Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[Bedrockgames]

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."

I can see that, I was just stating my own preference. I know players who feel this way, and generally they didn't have a good time under 3E. But I guess what I am saying is that isn't the only opinion out there. Some of us are equally annoyed when the game tries too hard to make everyone shine. I guess as a player, I expect there to be moments when I am not in the spotlight. And I don't feel like my character always has to contribute equally to every challenge.

It is sort of like the ameri-trash versus euro-game thing. It is taken as gospel these days that everyone should stay in the game till the end and have a solid chance to win it all back even when they are down. For years I played these kinds of games and hated them. I finally realized I like basic american, winner take-all, approaches to board games. Not saying the Euro-design philosophy isn't valid or isn't widely embraced, but sometimes I feel like designers forget there are a substantial number of people who just don't like that approach.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And keep in mind the corollary to the wizard and the cleric just sitting there: The Fighter and the Thief kill the challenger automagically, and then the battle's over.

There's no tension, no chance, no anticipation, no drama, no risk, no game in the thing. It's all binary pass/fail (plus some DM adjudication if the players want to get creative). Which is fine for things that you just want out of the way, but lousy for things where you want some interesting interaction.

But aren't you going too far with the idea of "passive" checks here? Aren't you applying it to something where it might just not be needed?

Passive checks makes sense in some cases, but not all. In the case of perception, the act of rolling has metagaming implications - you _know_ that you arerolling for something. That there is something worth rolling for. Or you spend a lot of time rolling for nothing, because the DM tries to keep you on your toes.

So for Perception and Insight/Sense Motive, we try to reduce the amount of dice rolls, to avoid unnecessary ones while still preserving tensions and surprise.

But for combat - we can roll. We don't need to preserve some mystery by hiding the combat rolls.

Now, you could ask for something more complex that makes perception as involved as combat. But I don't think that's sensible,b ecause the act of "looking" is just not that interesting and doesn't contain out of so many concious and visible elements as a combat would do. So a higher level of abstraction here is okay IMO.

 

[Mark CMG]

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, (. . .)

I think it is derogatory to use the phrase "fooling themselves" so I'm not sure why you would use it when I would not, but there is the idea of the suspension of disbelief in any roleplaying game that can more easily breakdown when players realize that the interface between themselves and their characters is more superficial than it needs to be. As I was mentioning in another post, when a system bends over backwards to homogenize the various character classes such that they all produce essentially the same effect (or near-equal effects) in an effort to ensure inclusivity at all moments of gameplay, then it does produce a thinner veneer of individuality. That's not subjective. The problem stems from a system that begins by stressing individuality during character creation but then reduces that individuality to just the veneer while mechanically the effects are essentially equal.

(. . .) 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.

(You do realize there is a huge difference between your phrase of "everyone gets to participate as near-equals all the time" and my contention regarding everyone producing near-equal effects? Again, your phrasing seems derogatory and isn't one I would use. If you're not doing that on purpose, please be aware of it and try to curtail it. If it is intentional, then there's not much I can do to stop you from that tactic except point it out and hope you reconsider.)

What I am describing is not so much a style of gameplay as it is game design based on a literary genre that promotes a particular style of gameplay. The idea of a heroic genre is not subjective. It's roots go back to Gilgemesh and can be seen in all cultures from the ancient Greeks and Romans through the Middle Ages and on up through today. So, too, does fantasy literature take its cue from these tales, myths and legends to create the epic, heroic stories that are regularly published. I am sure that all tabletop roleplayers are familiar with the heroic genre as it is portrayed in many of these literary and published forms.

Now if you are suggesting that Medieval Fantasy tabletop roleplaying game design move away from the heroic genre traditions to a style of game that strives for more inclusivity, I understand your motivation, but it is a departure from the traditional heroic genre and so will lose something in the process. If that is not understood by the designers of such a game, they are likely to have mixed results.

I think players will accept some measure of indirect participation during gameplay if it serves the genre while you seem to feel inclusivity during gameplay comes first even if the genre of play needs to change to bring about that goal. That's where we seem to fundamentally disagree.

