Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[catsclaw227]

That's a bad analogy. It's more like a classic rock band from the 70s who experimented with keyboards in the 80s, replaced its lead singer in the 90s, lost a few more members and tried a different sound entirely in the 00s, and now is trying to go back to its roots and rediscover its original sound.

Sounds like the new Yes. Or wait... the new (still to come) Anderson, Rabin, Wakeman.

 

[pemerton]

But my point is that the players need to trust that I will do this. It might not be immediately -- or in the case of a player-entitled group that demands control, it might not happen in their prescribed timeline -- but it will happen because I want my players to feel important and to have fun.

I know that not everyone is a Forge fan, but Ron Edwards had a nice comment in a thread there that is very close to what you are saying, and that has had a big infuence on my GMing:

Content authority - over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom

Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material - and look out, because within this authority lies the remarkable pitfall of wanting (for instances) revelations and reactions to apply precisely to players as they do to characters

Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example . . .

For instance, in [a particular] game, I scene-framed like a m*-f*. That's the middle level: situational authority. That's my job as GM in playing [that particular game]. . . players can narrate outcomes to conflict rolls, but they can't start new scenes. But I totally gave up authority over the "top" level, plot authority. I let that become an emergent property of the other two levels . . .

I think [another poster's problem with his game] has nothing at all to do with distributed authority, but rather with the group members' shared trust that situational authority is going to get exerted for maximal enjoyment among everyone. If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . .

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.​

You and Edwards are both right that, if the GM is going to have prime responsibility for setting up the situations that the PCs confront, and if this is going to work, then there has to be trust that the GM will set up situations that are worth anyone's time.

Don't waste my players' time with worthless scenes is one of my guiding mottos as a GM these days.

 

[catsclaw227]

I know that not everyone is a Forge fan, but Ron Edwards had a nice comment in a thread there that is very close to what you are saying, and that has had a big infuence on my GMing:

{scary.....} I don't know cr*p about GNS theory and mention of the Forge seems to bring about quite polarized responses from people, so I am not sure if it's good or bad to evoke similar thoughts...

But I think.... thanks?

You and Edwards are both right that, if the GM is going to have prime responsibility for setting up the situations that the PCs confront, and if this is going to work, then there has to be trust that the GM will set up situations that are worth anyone's time.

Don't waste my players' time with worthless scenes is one of my guiding mottos as a GM these days.

With this, I agree. If the players are trending towards a particular encounter (the local sheriff or squeezing info from a bard) that I didn't plan for, I'll do my best to execute it.

But might also have some scenes I have planned that are important and I want to nudge them towards these scenes because they might be relevant to what they are looking for. Trust me, I want the game to be fun.

Actually I might be the opposite of RBDM, though I can also be deadly.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Actually I might be the opposite of RBDM, though I can also be deadly.

The distance between RBDM and "Jerk DM" is not always some fine line, but can instead be vast. I'm nice to the players most of the time and about most things because I'm going to be a RBDM when it comes to tempting them into bad situations. If I pulled those kind of stunts and then, for example, got all picky on some minor flaw in their stated course of action, when I knew darn well what the intent was, then that would jump sheer into "Jerk DM" territory.

 

[JohnSnow]

Interestingly, though, if you make these changes then I'm not sure the game will really have the OD&D feel.

I think that Mearls got that reasonably right in one of the earlier Legends and Lore columns:

Right from the beginning, we have a nice encapsulation of the relationship between fighters and wizards. Fighters protected wizards, who eventually became the most powerful characters. A sleep spell was often the difference between victory and defeat in the early days. Thus, wizards were carefully protected by fighters and other characters to preserve them for just the right time to take down a whole mess of monsters.

On the face of it, this might seem like a bizarre way to design a game...

In the early days of D&D, and to some extent through 3rd Edition, death was a cruel, capricious mistress...

In this situation, play skill focused more on your ability to come up with a good plan or figure out the clues that pointed to a hidden trap or treasure. Character power was at the whim of the dice, making the concept of building your character largely irrelevant. Aside from choosing class and race, you had few decisions to make. How you played your character, rather than how you built it, determined your chances of success.

Against this backdrop, the disparity between wizards and fighters make sense. The fighter was akin to playing in easy mode. You had more hit points, better AC, and access to weapons. All things being equal, when it came time to use the rules to determine if you lived or died, the fighter had a leg up at low levels...

