Payn's Ponderings; System mastery and the concept of fair fight.

[Emerikol]

I’d propose an addendum to this theory. The sweet spot exists where options are relatively balanced but system mastery can still provide an advantage.

Well relatively balanced is probably as good as it gets with any game. Attempts to be absolutely balanced to me have resulted in a boring game. The key is non-system mastery players or those only willing to do some system mastery can still play in the game. It is unfair if the DM doesn't make it clear when system mastery of a high degree is required. That would make it unfair.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You've just described in once sentence why GURPS has never, and will never be more than a fraction of 1% of the overall game playing population. Well done.

And this statement is relevant to what goal? Making sure GURPS fans know how unpopular their game is?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well relatively balanced is probably as good as it gets with any game. Attempts to be absolutely balanced to me have resulted in a boring game. The key is non-system mastery players or those only willing to do some system mastery can still play in the game.

Providing the more system mastery oriented players don’t find the game boring. Sure.

It is unfair if the DM doesn't make it clear when system mastery of a high degree is required. That would make it unfair.

Right. But puts fairness in the realm of expectations. Which is what I’ve been driving at.

 

[MGibster]

You've just described in once sentence why GURPS has never, and will never be more than a fraction of 1% of the overall game playing population. Well done.

You used to be able to walk into a game store and see the GURPS Rome, Humanx, Autoduell, Horror, Fantasy, Hi-Tech, Mysterious, Martial Arts, Supers, Vampire, Prime Directive, Atomic Horror, Cyberpunk, Time Travel, Ice Age, etc., etc., etc. GURPS used to be a lot more popular than it is today. But, yeah, you're not entirely wrong, there's a reason it's fallen out of favor. GURPS was never the most popular game and toolkit games with GURPS levels of complexity are no longer in style.

 

[Piperken]

Randomness does not preclude system mastery.

Meaning? :3

 

[Scribe]

Yes, of course, what's the right mix for you?

A MtG meme "Oh yeah my Commander Deck is a 7 on the Power Scale." even if its a turn 4 kill.

Its pretty much human nature, if it can be optimized, it slowly will be, until people are justifying their Pal/Sorc/Warlock builds as legit.

At this point its either accept the optimization and play into it, the system expects it and is balanced around it, or its a more 'random' system, and optimization is a fools game.

 

[Emerikol]

You used to be able to walk into a game store and see the GURPS Rome, Humanx, Autoduell, Horror, Fantasy, Hi-Tech, Mysterious, Martial Arts, Supers, Vampire, Prime Directive, Atomic Horror, Cyberpunk, Time Travel, Ice Age, etc., etc., etc. GURPS used to be a lot more popular than it is today. But, yeah, you're not entirely wrong, there's a reason it's fallen out of favor. GURPS was never the most popular game and toolkit games with GURPS levels of complexity are no longer in style.

I like GURPS actually for non-fantasy more realistic games. What probably keeps them in business is they offer really great supplements that can work with almost any game. There 3-12.99 price ranged products are some of the best. Well that an their non-GURPS games of course. I meant what keeps GURPS in production.

 

[Emerikol]

Providing the more system mastery oriented players don’t find the game boring. Sure.

Well for me, often rules and playstyle will weed out those who don't prefer that style whatever it is. I'm for different tables catering to different preferences. I'm probably fine with some powergaming but powergamers put a lot of extra work on the DM. So perhaps extreme powergamers are not for me. So for me it's somewhere in between but others may want more or less. I prefer dungeons to be more about player skill than player building character skill.

Right. But puts fairness in the realm of expectations. Which is what I’ve been driving at.

I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing completely with you. I'm just focusing I hope so that it is clearer what we are and are not talking about. I think that should bring around more to agreement.

I do think though playstyle assumptions should be very upfront. One thing I do very early is prep my players about the type of game I run. It avoids a lot of grief later. So if you run a system mastery style of game, I think you should say that not all options are equally good and there are combinations of options that give you greater benefits. Obviously if you have a regular group that is implied.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I do think though playstyle assumptions should be very upfront. One thing I do very early is prep my players about the type of game I run. It avoids a lot of grief later.

This is an important point. A lot of the discussion in this thread is assuming that if things are equal (equal access, equal stats, etc.) then the system is fair. But fairness is not the same as equality:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”​

I've run and played a lot of Living campaigns, where you get a mix of people and parties of varying degrees of system mastery. Some with internet-derived cookie cutter optimal builds, some with characters they built on the drive to the con, some with characters designed to cause heart attacks on char-op boards. So even for one-shots, I'll still try and work out what sort of experience each player thinks is fair / fun. For one person "fair" means a tough fight where I try all my GM tricks to win combats, but for another it means not KO'ing their bear companion even when it makes sense to do so because that young person is completely invested in the creature.

Fairness is not assessable in a vacuum. A fair combat against a group with high levels of system mastery can and should look very different to one against the people playing an all-bard rock nostalgia band (yes, I ran the same adventure for these two groups in the same con). To emphasize @Emerikol's point: It is really important early on to establish the ground rules of what is considered fair. I've run a 13th Age campaign where, up front, death was ruled out as a possibility. I've been in a 4E where we carefully defined the level of system mastery we were OK with: Optimal builds without radiant or frost shenanigans. I've taken a player aside and asked them to de-optimize their build as it was getting hard for me to make a fair fight that involved everyone in the same combat.

I always want fairness, but only when the players are roughly equal in ability do I want equality.

 

[Emerikol]

This is an important point. A lot of the discussion in this thread is assuming that if things are equal (equal access, equal stats, etc.) then the system is fair. But fairness is not the same as equality:

Well, I would assume given equal attempts at mastery if the results were wildly divergent it would be unfair. For example if starting level was decided by rolling a 1d6. It would be equitable but it would not be fair. If rolling attributes could create radically different power levels then that would apply. Most DMs allow rerolls and stat moves so it becomes fairly fair.

I've run and played a lot of Living campaigns, where you get a mix of people and parties of varying degrees of system mastery. Some with internet-derived cookie cutter optimal builds, some with characters they built on the drive to the con, some with characters designed to cause heart attacks on char-op boards. So even for one-shots, I'll still try and work out what sort of experience each player thinks is fair / fun. For one person "fair" means a tough fight where I try all my GM tricks to win combats, but for another it means not KO'ing their bear companion even when it makes sense to do so because that young person is completely invested in the creature.

Fairness is not assessable in a vacuum. A fair combat against a group with high levels of system mastery can and should look very different to one against the people playing an all-bard rock nostalgia band (yes, I ran the same adventure for these two groups in the same con). To emphasize @Emerikol's point: It is really important early on to establish the ground rules of what is considered fair. I've run a 13th Age campaign where, up front, death was ruled out as a possibility. I've been in a 4E where we carefully defined the level of system mastery we were OK with: Optimal builds without radiant or frost shenanigans. I've taken a player aside and asked them to de-optimize their build as it was getting hard for me to make a fair fight that involved everyone in the same combat.

I always want fairness, but only when the players are roughly equal in ability do I want equality.

I agree wholeheartedly. How well you play the NPCs and monsters should be driven by your parties playing ability. I had a group once where the people just were not that smart so I didn't play the bad guys super well. I also had a group where anything short of maximal play on my part was letting them down. So DMs need to figure that stuff out.