled play of martial characters with a focus on game play rather than game balance because as long as play is challenging and requires skill I have never really cared about differences in potency. I personally think playing a spell caster in Pathfinder Second Edition is more engaging than in previous versions, but that is neither here nor there. I figure there must be multiple ways to skin this particular cat.

 

[Campbell]

Proof: If DM's don't tailor then why doesn't he throw Tiamat at level 1 PC's? Why doesn't he throw a group of 4 goblins at level 20 PC's?

There's no justifiable answer - because tailoring happens and is unavoidable.

It is obviously the case that in challenge oriented play scenarios are designed to be challenging, but doable. As you say at design time some degree of tailoring is necessary for functional play. In general I try not to tailor challenges based on the particular abilities of the characters or assume how they will approach any given challenge. Once play has started I do my best to act as a referee and honestly play their adversaries.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wanted to focus on ways to achieve skilled play of martial characters with a focus on game play rather than game balance

You keep saying this as if we are not doing it - so I'll assume I'm not doing this - which means I have no idea what you mean when you say "achieve skilled play of martial characters with a focus on game play rather than game balance". I've tried to address that and am apparently not - which to me means I have no idea what your actually wanting me to address.

 

[Oofta]

You keep saying this as if we are not doing it - so I'll assume I'm not doing this - which means I have no idea what you mean when you say "achieve skilled play of martial characters with a focus on game play rather than game balance". I've tried to address that and am apparently not - which to me means I have no idea what your actually wanting me to address.

Talk in platitudes but not discuss any specific options?

I'd be curious about concrete ideas on how to boost martial types (without "balance" by nerfing casters), but I haven't really seen anything yet. I don't know how it can be done with the basic structure of D&D. Fighters can be more skillful using feats, can have maneuvers if they take the correct maneuvers, learn how to cast rituals, etc. Is that going to be an option for a plain vanilla champion fighter? Maybe not, but that's hardly the only option available for play.