Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[Barastrondo]

If everyone can participate all the time at near-equal levels, it ceases to be meaningful on an individual level.

Meaningful for whom?

Players should be able to enjoy when other players sometimes have the spotlight and not always need to be in it, all the time, themselves.

Yes, I agree. Players should also be able to enjoy a game where everyone gets to play pretty much continuously for the limited hours available, and not need to have moments where other players have to sit back and watch them excel. If you can be happy for your friend having a spotlight once in a while, you should also be happy for your friend getting to participate in the game that he came here to play.

I know for some folks stretches of not playing, but rather spectating, are part of "playing the game." I'm more of the opinion that at that moment, you're not playing. Personally I prefer that to be the player's choice rather than that of the system. Rotating exclusion is the easiest way to "balance" player contributions, but I really don't think it's the best.

 

[Mark CMG]

Meaningful for whom?

Meaningful in the context of the heroic genre for each of the individuals playing in the group.

If you can be happy for your friend having a spotlight once in a while, you should also be happy for your friend getting to participate in the game that he came here to play.

The game I'm describing has both as a natural consequence of the style of play within the heroic genre (as I described above).

Rotating exclusion is the easiest way to "balance" player contributions, but I really don't think it's the best.

Calling it "rotating exclusion" rather than highlighting individuality seems to miss the point. Plus, it isn't a matter of "balance" (which happens to be one of the problems of systems that homogenize options to shoehorn collective participation into games), it's a matter of honoring the heroic genre at its roots.

 

[Barastrondo]

Meaningful in the context of the heroic genre for each of the individuals playing in the group.

I think that's a subjective interpretation, and by no means a universal one. You can cite a literary reason for why my brother doesn't get to interact meaningfully with the game in this particular scene, but I don't think that makes the game more meaningful for him.

The game I'm describing has both as a natural consequence of the style of play within the heroic genre (as I described above).

How do you allow people to play meaningfully and continuously if their participation means that other people are not being sufficiently highlighted?

Calling it "rotating exclusion" rather than highlighting individuality seems to miss the point.

It's the same point, but from the point of view of the people who are not being highlighted because the context means they don't have anything meaningful to do. They aren't playing the game, they're spectators watching the people who are having their individuality highlighted.

Plus, it isn't a matter of "balance" (which happens to be one of the problems of systems that homogenize options to shoehorn collective participation into games), it's a matter of honoring the heroic genre at its roots.

See, for me it's a matter of playing a game. You can effectively say things like "okay, now Gimli's not really going to have anything to do" in a book format because Gimli doesn't have a player behind him. And if a player says "Hey, I'll sit this one out, I don't think my dwarf would have much to contribute here," that's great -- I see it a lot, and it. But when you make a ruling that "A dwarf fighter shouldn't be able to contribute notably here, because I want to call attention to what elves do well," even if the dwarf fighter's player wants to get involved meaningfully, that's a ruling I don't care for. If honoring an interpretation of a genre means cutting players out of participating in the game even when they want to, I think there are better game models to be explored.

It's only "shoehorning in" collective participation if not everyone wants to participate collectively. Otherwise it's "letting people who want to participate do so." Not everyone has to be equally good at everything. But it's good when everyone has something to do, that they're confident they can do without screwing everything up. It encourages them to play, not to spectate; I favor that.

 

[Hussar]

Why must everyone contribute in searching a room? Must everyone be able to contribute in all aspects of the game? How close to equal must everyone be for that participation to feel meaningful to you?

I don't know how close everyone must be for participation to feel meaningful.

But, I do know that riding the pines and being forced to be an observer because the mechanics say so isn't what I want.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think that's a subjective interpretation, and by no means a universal one. You can cite a literary reason for why my brother doesn't get to interact meaningfully with the game in this particular scene, but I don't think that makes the game more meaningful for him.

It does if he wishes to play in the heroic genre. However, creating a different game where everyone can participates all the time that isn't trying to emulate that genre maes sense for what you describe.

How do you allow people to play meaningfully and continuously if their participation means that other people are not being sufficiently highlighted?

Sometimes individuals are highlighted and sometimes it takes the whole team to overcome challenges. That's typical of the heroic genre.

It's the same point, but from the point of view of the people who are not being highlighted because the context means they don't have anything meaningful to do. They aren't playing the game, they're spectators watching the people who are having their individuality highlighted.

I think you're giving people too little credit in that I think people enjoy the fluctuations in the game that shift from group to individual back to group, etc. It seems like you are overcompensating for an extreme position where some individuals have been left out as spectators for too long. The flip side of that extreme position is where everyone is so homogenized character-wise in an effort to be invlusive that sooner or later they realize it really doesn't matter what they choose in game, they will always be able to participate and always be able to do so on a close to equal level. That's no more a fun game than the extreme you describe either.

See, for me it's a matter of playing a game. You can effectively say things like "okay, now Gimli's not really going to have anything to do" in a book format because Gimli doesn't have a player behind him. And if a player says "Hey, I'll sit this one out, I don't think my dwarf would have much to contribute here," that's great -- I see it a lot, and it. But when you make a ruling that "A dwarf fighter shouldn't be able to contribute notably here, because I want to call attention to what elves do well," even if the dwarf fighter's player wants to get involved meaningfully, that's a ruling I don't care for. If honoring an interpretation of a genre means cutting players out of participating in the game even when they want to, I think there are better game models to be explored.

