Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Raven Crowking]

Wik,

If you're not happy with something, you have a perfect right to change it. And, yes, that means not running a game you don't enjoy running. You can offer to run something you would enjoy, and, if your friends are into it, great. If not, running nothing is better than running a game that has become a chore.

Best of luck with whatever you decide.

RC

 

[LostSoul]

Sure - it's because I and those I game with use D&D for 'challenge based' play, since I find it suits that manner of play well but not others (though pemerton has made a good case that 'bang-based' story/moral choice based play can work with it, too - haven't tried that, yet). For this type of play, the GM needs to be, at the moment of actual play resolution (i.e. not while building encounters or setting any houserules required, if any), focussed on beating the players, tactically. The encounter is set up to make this a generally losing proposition, of course - but making the best tactical fist of the situation is important, to give the players the best "challenge" to overcome.

Thanks. That's how I imagined it working: the DM working off of one set of responsibilities while building encounters, and another in the moment of play.

I don't think that this is the only way to run challenge-based play with a DM (I'm not sure that's what you're saying). The "DM as impartial arbiter" can work, but you need to create a setting that will result in challenging situations for the players to deal with. Eero Tuovinen does a good job of explaining it here: Challenge-based adventuring

 

[nedjer]

Sure - it's because I and those I game with use D&D for 'challenge based' play, since I find it suits that manner of play well but not others (though pemerton has made a good case that 'bang-based' story/moral choice based play can work with it, too - haven't tried that, yet). For this type of play, the GM needs to be, at the moment of actual play resolution (i.e. not while building encounters or setting any houserules required, if any), focussed on beating the players, tactically. The encounter is set up to make this a generally losing proposition, of course - but making the best tactical fist of the situation is important, to give the players the best "challenge" to overcome.

With other play modes - explorative "setting simulationist", for example, this focus is not only not required, it is actively harmful. For that style of play, however, I won't be using D&D, as I find it a poor system for that type of play. Ususally we will be using HârnMaster, Traveller or maybe GURPS for that.

That's a shamefully hijacking of the term 'challenge-based' that diminishes challenges to the level of tactical rules-mastery. Hand it back now A challenge is conquering a nation or colonising a planet; not beating up orcs and stealing their copper pieces.

And wtf? with playing just setting simulationist or just . . . I want to do challenge-based, exploratory, diplomatic, intriguing, horror and mystery . . . in the one system at the one session. And double to the GM who skips any one of them.

 

[TheUltramark]

I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify my positioning on feelings of entitlement and 4E rules. Disclaimer: This is all speculation on my part and is subject to interpretation. I hope to receive the benefit of the doubt.

Theoretical scenario: A human-sized zombie knocks a 10-ton hydra prone to the ground. Rules say it happens. DM and/or one or more player believes it shouldn't happen narratively, and nobody created a houserule in advance because nobody anticipated this.

In a real game, if you're fortunate, everyone's already on the same page (all "pro-rules", or all "pro-narrative" like TheUltraMark's game) OR, just as well, nobody really cares one way or another and a decision is made with minimal fuss. Otherwise, there are only 3 options:
a) the rule is used as is
b) the rule is negated
c) the DM and players reach some sort of compromise

We still use C - but the final say rests with whoever has the pencil (is the DM)

This is basic conflict resolution, and it only goes completely smoothly if nobody takes it personally. However, if you have two or more people who are passionately at odds with each other, it's possible that at least one person will be unhappy with a contrary resolution. It takes emotional maturity to handle conflict resolution without making it personal.

or at the very least, enough maturity to not ruin the gaming experience for the rest of your group

Intentionally or unintentionally, 4E is actually very clever in its design, because clear-cut rules not subject to interpretation help to reduce the risk of arguments and interpersonal conflict. That is, if everyone respects the rules exactly as is, without the messiness of human adjudication, then the rules say the zombie knocks the hydra prone, and there's nothing to argue about, it's a fact and it's nothing personal. Due to page 42 of the DMG and other elements, 4E rules will never be entirely non-discretionary, but arguably less so than in earlier editions.

