D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[pemerton]

As I see it, the DM should run monsters consistent with how they are presented in the fiction.

It is the DM's job to not run the monster how he most WANTS then to be run but how they SHOULD be run. Anything else is Metagaming.

These are reasonable ways to run a game, but not the only way.

I run monsters (i) so as to maximise the dramatic pressure they impose on the PCs, and (ii) so as to connect to the choices of the PCs, and express the outcomes/consequences of those choices. ((ii) can itself be an aid to (i)).

 

[DM Howard]

These are reasonable ways to run a game, but not the only way.

I run monsters (i) so as to maximise the dramatic pressure they impose on the PCs, and (ii) so as to connect to the choices of the PCs, and express the outcomes/consequences of those choices. ((ii) can itself be an aid to (i)).

I very much agree. I don' see how it's meta-gaming to portray a monster in a way that is counter intuitive to it's nature or culture, as long as you aren't doing this ALL the time, otherwise the party will never take anything at face value--ever. But this is a game of imagination after all.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That may be your preferred approach - it is not the "basic conceit", though. For instance, this is not the sort of play that Gygax advocates in his AD&D rulebooks.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the literal definition of the word "roleplaying" is more germane to this topic than a nebulous sentiment attributed to someone who hasn't been involved in writing D&D for decades. Not to mention, the concept of roleplaying hardly originated with D&D.

And the "balance" of 4e is not antithetical to choices, nor intended to be. It's about balancing player resources. Players make choices on how to use these resources. (No one thinks that, if every brother or sister is given $1000 and told to go out into the world and make their fortune, no choices will be required - whole childhood parables are built around this scenario!)

Actually, I think this illustrates my point rather nicely. If instead of giving them $1000, you give them several choices of how to acquire money, you give them more choices. One person gets a payout all at once, the other has to wait. One has to work for his money, another gets it for free. One gets guaranteed money, the other chances his total on a dice game.

Sure, there are still choices that happen after the money is acquired, but if you give everyone the same amount, there's a (big) opportunity for choice not taken.

 

[D'karr]

I began play with 1st Edition.

reported

 

[Balesir]

I really do try not to do that. And with D&D, dice come in handy. I try to adopt the perspective of the character, but I also frequently roll behind the scenes to determine what an NPC will do (such that his behavior is not solely an extension of my will). Is there still an element of deception in playing an NPC? Yes. Is my will still behind them? Yes. But I don't (to bring this long post around) think that I do, or should do, metagaming to adjust the difficulty of challenges to match the players aptitude at overcoming them, and it is, while likely embedded in some of my decisions, a philosophy that I actively try to avoid.

Adopting an "in-game" point of view can be valuable and fun when actually playing. I don't think (as some do) that it's the be-all and end-all of roleplaying, but it's a valid and useful technique.

When writing rules or planning for a game, though, I'm convinced that it's toxic. If you design around an illusion, the illusion will tend to shatter at the most inopportune times. Rules based on such illusions are some of the most divisive, contentious and game-breaking things I have come accross in my gaming. Create illusions during play, by all means, but rules should be based on cold, hard truths (similarly to the way movies create illusions when viewed, yet still have to follow health and safety rules as they are made or risk tragedy).

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the literal definition of the word "roleplaying" is more germane to this topic than a nebulous sentiment attributed to someone who hasn't been involved in writing D&D for decades. Not to mention, the concept of roleplaying hardly originated with D&D.

I think "roleplaying" means a gestalt of what millions of roleplayers use it to mean, not some ultra-narrow interpretation akin to method acting. As to its "literal definition" - it's possible to "play a role" in a sports team or a project team. Indeed, there are training courses that will tell you what those roles might be. For "roleplaying games", however, I'm happy for the definition to be flexible and wide ranging - which is just how it's generally used.

Sure, there are still choices that happen after the money is acquired, but if you give everyone the same amount, there's a (big) opportunity for choice not taken.

This seems to be an increasingly apparent point of division in the community, here. As best I can describe it, it's the difference between making the important choices at character creation and making them once play has begun. Since I see roleplaying games as being, primarily, about making those choices, I am very much on the side of having the (key) decisions made once play has begun (hence make starting characters largely "equal"). But it's clear that many want a good chunk of the decisions to be made before that point.

The "give each sibling $1000" opens up the maximum range of choices after the money is handed out. Giving choices in the money received (and the manner of its receipt) maximises the choices before actual 'play' begins (resulting, most likely, in some players having advantages or disadvantages in play).

I can see the advantages of the former (roleplaying games are social decision making exercises, so promoting the making of decisions and having them made in a social environment is logical). Can anyone make a good pitch for the latter to me?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The "give each sibling $1000" opens up the maximum range of choices after the money is handed out. Giving choices in the money received (and the manner of its receipt) maximises the choices before actual 'play' begins (resulting, most likely, in some players having advantages or disadvantages in play).

I can see the advantages of the former (roleplaying games are social decision making exercises, so promoting the making of decisions and having them made in a social environment is logical). Can anyone make a good pitch for the latter to me?

First, character creation is "during play". If you're sitting with an open rulebook, making decisions and writing things down, you are participating in the game.

