New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[prosfilaes]

Wandering monsters (should) make time a valuable resource, as does a reactive dungeon. Spending time searching carries a cost. Without that cost, it makes sense to "Greyhawk" the dungeon (or Take 20 on Search checks for every 5' square).

Wandering monsters were worse in OD&D, where XP came mostly from treasure, then in 3E, where XP comes from monsters.

There's always the problem that most DMs want treasure and stuff to be found. What's the fun in doing all the detail for a trapped statue with a special magical item instead, if the players don't give a second thought? I would think that whatever searching system you use, players should ultimately find at least 3/4s of the stuff in the dungeon, and that low a ratio is going to mean if the DM places items especially for certain characters, some of them aren't going to get picked up.

 

[LostSoul]

Wandering monsters were worse in OD&D, where XP came mostly from treasure, then in 3E, where XP comes from monsters.

Yeah.

When I was playing the Red Hand of Doom, we knew we were on some sort of clock (metagaming, yeah, but we could have figured it out). When we rested for the night we would try to attract wandering monsters for the XP. We just didn't want to burn any resources - spells. (HP were not much of a limited resource thanks to the wand of cure light wounds.)

In this way we were maximizing the resources we had (spending all our valuable time to generate more XP).

There's always the problem that most DMs want treasure and stuff to be found. What's the fun in doing all the detail for a trapped statue with a special magical item instead, if the players don't give a second thought? I would think that whatever searching system you use, players should ultimately find at least 3/4s of the stuff in the dungeon, and that low a ratio is going to mean if the DM places items especially for certain characters, some of them aren't going to get picked up.

(Avoiding the challenge-based play vs. simulationism issue)

There's the simple fun in making stuff up. The most efficient way would be to make a random table to generate that detail (or rather steal one from the internet). Adding that detail could be done on the fly. It's more satisfying in play if the prep work has been done, I've found (eg. dropping a clue in the entry room to the hidden cache in the statue), but it can be pretty easy.

 

[Balesir]

Lots of good stuff...

...but, apparently, I need to spread the xp love before I can xp him again.

I agree with most of it, but not this conclusion:

Which is, again, why basing the game in "Assume there are no rules" would be a positive step. Each group can determine for themselves what elements of the rules help or hinder their own style of play, without fear that grabbing one bit of it would stop the other bits from working.

For me, though, this fails. Building up a rough-and-ready "default" set of "rules lite" procedures and mechanisms is easy, but producing a coherent set of interlocking rules that all make sense with one another and support a coherent agenda of play is hard. I want to pay WotC to produce the coherent, consistent and interlocking set, not the "here are some neat mechanisms to noodle with" set. I already have rule sets that amount to the latter, in actual fact.

What we may need is smaller, discrete, more self-contained rules elements, that affect only themselves, and nothing outside of them. Nothing like 3e's treasure system, for instance, which has all sorts of unexpected consequences if not followed, from the skills and monsters to published adventures' encounter rates and hundreds of other tiny effects.

Fine, but what about the people who want a wide-scope game that meshes and hangs together as a fascinating whole? I mean, D&D mostly has a rather modest scope of what it does well to begin with - a deracinated bunch of (possibly golden hearted) ne'er-do-wells who have "adventures" involving "action scenes" is just assumed, at a minimum. If I'm paying cash money, I want a focussed, coherent ruleset that achieves (at least to an extent) clear design aims, not a collection of "neat ideas we brainstormed", thanks very much .

Wandering monsters (should) make time a valuable resource, as does a reactive dungeon. Spending time searching carries a cost. Without that cost, it makes sense to "Greyhawk" the dungeon (or Take 20 on Search checks for every 5' square).

Yeah, 4E misses those. I actually think there is space in 4E for encounters that are 3 or more levels below the party level, that give no xp and that can be used for wandering monsters, failure consequences in some Skill Challenges and incidental "speed bumps" that are meant to be dealt with using no or very few resources.

(Avoiding the challenge-based play vs. simulationism issue)

There's the simple fun in making stuff up.

Sounds like the very soul of Sim, to me!

The most efficient way would be to make a random table to generate that detail (or rather steal one from the internet). Adding that detail could be done on the fly. It's more satisfying in play if the prep work has been done, I've found (eg. dropping a clue in the entry room to the hidden cache in the statue), but it can be pretty easy.

I wonder whether this might have correlated to the fact that, in the very early days, "the Dungeon" was expected to be a sprawling maze that the player characters (possibly several groups of them) returned to week after week? With this approach, the little "surprises" and "Easter eggs" you have hidden remain to be uncovered at any later time by a passing, perceptive newbie...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wandering monsters (should) make time a valuable resource, as does a reactive dungeon. Spending time searching carries a cost. Without that cost, it makes sense to "Greyhawk" the dungeon (or Take 20 on Search checks for every 5' square).

