jonathans last blog post..Open Game Table: Clarification and Discussions

Discussions can be continued here.

Great discussion one and all

(As opposed to background mechanics like the character novels from Spirit of the Century, which are story building tools, but they primarily make building a coherent party of adventurers easier. I’m considering doing something like that in my next Eberron game.)

I’ve generally found story building mechanics to be, outside of games that are designed to railroad a party through a specific story, at best unhelpful and at worst counter productive.

Of course for my story games, I generally want my combat and my action rules to be simple but robust and my everything else rules to be as minimalistic as possible. (This is why I never ever used those stupid reaction tables in earlier editions of the game, much to the distress of the Diplomacy build half elf uberbard in my last campaign. )

I’ll let each one post once more and I’ll close the comments at 10h00 PM.

I’ll open a Forums thread to continue the discussion and link to it from here.

Edit: I need to add, thanks for the vigorous activity, it was interesting to read.

No, it seems like it’s a core book with more tools than 3.X core books had, and little room to add anything more.

No. In my opinion they had no such responsibility; furthermore I feel that “storybuilding” and “mechanics” are nigh unto mutually exclusive terms. How does a feat add to the story? Was my Halfling Theif in AD&D not “sneaky” or “agile” because he lacked those feats? Was my charismatic cavalier not an effective leader because there was no “leadership” feat?

“And I can certainly critique 4E for not having more– they had 3 years to realize where the storybuilding tools were missing. They told me in at least one excerpt/preview that there *would* be new tools. Aside from skill challenges (which I can fully slap my palm to my forehead and say, “well, duh!, of course they’re being integrated into my 3E game) what do they provide? Pawning it to the setting rules does us no good– there’s no setting to draw from. I’m sincere in this request: What do they provide for storybuilding in 4E?”

My point is that other than skill challenges, what else does 4E give us? Nothing. They say “you don’t need it!” when the point is that some tables certainly do need more, and they had more from 3E.

I’m saying this:

A lot of storybuilding tools were developed for d20 in the six years before 4E design got into full swing. *None* of those tools seem to have made it into 4E. A lot of shiny new combat mechanics did get incorporated. Doesn’t that seem just a little unbalanced and driving the focus of the game more towards combat? Didn’t the designers have a responsibility to add more of those storybuilding mechanics to the game so that new players would see the benefits of all that additional development?

@Tommi: I’m saying that those two characters might be optimal for completely different tables. If they’re at the same table, then their GM has responsibility to create a playstyle that accomodates both and keeps both interested and involved. That’s his job, not the system’s.

I don’t think 3E has to be combat-centric, it’s just the path most of us are very familiar with, and so it becomes the path of least resistance. Your suggestion of two pools of resources is interesting, and in a sense we’re halfway there– more skill points and a seperate category of “skill feats” in addition to “combat feats” would probably go a long way to giving a lot of tables the extra tools that might inspire more non-combat driven story.

-Ben.

Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz

The 4E skill system is made to act as “mechanics [that] help design situations, [that] aid players and ease the abstraction.” At least, thats how I read it when look through my PHB. (Although, I confess, I have not yet purchased the DMG or MM.)

I have to ask.

Did you completely miss the skill challenge system in 4e? This sounds like the exact thing you’re advocating.

I’m confused by your arguments.

I don’t *need* a mathematical formula to determine the outcomes, I find it very useful in setting a challenge, in drawing in a player who might not otherwise attempt that kind of interaction– those tables and skills begin as “gateway tools,” giving newer or less outgoing players a tool they can grow from and develop those skills.

If I have some kind of social encounter that I’ve set up with DCs and circumstance bonuses and situational modifiers and a few easter eggs and my table’s resident Method Actor steps up and improvises the right dialogue and the proper responses and draws in the right people and does a proper bang-up job, I’m not going to roll anything; I’m going to give it to him.

If the Tactician, who’s usually more at home directing combat but wants to grow the officership side of his marshal tries his hand at the same situation but stumbles a bit, is obviously a little uncomfortable, but wants to experiment with it, then I’ll suggest a couple of rolls for related skills pertinent to the discussion, and if he does decently, give him the hints. Then, if he struggles a little more, I can let him roll his diplomacy. If he pushes through it and does decently, I’ll ask him for a roll that’s anything but failure… the mechanics are useful here, but not mandatory.

