pemerton said:
Howandwhy99, thanks for your replies.
Am I right in characterising your approach to play this way?
You don't object to metagame thinking in character build and world-design - in short, to the setting up of the campaign - and thus:
You mentioned earlier examples like Traveller, which I assume are games that don't include metagame thinking in these two areas? Non-metagame world creation, I'm guessing here as: logically consistent setting design, is more often than not a goal in world creation - especially if one is going for heavy sim. D&D tends to be light or "beer & pretzels" sim, IMO.
Character building as non-metagamed is traditionally optional in D&D. Ability Scores and Hit Points are randomized. Or the group could use a by choice method. (Point-buy is one of these) The first seems non-metagame, the second metagame - if I'm using the term correctly.
In fact, height, weight, age, normal lifespan, hair color, eye color, etc. could all be randomized. Warhammer 2e does this in their new game. I don't think most gamers would see these rolls as "following the rules", so description is often open to player choice. They are non-metagame Birth Characteristics. Statistics that aren't dependent on birth are
typically choices the character would have in game: class, equipment, background, etc. Gamers could go hardcore either way according to their preference. See the Hero Builder's Guidebook for an example in 3e.
The History option is actually pretty interesting as it allows GMs to create rules that define characters in relation to their worlds. Warhammer and Traveller do this and in two different ways. Warhammer has a singular assumed setting, while Traveller has setting construction rules that the background construction rules assume. Traveller is actually pretty flexible and unique in this way and far outside what most game designers are creating today (YMMV). Across RPGs Character Background is normally intimately tied with setting. For D&D that's flexibly generic fantasy. D&D's PC Background can be a form of "narrative control". Their non-rule restricted descriptions allow enormous freedom, but can be limited for definition for a particular world or game. These depends upon what I term as Known vs. Unknown and Complete vs. Modular settings. I'll get to explaining what these are and how they can control narrative in another response below.
The Race attribute sort of a partial exception to the non-metagame creation rules. They are birth characteristics that Players get to choose (though other games may have randomized them). In D&D, race was picked after Ability Score generation and like old-style Prestige classes they required those scores to fall within certain ranges to qualify. Any race except human wasn't always an option, if your group rolled stats vs. choosing them. Old-style PrCs being any of the non-core 4 classes, not 3e high level multi-class options. But that goes to starting characters above 1st level, which is another topic.
So the Big Six 3-18 determined quite a bit, but didn't remove Players ability to play any of the 4 core classes (something they may include in 4e). In fact, the mechanics constructed competent and playable PCs for any core class regardless of one's rolls. A STR 3 Fighter wasn't substantially hampered when combating a STR 18 Fighter. Part of that has to do with the 3-18 bell curve being representative of the human adult standard and not a worldwide yardstick to judge every creature (as in 3e and GURPS). They weren't direct relationships, but distributive relationships based upon human adults (that which we know and human players can portray). So, based on a bell curve model, 19 becomes extraordinarily powerful for non-human player races when placed on a human distribution. +1 means something. And Ability Score enhancements every 4 rounds in 4e can only adequately be supernatural effects when beyond 18, if they are to be representational. A game that doesn't offer this important relatable understanding, but prefers discrete direct mechanical relationships for every creature, is likely better off with a GURPS-like model and dropping reference to any bell curve distributive sequence.
All of which is to say that traditionally D&D uses both metagame and non-metagame character creation guidelines, while easily allowing all or none in either case.
*Players are allowed to build PCs of the sort they feel like playing;
*Players are allowed to co-operate in character build to make sure there are no paladin/assassin problems;
*You seem to be in favour of the 4e approach to monster build, which strips away the simulationist aspects of 3E;
*The GM knowing what sorts of things the players are looking for, such as kobolds, is allowed to put them into the gameworld.
It's funny because in our game we began with both a paladin and assassin in the group and it was quite fun. Both classes are themes that don't generally work well with other types - they aren't really constructive to team building/party harmony - so they're better off as not core. They still worked for us and it was fun in game, but it took a good understanding of player intentions vs. character actions.
