New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[The Shaman]

I think you misunderstand me. What I am saying is that the GM, in making the judgement calls required by the written system, must use some criteria of some sort.

Of course, and I agree.

Neither of these are decisive objections, but they do explain, I think, why I dislike GM adjudication as a game mechanism. If you are comfortable with GM 'fiat' as a resolution mechanism, knowing the consequences, then I bow to your preference - I simply do not share it.

Horses for courses.

 

[The Shaman]

The people who bitched constantly in Dragon were the ones who missed the memo about D&D being a game of the imagination and wanted thier DMing duties done for them with a rulebook.

Well they got that eventually.

Hi-yoooooo!

 

[Balesir]

That is precisely the heart of the problem. When such combinations are discovered and implemented by clever players the trick in question is then declared "broken" and a rules nerf to stamp out clever play comes down like a hammer on the almighty altar of balance.

I do sometimes have issues with the responses the developers give to cheesy or naff character "builds" or tactics, but in general I find they don't affect our group too much. They generally apply to rather exploitative character power combinations - and 4E is hardly the first edition to have those. I would rather these issues are taken out of the rules rather than left in, personally, so I consider CharOp to be doing "normal gamers" a service, frankly.

When the rules become the central focus of play they will come under greater fire from players attempting to find weaknesses.

Of course; that's a feature, not a bug.

We see the results of this, constantly shifting goalposts and endless streams of errata all aimed at squelching the efforts of players benefitting from synergies that were included for that very reason.

All aimed at removing exploitative synergies that the designers missed; they are human, after all. My experience with grand strategy computer games is similar, for the ones that actually have some decent scope for any strategy (or even tactics).

The end result of all this nonsense is a game that is never complete.

The game was complete from day 1. It just keeps improving (unless someone screws up a change, which has been known to happen...).

The people who bitched constantly in Dragon were the ones who missed the memo about D&D being a game of the imagination and wanted thier DMing duties done for them with a rulebook.

Well they got that eventually.

I like having the rules complete, not to relieve me of any "duties", but so that the players know what the rules are. They can't do that if I am forever pulling new ones out of my behind .

 

[ExploderWizard]

I do sometimes have issues with the responses the developers give to cheesy or naff character "builds" or tactics, but in general I find they don't affect our group too much. They generally apply to rather exploitative character power combinations - and 4E is hardly the first edition to have those. I would rather these issues are taken out of the rules rather than left in, personally, so I consider CharOp to be doing "normal gamers" a service, frankly.

Isn't the use of exploitive combinations considered the normal exercise of player skill? So the common response to the display of that skill is having the universe shift to nullify its effects much like the Borgs defenses.

All aimed at removing exploitative synergies that the designers missed; they are human, after all. My experience with grand strategy computer games is similar, for the ones that actually have some decent scope for any strategy (or even tactics).

So now engaging with the game as written is not actual playing skill. Using what is provided is considered a "hack".

The game was complete from day 1. It just keeps improving (unless someone screws up a change, which has been known to happen...).

Umm.. ok.

I like having the rules complete, not to relieve me of any "duties", but so that the players know what the rules are. They can't do that if I am forever pulling new ones out of my behind .

Change is change, it doesn't matter if it comes from your behind or the compendium. The end result is still goalpost shifting.

 

[Balesir]

Isn't the use of exploitive combinations considered the normal exercise of player skill? So the common response to the display of that skill is having the universe shift to nullify its effects much like the Borgs defenses.

Coming up with an imaginative solution to an in-game problem is, if I understand it, the aim of your "challenge the player" brand of play, right? What would coming up with the same "imaginative solution" to five or six encounters in a row be? Praiseworthy play? Or spamming crap that the DM needs to step on?

Coming up with tactics that work for a specific situation is good play; finding a sequence of actions that provide the same benefits for any given situation is skillful enough, but also represents a flaw in the rules that needs to be "patched". If the DM is simply making justifications for decisions up, the rules modification is easy - none of the players could be sure what the rule was to begin with, so if it changes they can be none the wiser. When the players are explicitly allowed to know what rules they are playing to, on the other hand, the change must necessarily be made public.

So now engaging with the game as written is not actual playing skill. Using what is provided is considered a "hack".

The first time it's found, it's good play - excellent, even. The sixth, tenth, twentieth or fiftieth time it's used, it's just exploiting a flaw in the rules that hasn't been fixed yet.

