Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?

[Thomas Shey]

If you were playing in a Dragon Ball Z type game, would you attack the opponent while they're transforming?

Why would it even be possible in such a game? What purpose would that be serving?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm understanding this is, let's say my character is TEH ICE WIZZARD (the Blizzard Wizzard, if you will). I ONLY CAST ICE! All of my spells are cold themed- "My magic missiles are razor sharp homing icicles!").

Now, upon leveling up, I have the choice between a mediocre ice spell (sadly, in real D&D, that's most ice spells) and an awesome fire spell (second verse, same as the first). If I stay on theme, I'm going to be performing worse than if I had made the sacrifice of flavor vs. power. If I don't, I'm more versatile and more powerful.

Generally, if I want to be a themed character, I want to stick with that theme, obviously. But not all themes are well supported. At some point I would ask my DM if I could learn "freezing orb" instead of fireball or something like that (one of the few cool things in the Wizard playtest is the ability to do just this!).

But assuming they aren't on board with this (for whatever reason), or they can't do it (public play), generally what I do is quietly retire the character because their concept isn't working. I'm perfectly capable of not optimizing, and having fun with lower power options, but often, I worry about pulling my weight in the party, and if I don't think I'm doing that, I'll ask about changing characters.

As an aside, I think this is actually something we lost when specialization stopped meaning anything for most casters; it's a lot of fun to be like "ok, so I'm an Enchanter, what can I do without boom boom magic?". But now, there's no reason for even an Enchanter to not stock a fireball just in case. I miss some of the radically limited specialists in 2e like the Elementalist Wizards (had an Air Wizard once, all I can say, good thing I could use Fire as well!) or the Dualists from the Cormanthyr book (you specialize in 2 opposed schools of magic and can cast basically nothing else. My highest level 2e Wizard is an Enchanter/Invoker and making do with a limited color pallet, so to speak, is a fascinating process).

I did this in one campaign. Adrian Von Basten- the PC in question- had stats to be a Paladin, but was actually a sorcerer with blue dragon ancestry. And he was obsessed with that side of his heritage…

All of Adrian’s damage spells were electrical, including those that normally wouldn’t be.* And with his ancestry, he channeled spell energy into an electrical breath weapon.

If the foes were vulnerable to electrical energy, he was a nightmare. If they were largely immune, he had to whack them with his maul** and let his allies carry the battle.

FWIW, I thought 3.X’s take on specialists was pretty good. My most common specialists were Transmuters, Ilusionists, and Diviners.








* essentially, the DM gave the PC Energy Substitution: Electricity as a freebie.

** The PC had many wrinkles and oddities besides. NOT an optimized DPR build.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

One of the necessary tasks when using a generic system for a specific setting with specific themes is to adjust the game to fit the setting. Otherwise you have a game who's mechanics do not reflect the setting properly, and that includes incentives and limits.

I believe it was either John Wick or Matt Colville who said that the game informs you of the designer's intended style of play by the behaviors it chooses to reward. With this Fire/Stun example, I'm not seeing an in-setting reason to choose one and not the other/both. Nothing was laid out saying that, in this society, the mind is the highest form of Self and anything attacking/modifying that is the worst sin imaginable, saved for the worst of the blackguard. Or that fire is held above, as a sign of the Dawnlord and Giver of Life, that fire is sacred.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I did this in one campaign. Adrian Von Basten- the PC in question- had stats to be a Paladin, but was actually a sorcerer with blue dragon ancestry. And he was obsessed with that side of his heritage…

All of Adrian’s damage spells were electrical, including those that normally wouldn’t be.* And with his ancestry, he channeled spell energy into an electrical breath weapon.

If the foes were vulnerable to electrical energy, he was a nightmare. If they were largely immune, he had to whack them with his maul** and let his allies carry the battle.

FWIW, I thought 3.X’s take on specialists was pretty good. My most common specialists were Transmuters, Ilusionists, and Diviners.








* essentially, the DM gave the PC Energy Substitution: Electricity as a freebie.

