|
3 years ago ::
Aug 31, 2010 - 11:54AM
#81
|
|
|
I do not see a point in upping the challenge to a particular party if all parties are rewarded the same thing. In a sense why work harder for the same reward. We as people do not usually do that in real life, why have that kind of environment in the game.
FYI - this happens ALL THE TIME in the real world. There are people that get promoted over you even though you worked harder. There are people that have the same amount of money as you because they stole it or because they conned it out of friendly people or because their rich daddy died or because they randomly won the lottery. In education students may work on a group project where one student is the brilliant one and does most of the work and everyone still gets the same grade. You may have an innovative idea, but maybe your coworker steals it from you and tells your boss, getting all the credit. etc. etc. Sure it sucks, but that's life. And, at the end of the day, at least you can feel good about yourself (pride, sense of accomplishment, etc.) that you actually earned what you got and did not have to ride the coattails of others.
I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.
I don't understand why anyone would ever want to do that. I have played a lot of LFR in a lot of different situations and I have never seen anyone who is a bad player because they're a "slacker" and are just trying to "slide by." If someone wanted to do that, they could just write up a brand new 30th level LFR character with tons of cool equipment and tell everyone how awesome they are.
This isn't a competition. It's not a race. No one is getting a free ticket to GenCon next year because their LFR character is the highest level and best equipped. No is getting paid to play D&D. (And if someone is - please let the rest of us know!) It's a game. People play LFR because it's an enjoyable way to pass some time with friends and/or strangers. If I have fun during a gaming session, I consider that a win. It doesn't bother me that Bob sitting next to me, who isn't as skilled of a player, also had fun. It doesn't bother me that he gets rewards too. Everyone had fun? Great. Then the game was a success.
There are multiple reasons someone could be considered a "bad player" (whatever that means):
(1) They could be a new player. Great! More people interested in the game. Sure, they might be a little slower or not understand the rules as well. I would try to teach them the basics of 4e, help them with tactics, and attempt to make them a better player.
(2) They could be mentally challenged. It's good that they've found a hobby they love. I don't think we should actively punish them just because their tactics/roleplaying/rules comprehension/etc. isn't phenominal.
(3) They could be a father with 4 kids and a full time job who doesn't have time to memorize all the rules, but who enjoys a little D&D in his few spare moments.
(4) They could be an antisocial jerk who delights in watching others suffer and purposefully tries to ruin the success of the party (killing an NPC that needs to be kept alive, opening a door to trigger two fights at once, refusing to help the party when they need it, etc.). That's the type of player I have no problem refusing to play with. The normal social mechanisms will generally weed out these kinds of players.
(5) etc.
If I play at a table with a bunch of weaker players, I can still feel good about myself that I successfully completed the adventure even with the "handicap" of having weaker players at the table. I mean, obviously my character must have been extremely effective if I was able to fully compensate for multiple "corpses" at my table - as you call them. Someone can walk away from a weak table and think to themselves "Wow. I was at a table of total knuckleheads, but I singlehandedly pulled us through. I must be awesome." If you need a feeling of accomplishment, you can achieve it by recognizing that you were able to succeed even without the "headstart" of being at a completely optimized table of Uber-Players.
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 31, 2010 - 11:56AM
#82
|
- Dragon Slayer
- If only he would apply himself
- Dammit Jim, this is Star Trek, not D&D!
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2006
|
We are talking about players who can play the game and the players who plainly suck getting the same rewards, accomplishments and loot. By the way, that is the definition of welfare gaming, everyone getting the same rewards irregardless of how well or how poorly one plays.
Is there an RPG (either in and of itself or in its organized play program) that works differently?
What are some ways you could reward proficiency without it seeming like an elitist construct that favors those with a lot of time to play?
Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips! Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 31, 2010 - 12:08PM
#83
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2008
|
It invalidates the accomplishment and reduces the reward to no value since anyone can get it. Why invest any effort into playing the game when you will be rewarded irregardless of how well or how poorly you do in the game?
I don't really get the concern myself.