 

[Skyscraper]

Here's an odd thing:

Assume that you make your character good at finding stuff because you want, as a player, to interact with the environment. Poke and prod at stuff, that sort of thing.

In order to do that, you want to make sure your "finding stuff" skill is in the sweet spot - not too high that you can't find stuff, but not too low that you find nothing. edit: that's confusing; "not too high that you, as a player, have no need to interact with the environment" may clear it up.

It seems as though the skill system is saying that players who want to spend time in play going through finding stuff shouldn't max out their find stuff skill. They should choose a class like fighter or wizard instead. Players who don't want to spend time searching for stuff should choose a rogue.

Which strikes me as backwards.

This is an interesting point, but I'd probably rewrite it as follows: players who want to find stuff should play rogues, and players who want to search for stuff should play fighters or wizards. Heh.

I think it depends on how the find stuff skill works. If your find-stuff-rogue arrives in a room, the player states "i search the room for stuff" and the DM just says "you find a secret alcove behind an illusionary wall concealed behind the library shelves", that's one type of game. If the "level" of hidden objects requires even the rogue to be more specific to find such a well-hidden area, then I think the game is more targetted towards description-searching.

And then there are the player preferences. I had a player recently, an old friend from an old 1E campaign from 20 years ago, try out a 4E game. He says to me "I search the room" at one point. I have him roll a d20 (I let them do that themselves, screw the meta ), and then tell him that he doesn't find anything. Then one other player starts specifically enumerating where his PC searches the room, and when he says "I look under the rug for a concealed or secret trapdoor", I tell him he finds one (no die roll). My old 1E friend calls out "WTF, look, even though I didn't tell you I was looking under the rug, when I say I search the room, of course I'm looking under the rug". His perception die roll had not been very good (say, 14 or something).

Who's right here? How to handle such a situation? I don't think there's a single answer to those questions. Some players want searching to be a very quick affair and be done with it, while others like to put their minds into exploring the room's every nook and cranny. Some players like to roll dice for searching, others not.

So is an auto-finding rogue a benediction or a curse? I think it depends to whom you ask. Those that don't want the die-roll-to-find-stuff option probably don't like the auto-find option either; they probably prefer the description-search option.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Rotating spotlight time is a useful technique, but a highly brittle one outside certain zones. This is why, for example, whole baseball and softball teams are perfectly fine, even happy, with not doing much for long stretches, but a pick up softball game can rapidly move from not fun to fun to not fun again as you add players.

Plenty of people don't want to play in large groups essentially because rotating spotlight breaks down at some point. You'll have people swear up and down, against all counter testimony, that large groups cannot work. What they should say is, large groups can't work for them, when they use the techniques that they use.

Now, brittle rotating spotlight is hardly the only thing that breaks down in large groups, and it might very well be true that the if the choice is between abandoning some of their techniques versus staying small, a given group is well served to stay small. However, it's pretty narrow design to assume that, "Well, the group will always have 4-6 people in it. So anything that can be glossed over for that number of people doesn't have to be improved or even look at."

In our group of 11 people, usually with 6-7 at a given session, only two of us give a rip about genre expectations on character focus. One of them is me, the DM. We care a great deal about keeping people involved in the game, as with a large group, you have to work at it.

 

[Skyscraper]

I'd have been more interested to see it applied to things other than Perception (and Insight) for which these things already exist. E.g. why not talk about automating more die rolls in combat? Players love to roll dice, so let's talk about the DM's end of things.

4E introduced auto-damage for minions. It could have also introduced automating the to-hit roll for them. Take base to-hit bonus, DM always takes 10 = end result in your stat block, compare to static defense score of PC, and there's one big amount of time saved in combat (a major issue with 4E). Reserve rolling (and intricate stat blocks) for attacks and damage to big 'lead' monsters. Basically make team monster into 1 major guy who buffs 4 lesser monsters which mostly run on an auto-script, again to save time.

Less die rolling, and puts the DM's decision making process all into the stat block of the lead monster. E.g. lead monster could buff the to-hit numbers of the monsters on auto script; PCs could try to disable him from doing it, and so on. Speeds up play, as it folds the DM's decision making during the encounter into one monster.

