|
3 years ago ::
Sep 08, 2010 - 12:57PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I don't think anyone in favor of DME is advocating letting a weak table that plays high have an easy time of it. Choices have repercussions - they should just be reasonable given the various factors.
Oh heck no on making things easy for weak tables playing up. I have zero qualms about leaving bloody smudges on the dungeon floor. I will however still try to make sure they have fun while dying horribly and keep it at "you are obviously outclassed" rather than "roll initiative, you die"
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 ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 6:33AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2007
|
Ok here is the primary problem that I see with what the OP is asserting.
DM vs Player mindset.
Allow me to explain. I have come to realize that I have a very tactical mindset when it comes to 4E. (and other games) I can often bowl over a group of reasonable gamers with tactics when I run an encounter. I can intuit how best to use the encounter against the players with relative ease. Now I say this not to brag, because often it is a bad thing. I have been a Delve judge at several major cons now (Gencon, DDXP) and have learned a lot in doing so. One of the things that surprised me is how different the same encounter could be. The characters were the same and the opposition the same, but I witnessed a massive variance in the result and not one that I could blame on luck/dice. The players and their tactics really did account for the remarkable variation. That is what the OP is not taking into account. By playing all-out all the time, the OP is pitting his skills against the players to see who can "metawin". What they should be doing is pitting the encounter against the characters to create a fun play experience.
Couple of notes here. I am not trying to offend, just explain my position and perceptions. Also, sometimes players want the meta-challenges. I had several table, while judging the Delves, ask me to pour it on. They wanted no punches pulled and my best effort. Yet I seem to remember myself and the players having fun.
In the end finding a balance between fun and challenging is crucial to the art of DMing. The old addage "know your audience" is an important part of finding that balance. At the end of the round a "win" is not calculated by the hit points of the survivors, but the adulations and gratitude of the players at the table.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 11:15AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Instead we strive for maximizing fun with tailored challenge.
Without further context, telling someone they need to maximize fun is meaningless.
When I run a home campaign (as I'm in the middle of doing right now), my goal is for encounters to go in an interesting direction. If a particular creature just isn't working the way I envisioned him (either too weak or too strong), he gets modified on the fly. I'm fine with the PCs failing, but the failure will happen in a way that adds complications and makes the story more interesting, not ends it. I'm pretty unlikely to kill a PC, unless it fits the story.
That's not how I run or play an RPGA game. There, it's all about overcoming objective challenges. If the group is able to overcome the challenges as written, they succeed; if they don't, they fail. If I know that the group will overwhelm the challenge, I will surreptitiously increase the challenge to make it more fun, while leaving the outcome (full success without death) the same.
I obviously have a different type of fun in each situation, so saying that we should maximize fun doesn't really help.
I think the campaign is a bit schizophrenic, a common result of campaign-by-committee.
You can't give players the option of playing a high-tier version of an adventure, facing tougher challenges to get better rewards... and then tell DMs that the challenge level should be adjusted to what the group is able to handle.
You can't justify giving out higher rewards in certain modules (such as quest completions) by the fact that the combats are harder than normal... and then tell DMs that they're supposed to make the combats easier if the group can't handle them.
I'm fine with a campaign that said that the DM is responsible for micromanaging encounters so that the group feels challenged but always gets a full success in the end.
I'm fine with a campaign where giving out greater (and in some cases absurd) rewards are justified by the challenges being tougher.
What I don't see is how you can have both of these concepts in the same campaign.
Personally, if a group chooses to go high-tier but can't handle it (even if they're at the appropriate level), and the DM decreases the challenge level below what is in the adventure and still gives out full rewards, I consider that to be flat-out unethical behavior.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 12:01PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
I'm fine with a campaign that said that the DM is responsible for micromanaging encounters so that the group feels challenged but always gets a full success in the end.
I'm fine with a campaign where giving out greater (and in some cases absurd) rewards are justified by the challenges being tougher.
What I don't see is how you can have both of these concepts in the same campaign.
What do you think should be done with the current set of "TPK by DM Tactics/Party build" modules? Continue telling DMs to softball, and gasp in horror when we hear that they didn't? Tell the players to suck it up, and bring better characters next time? Modify the modules?
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 12:08PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
Honestly, are we talking about a Role-Playing Game or a War-game here?
The goal in an RPG is not to win, it is not a competitive game and people play to have fun.
Since each person has a different definition of fun, it's the DM's job to adapt the game to the group's tastes.
Some players love to play a hardcore, challenging and fully optimized game. Others don't. Some people enjoy the "realism" of a TPK when players make terrible tactical decissions. Other people simply swear they will never play the game again after suffering a TPK.