The 4e monster approach sounds like the pre-d20 monster / demi-human approach. They are fit into ranges rather than constructed with a pseudo-metaphysical design approach. In 3e they may make the functioning of character/monster construction feel simulationist, but are necessarily limiting when ranges work just as well without the difficulty of on-the-fly altering and the "character building" game occurring during the roleplaying game.
You object very strongly to metagame thinking in action resolution, and thus:
*Once the campaign actually starts, all changes occur only as the result of the PC's actions;
*These are modelled by a (more-or-less) simulationist ruleset;
*If and when the mechanics give out, action resolution is handled by the GM's common sense.
Action resolution for me is play. Roleplaying. Trying not to metagame during the play is hard enough without rules that require it.
All changes don't occur as a result of the PCs. It's more like a clock that the DM constructs to model the setting's life giving the feel of a real world going on around the PCs. The PCs are the heroes and their actions cause effects just like in the real world. It's more their choices on how to act and what to do that make them the central figures of the world. Their may be other noble NPCs taking good actions, but they are specific to their personality and goals. The goals the players/PCs choose and achieve define their own heroic realization in the world. They could be heroes or villians, but by being both effectively capable
and oriented to taking action they can realize Player/PC dreams that the common person cannot. There are many interesting ways to generate that proactivity in players, but playing a hero in a heroic adventure game does assume so from the start, IMO.
The GM's common sense is not how the game generally functions well or rules would never be necessary. When mechanics give out GM's rule create to ensure consistency for similar future incidents. D&D isn't hardcore simulationist. It's more "beer & pretzels" simulation with optional breadth and depth as the players intentions require. The Rules Cyclopedia is a good example of the great breadth of rules possible just as many 3e supplementary rulebooks are (environment series, new magics, setting-specific rules, etc.) I have no problem with interesting rules. Cards, dice, magic 8-balls, whatever. If it works for your game, use it. [this reminds me, I should try and include Dread's Jenga tower into our D&D game]
I'm not meaning any of the above to be pejorative, just an attempt at clear description. Hoping that it's not in error, I want to respond to it.
I'm enjoying it and am trying not to be offensive too. Also, instead of just talking about my preferences or my game I'm trying to focus more on the reasoning behind how traditional games, and specifically pre-d20 D&D, were designed. So I'm not just sitting here talking about myself...
I agree wholeheartedly with the first bit about character build and world design. So it seems to be on the topic of action resolution that we have different notions of what is fun in roleplaying and what contributes to roleplaying.
I don't disagree about the relationship between changes and the PC's actions. I think this is what you mean by "player-driven" as opposed to "GM-driven" play, and I agree. (Though a query: suppose the GM has determined that, in the world itself, a certain sequence of events will unfold subject to PC intervention - I use that quite commonly in my GMing, as opposed to a static world - is that consistent with your "player-driven" play? Your reference to "NPC plans" suggests that it is.)
Yes, these are dynamic, not static worlds though I believe they originally were static. Temple of Elemental Evil was one of the first modules with a dynamics designed into NPC actions.
So I think what we are disagreeing over is the simulationist character of the ruleset - I don't object to metagame action resolution mechanics which enable the PCs to "game the system" (as you put it) in order to produce the outcome for their PCs that they, as players, desire. I currently GM Rolemaster - it doesn't have Fate Points, but there are features of the mechanics (optimisation of attack vs parry, adrenal move use etc) which are important for the player's to master if their PCs are to succeed, and which I think you would find objectionable as "breaking in-character play." When I start a new campaign as GM, it will probably be in HARP, which has Fate Point rules. (I wrote something for the Guild Companion explaining how I would integrate the Fate Point rules more tightly with character build and reward mechanics.)
Hey, play either way. I'm for allowing
both options as the OP mentioned at first.
