Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[Mark CMG]

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.

Everyone on the team sits when someone else on their team is batting, unless they have batted well beforehand and wound up on base. It doesn't make the pitcher any less relavant to the game, the team, or the win, when that happens to be the case. The rules don't allow him to pitch when his team is batting. We could get into AL versus NL debates but let's leave that aside.

 

[Hussar]

((Stuffing 2 posts into one quote))/snip
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.
/snip

Everyone on the team sits when someone else on their team is batting, unless they have batted well beforehand and wound up on base. It doesn't make the pitcher any less relavant to the game, the team, or the win, when that happens to be the case. The rules don't allow him to pitch when his team is batting. We could get into AL versus NL debates but let's leave that aside.

Yes, but that's already done through class abilities. Edition aside, one character is going to be better at X than another character simply because his applicable stats are better and quite possibly because his skill choices are more relevant to this particular situation.

Or, to put it another way, just because your rogue can go sneaky, sneaky and hide and shadows shouldn't mean that my cleric can't ever do it. You are certainly going to be better at it than me, sure, but, the mechanics shouldn't preclude me from trying.

As far as baseball is concerned, everything you outline is 100% agreed upon by all participants before play begins. Everyone who plays baseball knows that there will be mutually agreed upon times when your team sits down and when mine does.

RPG's rarely work like this. Unique class mechanics (which I think is what you're aiming at) don't specify how often they are going to come up. If I'm playing a 3e rogue and we have a single adventure with lots of plant monsters and no traps, I'm going to be pretty much a fifth wheel for that entire adventure. This might be several sessions. However, over the course of the entire campaign, it doesn't make sense for me to devote character resources to allow me to participate in this one adventure at the expense of being able to participate in other things before and after.

Since there is no agreed upon spotlight sharing that can be done in an RPG, the best option, IMO, is to make sure that while one (or more than one) PC might shine here or there, the mechanics should never exclude anyone from the spotlight intentionally.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yes, but that's already done through class abilities. Edition aside, one character is going to be better at X than another character simply because his applicable stats are better and quite possibly because his skill choices are more relevant to this particular situation.

Or, to put it another way, just because your rogue can go sneaky, sneaky and hide and shadows shouldn't mean that my cleric can't ever do it. You are certainly going to be better at it than me, sure, but, the mechanics shouldn't preclude me from trying.

As far as baseball is concerned, everything you outline is 100% agreed upon by all participants before play begins. Everyone who plays baseball knows that there will be mutually agreed upon times when your team sits down and when mine does.

RPG's rarely work like this. Unique class mechanics (which I think is what you're aiming at) don't specify how often they are going to come up. If I'm playing a 3e rogue and we have a single adventure with lots of plant monsters and no traps, I'm going to be pretty much a fifth wheel for that entire adventure. This might be several sessions. However, over the course of the entire campaign, it doesn't make sense for me to devote character resources to allow me to participate in this one adventure at the expense of being able to participate in other things before and after.

Since there is no agreed upon spotlight sharing that can be done in an RPG, the best option, IMO, is to make sure that while one (or more than one) PC might shine here or there, the mechanics should never exclude anyone from the spotlight intentionally.

Sadly, we're getting into areas where "edition aside" might be tough to honor (particularly when you then trot out an edition specific example to bolster your argument). Let's just say that I think it is poor carpenter that buys only a hammer and then when there are no nails on the job thinks someone else is to blame for the screws. Creating problems by designing a class system then claiming the only way to fix it is to make the classes more alike seems like compounding one bad design choice with another.

 

[Anselyn]

Since there is no agreed upon spotlight sharing that can be done in an RPG, the best option, IMO, is to make sure that while one (or more than one) PC might shine here or there, the mechanics should never exclude anyone from the spotlight intentionally.

Actually, surely, spotlight sharing is about good adventure design and good DMing. It's exactly the sort of topic discussed in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering and so, I assume, in subsequent DMGs.

We're back to a theme of trying to build a game that's DM proof rather than working on how to cultivate good DMing.

 

[beverson]

Yes, but that's already done through class abilities. Edition aside, one character is going to be better at X than another character simply because his applicable stats are better and quite possibly because his skill choices are more relevant to this particular situation.

Or, to put it another way, just because your rogue can go sneaky, sneaky and hide and shadows shouldn't mean that my cleric can't ever do it. You are certainly going to be better at it than me, sure, but, the mechanics shouldn't preclude me from trying.

A valid point, no doubt. However, what if the Rogue needs to pick the lock on a door? Is it necessary for everyone else in the party to actually help pick the lock? No, the rest of them are going to watch his back, continue searching, whatever, but the Rogue gets his moment to use his abilities and have the spotlight. And if the Cleric has just as much chance to pick the lock as the Rogue does, then why is the player of the Rogue even bothering to play a Rogue?