Yup. Sadly I cannot xp you again right now.

So, the fighter was equally good at talking as the bard? And the cleric was equally good at searching as the rogue?

What would have happened if one of the players had really poor communication skills (perhaps due to shyness)? Similarly, what would have happened if one of the players had really poor spatial orientation?

The dice are there because you are (for the most part) not playing yourself in the RPG - you are playing a character. And that character's skills are (usually) completely different from your own skills.

If you are playing in a game and there are no skills to choose from then nothing is lost. There are no in-game resources that are spent toward being better at something than anyone else.

As for the shy player, what's the charisma of the character? As we played back before there was a diplomacy skill the person simply said what they wanted to say and the charisma of the character modified the reaction roll. Remember reaction rolls?

Due to reaction rolls that charming cool player's fighter who happens to be stuck with a 3 charisma will still have npc's wanting to slap him in the face more often than want to shake his hand.

Aside from that, input from a player should have an impact on the play of the game. The players after all are the ones actually playing and getting the entertainment out of the game.

A character is nothing more than a fictional construct and some stats on a sheet of paper. If a character becomes anything more than that it is the player that you have to thank.

Characters feel no sense of achievement, do not experience excitement during tense action or appreciate thier contributions during a successful adventure. Players do.

Most importantly, characters do not have a good time playing. People do.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For me, though, this fails. Building up a rough-and-ready "default" set of "rules lite" procedures and mechanisms is easy, but producing a coherent set of interlocking rules that all make sense with one another and support a coherent agenda of play is hard. I want to pay WotC to produce the coherent, consistent and interlocking set, not the "here are some neat mechanisms to noodle with" set. I already have rule sets that amount to the latter, in actual fact.

I want both, rough and ready in some places and interlocking in others. And then I want options to attach to the rough and ready parts that fit (well enough) with the interlocking parts. Sounds crazy, I know.

But this is where I think the art of game design has to take over from the more methodical parts. I won't call it "science of game design," because it isn't. But perhaps it is clear to call the more methodical part the "craft of game design". Anyway, the art is in finding that point where the interlock does not apply and you want people mucking with your design to turn it into their game.

In 1st ed. AD&D, the craft part was often lousy. It had some good moments in certain subsystems, but there really was very little interlock. (Some, like how treasure as XP worked, but very little.) The art design choices though? Off the charts.

 

[Sammael]

If you are playing in a game and there are no skills to choose from then nothing is lost. There are no in-game resources that are spent toward being better at something than anyone else.

True. However, just ripping the skills out of, say, 3rd edition, would require a massive rebalancing effort because a bunch of classes (bard, ranger, rogue, and monk, for instance) are built around the fact that skills do exist.

As for the shy player, what's the charisma of the character? As we played back before there was a diplomacy skill the person simply said what they wanted to say and the charisma of the character modified the reaction roll. Remember reaction rolls?

If you are satisfied with a single reaction roll determining the outcome of an entire negotiation, sure. If you're not, then you either have to come up with a skill system or resort to DM fiat (which, I should clarify, is something I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO - and I am the DM 99% of the time).

Due to reaction rolls that charming cool player's fighter who happens to be stuck with a 3 charisma will still have npc's wanting to slap him in the face more often than want to shake his hand.

That sort of stuff gets really old really fast. I guess it's OK if you run dungeon crawls with some very, very light roleplaying.

Aside from that, input from a player should have an impact on the play of the game. The players after all are the ones actually playing and getting the entertainment out of the game.

Of course. However, if you have one really cool and clever player in your group, he will undoubtedly try to steal the spotlight from everybody else whenever he can. Skills and such are designed to make the playing field more even.

A character is nothing more than a fictional construct and some stats on a sheet of paper. If a character becomes anything more than that it is the player that you have to thank.

That goes without saying.

Characters feel no sense of achievement, do not experience excitement during tense action or appreciate thier contributions during a successful adventure. Players do.

Most importantly, characters do not have a good time playing. People do.

Yes. And what's important is that EVERYBODY needs to have a good time, not just the attention-seeking silver-tongued rules lawyer who has every Monster Manual memorized.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you are satisfied with a single reaction roll determining the outcome of an entire negotiation, sure. If you're not, then you either have to come up with a skill system or resort to DM fiat (which, I should clarify, is something I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO - and I am the DM 99% of the time).

The reaction roll is just that. It determines the initial footing any kind of negotiation starts out on. The actual negotion depends on what is being offered, what is being asked for, and the personality of the npc. A bad enough initial reaction means there might not be a negotiation.

The problem IMHO is deciding ahead of time,that there will be a negotiation encounter taking place and therefore there must be a system in place to "defeat" it.