Excellent tactics are, by their nature, situational; they require both a coup d'oueil and a coup de main. Repeated coup de main alone is a pretty good description of "hacking", in actual fact

Change is change, it doesn't matter if it comes from your behind or the compendium. The end result is still goalpost shifting.

Except that one is published to be read between game sessions, the other is announced after the player has already committed their character to an action.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Coming up with an imaginative solution to an in-game problem is, if I understand it, the aim of your "challenge the player" brand of play, right? What would coming up with the same "imaginative solution" to five or six encounters in a row be? Praiseworthy play? Or spamming crap that the DM needs to step on?

Alright. So there does seem to be more to the game than just a contest of rules manipulation after all.. There seems to some kind of human judgement at work deciding what is good tactics and what is exploitation. This decision is simply arrived at by fiat as it were. After all, there is nothing in the rulebook against spamming the best combos so long as the resource usage remains legal. Too much good fortune and the players seem to be in a "mother may I" situation regarding the ability to keep using legal abilities in manner consistent with winning.

Coming up with tactics that work for a specific situation is good play; finding a sequence of actions that provide the same benefits for any given situation is skillful enough, but also represents a flaw in the rules that needs to be "patched". If the DM is simply making justifications for decisions up, the rules modification is easy - none of the players could be sure what the rule was to begin with, so if it changes they can be none the wiser. When the players are explicitly allowed to know what rules they are playing to, on the other hand, the change must necessarily be made public.

So every time a dedicated group of sharp minded imaginative individuals manage to get the better of an unwieldy, heavy rulebook we change the rules of play. My money is on the players and history has shown that it is a safe bet.

The first time it's found, it's good play - excellent, even. The sixth, tenth, twentieth or fiftieth time it's used, it's just exploiting a flaw in the rules that hasn't been fixed yet.

Flaw!! Such a complete game that just keeps on improving certainly can't have many of these.

Excellent tactics are, by their nature, situational; they require both a coup d'oueil and a coup de main. Repeated coup de main alone is a pretty good description of "hacking", in actual fact

Except that one is published to be read between game sessions, the other is announced after the player has already committed their character to an action.

Here you have a really good point. Tactics are very situational in thier application. Such situations require sound judgements that won't all be predetermined in a rulebook. You run into the problem of rules flaws and needing patches because everything is represented in absolutes.

I have X ability that I can do Y times per adventure and it has effect Z no matter what the circumstances are. This is the type of thing that is the root cause of patching being required. Nothing has context and the actual situation has no impact on the use of these abilities. Push button, get expected effect. When nonsensical scenarios result from this then well its time to just open the hood and fiddle with the effects of pressing that button. That should fix everything. Except it doesn't.

 

[Hussar]

Sage Advice. Really? Are you seriously suggesting that someone talking out of thier colon in a monthly magazine is the equivalent of the game designers altering the rules in the CB and compedium constantly?

Complete: Players Handbook, Monster Manual, & DMG

You can add whatever you like from Dragon or anywhere else or even just make up whatever additions you want.

The people who bitched constantly in Dragon were the ones who missed the memo about D&D being a game of the imagination and wanted thier DMing duties done for them with a rulebook.

Well they got that eventually.

So, the whole "official" thing on the cover doesn't matter? The fact that in 3e at least, these all got released as part of the FAQ's.

You actually consider the PHB/DMG/MM to be complete in ANY edition? And not in any need of revision after first publication? Honestly?

I have X ability that I can do Y times per adventure and it has effect Z no matter what the circumstances are. This is the type of thing that is the root cause of patching being required. Nothing has context and the actual situation has no impact on the use of these abilities. Push button, get expected effect. When nonsensical scenarios result from this then well its time to just open the hood and fiddle with the effects of pressing that button. That should fix everything. Except it doesn't.

Ballocks. Utter and complete balderdash.

Sorry, 4e certainly didn't invent this sort of thing. Broken elements have existed in every single edition of the game. The only difference is now the designers are willing to admit that they aren't beings of divine perfection carving the rules in stone tablets for the consumption of us poor, misguided souls.

Hrm, have a game where the rules, despite being broken (2e 2 weapon fighting), badly written (1e initiative rules), or just plain ridiculous (15 pound swords) and never, ever let the designers step in and fix things after the fact, or have a game where about 10% of the mechanics get fiddled with once or twice a year and 90% of the game never changes.

I'll take the latter thanks.

The hyperbole that the errata is so pervasive is ludicrous. I'm looking at the latest errata right now. Fighters have exactly 12 changes from the first printing PHB. Note, not all of these are nerfs, most are simply cleaning up the text. But, a total of 12 changes. Out of 89 powers. Gee, I was right in my first estimate - about 10% changes. Whoopee.