And I admit that I do have a preference for minimising (not excluding, which is impossible) the role of GM common sense. I actually think this is a very difficult issue. If the players and the GM are not all on the same page as to what the priorities in play are, and what the in-game logic of the gameworld is, this can lead to tears and ruptured friendships. My own opinion is AD&D's placing of the GM at the centre in this way is what contributes to AD&D's reputation for producing abusive GMs.
Trusting in the GM vs. the ruleset isn't really isn't an either/or as you say. An abusive GM, under any ruleset, is just as bad as an abusive player who doesn't follow the rules either. The game shouldn't create conflict at the table between players (vs. PCs), but the rules aren't going to stop that conflict.
My 3e experiences before my current group resulted in many of the same problems as in past editions: the rules were held up as the proper authority during disagreements and rule disputes stopped games. If the DM is Referee or Judge, he or she has the final call. The need for fair play won't go away because of a good rulebook. Giving players GM control moves that arbiter position to everyone and slow dispute resolution. "Fair referees" are needed in many games/sports.
My main concern about 4e is that, like 3E, it will assume a default metagame priority of "overcoming challenges" and therefore be difficult to adapt to other flavours of fantasy RPGing (though the social and environmental challenge mechanics may mitigate this to an extent). But I don't expect to be worried by its (likely) increased emphasis on the metagame in action resolution.
IME, Experience Points or Rewards can be given for whatever a group desires. It's hard to imagine that they could be obstructed or made inflexible in any way. XP awarding is one of the most contentious elements as it is metagame mechanical gift for taking action in game. Rulesets include their own valuation of rewards based on what can mathematically be shown to be mechanically challenging. I.e. monsters, traps. "RP" rewards or non-mechanics-based rewards are generally done differently and there are all sorts of ways to handle those.
I've never played a MMORPG. But most of my players do, and they certainly think that tabletop RPGing has things to offer that a MMORPG does not - mostly the capacity to develop plots and explore themes.
Yes, plot control is possible with games whether they are focused on rules or not. I
think this isn't being done with MMORPGs, but Neverwinter Nights and games like Morrowwind(?) attempt to.
I think there is a difference between the sort of illusionism/railroading that (AFAICT - I didn't actually play very much of it) characterises 2nd ed AD&D, and a game in which the players are able to determine certain outcomes in the gameworld other than via simulationist mechanics (eg by spending Fate Points).
It appears to be going the other way. Instead of DM plot control, it becomes Player world control - to the point that in some games the GMs are removed.
I'm happy with your characterisation of Fate Points as giving the players a small part of the GMing role. I don't think that this has to lead to the sort of conflict you describe, however, provided that the effects of Fate Points and the conditions for their use are fairly well described.
It seems to me that, in the sort of play you are describing, the players have to have the utmost faith that (i) their GM will create a world that unfolds in the way they want it to, and (ii) that the GM's common sense, when it comes into play (as it is likely to quite often) will accord with theirs. As I noted above, the failure of either of these conditions will lead to conflict.
Assuming that these two conditions are satisfied, the sort of play you are describing seems aimed at satisfying those who want character/world immersion. The sort of play I'm describing seems better suited either for pure game players (if you look at the intricate mechanics that I've described wrt RM) or those who want to explore particular plots or themes (Fate Points linked to player-defined PC goals help here). I think this last sort of play is quite different from an MMORPG.
Fate Points could be well-defined in the game world, that's certainly possible. It's just they presuppose worlds that include those reality controlling powers. They can certainly work as the "wish" spell works in D&D.
The MMORPG similarity is in the focus on rules that aren't representative of the world. It can certainly be an option for a game, but I don't prefer it to be the only option. IMO, it is popular among newer narrativist game designs and not one that historically represents D&D as a game. I'm asking for historical D&D play to at least remain feasible.
The points 1 & 2 you bring up, I'll get to at the bottom.