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

I think there's no way to claim honestly that one style of play has an illusion of meaningful play, and that players are fooling themselves if they find it meaningful, while another one is meaningful. Concepts like "veneer of individuality" are entirely subjective, and honestly, I think your use of the phrase "heroic genre" is pretty subjective too. Certainly it doesn't feel properly heroic to you if everyone gets to participate as near-equals all the time, no problem. But I'm afraid I simply can't agree that what you present as "the heroic genre" is a definition of the genre. What you're describing is a gameplay style, and while it's certainly compatible with the genre, it can't possibly define a genre that existed before gameplay styles.

Sorry, man. I respect your opinion, but I fundamentally disagree that it's an intrinsic part of a genre.

(To illustrate with another example, I think this is a lot like the question of high or low PC mortality. Some people find it out-of-genre for the protagonists to be at constant risk of death by ear-seekers and other genre-bending "meaningless deaths"; others find it meaningful to survive only in such situations. In both cases we're talking gameplay issues, and how they affect whether a given person finds a game experience sufficiently "in-genre" -- but the heroic genre itself is not defined by how gameplay would later attempt to marry it with treasure-finding and other game-based objectives.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Even in 4e's "everybody contributes!" combat, there's plenty of spotlight sharing. When it's not your turn, you watch someone else be awesome. When your role is not essential, you watch others plow through.

The point of having everyone contribute is to have everyone actually playing the game in front of them, and not being a spectator for half the night. If your room-exploring is a short 3-5 minute affair, you don't need everyone to contribute, and the "observant character" can get a chance to shine. If your room-exploring is a tense hour-long struggle, having the "observant character" be the only one to make checks is horrible for engaging the other players in this tense moment.

Everyone should be able to engage with the dramatic tension of the night, whether that is an epic combat, a touch-and-go roleplaying session, or a risk-filled exploration. If they can't, then the game isn't actually letting a good chunk of people play it in a night.

The contributions should be different, yes (see: roles), but since D&D can't tell me what my great tense moment should be, D&D should also not tell me that I have to use quick resolution methods when what I want is a dramatic moment (see: skill challenges).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Even in 4e's "everybody contributes!" combat, there's plenty of spotlight sharing. When it's not your turn, you watch someone else be awesome. When your role is not essential, you watch others plow through.

The point of having everyone contribute is to have everyone actually playing the game in front of them, and not being a spectator for half the night. If your room-exploring is a short 3-5 minute affair, you don't need everyone to contribute, and the "observant character" can get a chance to shine. If your room-exploring is a tense hour-long struggle, having the "observant character" be the only one to make checks is horrible for engaging the other players in this tense moment.

Everyone should be able to engage with the dramatic tension of the night, whether that is an epic combat, a touch-and-go roleplaying session, or a risk-filled exploration. If they can't, then the game isn't actually letting a good chunk of people play it in a night.

The contributions should be different, yes (see: roles), but since D&D can't tell me what my great tense moment should be, D&D should also not tell me that I have to use quick resolution methods when what I want is a dramatic moment (see: skill challenges).

I get where you are coming from, and if this leads to more enjoyment of the game for you and your group, then by all means you should play systems that suppor this. However I just find this detracts from my enjoyment. Anytime they've tried to do the "everyone gets a chance to shine" thing the game hasn't appealed to me. I just don't understand why everyone has to be able to contribute something important to every single combat. In my 2E and 3E games who shines largely depends on the foe and the kind of challenge being presented.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The column seems like a rehash of some of the stuff Mearls and his good self talked about, and Mearls wrote about.

I dislike passive perception mainly because I, or an adventure writer, is setting a DC for a trap or secret door and I know what the passive perception of the PCs are and whether the characters will pass or fail before the game even starts. Where the fun in that. Boring....

My approach to this is to change what Passive Perception actually tells someone. Basically, if you "succeed" your passive perception check, you get the information "something is there". But to find out what, you have to actually roll. And you may fail now - but there was still something that caught your eye, so you and your allies may take steps to improve your chances of finding something, allowing new perception checks.

It doesn't always make sense, but I believe often enough that it can improve the tension and uncertainity.

 

[Barastrondo]

I just don't understand why everyone has to be able to contribute something important to every single combat.

Because once you get a player, or multiple players, who don't particularly enjoy not being able to contribute anything important to a combat, the problem shifts to a clear "Hey, I am often running combats that some of my players are not enjoying."

Think of it in terms of groups that have limited time to play. I've got one game that meets every other week for about three to four hours. The optimal system for us is one that allows people to contribute meaningfully to as much of those three to four hours as they want, because that's all the gaming they get for the next two weeks. It doesn't have to mandate they contribute: merely provide them with the option. If they don't have that option, they're not getting as much time to play the game in a meaningful way per fortnight as they could. This isn't a problem for every group, obviously, but that's why it's a real issue for some.