Still, there is a distinction between a one-time prep and the regular recurring game. But I would say that many games other than D&D rely on that one-time event. If you're playing Civilization, it matters which civilization you choose. If you're playing Madden, it matters how you choose and construct your team. They're not all equal. If you're playing Magic, you have to create a good deck before the game starts. If you're into miniatures wargames, you have to create an army. In any of those examples, actual gameplay is dependent on effective preparation, and a wide range of power levels can be created. So clearly this paradigm can create a satisfying game experience.

But there's also the verisimilitude factor. Does your character have to live with the character creation choices you've made? Yes. But so does a person. The genes you have and your early life experiences and social upbringing absolutely affect your level of opportunity in later life. And good fiction grabs those inequalities and runs with them.

I also don't see how the first example affects the range of choices later on. AFAICT, even in the second example, people have a pretty full range of choices later on.

As far as I can tell, the idea that all these character creation choices should be equal originated with 4e, and I'm hard-pressed to find any other examples, nor do I see why it would be desirable (nor do I like that the term "balance" has been co-opted to mean that").

 

[Mournblade94]

Again, I know this never sinks in, but the character isn't going to be able to accomplish any worthy task 'with ease'. Menial tasks, things that don't generally require epic level PCs to go through entire scenes? Sure. Even my wizard can find out who fences mundane goods in a strange town when he's epic, that's right! He's pretty close to being an exarch, if not one outright. He hobnobs with gods and their henchmen, some guy who fences stolen furniture is a footnote in a scene, at best. This is part of what helps to allow a system to achieve separation in play modes. High level 4e play is NOT LIKE low level play. In fact it is rather a different genre, and the escalation of skill check insures that this is mechanically reflected in the things that the game makes you roll for.

Footnote in a scene? yes. That is where the difference lies I suppose and one of the additive reasons I did not sign on with 4e. 4e boils everything down into game elements important to the scene, and letting 'authorship' take over for the overall campaign.

Many DM's don't design for the scene alone, shifting the point of the game from the story to the challenge 'scene' I suppose and using story to link the scenes. For me the importance was the overall world, not the individual scenes.

 

[Mournblade94]

First, character creation is "during play". If you're sitting with an open rulebook, making decisions and writing things down, you are participating in the game.

Still, there is a distinction between a one-time prep and the regular recurring game. But I would say that many games other than D&D rely on that one-time event. If you're playing Civilization, it matters which civilization you choose. If you're playing Madden, it matters how you choose and construct your team. They're not all equal. If you're playing Magic, you have to create a good deck before the game starts. If you're into miniatures wargames, you have to create an army. In any of those examples, actual gameplay is dependent on effective preparation, and a wide range of power levels can be created. So clearly this paradigm can create a satisfying game experience.

But there's also the verisimilitude factor. Does your character have to live with the character creation choices you've made? Yes. But so does a person. The genes you have and your early life experiences and social upbringing absolutely affect your level of opportunity in later life. And good fiction grabs those inequalities and runs with them.

I also don't see how the first example affects the range of choices later on. AFAICT, even in the second example, people have a pretty full range of choices later on.

As far as I can tell, the idea that all these character creation choices should be equal originated with 4e, and I'm hard-pressed to find any other examples, nor do I see why it would be desirable (nor do I like that the term "balance" has been co-opted to mean that").

It is really crap that I cannot give you more experience. You would have gotten 5 from me already. ALAS I was only able to give one. I will have to quickly find others to XP.

 

[Dausuul]

These are reasonable ways to run a game, but not the only way.

I run monsters (i) so as to maximise the dramatic pressure they impose on the PCs, and (ii) so as to connect to the choices of the PCs, and express the outcomes/consequences of those choices. ((ii) can itself be an aid to (i)).

That's why I threw in the caveat "as I see it." Obviously you should run your game however works for you! I just try to plot out my adventures and encounters in advance so that running the monsters "in character" won't bring the campaign to a smash.

 

[pemerton]

As best I can describe it, it's the difference between making the important choices at character creation and making them once play has begun. Since I see roleplaying games as being, primarily, about making those choices, I am very much on the side of having the (key) decisions made once play has begun (hence make starting characters largely "equal").

Me also. For me, I want pre-play choices to provide context/heft (eg am I a knight or a bandit?), but play should be where the consequences of that are really determined.

character creation is "during play". If you're sitting with an open rulebook, making decisions and writing things down, you are participating in the game.

For me, this is preplay. It's not play; not the collective generation of a shared fiction.

As far as I can tell, the idea that all these character creation choices should be equal originated with 4e, and I'm hard-pressed to find any other examples

The AD&D PHB, authored by Gygax over 30 years ago, talks in its opening pages about making changes to improve balance.

Points-buy games have been around since Champions in the early 80s. They aim at balance in character creation.

Classic Traveller is more complex - but younger PCs, who have fewer skills, also suffer fewer effects of aging and have a better chance at psionics. That's clearly a stab at balance.

The only RPG I know of that makes a deliberate point of non-balanced character creation is Tunnels & Trolls, where luckier rolls will get you a better PC.