Over the years I have gone through phases of mixing with other gamers, going to conventions, dabbling in organised play, trying out different RPG clubs & games.  My experiences may not be as extensive as others but are probably more than most (by virtue of age if nothing else).  I have met many types of gamer, introduced more than my fair share of people to RPG (how many still play is another question), from all walks of life,  gender (male, female, trans), lucky, unlucky, supra-genius, below average, very rich, very poor, clueless, clued-in, space cadets, ground control-freaks and everything in-between. 

So I think I have acquired some wisdom about gamers and gaming.  Somewhat arrogantly, I thought I would share this wisdom.  If we all shared the values I’m about to list I’m sure we’d all have better gaming experiences.  All of the points are linked to a greater or lesser extent, some may appear to duplicate but I think that they also stand-up for themselves.  I’ve added a few extra comments to clarify what is uppermost in my mind for some of the points.  There are other values that can be derived from each point too but rather than point them out I’ve left them as fairly plain principals.  In no particular order:

Point 1: Be optimal, don’t optimise

Point 2: Play to the spirit of the game

Point 3: Be friendly

Point 4: Explore and be rewarded

Point 5: Participate – be an active & interested player.

Point 6: Commit – don’t be flaky: turn-up, bring your character sheet & dice!

Point 7: Invest – time and, where needed/possible, money.  Learn the basic rules.

Point 8: Be creative – use your imagination, role-play, contribute to your gaming experience.

Before 4e came out I was playing v3.5 and before that v3 and before that OD&D.  I didn’t really play much 2e for various reasons, not least being our group had become so frustrated and tired of the idiosyncrasies of 1e AD&D we switched to hybrid of Rolemaster (mechanics) and AD&D (magic).  This worked brilliantly, but was horrifyingly complicated and tended to breakdown skill-wise at high level.

When 3e came out it reinvigorated our gaming group and we played with renewed enthusiasm.  After a while problems began to emerge with overpowered feats & spells, buffing etc.  Then v3.5 came out and fixed various problems but still left some residual problems of power creep and the buff-dispel variations (end fight in Red Hand of Doom was the final proof of that I think).  All-in-all the game, unless ruthlessly controlled by the DM, was prone to breaking down at high level (12th+).  These problems inevitably lead to discussions on how these problems could be fixed, disillusionment, house rules that variously helped and hindered.

Then 4e came out and the mechanics of the game changed.  There were a number of innovations that were excellent and I wouldn’t want any future versions of the game to leave them out, such as balanced character classes meaning they are all (not just wizards and clerics) are worth playing at high level, skill challenges (had some fun with them), encounter design for DMs (so easy), monster amendments & design (so easy) and action points all stand out as worthy additions to the game.

Other aspects whilst OK gave rise to odd game effects: healing surges, so why bother with random encounters while travelling (why bother with travelling between adventure locales would seem to be the 4e response)?  I quite like the idea of healing surges so you can keep things going but it does mean you have to pack a lot into an adventuring day to challenge/threaten PCs.  Rituals: good idea but some more flexibility in casting times would have been a good idea to make relevant rituals more castable in an encounter or during an adventure (a simple knock spell for example takes 10 minutes to cast, who is going to stand in front of a dungeon door for 10 minutes chanting?).

There are some elements of the game that were removed in 4e that I sorely miss: save or die effects, energy drain & negative levels for example.  Not too much but some things itch.

On the whole 4e is a good game but clearly too much changed for many people from v3.5 (see Pathfinder’s success).  It looks like D&D Next might bring some of these things back (as optional rules) and I hope they do as no doubt I will transition to the new game when it comes out.  But I have a feeling that this is too little too late for D&D and Next will just further dilute and fracture the FRP gaming base.  Pathfinder will continue the v3 legacy, some won’t transition from 4e, some will move onto Next and there are still all those guys out there playing OD&D (go guys, enjoy those weapon speeds, resurrection survival checks and level-limited demi-humans).  In some parts of the world, outside big cities, its already hard enough to find players and further versions of D&D won’t help this situation.