Rubbish.

That sort of stuff gets really old really fast. I guess it's OK if you run dungeon crawls with some very, very light roleplaying.

I suppose you could just roll dice at each other the whole session. That sort of stuff gets old real fast. I guess it's OK if you run dungeon crawls with some very, very light roleplaying.

Of course. However, if you have one really cool and clever player in your group, he will undoubtedly try to steal the spotlight from everybody else whenever he can. Skills and such are designed to make the playing field more even.

Of course, because everyone plays with people who just don't grasp Wheaton's law. People are masochists.

Yes. And what's important is that EVERYBODY needs to have a good time, not just the attention-seeking silver-tongued rules lawyer who has every Monster Manual memorized.

In a game run largely by common sense rulings, rules lawyers have very little room to ply thier trade and thus avoid them. That leaves the game left to those who just want to have fun and help everyone else do the same.

OTOH rules heavy systems attract rules lawyers like ants to a picnic.

 

[Rolflyn]

So, the fighter was equally good at talking as the bard? And the cleric was equally good at searching as the rogue?

Yes, exactly. And that is why it was awesome. The fighter could be a diplomatic dude and convince titan to aid the party through a logical argument, the cleric could find a secret door. Those character's players did not have to leave the room during the negotiation scene or the find the secret door seen. In fact, all players were totally engaged the entire game.

What would have happened if one of the players had really poor communication skills (perhaps due to shyness)?

The same thing that would have happened if one of the players was really bad at swordplay: we would have roleplayed it. True, we don't have a person in the game so shy he would speak up, but we don't have a bunch of eloquent speakers either. I would have listened to the argument regardless of how well said it was and the NPCs would have reacted appropriately.

Similarly, what would have happened if one of the players had really poor spatial orientation?

Not sure how that applies. How does that player play in a map-based combat?

The dice are there because you are (for the most part) not playing yourself in the RPG - you are playing a character. And that character's skills are (usually) completely different from your own skills.

That's one point of view. We have another.

 

[Sammael]

Let me preface this by saying that if ALL of you had fun then by all means, that's your thing, ignore my viewpoint entirely.

However, last night, I played in a one-off WoD game in which I also thought that everybody was having fun. Turns out I was wrong, as one of the other players called me today to complain about the storyteller. She had a number of very valid arguments, she just didn't want to ruin everybody else's time by making a fuss during the session.

If the fighter's character is built as a diplomatic character, sure, awesomesauce. I had diplomatic fighter characters, my system supports them. But if the fighter used Cha as his dump stat, allowing the fighter to shine during the negotiations is a bit unfair to the player who actually built a diplomatic character (who is, OTOH, not optimized for combat).

I understand the desire for rules light materials. However, I often wonder why "rules light" in the context of D&D is often applied only to non-combat stuff, such as exploration and diplomacy. Why can't my Str 5 Wizard apply the same logic in combat and claim that he uses his quarterstaff to break the giant's ribs? It's all good fun, isn't it?

 

[ExploderWizard]

However, last night, I played in a one-off WoD game in which I also thought that everybody was having fun. Turns out I was wrong, as one of the other players called me today to complain about the storyteller. She had a number of very valid arguments, she just didn't want to ruin everybody else's time by making a fuss during the session.

Any more details about why she didn't have fun? We kind of have nothing to go on here.

If the fighter's character is built as a diplomatic character, sure, awesomesauce. I had diplomatic fighter characters, my system supports them. But if the fighter used Cha as his dump stat, allowing the fighter to shine during the negotiations is a bit unfair to the player who actually built a diplomatic character (who is, OTOH, not optimized for combat).

I think there is a misunderstanding here. In the systems that I (and perhaps Rolflyn, can't be sure) am talking about characters are generated rather than built as it were. No one is getting character build choices undermined by the system because there simply aren't any. A player glances down at his attributes and sees that his fighter happens to have a 15 wisdom. The player envisions his character as very street smart and perceptive, good at noticing things. So in play the player is always alert and looking for stuff.

His character's natural talent will be a benefit in play but it doesn't mean everything will be picked up and the player can get by on autopilot with a few die rolls.

Often when a player shows little interest in the environment beyond the mechanics its because there is little incentive to do so.

I understand the desire for rules light materials. However, I often wonder why "rules light" in the context of D&D is often applied only to non-combat stuff, such as exploration and diplomacy. Why can't my Str 5 Wizard apply the same logic in combat and claim that he uses his quarterstaff to break the giant's ribs? It's all good fun, isn't it?

Once agian, in the systems I am referring to (Basic D&D in my case) the combat rules are light. The combat rules and the basic exploration rules take up about the same amount of space.

Hopefully your str 5 wizard is smart enough to know that there are more clever things he can be doing than swinging a stick.