1. This is a group (team) game, not a solo game. You succeed by how well your group does overall.
2. The group is expected to win combats. The DM is not your adversary. In fact, the DM will even ramp up or lower the challenge to suitably challenge you.
This bears repeating. It's no accident that adventurers always end up fighting monsters that are always around their level. You don't fight Balrogs at first level. The DM is always tailoring the combat encounters to your group.
For example, in home games when I DM and come close to TPK'ing a group (which has happened once) I blame myself, not the group.
The PCs still find plenty of ways to succeed or fail on their own however.  In one game the PCs decided to enlist a large group of evil dwarves to save a town from giants. Oops... one crazy (and awesome) fight later and the town was overun and razed by the dwarves. Once they realized what they helped cause, the PCs tried to rescue as many people as they could... and in their haste ended up rescuing 4 evil clerics and 21 courtesans.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 31, 2010 - 2:01PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
As the topic rages I see a lot of disagreement on what constitutes better players, coming back to the same point. There is no consensus and there wont be.. As an illustration I personally get quite annoyed at the mention of people with optimized characters carrying knuckleheads. I find some of the most optimized and tactically sound players also some of the worst. Nothing quite matches the level of annoying of a player failing to read the table and DM and forcing everyone else to play by how THEY think things should go. Your 300 damage nova may be optimized and awesome in a vacuum, but if your action has just spoiled the fun for even one of the other players at the table you are not a great player, you are not even good. Optimization is not the end all measure of good D&D players. Yes, sure. I have misread tables and people at one time or another and overly dominated a table or two. I may have even thought I was doing great at the time. One lives, one learns. To me it is, as many have said and many will say again, a social game. If everyone at the table (DM included) has a good time, its a good table. As long as there is no one-size-fits-all definition of D&D skill if can only be measured by yourself and for yourself. For me that is enough. I am not, as someone claimed, a better person. I admit to feeling some annoyance if i hear how someone breezed through an encounter while I know how much "help" they got. But its a small annoyance and its easy to get past (these days ). I however do not suffer the delusion that my classification of skill should in any way fit others let alone become a measuring stick. There are a thousand and more ways to play this game. I like it that way, I like it a LOT that way.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 31, 2010 - 2:13PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
On difficulty: I think the key here is having good information on scaling the encounter that DMs can use.
I'm a believer that DME needs a complete overhaul, as the instructions given in modules are so incomplete at this point as to be misleading.
Beyond that, from day one, I can't say I understand the need for DME to adjust combat difficulty.
You don't need DME in order to tone a module down. DMs have been softballing adventures since the dawn of gaming. Unless you're going to put hard limits on precisely how easy a DM is allowed to run a module (and that's an exercise in futility), you don't need anything beyond "If you feel the players aren't having fun, you're allowed to tone down the combats."
You don't need DME to make an adventure more difficult with the players' consent. I was doing that ten years and two campaigns ago, without any DME. ("Hey, do you mind if I make some changes to make this module more fun?" "Go ahead, we trust you.")
The only thing you need DME for is situations when the DM wants to make the combats harder, but the players don't want him to. I'm a little perplexed as to why this is something we would want to encourage.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 31, 2010 - 2:40PM
#86
|
- Dragon Slayer
- If only he would apply himself
- Dammit Jim, this is Star Trek, not D&D!
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2006
|
Beyond that, from day one, I can't say I understand the need for DME to adjust combat difficulty.
There are a ton of DMs that believe the module must be run as written. D&D Encounters is proof of this. Intro program designed to bring in players and tons of DMs TPKd their tables week after week. Similarly, a lot of the adventure reviews on these forums, or even personal messages where people share experiences with my adventures, all suggest that DMs need more information on how to run encounters.
I see a couple of options. You can try to edit and playtest really well (meaning it takes longer to publish every adventure) and have adventures run as-is. You can add minor DME to cover big issues and give some freedom. You can add sections that explain the desired challenge and provide options. You can change DME to include more latitude and overall direction.