In some ways, playing a magic-user was like opting for hard mode.

When you think about the game in those terms, the disparity starts to make sense. If you played in easy mode, you had a better chance of survival but a lower ceiling of power. In hard mode, you ran the risk of losing a character in exchange for a shot at accessing powerful spells.​

I think you're right that the core 5e game will try and put fighters and wizards on a par. But I wonder if there will be a module which lets you use them in the style of OD&D "easy mode" and "hard mode".

Oh, I agree. And I don't think you (or Mearls) is wrong here.

However, that's ONLY true if a new PC must always start the game at 1st-level. To stick with Mike's analogy, playing a magic-user and skipping those early "hard-to-survive" levels is basically playing D&D using a "cheat code."

I acknowledge that "phenomenal cosmic power" is, in a way, a suitable reward for a player who's opted for hard mode AND played the character all the way up from 1st-level (something which Gary Gygax, at least in the 1st Edition DMG, advocated as the ONLY way to play). However, the way things work now, your character just comes back, or he gets replaced by a new character of the same level (or nearly so). Heck, whiny multi-class players of 3e complained about how they were "gimped" if they lost even a single caster level. Can you imagine their reaction to being 3 or 4 levels behind? So in practice, the reward of high power exists without the player having to pay the opportunity cost to acquire it. That's bad.

By the way, the same argument explains what's wrong with the 3e cleric. The cleric, with his good armor and weapons, pays very little (no?) cost of any kind in exchange for all of his (quite substantial) spell power.

I think that's why most campaigns throughout the history of D&D have typically ended by around 10th level (or shortly thereafter). It allows the magic-users to come into their own, but they are not yet so ridiculously powerful that the fighters and their ilk are irrelevant. In other words, if fighters are substantially more powerful than mages at 1st level, the situation has slowly equalized and is tilting the other direction by the time you hit 10th-level. And somewhere in there, the game stops being fun.

 

[catsclaw227]

However, that's ONLY true if a new PC must always start the game at 1st-level. To stick with Mike's analogy, playing a magic-user and skipping those early "hard-to-survive" levels is basically playing D&D using a "cheat code."

OMG!!!11!!! AD&D was sooooo videogamey!!!!!

[shake][stagger]GASP... What just happened to me....? It must've been some mystical EnWorld Spell[/stagger][/shake]

POST 4000!!!!

 

[catsclaw227]

[MENTION=47839]Saracenus[/MENTION] Thanks. It only took me about 8 1/2 yrs...

How do some of these guys get 10K posts in like 3 years?

 

[WheresMyD20]

D&D is Neil Young.

...then said screw America and left for Europe.

Oh wait, that's Toto...

Sounds like the new Yes. Or wait... the new (still to come) Anderson, Rabin, Wakeman.

Actually, I didn't have a specific band in mind when I made that analogy. I can't think of a band that's been around since the 70s that hasn't changed members or experimented with a new sound. The fact that everyone came up with different examples just proves the point.

Just about any rock band that's been around for a really long time usually goes through a pattern of starting off with a classic heyday period, then they start experimenting and trying to keep up with the changing mainstream tastes, then they eventually decide to try to rediscover the sound of their heyday period. Not every band follows this pattern, but many of them do.

That's were I see 5e trying to go... there was the garage band period (OD&D), the classic period (AD&D 1e/2e), the keeping up with the mainstream period (3e), the experimental period (4e), and now we're starting the rediscovery period (5e).

 

[Grazzt]

I can't think of a band that's been around since the 70s that hasn't changed members or experimented with a new sound.

ZZ Top...at least musician wise anyway.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Just about any rock band that's been around for a really long time usually goes through a pattern of starting off with a classic heyday period, then they start experimenting and trying to keep up with the changing mainstream tastes, then they eventually decide to try to rediscover the sound of their heyday period. Not every band follows this pattern, but many of them do.

Chicago. Not that their hearts were really in it during the experimental stage. I saw them in concert during that time. Of course, if you have a horns sections, and are bound and determined to pitch the trombone part above the trumpet and sax for a distinctive sound, that is going to limit how mainstream you can get. Works great for modernizing the Big Band sound though.

I could get behind D&D as Chicago.