Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[Mark CMG]

BTW on topic of Monte Cooke, I think he has a good sparky brain and he will do D&D a lot of good.

There's no doubt about that!

 

[BryonD]

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've been called arrogant for saying this but...

I've never experienced this. Or, at least, not in a very long time.

It is the DM's job to cater to everyone's fun. Creating an engaging activity that also makes the player feel like their character is invested is a big part of that. But "invested" is not the same as "contributing".

I've had combats dominated by the fighter and the wizard player was on the edge of his seat cheering the fighter on.
I've had combats dominated by the wizard and the fighter player was on the edge of his seat cheering the wizard on.


Good RPGs are about great conflict scenarios (typically combat, but not at all limited to such).
But good RPGs are also about feeling like the scenarios are part of a larger goal that you/your character cares about achieving.
Good RPGs are about feeling like you are inside a novel.
There are a lot of elements of good rpgs that don't have anything to do with "shining RIGHT NOW".

If fun is tied to contributing now then, to me, you are trying to draw a rainbow but you are tied to a box with one crayon in it.

When I read a great novel I have zero control. And yet I love the experience. But when I read that novel I also don't get that feeling of being inside the story and contributing to the overall plot. In an RPG the moments when one player is not in the spotlight, when done correctly, should still be BETTER than reading a great novel because not only are they still getting the great novel experience, they feel like the activity directly affects them, and their own past actions directly affect being at this point and the success or failure of others at this point will directly affect their own future actions.

Taken to an extreme "everyone contributes" just becomes the Incredibles line: "Everyone is special means no one is special". I don't think anybody's game goes to that extreme. But I don't see any value in moving any distance toward that. If a DM's game NEEDS everyone constantly contributing in order to have fun, then that DM has OTHER elements of DMing that could be improved. And if they use constant contribution as a means of covering the other issues, then (a) that just moves problems around and (b) that cover takes away from making progress in the weaker areas.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Taken to an extreme "everyone contributes" just becomes the Incredibles line: "Everyone is special means no one is special". I don't think anybody's game goes to that extreme. But I don't see any value in moving any distance toward that. If a DM's game NEEDS everyone constantly contributing in order to have fun, then that DM has OTHER elements of DMing that could be improved. And if they use constant contribution as a means of covering the other issues, then (a) that just moves problems around and (b) that cover takes away from making progress in the weaker areas.

I agree. To my (as a player) this is like gaming with training wheels. It makes my achievements in the game less fun. Sure at any given moment everyone probably does want to have something to add, but over the long run I think this waters down the enjoyment. Always getting what you want in a game, isn't neccessarily a good thing.

As a GM, I also never really encountered this problem with 3E. The biggest problem I encountered with 3E was with mega-builds, and those were easy enough to work around once you understood the system (and if you had a group that loved them, you could embrace a munchkin campaign and have fun as well).

I did think 3E needed some balance tweaks. Nothing major, just a few things to balance out higher end spellcasters a bit. But 4E took that complaint and went full throttle. Some people liked it, but for me it just sucked out any pleasure I could take from the game (and I tried to enjoy 4E...I just realized it wasn't for me).

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't think anybody's game goes to that extreme. But I don't see any value in moving any distance toward that. If a DM's game NEEDS everyone constantly contributing in order to have fun, then that DM has OTHER elements of DMing that could be improved.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You're talking "NEEDS everyone constantly contributing", and I'm talking "there should always be an opportunity for a player to contribute." I'm not, and have never been, talking about mandatory participation. I'm talking about never telling a player -- with a personal ruling or by pointing to the rules -- "You should not bother trying to contribute here, this portion of the game is not for you."

The player decides what is meaningful, what he wants to participate in, when it would be more fun to take part in a scene and when it's more fun to sit out. I'm saying that it is not a good thing for the system (or the DM) to make those decisions for him. It's a gameable thing, and a good group can get around it, particularly if that's where their expectations lie, but I absolutely think a game system can do better than that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The player decides what is meaningful, what he wants to participate in, when it would be more fun to take part in a scene and when it's more fun to sit out. I'm saying that it is not a good thing for the system (or the DM) to make those decisions for him. It's a gameable thing, and a good group can get around it, particularly if that's where their expectations lie, but I absolutely think a game system can do better than that.

But what if a character has a concept like a stupid warrior. If the adventure shifts to a focus on investigation, doesn't it make sense that when the party is analyzing clues, that is something he wouldn't contribute to? Maybe they need to rough someone up down the road and that is his moment to shine. But if you design the game so everyone has the opprtunity to shine at every given moment, the game loses a lot of texture.

 

[IronWolf]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You're talking "NEEDS everyone constantly contributing", and I'm talking "there should always be an opportunity for a player to contribute." I'm not, and have never been, talking about mandatory participation. I'm talking about never telling a player -- with a personal ruling or by pointing to the rules -- "You should not bother trying to contribute here, this portion of the game is not for you."

The player decides what is meaningful, what he wants to participate in, when it would be more fun to take part in a scene and when it's more fun to sit out. I'm saying that it is not a good thing for the system (or the DM) to make those decisions for him. It's a gameable thing, and a good group can get around it, particularly if that's where their expectations lie, but I absolutely think a game system can do better than that.

