The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[The Shaman]

Someone throw BryonD some XP for me please!

*clicky-clicky!*

*pop! "You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "

A human being adjudicating the results of actions undertaken by other human beings is the spark that makes TTRPGs so great. Attempts to replicate the effects with heavier mechanics or a computer always seem to fall short of the real thing.

Do gamers these days not understand the concept of learning by doing? There may be some awesome naturally talented DMs out there who were born knowing how to run great games but I suspect the majority of the very best learned how by running games, finding out what worked, what didn't and applying that knowledge.

A ruleset that assumes the mediocre will produce exactly that.

*clicky-clicky!*

*pop! "You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "

 

[BryonD]

See, it's that whole "progress" thing that I wonder about. I've seen more than my share of experienced DM's not progressing a whole heck of a lot.

All I can say is: I'm sorry.

I'd given up creating stuff for 3e a long time ago. 3e is the game I'll only run modules in and it had been that way since shortly after the release of 3.5. Just too darn much work otherwise. I find creating adventures in 4e to be a whole lot more fun.

Obviously, YMMV.

What is this "work" you speak of?
I love the time I spend "creating".

Just as a side note, I'm still strongly of the opinion that running a module REALLY WELL takes just as much time as creating your own.

 

[ExploderWizard]

See, it's that whole "progress" thing that I wonder about. I've seen more than my share of experienced DM's not progressing a whole heck of a lot.

Me, if I have to choose between the poor DM who gets no guidance and is expected to adjudicate everything by his gut vs the poor DM who has a whole system designed from the bottom up to support him and help him out, I'll take the latter thanks.

Then again, I'd much rather play game systems I know I can trust. 3e is fantastic for this. I can trust 3e. It has a rule for everything. Unfortunately, for me, it has a rule for everything and everything has a rule. To me, 3e is great at being 3e and as soon as I try to do something that is outside it's presumptions it becomes a great big hassle.

Again, for me, 4e works better for this. Again, solid system that I can trust but has enough built in flexibility that lets me build the campaigns I want to run much more easily.

I'd given up creating stuff for 3e a long time ago. 3e is the game I'll only run modules in and it had been that way since shortly after the release of 3.5. Just too darn much work otherwise. I find creating adventures in 4e to be a whole lot more fun.

Obviously, YMMV.

I have never understood the trust issue with regard to a game system. I trust the people I game with or not. If I trust the people then the system doesn't matter. If I don't trust the people then no game system will help mitigate that lack of trust.

My default assumption is that everyone is there to have fun and not be a jerk. If experience proves otherwise then that information becomes important if gaming with the same people again is a possibility.

There is no system worth playing with a jackass.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have never understood the trust issue with regard to a game system. I trust the people I game with or not. If I trust the people then the system doesn't matter. If I don't trust the people then no game system will help mitigate that lack of trust.

My default assumption is that everyone is there to have fun and not be a jerk. If experience proves otherwise then that information becomes important if gaming with the same people again is a possibility.

There is no system worth playing with a jackass.

So true!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Very entertaining but just a substitution of one mechanical formula for another.

Is meaningful player input truly a lost art?

No, of course not. The players decide what they do and that changes how the world interacts with them. It's very hard not to do that unless you're on a railroad and have something like the obscure death rule.

And as for not understanding the concept of learning by doing, there's also the concept that practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. Most people start out as less than mediocre - and it's at this part that the ruleset supports them and gives them a launching ramp. And there are ways that an experienced DM simply won't mess up. Giving what is essentially a pretty good practice framework is therefore useful to a starting DM.

It's like martial arts. Do you produce better swordsmen by giving them blunt swords, a basic lecture, and telling them to flail away, or do you produce better swordsmen by giving them decent frames, telling them how to hold a sword, and what useful cuts are, and giving them katas to work with?

 

[MrGrenadine]

Then again, I'd much rather play game systems I know I can trust. 3e is fantastic for this. I can trust 3e. It has a rule for everything. Unfortunately, for me, it has a rule for everything and everything has a rule. To me, 3e is great at being 3e and as soon as I try to do something that is outside it's presumptions it becomes a great big hassle.