What I have found interesting is the difference in gaming that this age gap has produced.  I’m probably over-analysing the situation but I have noticed a difference in styles and expectations.  I have observed a certain expectation for information, clues, etc to be served up on a plate.  I have also noticed a certain prevalence for optimisation, or crunch over fluff at least.  Most strangely of all I’ve noticed a certain lack of adventuring spirit: I’ve never seen D&D players actively avoid so many adventuring hooks.

Maybe it’s just this group but it seems to be trait that is endemic to a number of random people from different parts of the country but all of a similar age.  Another similarity, however (I am getting to point here), is computer games.  OK, it’s not a robust theory as not all members of the group are computer gamers but most are and most have come to tabletop RPG from computer games.    As an old (school) gamer, I got into RPG through books and to a lesser extent films.  This was the same for all my contemporise as there were no decent computer games!  This, I sense, is where the generational differences lie.

This is my theory – I’m sure others have written along similar lines – how you get into RPG affects how you play, your expectations from the game.  Some of my expectations were formulated through the advice provided through 1e DMG and other products.  Here it was made clear that whilst D&D was a roleplaying game it was a balance between roleplaying and gaming.  Sometimes players would have to think and solve problems for themselves and sometimes in character.  Today players seem reluctant to think things through for themselves.  Perhaps they are unwilling to put forward creative ideas for problem solving as this is not their expectation for the game, informed as they are by scripted computer games?

Another aspect of my expectations come from literature and story-telling in that sometimes you have to follow the story to get the rewards and other times your interaction with the plot lines can re-direct the story taking everyone down a new path.  I have recently experienced players ignoring story lines or missing hooks.  Why?  Because there were gaps in the story that either needed investigating or filling by the players’ actions.  Their expectation was that the plot would be presented, information provided and success guaranteed.

Maybe I’m just with the wrong group of gamers (I live in a small town however) but I find this gap in expectations frustrating as I can’t seem to engage my new group as well as my old group.  Why should this be so?  My theory is that our gaming expectations are different because we have come to RPG from different experiences.  I wonder how these differences can be resolved..?

And I do mean years. 

The concept of an axe-wielding religious fanatic female elf was one I had imagined playing since my days of playing RuneQuest (3rd edition) in the dim and distant past – a short infatuation, the gradual realisation that the mechanics for character development were painfully slow and that too many bizarre fights with characters unable to move as their left leg had run out of hit points (joy of hit location tables) saw pay to that game. 

Nevertheless, RuneQuest did give me a healthy respect for religious fanaticism (this seemed to be the best way to progress in RuneQuest) and the Gloranthan campaign world came with the most sophisticated pantheons and religions.  Amongst the many gods of Glorantha was the elven goddess, Bebeester Gor, whose domains covered revenge and (oddly) drunkenness.  Her initiates and priests were axe-wielding agents of destruction and I’d waited years for the right opportunity to roll out this backstory replete with two-weapon swinging female religious fervour.

Only recently my on-line group started a new 4e campaign set in the High Forest of the Forgotten Realms.  Even better the characters were to begin as residents of a small elven village.  What better time to dust off my Bebeestor Gor background?  What’s more the 4e avenger was the perfect class to reflect Bebeestor Gor’s domains.  OK, I’d have to crowbar Bebeestor Gor into Forgotten Realms mythology – not a problem, I made her one of Angharradh’s children (she and Correllan had many) and thus whilst Dara would extol the religious fervour of Bebeestor Gor she would draw her divine power from Angharradh.  The only down side would be that I would have to ditch my two-weapon wielding idea as avenger’s don’t lend themselves to using smaller weapons – I did consider changing her to a religious ranger but then when else would I play and avenger?

So Dara the avenger of Bebeestor Gor took form in my mind and commenced her adventuring career.  Things went well for a few sessions; she wrought much vengeance against a tribe of bullywugs that were bringing great offence to the elven community and Angharradh.  In the final encounter the elves mounted a raid on the bullywug base.  It was a difficult battle and though many bullywugs were slain, Dara fell victim to a mud lord and three woeful death saving throws later she lay dead in the mud.

So my character was dead in 4e.  I thought it might be impossible.  OK, the party is 1st level but we had a leader, I’d used my second wind, so how had this happened?  I was slightly shocked, slightly disappointed (after all I’d spend some effort on my character background and I could see no prospect of a raise dead at this level), yet slightly happy that death was still a feature of the game and perhaps I should still be fearful when my character wades into combat?