I react negatively to the term "softball", to be honest. Softballing really means that you take an adequate challenge and make it easy. "Well, this might have been a tough adventure but I decided to lower defenses on all the monsters so it wouldn't be too hard." I really see this very rarely - almost not worth considering. What I see most often is "wow, I am going to indisputably murder your PCs with what I have... I am going to make a change(s) to make this a fight you might actually win."
For example, in CORE1-14"
Show
I ran it at Gen Con once for a mixed table. Some were really strong players and some were a bit more casual. They had some issues with the first two combats and I noted some dailies spent earlier than I would expect. I was a bit worried. Based on the suggestions found in the mod, I removed one of the Boneclaws. I figured I could add it in if needed.
The fight ended up being one of the finest down-to-the-wire encounters I have ever one. It was big-time fun. We spent a really long time at one point just all trying to figure out if there was any way to keep a PC from becoming a wraith, which would have been a TPK... and the players found just the right way to get the healer in range and keep him from dying with a surgeless heal. It was pretty fantastic.
Had I not made that one adjustment... well, it would not have been fun for anyone.
That was not a softball, but I did reduce the difficulty. The question is really how best to ensure the table gets a fun run of the appropriate challenge (defeat can be fun, so that should be possible).
Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips! Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 31, 2010 - 2:54PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
We are talking about players who can play the game and the players who plainly suck getting the same rewards, accomplishments and loot. By the way, that is the definition of welfare gaming, everyone getting the same rewards irregardless of how well or how poorly one plays.
An RPG is a game of cooperative storytelling. Not how ub3r l33T Ur t0oN R0xX0rs and neither is it about the phat lewtz or pwning n00bs. Despite the lame comparisons from some people, D&D is not WoW. You shouldn't play it like it is.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 01, 2010 - 2:17AM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2005
|
I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.
Well we are changing both the xp & gp systems for LFR, though I'm not entirely sure it will address your desire of rewarding super-awesome players and punish those who suck. That said, I think we are going to see more meaningful Story Awards in the future and that might in some ways address some of your issues. I will note that players looking to be carried are likely to quickly find it hard to find people willing to play with them. They don't need for us to put a REJECT stamp on their forehead so everyone knows they don't pull their own weight.
I am excited to hear that there are pending changes for XP and GP.
I hope that these changes do not invalidate all of the old adventures.
Also, note that at conventions and game days we generally do not
get to choose our tablemates. The marshall musters all of the tables.
Therefore, I would be unhappy if I received limited rewards because
I was mustered with less experienced players, when the entire team
succeeded in the mission. This is a team game that we are playing.
Sometimes the experts need to help out the novices with the game.
I would also be uncomfortable as a judge, if some poor quiet player
had to be docked "roleplaying experience", just because they were
out-shouted by all of the other more extroverted players at the table.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2010 - 6:18AM
#89
|
|
|
I wanted to point out that giving "better/more skilled players" greater rewards than "worse/less skilled players" will only widen the gap between the two groups. Let's say, for example, that there is a group of 1st level characters playing together. Half of the players are brand new to the game and aren't extremely familiar with the rules and the other half are veterans who know the game inside and out and have highly optimized characters. (Sorry Imaginaryfriend... I agree with you that optimized characters do not necessarily equal the best players, but it really is the easiest example to use.) At the end of the adventure, the "better" players are given better awards and the "worse" players are given worse awards. So now the "more skilled" players have even more of an advantage over the "less skilled" players. But the "more skilled" players don't need a head start or an extra boost over other players - they're already ahead of the curve just because they are "more skilled."
If we have a system where "better" players are rewarded more (with items or favorable story awards or whatever), then those better players will continue to get more and more powerful while the "worse" players will fall further and further behind. Pretty soon we'll have a situation where it will be very difficult for those "better" players to be at the same table as those "worse" players because their power level will be so different. Then there will definitely be players refusing to play with certain other "inferior" players. We'll end up with two different LFRs: the "Elite LFR" and the "Knucklehead LFR" (even more so than exists today). I'm pretty sure that's not the admin's goal for the future of LFR.
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2010 - 10:00PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2006
|
Man, we're still talking about this? I'm glad to see that the original suggestion has been thoroughly trounced.
|
|
|