Again, for me, 4e works better for this. Again, solid system that I can trust but has enough built in flexibility that lets me build the campaigns I want to run much more easily.

Thats an interesting perspective from the DM side.

From the player side, my feeling is the complete opposite--I find 4e much more inflexible in terms of character creation and progression.

Would that the next version of D&D serves players and DMs equally.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have never understood the trust issue with regard to a game system. I trust the people I game with or not. If I trust the people then the system doesn't matter. If I don't trust the people then no game system will help mitigate that lack of trust.

If I do not trust the game system, I find it almost impossible to roleplay a character who is routinely put into stressful situations. If I'm playing a wizard regularly fighting for his life then you bet I'm going to in character use every spell I can get my hands on that has a disproportionately strong effect in the important matter of keeping my friends and myself alive.

Out of character I won't exploit the rules too badly. I won't use broken builds. But in character unless there is some damn good in character reason not to do so I will use every dirty trick I can lay my hands on. It is quite literally a matter of life and death (at least in character). Or I could play a character who doesn't care about dying - but those tend to be short lived.

My default assumption is that everyone is there to have fun and not be a jerk.

Indeed. But if we have a broken system I'm basically there to have fun hanging out. If I try playing any sort of spellcaster in a broken system, my DM's going to be tearing his hair out in handfuls if I want to actually roleplay - and access to magic is almost as bad. And expect some of the rest of my group to do the same. If I trust the system I can relax and enjoy myself without worrying about being forced to choose between stepping out of character and upsetting the DM. (Or playing someone with a death wish).

It is precisely because I'm there to have fun and not be a jerk that I worry about trusting the system. A bad system forces me to choose between the two.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I find 4e much more inflexible in terms of character creation and progression.

My feeling exactly.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Heh

The bard makes +19 diplomacy attack against the ogre's 26 diplomacy defense. He gets an extra +2 for having the Soapbox feat.

He normally does 1d8+9 points of damage (the ogre has 29 dedication points before he becomes disillusioned). However, he gets an extra +3d6 because the rogue is in bantering position. And then he scores a critical hit doing a grand total of 3d8+27+3d6. He rolls high and scores a total of 50, completely switching the ogre to their side of the battle.

No, of course not. The players decide what they do and that changes how the world interacts with them. It's very hard not to do that unless you're on a railroad and have something like the obscure death rule.

In that example (funny as it is) what player input is there beyond rolling dice? In the example given the decision of the player only impacts what dice to roll.

If the player were to receive a bonus to hit or damage based on information about the ogre relayed by the player during the description of the action then you might have something. That would affect the resolution of the situation based on relevant information used to advantage. It isn't something that can be chosen as a build option prior to play. It comes from the moment and the players ability to affect it due to quick thinking.

Put simply, if it can be quantified on the character sheet then it doesn't count.

And as for not understanding the concept of learning by doing, there's also the concept that practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. Most people start out as less than mediocre - and it's at this part that the ruleset supports them and gives them a launching ramp. And there are ways that an experienced DM simply won't mess up. Giving what is essentially a pretty good practice framework is therefore useful to a starting DM.

It's like martial arts. Do you produce better swordsmen by giving them blunt swords, a basic lecture, and telling them to flail away, or do you produce better swordsmen by giving them decent frames, telling them how to hold a sword, and what useful cuts are, and giving them katas to work with?

With such a dismal outlook it is indeed a miracle that so many DMs ran great games before such support structures existed.

 

[avin]

I find interesting that Hussar trusts 3E for DMing... don't get me wrong: been there, DMed a lot. I loved to play 3.5 but absolutely hated to DM. Broken spells, grapple rules, I still have nightmares.

On the other hand, 4E shines in therms of rules consistency (lacking a lot in disbelief suspension, IMO, tho). In fact, constant rules updates anti combos (and CB/MB) is what sold 4E to me.

But it's a strange love... I like 3.5 more than 4E, by miles (it just give me less headaches...)

That said, I take no side on D&D these days... I got burned by 2E, 3.5 and 4E. Playing GURPS until 5E shows up, and having lots of fun