It's only "shoehorning in" collective participation if not everyone wants to participate collectively. Otherwise it's "letting people who want to participate do so." Not everyone has to be equally good at everything. But it's good when everyone has something to do, that they're confident they can do without screwing everything up. It encourages them to play, not to spectate; I favor that.

See, for me, it's a matter of playing a particular game rather than a game that tries so hard to be inclusive that it loses sight of what type of game it was meant to be. A game within the heroic genre simply needs to have moments where individuals are highlighted, no matter how you try to argue it down the priority list of design choices.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't know how close everyone must be for participation to feel meaningful.

But, I do know that riding the pines and being forced to be an observer because the mechanics say so isn't what I want.

Choosing a baseball metaphor really just highlights my point. Most any sports metaphor, really. A pitcher doesn't begrudge the clutch hitter who wins the game for the team on one particular day because he know he played the majority of that game and did his best but it was someone's else's moment to shine. Just as he also knows there will be another day when he's going to win the game with his pitching while the batters only manage to squeeze out one or two runs.

I will point out that one of the problems with some systems is when a single challenge can completely dominate an entire game session. Perhaps that's a problem that someone designing a system with the heroic genre in mind should be keen to address.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I really like the fact that Monte's first column is about dungeon exploration and not combat rules or character optimization. The dungeon exploration aspect of D&D has been taking more and more of a back seat to combat and character optimization with each successive edition and it's nice to see exploration given more attention. I can't say that I'm crazy about his proposed solution, but at least he's thinking about the problem.

 

[Hussar]

See, for me, it's a matter of playing a particular game rather than a game that tries so hard to be inclusive that it loses sight of what type of game it was meant to be. A game within the heroic genre simply needs to have moments where individuals are highlighted, no matter how you try to argue it down the priority list of design choices

Why? There is nothing intrisic about the heroic genre that says what you claim it says. Sure, in a group story, one character might be better than another at a given task. Fair enough. But, it's pretty rare that one character gets forced out of the spotlight simply because he is incapable of doing anything meaningful in the situation.

And, in stories where that does happen, typically that character trains/learns some trick/finds some widget that allows him/her to participate meaningfully the next time that situation occurs. So, the hobbits get weapon training and that sort of thing.

On the extreme end of this, you wind up with the decker problem from Shadowrun where one character plays for extended periods of time while everyone else twiddles their thumbs.

Variable spotlight is not a feature of heroic genre fiction. It's a feature of ALL fiction. But, we're not writing a novel here. We're playing a game. Characters in a novel don't care that they get to ride the pines, they have no feelings. Players tend to get a bit antsy when they have to spend signficant amounts of time forced out of play, not because they did anything wrong, but simply because they didn't check the right tick box during chargen.

I've never believed that unique mechanics are required in order to make one character unique from the next character. If it were, then games like Spirit of the Century would fail. As would Savage Worlds.

 

[Hussar]

Choosing a baseball metaphor really just highlights my point. Most any sports metaphor, really. A pitcher doesn't begrudge the clutch hitter who wins the game for the team on one particular day because he know he played the majority of that game and did his best but it was someone's else's moment to shine. Just as he also knows there will be another day when he's going to win the game with his pitching while the batters only manage to squeeze out one or two runs.

I will point out that one of the problems with some systems is when a single challenge can completely dominate an entire game session. Perhaps that's a problem that someone designing a system with the heroic genre in mind should be keen to address.

But, here you're conflating winning with participating. The pitcher played his game. At no point did was he forced to stop playing every time a left handed batter came to the plate. He might be taken out of the game by a reliever, true, but, that's only going to happen for two reasons (by and large) - either he seriously screwed up, or he's tired. Both of these things are under his control to some extent, although the tired thing maybe not so much.

But, nothing in the rules of baseball is making him stop pitching.

 

[Mark CMG]

Why? There is nothing intrisic about the heroic genre that says what you claim it says. Sure, in a group story, one character might be better than another at a given task. Fair enough. But, it's pretty rare that one character gets forced out of the spotlight simply because he is incapable of doing anything meaningful in the situation.

And, in stories where that does happen, typically that character trains/learns some trick/finds some widget that allows him/her to participate meaningfully the next time that situation occurs. So, the hobbits get weapon training and that sort of thing.

On the extreme end of this, you wind up with the decker problem from Shadowrun where one character plays for extended periods of time while everyone else twiddles their thumbs.

Variable spotlight is not a feature of heroic genre fiction. It's a feature of ALL fiction. But, we're not writing a novel here. We're playing a game. Characters in a novel don't care that they get to ride the pines, they have no feelings. Players tend to get a bit antsy when they have to spend signficant amounts of time forced out of play, not because they did anything wrong, but simply because they didn't check the right tick box during chargen.

I've never believed that unique mechanics are required in order to make one character unique from the next character. If it were, then games like Spirit of the Century would fail. As would Savage Worlds.

I think you touch on a key problem with how the class structure has created a problem inherent in the game that then needs to be compensated for by homogenizing what each class can do to then create the illusion that everyone is participating meaningfully when in fact they are simply all doing the same thing with a veneer of individuality or being forced out of all but very specific situations because of choices made during character creation. The heroic genre doesn't actually require everyone to simply do nothing at all, just simply allow for the most competent to be highlighted when they are simply the best individual in a given situation. All of the problems you describe are better addressed in revamping character generation choices than in keeping the problems in chargen and overcompensating through homogenization of classes to create the illusion of meaningful particpation.