[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[FireLance]

P&P, thanks for sharing your views. I can see where you're coming from, although I think we look for very different things in our games.

Perhaps it is because I came from a background in "Choose Your Own Adventure" and "Fighting Fantasy" gamebooks, and computer games like Wizardry and Ultima instead of wargaming. I do expect some kind of plot in my games, but I don't appreciate being railroaded. "Meaningful choice" to me is not whether I choose an easy challenge with low rewards or a difficult one with the chance of winning big. "Meaningful choice" relates to how much control I have over the outcome - whether, through the choices made by my character, the BBEG achieves his objective or is thwarted, whether the hostage is killed or rescued, whether the kingdom is destroyed or saved. It is the feeling that if my character had not been there, the outcome would have been different, and worse. In other words, I play the game to get the vicarious feeling of being a hero. And when it's my turn in the DM chair, I run games where the players get to feel like heroes, too.

Now, if this is what you and your group are trying to get out of your games, you want the PCs to win most of the time (unless you're running a sacrifice scenario or something along those lines), as long as they are reasonably clever, take sensible precautions, and make fairly sound tactical choices, but you don't want the fights and challenges to be walkovers, either. This is where guidelines like CR and standard wealth levels become useful. It doesn't matter to the players that they don't get to choose the level of challenge they face and the reward that they receive because it isn't important to them (although it can be argued that a party that decides to stand up to the BBEG is taking the high-risk, high-reward option, and the party that decides to run away is taking the low-risk, low-reward option). It doesn't matter to them that they aren't completely in control, because they are still affecting the plot in a meaningful fashion.

I'm not saying that this style of gaming will appeal to everyone, but it does appeal to some of us .

 

[mmadsen]

To come back to your question, the matters relevant to "good" or "skilled" play from this 1970's style related to ways and means of adventuring in areas at the limits of your character's ability:

• Scouting. You found out what you were up against by spells such as Wizard Eye or Augury, or else you captured a prisoner and extracted the information from it (which I think was the original purpose of spells like Charm -- to enable good-aligned players to use this tactic without needing to resort to torture).
• Escaping. You learned to cut your losses and flee or surrender when necessary.
• Planning. You learned to lure difficult monster onto grounds of your own choosing and kill them from ambush (the 1e Surprise rules were absolutely mean).
• Negotiating. Particularly if you weren't a good-aligned player, you learned to bribe monsters to go away if the encounter didn't look likely to be profitable -- or to accept a bribe from them to go away.

All these are perfectly possible in 3e, of course. But it's my perception that most 3e players don't scout ahead, don't take prisoners, don't run from battle or surrender, don't negotiate with hostile NPCs, and when attempting to kill a powerful monster, always go directly for the frontal assault.

Well said.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

It doesn't matter to the players that they don't get to choose the level of challenge they face and the reward that they receive because it isn't important to them... It doesn't matter to them that they aren't completely in control, because they are still affecting the plot in a meaningful fashion.

*nods*

Thanks for the summary. That says what I was trying to say, only much more succinctly.

The current style allows the players to affect a plot the DM's already written. In the earlier one, they were creating a story of their own as they went along.

 

[Maggan]

All these are perfectly possible in 3e, of course. But it's my perception that most 3e players don't scout ahead, don't take prisoners, don't run from battle or surrender, don't negotiate with hostile NPCs, and when attempting to kill a powerful monster, always go directly for the frontal assault.

In my experience most playes I have DM'd using 3e (maybe a hundred or so, I do a lot of convention games), do take all these precautions as well as others.

Also IME players will do whatever it takes for their PCs to stay alive, which includes tactics like those mentioned, as well as rules mastery and plenty of resting to replenish resources.

Sure, some players of D&D will charge anything at once, but from what I have observed among my gaming friends those players will be the same players who charge anything at once in Call of Cthulhu as well.

/M

 

[WizarDru]

In the 1970's, many players were miniatures wargamers and they were accustomed to taking casualties. There was a very callous doctrine of acceptable losses. Rolling a new character only took about five minutes, so you just sucked it up and re-rolled and pitched back in at the next opportunity. But the later style with super-elaborate character generation made death much more of a pain, and it somehow became the DM's job to make sure the players survived.

Seeing as how I was playing in the 1970s, I think I can comment that even then, this was A playstyle, not the only playstyle. Yes, in the early 1970s the game was all about delving...but it wasn't really an RPG as we know it, then....it was still just a speciailized miniatures game that started evolving. Modules in those days made the assumption that you would create all the story details yourself, not that there weren't any there at all. Heck, most early modules were Tournament modules, originally used at conventions, where they were intended to be played in a very short period of time.