** The PC had many wrinkles and oddities besides. NOT an optimized DPR build.

Personally, I love this. I would absolutely let a player do this. As the GM, it's part of my job to adjust encounters and keep things equally fair but interesting. There's nothing wrong with reskinning effects, or monsters, and coming up with in-world lore of why. I'm reminded of Keith Baker talking about barbarians, and reskinning them to be non-tribal. His example, they were essentially super soldiers that were created in Eberron through various alchemical and physical means. They still got all the cool barbarian abilities - it's just that they were some country's Captain America instead of a wilderness dweller.

 

[Darth Solo]

Seems we're talking around the larger issue of what does it mean to "win" here? Different playstyles define "winning" in different ways, just as they would approach "theme" differently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I believe it was either John Wick or Matt Colville who said that the game informs you of the designer's intended style of play by the behaviors it chooses to reward. With this Fire/Stun example, I'm not seeing an in-setting reason to choose one and not the other/both. Nothing was laid out saying that, in this society, the mind is the highest form of Self and anything attacking/modifying that is the worst sin imaginable, saved for the worst of the blackguard. Or that fire is held above, as a sign of the Dawnlord and Giver of Life, that fire is sacred.

I'm assuming its not supposed to be by the nature of the question. I agree with the first sentence here, however. If you're not creating your mechanics to support what you want to happen, you're making a fundamental error.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Seems we're talking around the larger issue of what does it mean to "win" here? Different playstyles define "winning" in different ways, just as they would approach "theme" differently.

Sure. But without reference to a specific player or players, enough of them are going to lean into in-game success to one degree or another its still a legitimate question. The problem is that the OP seems to assume they (in the abstract sense) should not be doing any lifting to encourage this.

 

[GMMichael]

. . . adjust the game to fit the setting. Otherwise you have a game who's mechanics do not reflect the setting properly, and that includes incentives and limits.

I believe it was either John Wick or Matt Colville who said that the game informs you of the designer's intended style of play by the behaviors it chooses to reward. With this Fire/Stun example, I'm not seeing an in-setting reason to choose one and not the other/both. Nothing was laid out saying that, in this society, the mind is the highest form of Self and anything attacking/modifying that is the worst sin imaginable, saved for the worst of the blackguard. Or that fire is held above, as a sign of the Dawnlord and Giver of Life, that fire is sacred.

I don't see that the rules have to fit the setting. Why can't the rules let you do anything, and the setting is whatever the GM wants? Every single NPC will play by the setting's norms*. The question is, then: will the PCs choose to play by the norms? Or will the medieval PCs keep using the crafting rule until they have machine guns?

*provided the game puts most setting-determination in the GM's hands.

 

[Lanefan]

FWIW, I thought 3.X’s take on specialists was pretty good. My most common specialists were Transmuters, Ilusionists, and Diviners.

I found 3e tended to overly-reward specialists of almost any type/class while making generalists quite sub-optimal...which wouldn't be a big deal except 3e kinda demanded a certain degree of optimization in order to keep up with the power curve.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Have you heard of GURPS?

This is why Dungeon Fantasy RPG (Powered By GURPS) is better for playing dungeons and dragons than GURPS is: because it deliberately removes non-genre-appropriate spells (like Teleport and Mana Stone) and abilities from player space[1]. (It also adds some neat monsters and is organized to be simpler to learn and run, but that's not the point I'm making here.)

In the words of the GURPS line editor, DFRPG is a worked example of games you can create using GURPS.

If the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game were actually GURPS, I think [brand fragmentation] would be a worry. But it isn't! It's another game based on GURPS. The universal system already exists but is more system than game . . . what's missing are actual worked examples of games you can create using the system. Creating those doesn't affect the system – even if some of them need tweaks. It's like the guy in my hardware example going out and buying some extra parts for his house, because they weren't in his shop: That doesn't make his shop less useful, and it doesn't mean he needs to start cluttering up his shop with yet more hardware he needed for one specific project.

Unfortunately this "worked example" strategy hasn't really panned out because Reddit: why do people seem to not like GURPS? - Page 4 - Steve Jackson Games Forums

[1] Teleport is maybe not so much anti-genre as... unhealthy for the kinds of adventures that are easy for GMs to run. You can add it back in if you want to approximate high-level D&D play, but high-level D&D play is notoriously hard to write adventures for.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One of the necessary tasks when using a generic system for a specific setting with specific themes is to adjust the game to fit the setting. Otherwise you have a game who's mechanics do not reflect the setting properly, and that includes incentives and limits.