Mountain, meet the molehill.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, the whole "official" thing on the cover doesn't matter? The fact that in 3e at least, these all got released as part of the FAQ's.

Not in my day spikey. All Dragon material was unofficial until 3E.

You actually consider the PHB/DMG/MM to be complete in ANY edition? And not in any need of revision after first publication? Honestly?

In need of a bit of error correction sure. There may be a spelling or page reference goof. In need of a complete overhaul of how things work-certainly not.

Ballocks. Utter and complete balderdash.

Sorry, 4e certainly didn't invent this sort of thing. Broken elements have existed in every single edition of the game. The only difference is now the designers are willing to admit that they aren't beings of divine perfection carving the rules in stone tablets for the consumption of us poor, misguided souls.

Ah yes, the old "broken" record. I think you have it backwards. The rampant consumerism of recent times has prompted players to do exactly what you are talking about, which is look to the mighty divine beings to "fix" thier game for them. This fixation on "official" rulings and expecting those on high to tell you what should and shouldn't be in your own game is unthinkable to most hobbyists.

Hrm, have a game where the rules, despite being broken (2e 2 weapon fighting), badly written (1e initiative rules), or just plain ridiculous (15 pound swords) and never, ever let the designers step in and fix things after the fact, or have a game where about 10% of the mechanics get fiddled with once or twice a year and 90% of the game never changes.

I'll take the latter thanks.

Who says the game never changes? The designers are not playing in my campaign so why the hell do I care what changes they decide I should make. Change what you like to taste and don't worry about what some group of people you aren't playing with say you should do.

The hyperbole that the errata is so pervasive is ludicrous. I'm looking at the latest errata right now. Fighters have exactly 12 changes from the first printing PHB. Note, not all of these are nerfs, most are simply cleaning up the text. But, a total of 12 changes. Out of 89 powers. Gee, I was right in my first estimate - about 10% changes. Whoopee.

Mountain, meet the molehill.

Yes the amount of errata is ludicrous. To date the first PHB alone has racked up 22 pages of errata.

 

[Mark CMG]

This fixation on "official" rulings and expecting those on high to tell you what should and shouldn't be in your own game is unthinkable to most hobbyists.

There was errata in wargames since the earliest (the first board wargame Tactics became Tactics II), in board games when reprinted (many reprints include errata sheets, as I noticed recently in a Zombies box game I have), and even the first printings of (O)D&D included a way to send snail mail in for clarification with a SASE, although it was discouraged, because even Gary knew that the tabletop gaming hobbyist was used to getting rules that were clear or would be cleared up by the designers/authors. It was the opposite of unthinkable and, in fact, quite common.

 

[Hussar]

Not in my day spikey. All Dragon material was unofficial until 3E.

Nice revisionist history there. Sorry, not true. Go back and read the magazine again.

In need of a bit of error correction sure. There may be a spelling or page reference goof. In need of a complete overhaul of how things work-certainly not.

Please reference what you consider to be a "complete overhaul of how things work". The errata for the PHB in 4e, forex, typically only changes a handful of specific skills and has done very little beyond changing some of the base DC's that would affect play beyond that.

Ah yes, the old "broken" record. I think you have it backwards. The rampant consumerism of recent times has prompted players to do exactly what you are talking about, which is look to the mighty divine beings to "fix" thier game for them. This fixation on "official" rulings and expecting those on high to tell you what should and shouldn't be in your own game is unthinkable to most hobbyists.

MarkCMG has already corrected your skewed view of the facts so I won't comment further.

Who says the game never changes? The designers are not playing in my campaign so why the hell do I care what changes they decide I should make. Change what you like to taste and don't worry about what some group of people you aren't playing with say you should do.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Except that expecting a bunch of new players who've never played D&D before to be able to house rule mechanics successfully is a bit much. I'm pretty willing to admit that someone like Mike Mearls or Monte Cook probably knows at least a little more about game design than I do.

Yes the amount of errata is ludicrous. To date the first PHB alone has racked up 22 pages of errata.

Don't count pages. Count the ACTUAL changes. You're looking at about 10% for any given class and most of that is simply cleaning up language. The biggest change that I can think of for the class I'm playing right now, a warlock, is that I can now deal curse damage more than once per round.

All the other changes have been largely cosmetic or fixing vebiage.

Three years, a major revision to the rules, and all they're changing is about one power in ten? Not a big deal.