|
5 years ago ::
May 17, 2008 - 12:41AM
#31
|
|
|
The only thing I can see standing in the way of this is if 4e has a mechanic where xp can be used as a spendable resource such as fuel for item creation or something, or can be damaged in some way. You'd have to figure out something to deal with those cases, or simply not use them in play.
XP isn't a spendable resource in 4e, so you won't have to worry about that. In the podcasts and in previews we've seen, removing XP costs was a conscious design goal for 4e. We've had some glimpses of magic item creation, and it doesn't involve XP. As far as we've seen, all you need is knowledge of the Enchant Item ritual, the right materials to create the item (or an equal amount of residuum), and your character level has to be at least equal to the item level.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 17, 2008 - 1:08AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2003
|
Keep in mind that just because there's a quest and a reward, doesn't mean that it's a "DM plot". The DM can take the characters' "PC driven" goals and assign them XP and other rewards. He can even hash it out with the players to find out what they think "successfully" resolving that character's motivation would entail.
QFT. I've found this is the best approach to games that use XP as a story reward. If the characters' actions advanced the plot, they gain a reward -- notwithstanding whether it was the DM's plot or the player's plot. The point of the quest reward structure is that this is no longer an ad hoc reward in D&D; it's part of the core game experience and there is a benchmark for how much XP story rewards should be worth.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 17, 2008 - 4:37AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2008
|
QFT. I've found this is the best approach to games that use XP as a story reward. If the characters' actions advanced the plot, they gain a reward -- notwithstanding whether it was the DM's plot or the player's plot. The point of the quest reward structure is that this is no longer an ad hoc reward in D&D; it's part of the core game experience and there is a benchmark for how much XP story rewards should be worth.
While I agree XP doesn't need to be given for just DM created "encoutners". What do you do in these situations?
DM created: Give much XP and the characters level. The players hated the events and story, but you have something good waiting for them that the little bit of level-work got them ready for.
Player created: Give much XP and the characters level. The players hated the events and story, and they get past the level you have prepared for. Now the only thing for them to do is wait until you can meld the story back together, or continue with player created which they may not liked any better than the first?
My problem with the concept of quests is a further degradation of the DM. Now you don't need a DM at all to run the game. Just do silly stuff and give yourself "quest" XP. The story aspect is gone save for a finish-this-sentence type of story. Where is any surprise in that? Have a DM just to throw predictable scaled but random monsters at you? Or jsut have no DM and the players themselves role for some level appropriate monters, and have the proper treasure parcels delivered to the PCs by the local postal service. :P
trust me why I say that you cannot leave the whole game in the hands of the players is you want something that lasts. It may work for short-term games, but for long running games, aka campaigns, you need a DM with a good bit of control of the story that gives wiggle room for the players. It is never fun to be playing and not have anything to do next, either because of DM block, or player block of ideas. That is where in the past player created concepts kept the game alive when the DM was running short on ideas to bridge one section to the other.
So while the concept of "quests" is not a foreign one to D&D it needs to be made sure that the players don't run rampant with it and created a power struggle of DM vs player in who gets to decide what happens next. The players always get to decide what they do next, but you shouldn't demean the DM in the process of helping player learn that it is their decisions that drive a game.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 17, 2008 - 10:27AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
While I agree XP doesn't need to be given for just DM created "encoutners". What do you do in these situations?
DM created: Give much XP and the characters level. The players hated the events and story, but you have something good waiting for them that the little bit of level-work got them ready for.
Player created: Give much XP and the characters level. The players hated the events and story, and they get past the level you have prepared for. Now the only thing for them to do is wait until you can meld the story back together, or continue with player created which they may not liked any better than the first?
My problem with the concept of quests is a further degradation of the DM. Now you don't need a DM at all to run the game. Just do silly stuff and give yourself "quest" XP. The story aspect is gone save for a finish-this-sentence type of story. Where is any surprise in that? Have a DM just to throw predictable scaled but random monsters at you? Or jsut have no DM and the players themselves role for some level appropriate monters, and have the proper treasure parcels delivered to the PCs by the local postal service. :P
trust me why I say that you cannot leave the whole game in the hands of the players is you want something that lasts. It may work for short-term games, but for long running games, aka campaigns, you need a DM with a good bit of control of the story that gives wiggle room for the players. It is never fun to be playing and not have anything to do next, either because of DM block, or player block of ideas. That is where in the past player created concepts kept the game alive when the DM was running short on ideas to bridge one section to the other.
So while the concept of "quests" is not a foreign one to D&D it needs to be made sure that the players don't run rampant with it and created a power struggle of DM vs player in who gets to decide what happens next. The players always get to decide what they do next, but you shouldn't demean the DM in the process of helping player learn that it is their decisions that drive a game.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. At no point are players in any way taking over the game with player created quests.
The DM is still in charge.
The DM says, "The baron tells you about the princess kidnapped by the dragon. If you want, you can go on that quest and earn x-thousand experience points." That's a DM quest.