One reason that many people didn't stay with D&D after their brush with it in the 1980s was that it became dull after the initial thrill was gone. You can only raid so many dungeons before it gets repetitive, unless you've got a truly inventive DM. Many people wanted more than just a tactical exercise from D&D...they wanted some verisimilitude. "Erac's Cousin" may have been good for a laugh...but the fact that Rob Kuntz feels that the development of his old PC Robilar has been essentially not-in-character illustrates that even then, players could think of their characters that way, if they so chose.

In fact, if you read EGG's discussion of the early days, it was clear that PC death was much more significant than just 'roll a new one'. Players actually got very conservative because the death rate got so high...it was a badge of honor to survive for so long.

It has never been the DM's job to ensure the players survive, but it has been the DM's job to make sure the players HAVE FUN. Since that particular aspect varies from group to group, it's harder to pin down. Further, tastes changed and continue to do so. What's the justifictaion for exploring the Caves of Chaos? They're there, essentially. What's the justification for entering the Sunless Citadel? Take your pick, the module offers several.

This doesn't make one experience inherently better than another. What strikes me though is how different it is NOT. In 1982, I was running a campaign where story was equally important as a motivator. Ogres were killed, items were collected...but the story helped to move the players on. Some people want to play a miniatures game, while others want a simulation of their favorite novel and still others want some hybrid inbetween.

The Soul of D&D? It's rolling a natural 20 when you're down to 3 hit points and the cleric's on the floor and you're staring that sunnavabitch bugbear right in his bloodshot eye and holding the line just long enough to let the wizard unleash a fireball at the guards who are on their way, because they're all that stands between you, the Foozle and Glory.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The question is, does accurate and consistent application of the rules have anything to do with a DM's "level of quality". IMO it does not. A good DM with very little rules knowledge and inconsistent application of the rules can be a great DM. A poor DM who runs a bland, vanilla, boring game or an unfair, frustrating game will not be helped by adopting a more detailed, consistent ruleset. The things that define the quality of those two imaginary DMs have absolutely nothing to do with the rules or their application and everything to do with creativity, personality and adequate social skills.

I would not consider a DM who changed the rules for the same mechanic from session to session a very good DM, even if he did it for dramatic or creative reasons. If every time I went to make an attack roll I had to roll a different dice, the inconsistency would stand in the way of me having fun. Thus, a more consistent and detailed ruleset that provides a baseline of what you roll attack rolls with is making the DM better -- if he has me roll 2d10 as an attack roll instead of 1d20, he knows what he's doing, becaue he knows how the initial rule affects plays and knows what kind of effect he wants out of the rules change.

Creativity, personality, and social skills are some of the cornerstones of DMing, but those aren't binary personality traits you either have or don't. Compare it to writing -- many people have the ability to write a competent novel, but they require education in things like scentence structure and plotting in order to do it. Not everyone is Homer and can take a new thing like the written word and create a classic out of it. Not everyone is the Wonderful DM who can turn a night of "rock-paper-scissors" into high tension drama. It would be very very stupid for the game to recommend that only those who are that kind of Wonderful DM should DM. Thus, it gives you an education in things like rules design and what is cliche and how to handle sticky social situations and little player psychologies (I'm thinking of what's in the DMGII for that, though a lot say it should have been in the core). Now, many people have the ability to DM a decent game of D&D. They don't need to be naturally Wonderful DMs.

IMO, the argument "more codified = more skilled" doesn't apply to GMs, but it certainly does apply to players. 3e, by codifying player options and making the game much more about challenging the character and his abilities rather than the player makes it MUCH easier to be a good, skilled player of the game. My impression is that a lot of people enjoy that change and believe it was much needed. I, personally, don't care for that model and prefer a game that's more about challenging the players outside the confines of the rules. This probably explains why I think skill at applying the rules doesn't factor into DMing skill in any significant way.

So a style consideration. You prefer a minority style that has fallen out of favor, so what a "skilled DM" is to you isn't going to be what most people consider skilled. So, how would you want a "skilled DM" to appear? And why is that kind of skill contingent on earlier editions?

I think the perception that the DM has to "give" the party all the things you mention is a basic flaw. Notice the perception comes with a whole baggage of unspoken assumptions, like: If I don't have tactical options in combat, it's the DM's fault. And: If I don't get enough wealth, it's the DM's fault. And: If we get slaughtered, it's because the DM didn't create a balanced encounter.

The DM IS The guy who puts the treasure and the monsters there. The responsibility is certainly his to know the player's styles well enough to cater to them, or he is, fairly by definition, a bad DM. If the players liked political intrigue and the DM decided his game would revolve around a month long dungeon crawl, he would be a bad DM. Likewise, if the DM knows that the players are going to rush in half-cocked and try to slay the evil (because that's what's fun for them) and decides to lay the smack down, it's a poor DM because he's not helping the players to have fun. They would be better served by a DM who is willing to give them big, dramatic, not-too-difficult combats. Four other people at the table shouldn't be forced to change the way they have fun because the DM isn't willng to give them what they want.