What about a difficult lock to pick? There is an obvious character class that is going to be better suited for this task.

But really, there are plenty of things for a character to do even if they aren't the one to pick the lock or break the door down. There are a myriad of ways for a character to contribute to the scene. In a cases like this it isn't the system limiting the player, it is the player choosing not to participate.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When the issue of player participation comes up, the word meaningful gets tossed around quite a bit. In the context of what is being talked about, meaningful equates to having as equal an effect on something as anyone else.

Therefore to participate in the whole of the game in a meaningful way means there can be no fundamental differences in the functional abilities of character classes.

Often it seems like what is being fussed over with regard to meaningful inclusion isn't a denial of participation via mechanics but instead a denial of having as good a bonus at something as someone else in a particular situation.

In other words if player A has a +5 bonus to do something in this challenge then player B has to also have a +5 bonus to do something as well in order to meaningfully participate.

Catering to this attitude has contributed to what I like to call the Ricky Bobby school of game design: If you're not first, you're last!!.

Being an optimal performer has become such an obsession that anything less gets equated with denial of participation via mechanics.

Back in my day, grumbling about having nothing to do just because you didn't have a big enough bonus to be worth attempting to you meant you were a freakin whiner.

OK so your thief isn't in the same league of combat performance as the fighter, does this mean you don't do your best to help out your companions in a fight? Should the fighter bitch and moan because he can't find traps or pick locks as well as the thief?

 

[Balesir]

I seem to be out of "XP fuel" for Bastronado, but his last post was very well put - and I agree with it.

When the issue of player participation comes up, the word meaningful gets tossed around quite a bit. In the context of what is being talked about, meaningful equates to having as equal an effect on something as anyone else.

No, it doesn't. "Meaningful" has two common meanings vis-a-vis D&D as I see it:

1) "Meaningful" contributuion means the party would actually have a noticeably lower chance of success without that contribution. The dumb fighter does not need to be the one to interpret the clue - but they should have some chance of 'stumbling' upon something interesting. That is a classic movie trope, after all

2) "Meaningful" decision means that, following the decision, some advantage (or disadvantage) accrues in one area but is irrevocably lost in another. If blathering on can aquire the advantage in all areas (given time), it's not a decision - it's just a global bonus for talking a lot.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You're talking "NEEDS everyone constantly contributing", and I'm talking "there should always be an opportunity for a player to contribute." I'm not, and have never been, talking about mandatory participation. I'm talking about never telling a player -- with a personal ruling or by pointing to the rules -- "You should not bother trying to contribute here, this portion of the game is not for you."

Can you give me an actual example of that?
Actually saying "You should not bother trying to contribute here, this portion of the game is not for you." sounds like an extreme straw man scenario that has nothing to do with any game I've ever seen. so if that is what you really mean then the question becomes: What does that have to do with anything?

I played last night. At one part the party rogue went off to recon a location and got into a lot of trouble. And was able to get himself out of it. During that 10 minutes or so of play that one player was the only one active. So, if [D][/D]you want to spin it in the worst possible way, the other characters physically were not there, it was impossible for their characters to contribute. And yet the concept that this was "not for you" would seem completely bizarre to anyone at the table. Everyone was highly engaged and commenting and kibitzing and cheering and groaning as things went up and down. At that moment there was no opportunity for any of the others to contribute, so I have broken your rule. And yet the game was 100% FOR EVERYONE. And it was great.

I'd also quibble with your phrase "NEEDS everyone constantly contributing". If you read what I said in context, I didn't say that exactly the way you are casting it.

4E has been frequently praised because it tries to impose that there should always be an opportunity for a player to contribute." attitude. I've had other people tell me that this is great because before 4E people would wander off and start playing video games when it wasn't their turn. If you ALWAYS have an opportunity then it seems reasonable that you will almost always take that opportunity. I never said they must TAKE the chance, I simply stated that, as you endorsed, they must HAVE the chance. I did then go on to presume they would take it. And you are correct that they could elect to not take that chance. But that really doesn't change anything in my point.

 

[Hussar]

But what if a character has a concept like a stupid warrior. If the adventure shifts to a focus on investigation, doesn't it make sense that when the party is analyzing clues, that is something he wouldn't contribute to? Maybe they need to rough someone up down the road and that is his moment to shine. But if you design the game so everyone has the opprtunity to shine at every given moment, the game loses a lot of texture.

Why is "chance to contribute" automatically meaning "All contributions are equal"? The dumb fighter can try to contribute in the investigation in 4e because his base abilities might still allow him to stay in the game. But, at no point is he going to be as effective as Brighty McSmartypants the Bard, simply because the fighter's abilities aren't as good as the Bard's.

The problem comes when the rules say, "Sorry Jim, you just aren't tall enough for this ride, no matter what". And, worse, it might tell Jim that despite Jim not making any choices at all - a rogue facing a non-sneakable opponent for example. Or anyone else trying to find a DC 21+ trap in 3e. They simply cannot do it, nor can they contribute in the slightest.

People really need to let go of this idea that "chance to contribute" equals "all contributions are the same".