A player says, "I want to find the six-fingered man who killed my father. Can that be a quest?" DM says, "Sure, we'll call that x-hundred XP." Or the DM says, "Maybe, let me think about it." Or the DM says (for some reason), "No, I don't think that will work with our campaign."
So, no need to worry there.
(And really, if the players can somehow pull off playing without a DM, and are having fun, that works as well. While it works well in D&D, not every RPG needs to have one guy "in charge".)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 19, 2008 - 4:48AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2003
|
My problem with the concept of quests is a further degradation of the DM. Now you don't need a DM at all to run the game. Just do silly stuff and give yourself "quest" XP. The story aspect is gone save for a finish-this-sentence type of story. Where is any surprise in that? Have a DM just to throw predictable scaled but random monsters at you? Or jsut have no DM and the players themselves role for some level appropriate monters, and have the proper treasure parcels delivered to the PCs by the local postal service. :P
trust me why I say that you cannot leave the whole game in the hands of the players is you want something that lasts. It may work for short-term games, but for long running games, aka campaigns, you need a DM with a good bit of control of the story that gives wiggle room for the players. It is never fun to be playing and not have anything to do next, either because of DM block, or player block of ideas. That is where in the past player created concepts kept the game alive when the DM was running short on ideas to bridge one section to the other.
I'll address these two paragraphs, since they seem to be the core of your argument. In the games that I've played wherein PC plot driving has contributed to XP gain, there was still a main plot that the GM had made up and that was continuing regardless of player contribution. Basically, the GM had created a story and decided how it would go on without PC interference, and then altered the story based on how the PCs interfered -- IMO the proper method of crafting an RPG plot. When a PC advanced a plot based on that PC's own background, or advanced the main plot that the PC group was supposed to be pursuing, the character got a story XP reward for it. This isn't a "choose your own adventure" plot or "mad libs" D&D; it's a sophisticated solution that allows the players to take part in crafting the story of the game and be rewarded for doing so -- a much more intuitive and balanced solution than any story XP model that has been presented in any previous incarnation of the D&D rules.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 19, 2008 - 5:50AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
The quest XP is a good thing IMHO. This is mainly because it made me reflect on something I always had in mind and never quite got an answer for. Also, they provide a nice table with a proper scale for quest XP, which is nice for those of us who don't want to invent it.
The thing is, in 3.5 (or at least, when I DMed in 3.5), people got the same amount of XP from killing the giant before he destroyed the village and AFTER HE DID. That was wrong. Now I have an answer to that: if they kill him before he does, they get a minor (or maybe major) quest. Nice, easy, quick.
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
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 19, 2008 - 6:21AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2008
|
I'll address these two paragraphs, since they seem to be the core of your argument. In the games that I've played wherein PC plot driving has contributed to XP gain, there was still a main plot that the GM had made up and that was continuing regardless of player contribution. Basically, the GM had created a story and decided how it would go on without PC interference, and then altered the story based on how the PCs interfered -- IMO the proper method of crafting an RPG plot. When a PC advanced a plot based on that PC's own background, or advanced the main plot that the PC group was supposed to be pursuing, the character got a story XP reward for it. This isn't a "choose your own adventure" plot or "mad libs" D&D; it's a sophisticated solution that allows the players to take part in crafting the story of the game and be rewarded for doing so -- a much more intuitive and balanced solution than any story XP model that has been presented in any previous incarnation of the D&D rules.
The problem, from what I hear a lot about 3rd edition which I have only played once now to try it out, is that so many new players came to the game not knowing a thing about it and overran the DMs with demands. While the PCs are the main focus, the new players rocked the boat quite a bit. It made for unpleasant experiences for former DMs. The players just didn't udnerstand the DM was setting forth the main part of the game. So quests and other PC driven plots are great when used correctly. It is just new playes read the books and take their words as law and can often ignore the DM and even other players. So the presentaion of how these PC driven areas is where I have a problem with. Thankfully as a DM I have a very sturdy spine and I don't stand for this sort of thing in older editions. rarely had to deal with it save for a few rules-lawyers that quickly found out the game was not fun for them to play against me as far as rules lawyering, because I could dish it out twice as much as them, and the games became quite stale.
So for new people they need to be guided more than some of these articles present thing to be. It just becomes a problem when you have players trying to decide they want to go hunt for X artifact, when you have no intention as a DM to let such a thing exist to disrupt your world. New players don't really understand this from the books. Maybe it is just the poor choice of exceprts in the interest of gaining interest int he material, but it turns me away from the edition because they are not being very helpful to the whole gaming community with these exceprts, and only the experienced players.
For a large part even the experienced players are all new players with this new edition, so while they are learning as well, there is too much room for chaos to run rampant from extremely new to RPG players. Which can only serve to hurt gaming by adding more bad gamers. yes there are bad gamers. Read the articles for the examples of things done "wrong" and you will see the designers agree with me.
D&D isn't the game for everyone, but tries to be at the cost of its own integrity sometimes.