Of course, they should be open-minded and flexible as well, tolerating the occasional dungeon crawl in a political campaign (especially if one or two of the players enjoy it), but it would be a very poor DM who forces their own style choices onto unwilling players.

I'm not surprised that a person who has these assumptions then goes on to say that most DM's aren't really very good. I mean, what's the party actually doing in all this? What are they responsible for?

In the game I run, the assumptions are: You should have scouted effectively, found the monsters, chosen your battleground, made a plan, and then attacked. If you didn't do that, then any lack of tactical options you have in this fight is your own problem. And: If you don't have enough wealth, you're looking in the wrong places or attacking the wrong targets. And: If you get slaughtered, it's because you attacked without enough information, and then you forgot that retreat and surrender are both options. Darwin would be proud.

The party is responsible for telling the DM what kind of game they want through their character choices. You look at the wilderness scout and the druid and the ranger and you run an urban campaign in Sigil, you're not being a very good DM. You see one character as as the brutish, direct barbarian and demand constant stealth missions, you're not being a very good DM. You know your players want wealth and you don't show them ways in which they can acquire it, you are not being a very good DM.

DMs of older editions for me had significant of difficulty wrapping their minds around that very basic social contract. And they knew it. After a TPK at the adventure's climax, there would be apologies for having a villain "they thought we could beat." After another few rounds of "I run up and attack him," they were getting bored, too. When we griped about not having enough gold for the inn rooms, they wondered where else these wolves we were fighting could drop treasure and came up empty.

And after learning 3e, they now knew what we could handle and what we couldn't. They now could describe the effects of taking cover and concealment and line of sight and line of effect and obstructed terrain (and used them often). They knew now that after 3 hours of fighting wolves in the forest, we could meet some brigands and loot them and their cart (varying challenges to boot). They dropped hints in town with Gather Information about what we were looking for. The lore about monsters came out with a Knowledge check.

They became better at giving us what we thought was fun; they became better DMs.

If your DM didn't use them, that's not a problem with the system.

If he did use them and you just didn't find the right treasure, or choose the right fight, then that's still not a problem with the system.

No, but it IS the fault of the system that these were relatively poor rules, and thus met the need much less well than the new system, sometimes to the point of not meeting the need at all.

How were my old DMs to know what an appropriate XP award was for our level and choose monsters we could clearly face? How were they supposed to use rules that were convoluted, counter-intuitive, and more trouble than they were worth and still have fun with them? Who would teach them what was appropriate for our level with treasure, what was too little, and what was monty haul? Where would their *education* on being a DM lie? Because the rulebooks did not do a good enough job in many cases (where the DM isn't just naturally good at being a DM).

Later in the 1e period, and certainly by the time 2e came out, there was assumption that the purpose of the game is to generate Story, and the way to do that is for the DM to devise a Plot. I blame Tracy Hickman, personally; he started it with Pharaoh and made it worse with Dragonlance.

Could it be that this is what most of the audience actually WANTS out of the game? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume people want more LotR and less Chainmail, given how many people know about Frodo and how many people have played Chainmail? Isn't this just the game meeting the needs of the audience? "Market forces" at work.

All these are perfectly possible in 3e, of course. But it's my perception that most 3e players don't scout ahead, don't take prisoners, don't run from battle or surrender, don't negotiate with hostile NPCs, and when attempting to kill a powerful monster, always go directly for the frontal assault.

In my previous-edition experiences, none of this happened. In my current-edition experiences, this happens when the players want to do it. If the players are interested in having scouts, the DM makes scouting worthwhile. If the players want to negotiate, the DM makes negotiating something that will work. If the players want to feel like the world exists beyond them rather than for them, the DM will put in things that they cannot effect. If the players like the frontal assault, then the DM will make the frontal assault much of the game.

The point is, people should do what they have fun doing, and 3e has made DMs (IMXP) significantly better at delivering what the group wants out of the game. "Do what thou wilt" isn't just Crowley and Punk, it's 3e, too. The game that makes that the easiest is the *successful* game.

 

[Kormydigar]

Likewise, if the DM knows that the players are going to rush in half-cocked and try to slay the evil (because that's what's fun for them) and decides to lay the smack down, it's a poor DM because he's not helping the players to have fun. They would be better served by a DM who is willing to give them big, dramatic, not-too-difficult combats. Four other people at the table shouldn't be forced to change the way they have fun because the DM isn't willng to give them what they want.

Ok. You do have some good points to make, but this isn't one of them IMHO. It sounds like you are saying that intelligent opponents should stop being intelligent because the party doesn't feel like doing any thinking. So the players have a right to use intelligent tactics but if they choose not to do so then the NPC's can't either? This style of play wouldn't be any fun for my group using ANY edition of the game. This definition of " better served" sounds like exactly that- the DM as a server. The four other people at the table can log into WOW for that kind of fun because a DM isn't really needed.