For the table that’s all hardcore Powergamers that I’m trying to expose to the possibilities of social interaction encounters or non-combat tension encounters, I can ask for some related skill checks, let them work together but keep it abstract, eventually asking for N successes out of N+X players…then I use some prose to string the checks and discussion along briefly, showing how I can incorporate their planning or actions into an explanation that results in the roll and the consequences… doing this every once in a while, I might get one of them to try a few other aspects of the game.

I think the idea of those guidelines is counterproductive to you because it sounds like your group is solidly in the first example, so you just blur right past the need for guidelines. I’m not always so lucky when assembling a table and time spent rolling and playtesting those mechanics myself is time not spent designing campaign.

“This was something I first addressed in Post #2 (above). Roleplaying is, to me, when the participants assume the roles of characters. They adopt and act out the role of the character, like a part in a play, and give life to their characters’ personalities, motivations, and backgrounds.”

Right, but better defining those backgrounds, motivations, and personalities with tools like feats, hooks, and skills helps players who might not be so accustomed to designing characters and allows them to make more robust character personalities.

“That doesn’t require mathematics, it requires prose. I don’t think that the “Leadership” or similar feats from 3.x were good for roleplaying. They were a mathematical kludge that let your character make freinds and influence people…”

I say mechanics, not necessarily mathematics…two different things. What you saw as kludge, I saw as devilish hook and opportunity to springboard a character and the party off on occasional sidetreks for assistance and growth. Leadership is the best gift a player can give his GM.

“I hate to use the term, but that strikes me as “Roll Play.” You are letting the math determine how your character interacts with soceity, rather than letting the story (”roleplay”) make that determination.”

Hopefully I’ve demonstrated that, no, I don’t need mathematics. I’m looking for mechanics to help design situations, to aid players and ease the abstraction. Being told to “wing it” all the time ain’t cool for a table of newbies. Many times, they’re more likely to pull back into their shell than risk, especially if they’re just trying something that they were uneasy with to start.

-Ben.

Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz

But that’s beating a dead horse.

I think a combat-centric game should not force anyone to make the choice between character that is capable in combat and one that can do things outside it. Forcing the choice is, IMO, bad design.

Tommis last blog post..A mediocre session and some inn-fighting

I’ll continue to post periodic debate articles as I see the series is very popular.

I got one lined up already…

Yes we can agree; However were we disagree is whether or not they belong in the core book. It is my opinion that they do not. Alternate genres do not belong in the core rulebook(s). I can use Star Wars D6 to run a perfectly good Aliens game, or even a game of pirates on the high seas. Those aren’t in the main rulebook because the game is Star Wars.

“Are you saying that the Sword and Sorcery genre is meant to be nothing more than that? That at its very source, the genre is just a long, blood-smeared blur from one fight to the next, pausing for an occasional breath of less brutal interaction and a good ale?”

No, not at all. What I am saying is that sword and sorcery focuses on action and adventure. Their is room for action and adventure gaming where violence never appears or is a minor part of the story. Consider the Indiana Jone movies, lots of action and derring-do, not terribly much in the way of combat. The Musketeer novels of Dumas, thrilling action-packed yarns ALSO renowned for their drama and character depth. Same for Elric and (the non-movie) Conan.

The key difference between your veiw and mine is that you see to require a mathematic system to detirmine social or other non-combat encounters. To me, that is counter productive to a good roleplayign experince. The math should only come into play when there is a question of luck or randomness. That is why we have dice. Anythign that doesn’t require mechanical randomization should have no die rolls, and thus requirs little to no content in rulebook.

This was something I first addressed in Post #2 (above). Roleplaying is, to me, when the participants assume the roles of characters. They adopt and act out the role of the character, like a part in a play, and give life to their characters’ personalities, motivations, and backgrounds.