So have PC driven plots, but makes sure to explain to newer playerss that the game is not entirely made up of them. The DM does have a purpose. Otherwise why waste time putting effort into creating a game enviroment if it won't be used?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 19, 2008 - 8:04AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
The problem, from what I hear a lot about 3rd edition which I have only played once now to try it out, is that so many new players came to the game not knowing a thing about it and overran the DMs with demands. While the PCs are the main focus, the new players rocked the boat quite a bit. It made for unpleasant experiences for former DMs. The players just didn't udnerstand the DM was setting forth the main part of the game. So quests and other PC driven plots are great when used correctly. It is just new playes read the books and take their words as law and can often ignore the DM and even other players. So the presentaion of how these PC driven areas is where I have a problem with. Thankfully as a DM I have a very sturdy spine and I don't stand for this sort of thing in older editions. rarely had to deal with it save for a few rules-lawyers that quickly found out the game was not fun for them to play against me as far as rules lawyering, because I could dish it out twice as much as them, and the games became quite stale.
I've not seen this. Players being more rules lawyer yes.. making strange demands of the DM, no.
So for new people they need to be guided more than some of these articles present thing to be. It just becomes a problem when you have players trying to decide they want to go hunt for X artifact, when you have no intention as a DM to let such a thing exist to disrupt your world. New players don't really understand this from the books. Maybe it is just the poor choice of exceprts in the interest of gaining interest int he material, but it turns me away from the edition because they are not being very helpful to the whole gaming community with these exceprts, and only the experienced players.
Which is a problem with the 3.X books then, isnt it? And frankly, the DM should due 2 things:
1) in character: "all you research and all the sages you speak to have never heard of such artifact and you can find nothing about it"
2) OOC "guys, i have a story idea written up. I'm glad you want to do alot of roleplaying and help drive the story along, but I haven't included that artifact in my game world, so can you drop it? It doesn't exist here"
Any reasonable Player would be fine with that. If they really through a hissy fit at that point, i dont want to play with them anyway.
For a large part even the experienced players are all new players with this new edition, so while they are learning as well, there is too much room for chaos to run rampant from extremely new to RPG players. Which can only serve to hurt gaming by adding more bad gamers. yes there are bad gamers. Read the articles for the examples of things done "wrong" and you will see the designers agree with me.
Bad gamers - yes. WOTC staff saying problems were caused by bad gamers - No. They said the rules were rather flawed and the worst examples were caused by bad players exploiting the rules in horrible fashion.
D&D isn't the game for everyone, but tries to be at the cost of its own integrity sometimes.
um.. its a book. It doesn't have integrity. And the people that it should turn away are people who either arn't into fantasy or arn't into ANY roleplaying game. It should be understandable by anyone who sits down at a table and understandable in 5 minutes of breif explination. Any other attitude is the same elitist BS that keeps this hobby so small. More people playing the better.
So have PC driven plots, but makes sure to explain to newer playerss that the game is not entirely made up of them. The DM does have a purpose. Otherwise why waste time putting effort into creating a game enviroment if it won't be used?
I think your missunderstanding what "PC driven" means. The Player doesn't get to make up the plot at that point. He gives the DM a plot hook to expand upon. Take the example of the 6-fingered man - Who is he, where is he, what really happened, who will they meet along the way? Is someone else looking for him? is he under the protection of someone or something more powerful? etc.. All of that is up to the DM, not the player. PC driven means that the plot point is centered aroudn the PC(s), rather then one the PC's involve themselves in later.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 19, 2008 - 8:42AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2008
|
More people playing the better.
Yes and no. More people playing RPGs the better yes. Everyone and their brother playing D&D, no.
There are plenty of games just anyone can play. I do not want to play D&D with every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there.
Call me elitist if you want, but I have a right to choose who I play with, and I do not want to just play with anyone. Some people have to accept they are not welcome everywhere, and that includes certain gaming groups.
There is one reason a lot of people that play Magic and other games do not play tournaments. They jsut don't want to deal with those kind of people. And they should not have to. People that would be disruptive to their enjoyment do not belong in their games.
thus why D&D is often played away from gaming stores so people have have a decent game without interruptions from the peanut gallery.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 19, 2008 - 9:13AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
Yes and no. More people playing RPGs the better yes. Everyone and their brother playing D&D, no.
There are plenty of games just anyone can play. I do not want to play D&D with every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there.
Call me elitist if you want, but I have a right to choose who I play with, and I do not want to just play with anyone. Some people have to accept they are not welcome everywhere, and that includes certain gaming groups.
There is one reason a lot of people that play Magic and other games do not play tournaments. They jsut don't want to deal with those kind of people. And they should not have to. People that would be disruptive to their enjoyment do not belong in their games.
thus why D&D is often played away from gaming stores so people have have a decent game without interruptions from the peanut gallery.
Well, just because new people are coming to D&D doesn't mean you have to play with them, does it? You can keep playing with your normal play group while new ones form elsewhere. A greater selection of players in no way interferes with your right to choose who you play with.
|
|
|
