Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Raven Crowking]

To put it in forge terms, narration rights are assessed at character creation, not during play.

I use a mechanism to allow narration rights during play (legacy mechanic). That said, I otherwise completely agree with you.

RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Maybe we should consider that a one dimensional dungeon of walking dead which is forced onto the player in the first adventure, might not be the best dungeon mastering.

And you solve this for the newbie DM how?

I'd imagine making it so that a suboptimal choice by the DM doesn't completely hose a bunch of PC classes is probably a good move.

Also, I've never known a first time adventurer to recognize that his character sucks.

In his first combat? Probably not.

Over the course of his first session? Absolutely.

I can't tell if that means anything or not. Did you start the newbie at a high level of play?

Actually, it was a low-level session.

 

[gizmo33]

One Side: "When I DM, the players decide stuff. Because, you know, I let them."

But they let me DM. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any players on the other side of the screen. So by your logic, AFAICT, they decide stuff.

And the "mutual consent" and all of that is not just semantics, it's really at the heart of the issue. Sure, you could solve the problem using rules that would keep the DM and players from having to understand each other. Or at least solve a particular problem. But if you play long enough, IMO, you find that no rule set can anticipate every problem that can arise from a mismatch between player and DM expectations, and it would help both sides to understand how these things contribute to the problem before launching off into some rule change that's supposed to be a fix.

 

[Nifft]

But they let me DM. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any players on the other side of the screen. So by your logic, AFAICT, they decide stuff.

Hey, look, it's the rest of my post! Yes, no kidding.

And the "mutual consent" and all of that is not just semantics, it's really at the heart of the issue.

That's what I was saying. Our argument has devolved into mere semantics.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Celebrim]

And you solve this for the newbie DM how?

Ideally, by showing and telling them how to DM. Introductory modules are very good for this.

I'd imagine making it so that a suboptimal choice by the DM doesn't completely hose a bunch of PC classes is probably a good move.

Impossible. The DM is a completely uncontrollable factor.

In his first combat? Probably not.

Over the course of his first session? Absolutely.

At low level play? With a predefined character? I don't see how unless the DM absolutely set out to screw him over. At low levels, there is really nothing in core that can be considered a completely 'sucky' character. Perhaps a 1st level Bard (for not being good at anything) or Wizard (for being brittle) would qualify, but a 1st level rogue? Even if you never get to sneak attack the whole session, you are still as good of a combatant as anyone but a fighter classed individual. Did the DM not call for one skill check over the whole course of the adventure? Nothing was hidden and had to be found? No doors had to be picked? No ambushes had to be dected? Did the player not enjoy tumbling all over the place? Nothing had to be climbed? No surfaces had to be balanced on? Nobody had to be bluffed? The player didn't try his hand at pickpocketing the drunks in the bar? Rogues are fun to play for new players. Your ancedote just doesn't match up with my experience so we are at a bit of an impasse.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Impossible. The DM is a completely uncontrollable factor.

However, you can design the rules such that a newbie DM creating a classic adventure scenario (Descend into the crypts and retrieve the foozle!) doesn't completely hose his equally newbie players.

At low level play? With a predefined character? I don't see how unless the DM absolutely set out to screw him over.

Yep - now, I totally agree that the DM could have done a better job in statting the pregens. On the other hand, the very fact that the DM must be careful when statting the pregens to keep one character from being relatively useless* might just be indicative of an issue.

* - Relatively useless in combat, at least. DR 5 is tough to overcome when your weapons are daggers and a shortbow and you don't have much of a Strength bonus.

At low levels, there is really nothing in core that can be considered a completely 'sucky' character. Perhaps a 1st level Bard (for not being good at anything) or Wizard (for being brittle) would qualify, but a 1st level rogue?

The fact that you just went on to demonstrate two particular classes that should not be handed to newbies, I think, goes a long way in illuminating my points.

Did the DM not call for one skill check over the whole course of the adventure? Nothing was hidden and had to be found? No doors had to be picked? No ambushes had to be dected? Did the player not enjoy tumbling all over the place? Nothing had to be climbed? No surfaces had to be balanced on? Nobody had to be bluffed? The player didn't try his hand at pickpocketing the drunks in the bar? Rogues are fun to play for new players. Your ancedote just doesn't match up with my experience so we are at a bit of an impasse.

Of course there were skill checks aplenty over the course of the adventure. Unfortunately, the rogue's player didn't show up for the rest of the adventure; his first session was, in fact, that bad (apparently). IIRC, he spent a lot of time in combat unconscious because he tumbled into useful flanking posiitons but lacked the hit points and the AC in order to stick around for more than a round or two once he got there. Tumbling into useful flanking positions also has a tendency to move him away from the clerical support.

Remember, we're dealing with a classic D&D scenario: The party starts at the dungeon entrance*, which, in this case, is one of those extensive underground mausoleums just teeming with the restless dead.

Would he eventually get to find the trap and pick the lock? Yes.

However, how much table time is devoted to those activities rather than combat in your average D&D game? I suspect that the time is much more heavily weighted towards combat. And when you're a low-level rogue, spending a lot of time in combat with undead sucks.

* - In point of fact, the party did not start at the dungeon entrace. It started way back in town, and we had lots of interesting encounters on the way to the dungeon. Like I said, the DM was usually a pretty good DM. The rogue's player joined is mid-campaign for a single session. However, from the rogue's player's perspective the travel from town to the dungeon was handwaved, exactly as it was done over the course of multiple games in which I've played over the years (including some computer games, as well!).

 

[Celebrim]

However, you can design the rules such that a newbie DM creating a classic adventure scenario (Descend into the crypts and retrieve the foozle!) doesn't completely hose his equally newbie players.