It's mildly unfortunate that the GURPS community tends not to do this--GMs should select which advantages and skills are available as part of setting development, adjust point costs to shape the genre ("in this setting, Magery costs 25 points per level instead of 10" to make magic more rare; "ST is half-price because guns are available"), etc.

In practice the tendency (not universal but common) is to give players access to all the GM tools, using the point costs given for the default metacampaign in GURPS Basic, or whatever point costs are in whichever supplement the advantage was first introduced in. Then GMs use an ad hoc veto or Unusual Background to increase (never decrease) point costs to taste.

IMO it's kind of a mess, and I wish the community were more oriented around using GURPS to construct games instead of trying to play with GURPS directly. Even just handing a new player a list of 20 advantages he's allowed to buy is an improvement over having them pore over an (alphabetical!) list of dozens of advantages like Altered Time Rate and 360-degree Vision that are mostly irrelevant to them and illegal to buy.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure. But without reference to a specific player or players, enough of them are going to lean into in-game success to one degree or another its still a legitimate question.

This, because it's a role-playing game, and so role-playing survival instincts is something most players will want to do. It's not about "winning", it's about getting into the character's head.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't see that the rules have to fit the setting. Why can't the rules let you do anything, and the setting is whatever the GM wants? Every single NPC will play by the setting's norms*. The question is, then: will the PCs choose to play by the norms? Or will the medieval PCs keep using the crafting rule until they have machine guns?

*provided the game puts most setting-determination in the GM's hands.

Because that's putting an unfair amount of psychic stress on players: you're asking them to roleplay characters, but to do it in a way that doesn't break the challenge of the game. They have to constantly hold the Idiot Ball and do illogical things.

It's unpleasant.

Would you rather play a dungeon crawl as (1) a character who has the ability to kill anyone, anywhere with just a thought, but is expected not to use it unless the party is about to TPK; or (2) a regular character who doesn't have that ability?

I vote #2.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I don't see that the rules have to fit the setting. Why can't the rules let you do anything, and the setting is whatever the GM wants? Every single NPC will play by the setting's norms*. The question is, then: will the PCs choose to play by the norms? Or will the medieval PCs keep using the crafting rule until they have machine guns?

*provided the game puts most setting-determination in the GM's hands.

Why do the rules need to fit the setting? Because ONLY the GM will ever have the full, complete picture of the whys behind things. There is no amount of Session Zero you can spend that will answer every social more, every social norm. The GM needs to define it or players won't know that's info they didn't have.

I'll give you an example. In 7th Sea, all the Vodocce swordsmen get the Left-handed trait for free. Mechanically, it's a trait players need to buy because it gives them bonuses in swordfights. The Vodocce get it because their nation is underhanded and specifically looks for every advantage they can - so their swordsmen get it. The Camraderie trait is cheaper for the people from Montaigne, the French analogue, because it gives a bonus to an ally and that is really the Three Musketeer vibe.

 

[MarkB]

I don't see that the rules have to fit the setting. Why can't the rules let you do anything, and the setting is whatever the GM wants? Every single NPC will play by the setting's norms*. The question is, then: will the PCs choose to play by the norms? Or will the medieval PCs keep using the crafting rule until they have machine guns?

*provided the game puts most setting-determination in the GM's hands.

Adventurers tend to be exceptional by definition. They don't follow the norms, they don't do what most other people in the setting do, they face challenges greater than most others ever will and they find solutions that others wouldn't dream of.

By giving them a system with no limits you're leaving them to guess how far from the norm they're allowed to stray before you deem them unthematic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's mildly unfortunate that the GURPS community tends not to do this--GMs should select which advantages and skills are available as part of setting development, adjust point costs to shape the genre ("in this setting, Magery costs 25 points per level instead of 10" to make magic more rare; "ST is half-price because guns are available"), etc.

I agree with all but the middle one, only because playing with costs is full of unintended consequences. I'm not going to ask people to be game designers.

But you do need to be aware of the implications of the rules you're using; if you want X to occur, and X is discouraged by the rules at hand, you're throwing out perverse incentives.

In practice the tendency (not universal but common) is to give players access to all the GM tools, using the point costs given for the default metacampaign in GURPS Basic, or whatever point costs are in whichever supplement the advantage was first introduced in. Then GMs use an ad hoc veto or Unusual Background to increase (never decrease) point costs to taste.

IMO it's kind of a mess, and I wish the community were more oriented around using GURPS to construct games instead of trying to play with GURPS directly. Even just handing a new player a list of 20 advantages he's allowed to buy is an improvement over having them pore over an (alphabetical!) list of dozens of advantages like Altered Time Rate and 360-degree Vision that are mostly irrelevant to them and illegal to buy.

There's a danger there of compressing the options so much that players feel they can't differentiate their characters enough. But I do agree you need to purge useless and/or campaign undesirable elements when setting one up, though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This, because it's a role-playing game, and so role-playing survival instincts is something most players will want to do. It's not about "winning", it's about getting into the character's head.

I think its more than that; like it or not the combination of the fact many people still don't ignore the "game" element, most people are not setting out to play incompetent characters, and in-character they not only want to survive but to succeed.

To automatically expect none of these to matter is to expect a particularly narrow approach to RPGing which is, I think, unreasonable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree with all but the middle one, only because playing with costs is full of unintended consequences. I'm not going to ask people to be game designers.

It's a consequence of what Steve Jackson said to Sean Punch as reported at Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post - Advantages Are Not Utility Priced

"To be fair, I know as a fact that in GURPS, First Edition, advantages were indeed priced for desired rarity in the game, not for their utility. I know this because the designer [Steve Jackson] told me! Combat Reflexes is far more useful than most 15-point traits and many traits worth quite a bit more, but it's priced cheaply because it's common in adventure fiction and not meant to be rare. Warp costs more mostly because it's an outré superpower, and just about always rare when it's innate rather than technological."

From this I infer that if you want different rarities than the default metasetting, you should change the point costs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think its more than that; like it or not the combination of the fact many people still don't ignore the "game" element, most people are not setting out to play incompetent characters, and in-character they not only want to survive but to succeed.

To automatically expect none of these to matter is to expect a particularly narrow approach to RPGing which is, I think, unreasonable.

I was speaking for myself. I don't mind "losing" a game (if it did I would be a terrible GM, because my job is basically to lose over and over), but I dislike having to roleplay incoherently. As GM I have enough control over scenarios that I can give my NPCs reasons to do what I need them to do, but as a player I have no control over the world, so if you don't give me a reason to behave recklessly to the point of suicide I as a character probably won't, even if I as a player would probably enjoy it.

Nasty hole in the ground filled with snakes and monsters? I probably won't follow the lone NPC down the rope to look for treasure there unless I'm, like, broke and starving. So give me a better reason, or make me broke and starving.

 

[aramis erak]

Sample scenario: my game provides two low-level spells that cause damage. Fire does physical damage while Stun does mental damage. Physical damage is by far the most prevalent, so most combatants (animals and monsters included) have physical protection that reduces damage. Mental protection is rare. While Stun takes twice as long to cast as Fire does, it does a smidge more damage and faces less resistance.

If you're a fighting wizard (as opposed to the scholarly kind) would you stick to a wizardly spell like Fire, or capitalize on the potential of Stun despite its more psionic flavoring?

As a GM, I always prefer theme.
As a player, not as much. If the mechanical choices are not clear, I'll stick to the thematic, but if it comes down to a clear pick which will keep the character on-goal/on-task, I'll go for the clear choice, even if non-thematic.

In the case of Psi vs Magic, I reject the distinction when it isn't clearly mechanically enforced. If Psi uses the same mechanics, same rules, and same character access, it's one unified thing with two names, and there is no thematic different to be enforced.

The corollary and predicate is that I draw theme from the mechanics, not the fluff.
VTM 1e isn't about angst, no matter the fluff; it's about power structures, growth into monsterhood, and hidden societies, as that's what the mechanics actually convey and reward.