 

[Ourph]

So a style consideration. You prefer a minority style that has fallen out of favor, so what a "skilled DM" is to you isn't going to be what most people consider skilled.

Perhaps. Although, I think a lot of people who look at a description of a game and say "no thanks" would enjoy the game if they actually sat down and played, especially if that game is run by a (by my definition) "skilled" DM.

So, how would you want a "skilled DM" to appear? And why is that kind of skill contingent on earlier editions?

A skilled DM (IMO) creates interesting challenges, makes player choice significant to the general outcome of the game, provides an environment that rewards good tactical and strategic play and offers consequences for poor play and rash decision-making and keeps the game flowing smoothly. He achieves these things by being creative, imaginative, fair, impartial and through use of clear, unambiguous communication with the players.

My earlier point is that this is NOT tied to an edition of the game or to a specific game or to a specific rule. A DM who is skilled in this way will not be hampered by using a different set of rules (provided those rules are of reasonable quality, which all editions of D&D AFAIC definitely are), nor will a DM who lacks these skills suddenly develop them by using a ruleset that provides more structure and covers more area. An unfair DM (one who, for example, fails to allow good play to result in commensurate rewards and, in fact, actively thwarts player success for his own personal reasons) isn't going to be more fun to play with because he's got rules for Diplomacy checks and magic item creation to work with.

Yes, it can be frustrating to play with an inexperienced DM who keeps fumbling through the rulebooks and making mistakes and a simpler to learn ruleset can make the transition time between rules-unfamiliar and rules-familiar shorter. However, I don't think that's what is being discussed here. The argument I read and understood to be put forward was that a more thorough, comprehensive ruleset could take an already experienced poor DM and improve his game and the reverse (going to a less comprehensive ruleset) could take an experienced good DM and reduce the quality of his game. I completely disagree with that notion.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Ok. You do have some good points to make, but this isn't one of them IMHO. It sounds like you are saying that intelligent opponents should stop being intelligent because the party doesn't feel like doing any thinking. So the players have a right to use intelligent tactics but if they choose not to do so then the NPC's can't either? This style of play wouldn't be any fun for my group using ANY edition of the game. This definition of " better served" sounds like exactly that- the DM as a server. The four other people at the table can log into WOW for that kind of fun because a DM isn't really needed.

If I interpreted Kamikaze Midget's comment in that manner, then I would agree that it sounds like foolish advice. But I do not think that is he meant.

If a particular group consistently fails to use certain tactical savvy you or I might consider SOP, it is not a DM virtue to "teach them a lesson" in the big finale. If you have not successfully gotten the point across before then, then either you have to some degree failed as a DM or there is a deeper conflict about play style best resolved while chatting casually with beers in hand.

I do not understand why you assume that the DM cannot use tactics. One could get much the same kind of pleasure by choosing weaker foes and playing them to the hilt, rather than adopting the unhelpful presumption that a PC "deserves" to die if not played in the manner you are used to.

 

[LcKedovan]

Hrmmmm.... just some short points from my point of view.

new edition: (4e)... money making for WotC. Only reason for them to change it.

3.0/3.5e Different from other versions of the game. Some nice improvements from my groups point-of-view, but also sometimes too miniature focused for me (money making again? call me a cynic).

For me, the game is just a framework. As a DM I use that framework to build the story for the characters and use the rules as a common ground to resolve our story. We play 3.5e but also still play Basic D&D from time to time, not to mention other systems from other companies. Depends on what we want to do.

The problem seems straightforward. Company A releases a really great game. People love it, buy it, they release some products. At some point saturation point is reached. You don't need every book out there to run a game for years, especially if "imagination" leaps into the frame. The problem then begins for Company A. A lot less income. Game either fades and dies with no support.... or a new version is released. At some point you run out of ideas for supplements because everything is covered. Its a conundrum...

The soul of D&D and any other game is imagination. In some cases recently some of that imagination has been provided for you, miniatures instead of describing the battle (mind you it does help with the "I wasn't standing there, he couldn't hit me debates"). I see this all as part and parcel of the general decline of civilisation in the West rather than a problem intrinsic to D&D

Edit: Oh, and I thought I would state the whole "Wishful fulfillment" stuff earlier in the thread. I disagree, like chess or anything other game RPGs are a way for me to spend some time with friends and have fun. I'm not saying there are not people who use it as a form of escapism but I am perfectly happy with who I am. I would much rather be me living my life than pretty much anything I could play in a game. I'm not saying if someone came along and gave me superpowers that I wouldn't use 'em, but I play the game for fun and camraderie.. plain and simple.

-W.