I don't see how. There is always something a DM can do to make things not fun.

On the other hand, the very fact that the DM must be careful when statting the pregens to keep one character from being relatively useless* might just be indicative of an issue...The fact that you just went on to demonstrate two particular classes that should not be handed to newbies, I think, goes a long way in illuminating my points.

I've probably played more than a dozen game systems, and I can't think of one where you can't make bad choices that lead to weak or 'useless' characters. Nor have I ever played in a game system where DM and player expectation can't conflict and result in a party useless for an adventure even with (and maybe especially with) very good RPers. In particular, I remember showing up for one session where the adventure turned out to be 'infiltrate the KKK' and everyone had created a character that belonged to a non-white ethnic group - including a semetic jew, a korean, and a black rastafarian. Needless to say, the planned campaign never materialized even with a group of some of the best players I've ever been around. There is IMO no way to have a gamable system with a variaty of player creation options and insure that PC skills will match up well with challenges except good communication between the referee and the players during character creation and rock solid DMing. And even then, 'bad sessions' can happen if only do to insanely bad luck of the die. I've had first time players die within 15 minutes. That's uncomfortable.

However, how much table time is devoted to those activities rather than combat in your average D&D game? I suspect that the time is much more heavily weighted towards combat. And when you're a low-level rogue, spending a lot of time in combat with undead sucks.

Certainly can. Which is why you need to design variaty into your game. This is true of every game system, and not anything particular to 3.X. The only system where it wouldn't be true is where all character options had no advantages or disadvantages compared to any other character option. That strikes me as somewhere between impossible or - if no real options are offered at all - boring.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't see how.

It's rather simple. Don't make basic, fundamental abilities of character classes useless in fairly common situations.

I've probably played more than a dozen game systems,

Congratulations.

'infiltrate the KKK'

Ah, yes - that most common of D&D adventure tropes ...

EDIT, for further explanation:

Look - I understand that there's nothing the rules can do to keep DMs from throwing wacky, off-the-wall situations at their PCs and that those PCs may be horribly unsuited for that situation, as your example amply demonstrates (though, even then, hints of Blazing Saddles may have saved the day ...).

But we're not discussing the esoteric.

We're talking about almost the most popular D&D adventure set-up ever: get a macguffin from a tomb, which is probably guarded by a foozle.

Because it's a tomb, you're going to end up fighting lots of undead. The foozle himself will be undead, or possibly an evil cultist who is responsible for the undead you're fighting.

Is there any DM who has not run a delve-into-a-tomb, fight-the-undead-guards adventure at least once?

This sort of adventure marginalizes at least one base class during the most time-intensive part of the D&D game: combat. It says, "Sorry, rogue, your combat abilities are not going to be useful for quite some time."

3E does this adventure better than earlier versions, because the rogue at least can use a mace proficiently (but, even then, there are issues).

That does not mean, however, that I don't believe 4E has room to do it even better.

 

[Celebrim]

It's rather simple. Don't make basic, fundamental abilities of character classes useless in fairly common situations.

You think that is simple?

One of a rogue's 'things' is that they are a trap finder. It is a basic fundamental ability of rogues and without it, it just wouldn't feel like D&D. But the common situation is 'there are no traps'. Maybe one encounter in 10 is a trap. So its entirely possible that several sessions will go by where one of the rogues basic fundamental abilities is useless.

One of the cleric's 'things' is 'good against undead'. It is a basic fundamental ability of clerics and without it, it just wouldn't feel like D&D. But the common situation is 'there are no undead'. Sure, you might have a dozen encounters in a row that are with undead, but you could also go for sessions at a time without encountering a single one. So, one of the basic fundamental abilities of cleric's is useless. And that's to say nothing of the fact that a cleric can reasonably want to take 'Extra Turning', the 'Sun Domain' and other things to be extra good against undead. But, if no undead show up, all that is wasted.

Conversely, as we've noted, if they do show up then the rogue is going, 'Heh, wait a minute. Now my ability is useless'. And if the traps show up and no rogue, then everyone is going, 'Heh, it's a trap. Almost all of my abilities are useless!'.

The more options we give characters during character creation/advancement, the harder it is going to be to insure this doesn't happen. Characters are going to want to play 'Pyromancers', only to meet up with fire elementals that are immune to thier main attacks. Characters are going to want to play demon hunters, only to find no demons to fight for a long time. Characters are going to want to play con artists, only to find no social situations for a long time. Characters are going to want to play masters of the outdoors, only to be stuck in ruins for sessions at a time. Characters are going to want to be sneaky, only to find no outlet for thier sneakiness. And so forth.

Ah, yes - that most common of D&D adventure tropes ...

It wouldn't be hard to site similar failures of communication for D&D. A classic example would be everyone shows up with an evil or shady PC and wants a gritty crime game, except for one or two players who wants to play noble Paladins. Or, the DM plans for the PC's to work for an order of Paladins, only everyone shows up with the D&D equivalent of Hannibal Lector. Open ended character creation can always lead to problems. I had one GURPS campaign that fell apart because everyone had showed up with characters that had no heroic motivation and expected me to supply it for them. One character was literally a paranoid recluse whose player expected me to find a reason why he wouldn't be afraid of the other characters. On top of that, several players had created players whose loyalties were at cross purpose to each other. So not only was the group actively try to avoid adventure as a whole, but the individual characters were actively working against each other and trying to avoid each other. Even this might well have worked with extremely active players that were willing to create thier own stories, but they weren't and eventually I grew tired of the problems of story flow.

What really gets me about the cited example is that the DM was responcible for creating both the adventure AND the character.

 

[Celebrim]

(though, even then, hints of Blazing Saddles may have saved the day ...).

In a horror RPG?