Nevertheless, despite dying, I never thought that my character would die.  I knew the 4e rules were on my side.  It would have only taken a successful death saving throw, a successful heal check by my fellows, the force feeding of a healing potion – all these things were well within the bounds of probability.  But sometimes probability kicks you in the ass.  So I have to feel extremely unlucky to have died.  Not like in previous editions when you just had to be a little bit unlucky to perhaps fail that save against an instant death effect.

The threat of death in 4e is far diminished in comparison with other editions and I think this is a shame as it takes some of the edge out of the game.  But thereagain, you don’t loose a well developed character within weeks of starting a campaign.

I think this is particularly a shame as now having a single encounter during an adventuring day is pointless.  You can’t just throw in a hard encounter while travelling or just to keep the PCs on their toes.  If the encounter is level appropriate then the PCs don’t even break a sweat, probably throwing in a few dailies to mash the opposition.  If the encounter is to be a true test then it won’t be level appropriate which may give you the TPK threat you were looking for but will probably promote complaints and bitterness from your players.

How to make the 4e war of attrition interesting and dangerous?  The solution seems to be to push the PCs to their limits of endurance using numerous encounters during the day.  A mechanic is needed to prevent the PCs from taking an extended rest so that they are constantly wondering if they have enough healing surges left, when should they spend a daily power, can they actually take a 5-minute short rest before something else happens?  This erosion of resources eventually means that come the final encounter the PCs are down to their last few healing surges (if any) and actually fear for their character lives knowing they face a powerful foe who could kill them fair and square.

In the next adventure I ran for Tarlock (the revenant paladin of Heironeous – it’s a long story, see previous blogs for a summary), presented itself as an ideal test of this war of attrition concept: I converted the Pathfinder module, “The Demon Within”.  This adventure made lots of sense.  It was correctly themed for a paladin, demon-slayer prestige: it is based around a castle full of paladins that is invaded by demons.  It had a mechanic built-in to drive the PCs forward: they had to find and re-seal a gate to the Abyss within a specified time-frame (less than a day) or else a whole army of demons would invade Oerth.

The adventure is 3e based (Pathfinder) and not in Oerth but this proved to be of little consequence as a little window dressing, changing place names etc. soon moved the adventure to Castle Hart on in  eastern Furyondy, Oerth where the Veng River separates the noble kingdom from what was the Horned Society and is now the Empire of Iuz. 

The adventure itself converted relatively easily as it used demons such as babu, succubi, mezzodemons etc. which all pitch in around the 11th – 15th level area in 4e (the PCs are 11th level at this point).  I did have to convert a couple of creatures into 4e speak, such as a unique demon the adventure used which looked interesting and a demon too iconic to miss out but had no 4e stats (yagnodaemon anyone..?). 

The adventure is pretty linear, the PCs are shown a secret way in by some allies which is predictably as far away from the end encounter point as physically possible meaning they have to traverse the entire castle and run the gauntlet of about 15 level-appropriate encounters!  Some of the encounters were avoidable and Tarlock & his friends did indeed manage to avoid about 5 encounters either by stealth (from a paladin!?) or by simply resisting the hook, which again was an interesting role-play situation for a paladin as several hooks involved innocent people being attacked by demons.  Nevertheless, Tarlock managed to rationalise these incidents as being for the greater good…

As expected resource management being a crucial factor in deciding to help innocents or take on demons or not as the adventure progressed.  This proved particularly true for the party’s cocky rouge, Lindal, who lost over half of his healing surges in the first encounter having been almost killed by a yagnodaemon (acid breath and reach 3 is a bitch when you think you’ve shifted safely out of the way).  So paranoid was Lindal (and rightly so) after this that he resorted to ranged attacks throughout the rest of the adventure until the final encounter.

Towards the end of the adventure the PCs were rightly worried about their health but had no choice but to carry on.  In the end I felt I had exhausted them of magic and health.  It was fun but it wasn’t the sort of adventure you could run all the time (though the next adventure had a similar mechanic but a very different feel).  So you can threaten 4e characters and make them fear for their lives, it just takes a long time to erode their abilities.