That doesn’t require mathematics, it requires prose. I don’t think that the “Leadership” or similar feats from 3.x were good for roleplaying. They were a mathematical kludge that let your character make freinds and influence people…

I hate to use the term, but that strikes me as “Roll Play.” You are letting the math determine how your character interacts with soceity, rather than letting the story (“roleplay”) make that determination.

D&D4E doesn’t lack tools to encourage roleplay, it recognized that they weren’t needed and chucked them out the airlock.

One character is more optimal for a table where combat is a much more frequent encounter …

and the other is more optimal for the table where non-combat RP encounters might be proportionate to combat encounters.

It’s very much a playstyle choice and I think both are valid. I just think the system shouldn’t discourage one over the other. A lack of tools for one sort of table is an indirect, perhaps passive hopefully accidental discouragement. Maybe new supplements will rectify that. We’ll see.

-Ben.

Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz

My root complaint is that 4E is not giving you those additional baseline mechanics. They failed to incorporate the lessons learned from 2000 to 2006. They just looked at their own sandbox and said, “We’ve got some power creep and a lot of complexity, not to mention some choices that don’t have a lot of impact beyond character creation. Let’s fill those holes and give everyone some cool new shovels and buckets to play with.” They didn’t say, “Hmmm, there’s a lot more out there that’s been done with the old engine. What can we add from those variants to make this new system more inclusive, more robust, truly improved? How do knock this out of the park for everyone at the table, and not just the the guy itching for initiative?” If they’d tackled this edition with the latter sort of vision, I’m willing to bet you’d be hearing a lot less rhetoric and flame. RPGs have evolved over the lifetime of 3E; the 4E designers had a responsibility to incorporate what they felt were the best aspects of that evolution to create a greater incarnation of the game. Instead, we got a sleeker, sharper tool perfect for face smashing and equipped with a handy bottle opener at the handle for a few cold ones after the fact.

Are you saying that the Sword and Sorcery genre is meant to be nothing more than that? That at its very source, the genre is just a long, blood-smeared blur from one fight to the next, pausing for an occasional breath of less brutal interaction and a good ale? [I exaggerate some here, but only a little..well I think we can always include the ale ] I read more than that in Elric. I think Conan’s wits were just as important during his days as a thief as his swordarm was to his time in the armies of Aquilonia as his force of personality was in kingship. To me, S&S means wondrous fantastic settings, rough and grim battle, conflicting rulers who range from petty to noble, powerful and often mysterious magic, codes of honor and treachery, and a rich world full of characters that create relationships– all of which drives a hero’s growth through interaction and choice (but don’t forget the ale). Pace was a matter of choice, the sort of action a point of taste, the framework most certainly mythic and fantastic. None of it precluding the playstyle I suggest.

I’m not saying that there *must* be a focus on romance, mystery, comedy–any of the aspects you mentioned, but the system should be able to support spotlights turned on those facets, and with everything that’s been developed, it ought to shine. The fact we started slow in the 70′s, made little progress in the 80′s, foundered a bit in the 90′s and began getting the picture recently does not absolve the system of the responsibility to grow and mature while remaining accessible. I might buy an expansion if it meets the need, and I don’t mind rolling my own, but I’d like there to at least be a touch of guidance on how those home–grown mechanics might best develop. We don’t get that guidance, and that’s disappointing.

-Ben.
edit: (Forgot to sign.)

Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz

Do you notice how the (3rd edition) D&D rules create a dichotomy: Realistic and optimised characters (or well-roleplayed and powergamed characters) look different.

Still, D&D is, and has been, a game where the rules focus on combat. IMO all characters should be capable of contributing meaningfully in combat, but in different ways (this is what combat feats do). Ideally there should be another pool of points that can be used on noncombat feats and abilities.

This would mean that there is no (false) dichotomy between roleplayers and powergamers and further all characters would have to take some noncombat stuff, hence forcing people to think about their characters outside the scope of combat. (And groups only interested in combats could ignore the noncombat material).

On sword and sorcery: Personally, I think D&D created a new genre of fantasy. It has fairly little resemblance to S&S that I have read (Conan, some Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, and possibly Tad Williams’ Memory, sorrow and thorn). There are significant differences in both the fiction and structure of the stories.

Tommis last blog post..A mediocre session and some inn-fighting

Michael Moorcock’s Elric, Fritz Leiber’s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Robert E. Howard’s Conan…

Many sword and sorcery tales have been turned into lengthy series of adventures. Their lower stakes and less than world-threatening dangers make this more plausible than a repetition of the perils of epic fantasy. So too the nature of the heroes; most sword-and-sorcery protagonists, peripatetic by nature, find peace after adventure deathly dull.

So is it with D&D heroes… at least at the beginning of a tale. Dozens of adventures to save the village, slay the dragon, or recover the MacGuffin. Oh, eventually these all get knitted togther into a save-the-world plot, but not always.

An element of romance is often present in swords and sorcery, but it is rarely the focus. Mystery, epic fantasy, mythology, comedy, history, even religion or politics are often roped into serving as a secondary influence in some swords and sorcery stories… But the heart has always been fast-paced action.

Every edition of D&D (including Chainmail, all versions of Basic, both AD&Ds, 3.x and 4E) have begun as sword and sorcery romps. This has been by design. Every edition (save Chainmail) has seen supplements that have allowed it to be used for other genres. AD&D’s “A Mighty Fortess,” for example, turned it into a historical game. “Spelljammer” turned it into a space opera. “Dark Sun” turned it into sword and planet (a la Baarsoom). “Forgotten Realms” and “Dragonlance” turn it into an epic fantasy. “Eberron” into a pulp adventure game.

Fast-paced, action-rich tales set within a quasi-mythical framework. With hints of romance, mystery, and exploration. Dungeons. Dragons.

If you want more than that, buy an expansion book or roll your own. It has been ever thus.

Your comment’s first paragraph completely represents the reasoning that has me concerned. Not *all* threatening situations should be combat oriented. Feats should be more than combat tricks. They give insight to a character’s personality and interests. They represent a mechanical method for creating a robust character and providing benefits during play. The disregard you’re expressing for noncombat feats reinforces my point– the game has taken an active, intentional, and large step towards making the core focus of a session smashing in the face of the enemy and taking his stuff. In my mind, that’s a step backwards from the variety of playstyles available in 3E.

RE: Skills, I would say then, if your wizard is hiking all over the land, he should be putting skill points into climb or swim and not into Knowledge (Arcana). [Concentration and Spellcraft are probably dependent on how much he's been casting lately] The party’s fighter isn’t improving his Spellcraft or Knowledge (Planes) because his player is making a metagame decision– “It costs me too much of a limited resource to have my character be very good at that skill. I’ll limit this character to what he can do ‘untrained’ in everything but the skills I choose.” You’re starting down a simulationist path here…be careful… Allowing characters to advance skills that they’ve used relatively little between levels is a conceit that we just accept as part of the game– because having it reflect the skills used during adventure arcs would spread the points even further. If we really wanted a system that fit your concern, we’d be doing something like Ars Magica or Shadowrun, where a session’s experience is spent to advance skills used in the adventure.

In 3E, we most often focused on specific skills out of metagame choices that GMs permitted us to perpetuate. The division of skills that you mention exists because we want our characters to be heroically good at something, so we drive particular skills to those god-like levels. Honestly? If you want a “better” distribution? We probably shouldn’t be allowed to spend skill points on skills we aren’t using every session. Being forced to put skill points into skills most used, even in RP, between levels would probably spread the ranks out and require us to carefully consider how we set DCs for many skill checks. That whole ‘practice makes perfect’ adage.

Again, I’m ok with the possibility of failure– tragic defeat is just as good a story as triumphant victory in my book, as long as we’re all agreed to that possibility going into the game. The simulationist in me cries out, “you know what, there are things you *suck* at doing!” and I have to agree. By allowing everyone a (pretty) decent chance of success you devalue the specialist. Opportunities to shine are important. Following that, if it’s unimportant, why force the roll? As a party crosses a river on the way from the city of Anywhere to the hamlet of Nowhere, I don’t demand swim checks. Some success and failure is implied there– someone had a harder time, a pack might have gotten away only to be picked up on the shore a little later. I don’t need to get into it, but I can color the travel text with that sort of detail and move on. When the character is knocked overboard by raiders during a storm? Heck yeah, you’ll be making that check and the wizard’s academic focus in the library is going to become obvious compared to the coastal-raiding fighter as one skates the check and the other character’s failure produces a fantastic source of tension. That’s my gripe here– in softballing the difficulty and whitewashing the skillsets, they have eliminated a source of tension that gives sessions electricity. Not having a skill forces characters to find different solutions, and that also drives sessions. Sticking a party in a bottleneck where the absence of skill precludes story progression is a GM failure…not a system failure.

…I’m still fairly certain our playstyles are different, just in the differences I’m noting so far. I think mechanics are good in and out of combat, just enough to give the proper framework for the table to run smoothly. I want the diplomacy table, but I want a list of various circumstance bonuses that might apply. Not a lot. Not the Annotated Grimoire of NonCombat Situations, but suggestions, ideas, things to enhance the system that are perhaps given as possibilities and left as an exercise for the reader. Some tables may not need them at all, others might gobble them up, and still others might spin them out into full fledged subsystems. In drastically simplifying the mechanic *and* failing to provide me *any* springboards, I’m left with a system that again…pushes me to brawltastic solutions.

The scenarios you’re describing 1 and 2-4 are, in my opinion a result of this combat focus… we’ve been given adventures for a long long time that drive you toward the goal of smiting the enemy. The RP encounters are subordinate filler between fights…almost akin to cut scenes in a Final Fantasy game. It takes some trial and error, and it’s not for everyone, but spinning up adventures where there is *no* combat is possible, and it can be a good time with folks who are engaged and into it. Think of the Murder Mystery Dinner Parties– at no point is anyone urged to stab a fellow participant, but a very exciting time is certainly possible. Unfortunately, though, it requires a lot more effort or practice on the part of the GM and a table that finds it fun. I think that in your first point, the GM wants an illusion that failure is possible– a sort of “make them sweat” situation that fails, because the players realize that this isn’t too tough, and so they’ll phone it in with some handwaving and a few die rolls. In the second situation (covering points 2-4) I think that player might see the softball coming and wants to spin it up. He wants to turn the cakewalk into something more, and now that throws the GM off balance– the GM often responds as you say, cranking DCs, having the situation deteriorate, driving the situation towards failure. The unexpected nature of the Trickster’s action frustrates the players who anticipated their encounter, who had seen it as a cut scene and vehicle to the point in the story that they wanted to reach. I think it’s the delay, (and possibly) the consequence of that whackadoo action that really anger those other players.

What needs to happen in those situations is that the GM has to be ready to roll with it, to realize the needs of the story, the game flow, and improvisationally jujitsu the Trickster’s attempted derailment and turn it into the entertainment he’s looking for without permitting the table to go into the weeds. That’s a tough skill, and it’s one that you can never perfect. There are several devious minds to the GM’s one (often sleep deprived, overworked, possibly unsuspecting) mind. Some days, that bear is going to get you.

In response to your summary, I find that combat can just as easily be the mistake of one party member. Groups lacking tactical focus that blunder into fights because of player bravado shouldn’t be able to scapegoat a clever GM. GMs have a responsibility to either lay a fair table when it comes to combat, or give the party the adequate opportunity to demonstrate the better part of valor. In RPing, players and GMs need to approach the encounters appropriately and with as much consideration as a combat. There are combats you can handwave, and RP events you can flippantly phone in with tabletalk. The key becomes the ability to identify which RP encounters are there for transition and which ones are vital to the progression of the story. When you’ve got the mechanics available to make those RP encounters just as engaging as the combat ones, you’re certain to find the players far more invested in how they play out. Right now, the absence of tools within 4E to create that investment means that as long as you are comfortable with just freeforming RP interaction and leaving it to the method actors and storytelling types to drive, then 4E will suffice. If you want to try drawing in your other player types and engaging everyone in RP events such that they become invested, well… 4E is going to leave you wanting.

-Ben.

Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz

Sounds like something Hitler’s nazis would say! Damn fanbois.

…kidding!

Gah, I can’t believe I actually used the word “fanboi”. Yeesh.