Builds, challenge level, game balance... all those terms are just tools you use, reject or modify depending on your group's tastes.
If you don't enjoy playing with a particular group, your only option is to go and find a new one that fits your style.
This is weird... Am I not repeating the first entry in every RPG rulebook: What is Role-Playing Game?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 1:48PM
#26
|
- Dragon Slayer
- If only he would apply himself
- Dammit Jim, this is Star Trek, not D&D!
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2006
|
I'm with ya, Nolorfin. The discussion is here because historically the vast majority of RPGA adventures where meant to be run exactly as written so that every table had a "fair" run. Your sitting at Mika's table or Bob's table would not matter in terms of fairness. The concept was firmly in every run being pretty much the same, minus the skill with which the DM presented the material (descriptions, RPing NPCs, etc.).
In many cases this was entirely desired. Look at many of the classic modules that came from RPGA and you will see they were scored - you could win the event. Players of LG often both expected and demanded a fair run because there could be a competitive aspect - in Geoff there were clear (though friendly and fun) competitions between adventuring companies and groups of players to see who could best take on a B.I. or premiere module.
LFR from the very beginning said this was not the case. Playing one time at Enrique's table is not supposed to be the same experience as the game going on at Sarah's table. Variance is even desirable when you are replaying.
Similarly, in olden days the prime directive was arguably to run the adventure as written as well as you could. Language emphasized running the adventure with care, precision, and professionalism. The prime directive now is clearly to achieve "fun".
The question isn't whether each adventure should be run consistently but how much variance to allow. The guidance from just about everyone in charge suggests they intend a pretty high amount of variance in order to achieve fun.
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 ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 3:36PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Instead we strive for maximizing fun with tailored challenge.
Without further context, telling someone they need to maximize fun is meaningless.
When I run a home campaign (as I'm in the middle of doing right now), my goal is for encounters to go in an interesting direction. If a particular creature just isn't working the way I envisioned him (either too weak or too strong), he gets modified on the fly. I'm fine with the PCs failing, but the failure will happen in a way that adds complications and makes the story more interesting, not ends it. I'm pretty unlikely to kill a PC, unless it fits the story.
That's not how I run or play an RPGA game. There, it's all about overcoming objective challenges. If the group is able to overcome the challenges as written, they succeed; if they don't, they fail. If I know that the group will overwhelm the challenge, I will surreptitiously increase the challenge to make it more fun, while leaving the outcome (full success without death) the same.
I obviously have a different type of fun in each situation, so saying that we should maximize fun doesn't really help.
I think the campaign is a bit schizophrenic, a common result of campaign-by-committee.
You can't give players the option of playing a high-tier version of an adventure, facing tougher challenges to get better rewards... and then tell DMs that the challenge level should be adjusted to what the group is able to handle.
You can't justify giving out higher rewards in certain modules (such as quest completions) by the fact that the combats are harder than normal... and then tell DMs that they're supposed to make the combats easier if the group can't handle them.
I'm fine with a campaign that said that the DM is responsible for micromanaging encounters so that the group feels challenged but always gets a full success in the end.
I'm fine with a campaign where giving out greater (and in some cases absurd) rewards are justified by the challenges being tougher.
What I don't see is how you can have both of these concepts in the same campaign.
Personally, if a group chooses to go high-tier but can't handle it (even if they're at the appropriate level), and the DM decreases the challenge level below what is in the adventure and still gives out full rewards, I consider that to be flat-out unethical behavior.
Fun is always and only determined by the specific players at a specific table, not by some abstract standard or administrator. But the statement speaks to the DM to tell him or her the priority of fun is high.
I stated (and always have) that the challenge should be tailored to the group. I also quoted the LFR adventure boilerplate that the challenge should not be too tough or too easy. I encourage authors to provide some indication of what challenge, easy, average, tough, was intended for an encounter. What a highly skilled group of power gamers will be able to deal with is much different than what a highly skilled group of actors, storytellers or thinkers would be able to deal with. To the extent that it is possible, a DM should identify the group and adjust. I find it is usually fairly easy for me to do.
I have learned that if I ask for instance, do you like to role play, most players will answer yes. However, my observation is that by my standards, some do not role play that much. I can usually tell the difference by if and how quickly they get into character or never get into character but start discussing game mechanics.
If you rigorously follow the "objective challenges as written" paradigm, then you have already decided to ignore the instructions to the DM at the start of each LFR adventure. I hope that most DMs are open to the idea of tailoring the challenge.
Never have I mentioned tailoring the rewards to the group. Players may ask to increase the challenge level, certainly. If I have doubts, I will advise against it and include a warning you may risk PC death. If they insist, I do not pull any punches. Many groups do not ask to play high.