EDIT: I read your other thread (about the "Game Police"). As I've said in my earlier post, I doubt that 4e will support your desired playstyle - I think it will move even further away from it than 3E already has, both because it will have Action Points as a core mechanic, and the action resolution rules will themselves be very complex (thus making rules mastery by the players an important part of the game).
Yeah, that title was a joke on the old "dream police" song. Of course there are no real game police. I, like Mallus, want the lingua franca of games to still be able to offer traditional play. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but I do admit accommodating both may constrain game design. Not to mention a rule mastery gained via purchasing game may be more lucrative as a business model.
1. The players have to have the utmost faith that "their GM will create a world that unfolds in the way they want it to"
This is a tough nut to crack. Either the players know the world and how it will unfold beforehand or they are given control of the world during play. Either effectively removes those particular elements from their exploration, the in-game learning of their world reality, and the oft referred to "sense of wonder".
Most of the time addressing players' desires can be taken care of out of game or by a responsive GM during the game. To return to D&D's setting and background creation way back at the top, players' desires can be built into their characters and from those the world. Wanting to play in a Known World I define as desiring a player-known setting. These are often licensed works, or novels, movies, etc. What is in the world for the players is already chosen beforehand. The PC backgrounds mesh with the world what everyone knows prior to play. In Unknown Worlds, the GM can alter those portions unknown to the players to include what they have written in their free form backgrounds. The unknown is explorative without the setting being the draw (though it may become so). While playing in such, the Players/PCs can find their desires by exploring for them.
A modular world vs. a complete one is what I believe 4e's Points of Light may be: a start small, build around the edges gameworld. A modular setting allows flexibility for DMs to incorporate PC backgrounds and Player desires as the game progresses. It requires prep beforehand for most DMs, but it allows on-the-fly creation of the world during play to account for the near unlimited realm of player choices/actions. It expands as the game progresses much like the rules. These are typically unknown worlds as well, but aren't necessarily so as the players may know their backgrounds to actually be true (rather than beliefs) and integrated with a player-known start location.
A complete world, OTOH, tends to work better as a known world. While no gaming world/universe has ever been "finished", they can be massive and highly detailed before play even begins. This detail aids a GM by already including the material for them to know. For Players, a known complete world supports starting high level play. Because the whole world is known, they don't have to learn it as a low or even middle level PC would be doing via adventuring. They can jump right into high level play where that knowledge is so pertinent to affecting the world at their scale. A complete, unknown world is possible, but you might as well incorporate modularity into it to satisfy PC desires in nearby locations.
One house rule we use is expandable PC Backgrounds. Players can continue to write up their backgrounds and, in a way, define the world. These are beliefs about the world, not actualities. Just as the DM runs his world as a character, portraying it as Players portray their PCs, the truth of these beliefs will often look different once discovered. The only real truth is one experience in game. Yet, even so, a ninja with numerous honor duties is just as real as any other character even if their particular belief doesn't reveal every mystery related to it in the world.
The player desires aren't satisfied with an immediate resolution at the game table, but they went looking for a haunted house they would likely find one sooner or later. This is a DM "leaning into the players" style of play somewhat contrary to the advice you can read
here. There is some good, proactive advice there, but I don't believe the game need ask players to play away from their personal fun desires and towards the GM's. Other players' sure.
2. The players have to have the utmost faith "that the GM's common sense, when it comes into play (as it is likely to quite often) will accord with theirs."
GM common sense is rule creation for world consistency. It could just be a description in the world. Or a portrayal of an NPC. The rules don't cover every unexpected event or action possible, so the GM devises them - either most likely beforehand for NPCs or at the table for the Players. In addition, folks can talk about how they think elements in the game aren't working exactly as they like and describe more amenable in-game results. These could refer to the world or even going as far as addressing specific rules or suggesting new rules for what may work better. This "rules as guidelines" approach has in the past morphed games so much some folks publish their own rules as new games. (re: fantasy heartbreakers)
Here are some highlights:
