Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You can't necessarily go back
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6002160" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I am not doing that. Nor, in my view, is Johnny3D3D. In the post that you quote I referred to two possible features of game play that preclude optimisation: (i) absence of a unique "solution" that can be specified independently of the way the players (via their PCs) tackle a situation; and (ii) a variety of approaches available to players (via their PCs) which, via feedbacks and synergies, make the identification and implementation of a single optimal strategy practically, and perhaps theoretically, impossible.</p><p></p><p>When you say "in a given RPG system", I feel you mean "In 3E or one of its d20 derivatives". Other games, with different PC build rules and different action resolution rules, don't exhibit the same features of design. Even 4e differs from 3E in this respect, because complex non-combat endeavours play out via skill challenges, which aren't resolved as a single check against a single DC, and which exhibit both the complexity-engendering features I described above and in my earlier post upthread.</p><p></p><p>And once you get to more overtly "modern" RPG engines, like Burning Wheel, or HeroWars/Quest, this becomes even more evident. BW exhibits a high degree of both (i) and (ii); and HeroWars/Quest exhibits (i) to a very high degree.</p><p></p><p>That PC build is designed for a particular game which is notorious for exhibiting the very features that I and Johnny3D3D are saying are not essential features of an RPG. It's social rules, in particular, are terrible.</p><p></p><p>Again, I feel that what you are describing here is bad GMing, made "necessary" only by bad rules. Your comments have no application, for example, to Burning Wheel or HeroWars/Quest, and in my view no application to 4e either.</p><p></p><p>I can see that this could be a serious issue, and a frustrating one. Happily for me I haven't encountered it, I suspect in part because of the preconceptions and habits of my players, developed playing other games, and in part because of some of the GMing techniques that I use.</p><p></p><p>The player of the warrior/craft PC that I mentioned above plays the wizard/invoker in my current 4e game. That PC has the minimum mandatory combat ability of a 17th level PC, but also has multiple skill training feats, a book imp familiar, uses a lot of rituals, is a Divine Philosopher, and is planning, at epic, to be a Sage of Ages. I think the sort of PC he like to play tends to push towards the limits of what the 4e system can support, but (at least to date!) hasn't broken the game yet.</p><p></p><p>I agree with this, although for me the variety of characters has probably, over the course of my playing experience, been more important than the variety of player types - because building a non-combat specialist in RM or 4e still requires the same technical number-crunching skills that building a combat PC does.</p><p></p><p>I think your comment about promoting characters with skill in more than one are is especially apposite. In my early years of GMing Rolemaster I feel I really got the hang of running a game that created room for, and encouraged, non-single-focused PCs. And had a system that permitted it. (I imagine that GURPS is similar to Rolemaster in this respect). In my games, the main areas of expertise for PCs are combat, social and lore (with athletics/stealth/wilderness exploration a fourth but almost always less important area, just because I have less interest in, and less skill at, setting up that sort of challenge). And my players tend to build PCs that can operate effectively in at least two of these areas.</p><p></p><p>They also develop play techniques for shifting situations into the sort of area they are good at (as a trivial example, the paladin in my 4e game, who is weak at athletics/social, will try prayers and rituals to the Raven Queen to find his way through the wilderness - thus turning the situation into one with a lore/religion aspect). Which, in my experience, helps permit the players to express their PCs' characters, and shape the game in interesting and unexpected directions (eg if you pray to the Raven Queen to lead you out of the wilderness, and she doesn't hear you, but Orcus or Vecna does, what happens?).</p><p></p><p>Anyway, even though we have had different play experiences with 4e, I feel that we are on a similar page on these broader issues about PC build, action resolution, scenario design etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6002160, member: 42582"] I am not doing that. Nor, in my view, is Johnny3D3D. In the post that you quote I referred to two possible features of game play that preclude optimisation: (i) absence of a unique "solution" that can be specified independently of the way the players (via their PCs) tackle a situation; and (ii) a variety of approaches available to players (via their PCs) which, via feedbacks and synergies, make the identification and implementation of a single optimal strategy practically, and perhaps theoretically, impossible. When you say "in a given RPG system", I feel you mean "In 3E or one of its d20 derivatives". Other games, with different PC build rules and different action resolution rules, don't exhibit the same features of design. Even 4e differs from 3E in this respect, because complex non-combat endeavours play out via skill challenges, which aren't resolved as a single check against a single DC, and which exhibit both the complexity-engendering features I described above and in my earlier post upthread. And once you get to more overtly "modern" RPG engines, like Burning Wheel, or HeroWars/Quest, this becomes even more evident. BW exhibits a high degree of both (i) and (ii); and HeroWars/Quest exhibits (i) to a very high degree. That PC build is designed for a particular game which is notorious for exhibiting the very features that I and Johnny3D3D are saying are not essential features of an RPG. It's social rules, in particular, are terrible. Again, I feel that what you are describing here is bad GMing, made "necessary" only by bad rules. Your comments have no application, for example, to Burning Wheel or HeroWars/Quest, and in my view no application to 4e either. I can see that this could be a serious issue, and a frustrating one. Happily for me I haven't encountered it, I suspect in part because of the preconceptions and habits of my players, developed playing other games, and in part because of some of the GMing techniques that I use. The player of the warrior/craft PC that I mentioned above plays the wizard/invoker in my current 4e game. That PC has the minimum mandatory combat ability of a 17th level PC, but also has multiple skill training feats, a book imp familiar, uses a lot of rituals, is a Divine Philosopher, and is planning, at epic, to be a Sage of Ages. I think the sort of PC he like to play tends to push towards the limits of what the 4e system can support, but (at least to date!) hasn't broken the game yet. I agree with this, although for me the variety of characters has probably, over the course of my playing experience, been more important than the variety of player types - because building a non-combat specialist in RM or 4e still requires the same technical number-crunching skills that building a combat PC does. I think your comment about promoting characters with skill in more than one are is especially apposite. In my early years of GMing Rolemaster I feel I really got the hang of running a game that created room for, and encouraged, non-single-focused PCs. And had a system that permitted it. (I imagine that GURPS is similar to Rolemaster in this respect). In my games, the main areas of expertise for PCs are combat, social and lore (with athletics/stealth/wilderness exploration a fourth but almost always less important area, just because I have less interest in, and less skill at, setting up that sort of challenge). And my players tend to build PCs that can operate effectively in at least two of these areas. They also develop play techniques for shifting situations into the sort of area they are good at (as a trivial example, the paladin in my 4e game, who is weak at athletics/social, will try prayers and rituals to the Raven Queen to find his way through the wilderness - thus turning the situation into one with a lore/religion aspect). Which, in my experience, helps permit the players to express their PCs' characters, and shape the game in interesting and unexpected directions (eg if you pray to the Raven Queen to lead you out of the wilderness, and she doesn't hear you, but Orcus or Vecna does, what happens?). Anyway, even though we have had different play experiences with 4e, I feel that we are on a similar page on these broader issues about PC build, action resolution, scenario design etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You can't necessarily go back
Top