I don't justify giving out higher rewards because the combats are harder, that is an incorrect conclusion. I may justify giving out higher rewards because the adventure is at the end of a Major Quest. (I cannot speak for every LFR admin obviously.)
I do not care for campaigns where full success is guaranteed. I have no problem with the notion it takes some amount of smarts, and I am not referring to combat tactic smarts. However, if groups of players routinely do not succeed, then they stop playing that campaign. And it is harder to fine tune the challenge in a shared world campaign than for a home group.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 3:54AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
I'm with ya, Nolorfin. The discussion is here because historically the vast majority of RPGA adventures where meant to be run exactly as written so that every table had a "fair" run. Your sitting at Mika's table or Bob's table would not matter in terms of fairness. The concept was firmly in every run being pretty much the same, minus the skill with which the DM presented the material (descriptions, RPing NPCs, etc.).
In many cases this was entirely desired. Look at many of the classic modules that came from RPGA and you will see they were scored - you could win the event. Players of LG often both expected and demanded a fair run because there could be a competitive aspect - in Geoff there were clear (though friendly and fun) competitions between adventuring companies and groups of players to see who could best take on a B.I. or premiere module.
LFR from the very beginning said this was not the case. Playing one time at Enrique's table is not supposed to be the same experience as the game going on at Sarah's table. Variance is even desirable when you are replaying.
Similarly, in olden days the prime directive was arguably to run the adventure as written as well as you could. Language emphasized running the adventure with care, precision, and professionalism. The prime directive now is clearly to achieve "fun".
The question isn't whether each adventure should be run consistently but how much variance to allow. The guidance from just about everyone in charge suggests they intend a pretty high amount of variance in order to achieve fun.
I see what you mean, Alphastream1, and I'm glad that WotC decided to put the emphasis on fun in LFR.
After all, these events are aimed on increasing the D&D player pool, and to achieve that the DM has to ensure players have a great time. We need them to see this game is awesome, no matter how good they are at small units tactics (and given these new players we are trying to bring into the game don't know the mechanics, that's highly unlikely).
Jean Luc Goddard said that television creates oblivion while cinema creates memory. I've always said that RPGs are low-budget movies, a unique and wonderful mix of interactive literature, radio and theatre.
We DMs are modern-day bards and storytellers, our enemies are Playstations and cable TV, not tactically-inept players. Let us adapt to our audience, learn how to improvise and reward our players for their strenghts - instead of punishing them for their weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 2:09PM
#29
|
|
|
You can't give players the option of playing a high-tier version of an adventure, facing tougher challenges to get better rewards... and then tell DMs that the challenge level should be adjusted to what the group is able to handle.
You can't justify giving out higher rewards in certain modules (such as quest completions) by the fact that the combats are harder than normal... and then tell DMs that they're supposed to make the combats easier if the group can't handle them.
I agree with the first paragraph of the quote, and hence the fact that we are looking at how to change this for the reasons cited by you.
I disagree with the second. Finishing quests are mostly about story and the extra rewards are more to reward sticking to the story then about defeating the challenge. The fact that they battles can be a bit more lethal in these end-quest type of adventures are because in general, people expect the big end battle at the end of a story. They want the challenge. Of course, challenge is a relative term and what challenge me and my friends is not the same as what challenges others. I do expect a DM to adjucate to generate maximum fun.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 4:54PM
#30
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with players being able to win, however I'm not going to naievely say that the 12 int wizard has any *right* to win at an APL combat, it's certainly possible and I'm not going to penalize them any more than they did themselves. The player clearly built the character around succeding/having fun at other things and they are likely going to do so, but combats shouldn't be any easier for them because of it. Unless of course you're also advocating trivializing skill challenges for groups that are optimized for combat but may be sub-par both at roleplaying (as players) and skill challenges (as characters).
Part of the reason LFR mods have Low and High tiers, and options for 4/5/6 players at the table is this specific reason, so that you can adjust the module to allow the players a better (or worse) chance of succeding. Along with that bgibbons said, Risk is tied to Reward, if you play Low or treat the module as having fewer monsters, you also reduce the XP gain, in most cases this is built in, but if you let 6 players play as if there was 4 you have to, by the rules, also adjust their XP gain. Players get to choose the difficulty, queue the Knight from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Choices have consequences, that's life folks.
This is a lot of the same issue I saw with the High-Level pre-gen characters, people being able to play at a certain level without ever having had to put in the effort to get there. I am certainly not alone when I say that it ruins my fun (since we like to use that word here) in the game when, not just at my table but, I see someone else is literally handed what I've had to work my butt off for.
Wizards with 12 int are NPCs that give me quests to rid their basement of giant rats, they aren't Heroes.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection. My Guides
Show
|
|
|