Also, numbers would be easier to generate. Non-elite monsters have to-hit and damage numbers calculated on the basis of their level. As a DM I have a master table on my screen with non-elite monsters from level 1 to 30, and that's all I ever need for non-elites. All I ever need to create are mastermind or lead monsters. Designing encounters would be super easy - it'd have a core design element (the lead monster) and the rest of the encounter would write itself (by complementing the lead monster). Would also work greatly with the MM - it's a book full of lead monsters, each of which is basically its own encounter template. Would preserve the 4E idea of 'no longer fighting solo monsters but teams of monsters' but preserve the design focus on individual monsters which previous editions had (bonus points for nostalgia). Familiarity regained, 4e lesson learned, but greater and faster implementation overall - that's how I'd peg 5E design goals.

Edit. Actually, the thing I propose already exists in 4E. Just take the stat block of any 4e solo monster, and instead of allocating its actions to a single monster generate 4 spawns who can take any of the solo's lesser actions at certain initiative counts. Voia la, you got 1 encounter in 1 stat block. Non-elite monsters are simply opportunities for taking combat actions; you want these to be able to move around the battle field to inflict the actions away from the elite.

The problem with this is that some monsters would simply not hit some players - never. So your high AC fighter could move against the minions and standards in a room and be invincible to their attacks. Not desirable. On the other hand, if the DM has to roll the dice, he'll hit the fighter, albeit not often due to his high AC.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think this ranking and rolling system, passive plus active, stems from the earlier article about player vs. character skill and different desired styles of play.

A modular game design may allow groups to pick one or the other and perhaps use both as a standard. IYR the character's skill is depicted by numerical superiority in a skill stat. A roll with its addition against a target number is the active portrayal of the character. Player skill is supported by codifying pinpoint questioning and answering (or increasing specification of attempts and results) and where no rolls are made. If anything, dice rolls are part of the expression of a result.

Different editions may have either or both kinds of play stated in the rules or may simply be different styles made ad hoc by different groups. I'd rather not get into a right way or better way discussion, but offering options instead seems more supportive of choice IMO. And I'd like to see both, if not more styles supported by the primary designers.

Mr. Cook is a great figure in the RPG field and very imaginative in the realm of both game design and adventure writing. I plan to check out whatever he wants to write or publish. Though I must admit I'll probably only be purchasing the adventures as I have my own game already.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think this ranking and rolling system, passive plus active, stems from the earlier article about player vs. character skill and different desired styles of play.

Yep, if you want modular rules that swap seemlessly, you need a level of indirection in those rules. Ranks designated by a short list of labels with broad meanings is one way to get that indirection. Maybe not the best of all possible ways, but certainly an early avenue to explore.

The claim that the system should instead be collapsed down into something akin to what has gone before is, in part, a claim that options are not needed here. That may also be true, but it is not self-evident, and no one yet has even attempted the argument.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But aren't you going too far with the idea of "passive" checks here? Aren't you applying it to something where it might just not be needed?

Well, that's part of the point, really.

Going back to Mearl's original example of a balancing acrobat: what right does the game system have to tell me that I have to use "passive ranks" when what I might want is a fraught, dangerous moment, possibly involving the whole party? And when raw DM adjudication is (for reasons well articulated by Rich Baker) really unsatisfying?

There's a place for simple rules and a place for complex rules and that place will be different at different tables, different games, even different sessions. The game designers shouldn't be telling me I have to do one or the other when doing X. They should be (ideally) giving me the option to do either or.

 

[RHGreen]

Just thinking about Insight.

Insight->Info(Lip twitched when mentioning Sarah)->Interaction("How does your wife feel about Sarah?")->"I'll do it, just don't tell my wife!"

Just a thought.



BTW on topic of Monte Cooke, I think he has a good sparky brain and he will do D&D a lot of good. I love the idea of a 5E as long as it moves forward and ditches the problems of both Pathfinder and 4E, and yet doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Or even if he is just there to kick 4E in to shape (it has become a bit fragmented - I would love it if they physically unified core 4E with essentials into a single force.)