I think I am going to call our homebrew D&D 4/2 (4th edition mechanics, with 2nd edition narrative)

Some people (including myself) are simply not at their happiest when playing 100% by the rules when they're not perceived to be ideal rules for that moment in play. In a game where fun is the ultimate goal, the happiness of the group as a whole unquestionably supersedes any one rule (IF the two are incompatible).

perfectly put!

The bad news: Finding that optimal happiness for the group is an art, not a science.

.

lol - if you want science go play checkers????

 

[pemerton]

The "DM as impartial arbiter" can work, but you need to create a setting that will result in challenging situations for the players to deal with. Eero Tuovinen does a good job of explaining it here: Challenge-based adventuring

Am I right in thinking that this was quite influential on your design of your hack?

 

[LostSoul]

Am I right in thinking that this was quite influential on your design of your hack?

Yep!

 

[Lanefan]

That's a shamefully hijacking of the term 'challenge-based' that diminishes challenges to the level of tactical rules-mastery. Hand it back now A challenge is conquering a nation or colonising a planet; not beating up orcs and stealing their copper pieces.

Yet the big challenge is made up of many smaller challenges, each of which is made up of smaller ones yet; until you get down to the point where the here-and-now challenge at the table is simply to get those coppers out of those Orcish pocketses in the safest way possible.

Lan-"I'm challenged enough already"-efan

 

[nedjer]

Yet the big challenge is made up of many smaller challenges, each of which is made up of smaller ones yet; until you get down to the point where the here-and-now challenge at the table is simply to get those coppers out of those Orcish pocketses in the safest way possible.

Lan-"I'm challenged enough already"-efan

Awh, the wee ickle baby challenges

An aircraft carrier may be made of a million nuts and bolts, but it's only the flight deck that gets on the TV

 

[Balesir]

That's a shamefully hijacking of the term 'challenge-based' that diminishes challenges to the level of tactical rules-mastery. Hand it back now A challenge is conquering a nation or colonising a planet; not beating up orcs and stealing their copper pieces.

Yeah, the words are not really ideal, but the language is poorly fitted to describe such things as we find ourselves describing. If I call it "gamist" folk will leap to all sorts of alternate definitions that have been "appended" to that word, in the context of RPGs. If I call it "snargle-based", on the other hand, no one will have a clue what I'm on about (including me!).

I'm really thinking in terms of "challenge" as in "you are challenged to a duel". In that sense - a (succession of) challenge(s) laid down and either accepted or declined - I think it fits pretty well.

And wtf? with playing just setting simulationist or just . . . I want to do challenge-based, exploratory, diplomatic, intriguing, horror and mystery . . . in the one system at the one session. And double to the GM who skips any one of them.

If you want to try that, I wish you well. After over 30 years of playing (including GMing) roleplaying games, I am convinced that you can only do one of the "core foci" really well at any one time. Either the players are focussing on the immediate challenge, they are focussing on the fabric of the setting, characters and/or situation or they are seeking out moral themes in the game at hand. I find that trying to mix these leads to confusion and, often, frustration. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Balesir]

I don't think that this is the only way to run challenge-based play with a DM (I'm not sure that's what you're saying). The "DM as impartial arbiter" can work, but you need to create a setting that will result in challenging situations for the players to deal with. Eero Tuovinen does a good job of explaining it here: Challenge-based adventuring

I'm sure it's not the only way, but it is a functional way. Eero's article was interesting, but building a world that players build their own challenges out of seems unneccessarily complicated, to me. I would do that sort of thing for simulationist play, maybe - but, even there, it is simpler to conspire with the players beforehand to set up the situation we all agree we are interested in. Same with challenge-based, for me - it's simpler just to ask/discover through discussion what the players are interested in before creating the setting and challenges. That way, everyone ends up doing less work!