|
1 year ago ::
Apr 05, 2012 - 5:56AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2005
|
I think D&D should be a game of experience, not skill.
I don't believe there should be system mastery. That the only ones that make good characters are the ones that pore over the books looking for powerful builds. The first time player building something they think is cool should be just as effective as the powergamer eeking out each point of damage.
I don't think there should be a DM v Player mentality. As a DM I always wanted to create challanges, to create a world and a series of events that the players figure out and navigate. I want to challenge them, but not kill them (that doesn't mean I won't kill them, dice are dice, and stupid decisions are stupid decisions).
The bottom line for me, is that the first time you play, you do something stupid, like say charge into the fray as a wizard, you get killed, you gained experience, and next time you stay in the back. The first time you just walk into a room and get blown up by a firetrap makes you more cautious next time. So to me the 'better players' are the ones that have made the mistakes, learned from them, and dont' make them again.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 05, 2012 - 6:03AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
*snip*
Yeah, but that doesn't work if you're playing for the story, and it especially doesn't work if PCs are true protagonists.
If you are playing for the story, then the PCs won't be able to decide which monster of the week they want to defeat, they'll have a goal and will want to achieve it. They will choose the path to that goal, but player skill in this case is choosing the easiest path. Or, if the DM is smart, there's multiple paths that each lead to the goal with varying degrees of difficulty, but potentially grant other side goals too.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 05, 2012 - 6:13AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
*snip*
Yeah, but that doesn't work if you're playing for the story, and it especially doesn't work if PCs are true protagonists.
If you are playing for the story, then the PCs won't be able to decide which monster of the week they want to defeat, they'll have a goal and will want to achieve it. They will choose the path to that goal, but player skill in this case is choosing the easiest path. Or, if the DM is smart, there's multiple paths that each lead to the goal with varying degrees of difficulty, but potentially grant other side goals too.
I don't usually force my player's to be "heroes". I find that they make better reluctant heroes.
I get what you are saying but once they have chosen what they want to do then they choose the easiest way to accomplish that mission. So if they choose the harder opponent, the Ogre, then they start trying to develop a plan to make the mission easier. The skill part will be figuring out how to defeat a significantly stronger opponent with what they have.
I haven't always held this view but I've come around to it. I don't want to force my players to do an adventure. I much prefer to give them options. I try and figure out their choice ahead of time so that as DM I can prepare appropriately. They understand this and don't do silly things like change their minds at the last minute. Sometimes I play out the hook for the next adventure at the end of a session or I do it some time between the end of the current session and the next. It's the kind of thing you can do on a phone or skype conference. I get a lot of things out of the way that way too. In between adventures, the players will present what they want to do and I often roleplay it outside the game session with each player.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 1:45AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
Part of the apeal of D&D and other wargames/rpgs is that they are both games of skill and games of chance.
With a game as complex as D&D, you can't take the need for skill out. A DM can softball things if he wants, but that then required skill from the DM to do it without making the game obviously a boring cake walk.
So, I don't think it's an important question. WotC can, and probably should, try to make the game as easy to learn as possible. With the complexity and open-endedness of an rpg, no matter how simple or easy to learn you try to make it, mastery will always be something players will have to stretch to achieve.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 3:57AM
#45
|
|
|
This pretty much sums up how I feel about player skill....pretty much everything in the "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" I agree with.
Google It.
That was a fun little primer. Pretty much agree with all points there.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 5:27AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Part of the apeal of D&D and other wargames/rpgs is that they are both games of skill and games of chance.
With a game as complex as D&D, you can't take the need for skill out. A DM can softball things if he wants, but that then required skill from the DM to do it without making the game obviously a boring cake walk.
So, I don't think it's an important question. WotC can, and probably should, try to make the game as easy to learn as possible. With the complexity and open-endedness of an rpg, no matter how simple or easy to learn you try to make it, mastery will always be something players will have to stretch to achieve.
The rules of chess are incredibly simple. The game is mastered by few. Now I don't want D&D mastery to approach anything like chess levels. And I want the mastery to include creativity and ingenuity in unusual circumstances. So I am NOT arguing for complexity. In fact I wasn't even arguing in my question above that it should be a game of skill. Skill requirements are probably a continuum. I do think the gritty old school people tend to me those wanting more skill but honestly that is just a tendency and not a hard fast rule. I am positive there are narrativist games that are every bit as skill oriented.
In wrecan's most recent poll, he talks about preparation. That would be in game skill that is player driven. Optimization though would not because that is done by players outside the campaign.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 9:03AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Gygaxian "superior players" paradigm, the concept was to have player skill involved al the way back, be it sklll at schmoozing the DM or skill at following some list of paranoid procedural elements shrug. I prefer strategic/tactical skils during play plus a dash of party optimization skills so the characters have the talents and gifts to support one another - sure during character development and design stages.
I also like skill at presentation, and some of my players are very vivid at being in character and others are at describing how their characers do what they do... others are kind of shy so no thanks for rewarding that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 10:04AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@Garthanos
I'm against DM schmoozing. I seriously doubt Gygax encouraged it either other than in gest.
I do like preparation as a game element though. It is a pretty easy thing to include or not include so it is academically interesting but not very important in the 5e design wars. It's more of a campaign style and DMs can include or not as they like. I would like a more extensive equipment list for those that care.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 11:02AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
@Garthanos
I'm against DM schmoozing. I seriously doubt Gygax encouraged it either other than in gest.
Not intensionally ;p, I was exagerating the impact of the subjective elements and the DM vs PCs gaming styles that seemed a repercussion of it, mother may I works better if the DM is happy. The laundry list of how you approach each room of the dungeon as you methodically poke your way through with a 10 foot pole and mule obcessions, while guessing which door the DM was going to throw an ear mite on for the sap who has door listening duty.
There was a lot of wargaming think going on in it. In fact in the earliest D&D that Wargaming was arguably an assumed background.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 1:14PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I think D&D should be a game of experience, not skill.
Kind of find that to be a quoteable quote.. not necessarily in the manner you meant it.. still the idea of experiencing the fantasy story from the inside.
|
|
|
