.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
MrBrown
-
Posts
1115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by MrBrown
-
-
I have two sort of modes for GM'ing that usually go wrong
- I have a very detailed plot prepared = the players take an unexpected turn and I find myself throwing them in hours worth of random combat to get the time to think up with something decent but I fail and I need to end the session early to re-plan.
- I have a fairly plotless, non-linear, player-driven scenario prepared = the players sit on their asses and wait for the story to start.
Its hard to be a GM
These are really problems of bad (or inexperienced) GMs.
The only things you need to do is discuss PC agenda before play, or provide it if the players do not want to co-create it, and get the players to agree to have the PCs pursue that agenda.
Then the GM just needs to provide the adversary and their actions.
- I have a very detailed plot prepared = the players take an unexpected turn and I find myself throwing them in hours worth of random combat to get the time to think up with something decent but I fail and I need to end the session early to re-plan.
-
You can't really help it if you use the alignment system from the DnD rules. I mean, most of these settings have gods. Part of the balance of the Paladin class is that they have a code. Morality is part of the game.
I don't like to lean on characters, but it falls on me to play the role of their deity. That means I must make moral judgements regarding their in-game actions.
The Paladin has no inherent benefit (by the rules anyway, dunno about your houserules), so why would you need to watch over it?
And no, you really don't need to judge player's alignment through their actions, because in 3ed D&D, there really isn't any inherent benefit in having one alignment over the other (unless you put one there, of course).
I'm too bored to go over this since I've just done it on the official d& forums (last posts on the thread): http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=628618&page=2 I can give further opinions on it though, if anyone's interested.
And finally, alignment is "staying in character". It won't bring about moral decisions, or even drama.
However, trying to guide the players is not entirely out of the question. The carrot/stick method that MrBrown described isn't my style.It's hardly a carrot/stick method. Obviously, it comes with assumption that any spiritual attributes the players assign to their characters will come into play, AND that the players themselves want it to happen.
Like I said before, world simulation doesn't bring about drama (or moral decisions).
-
2) "To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to:"
as far as we is concerned, there never is and never should be a reason to Make players do what we want 'em to.
Oh, I agree completely with that. I guess I worded my original post badly.
It's more about getting to the (agreed-upon) "point of the game" and avoiding drifting, than forcing something to someone.
am not gonna specific reward the rights and wrong moral choices.Just for the record, I didn't suggest so (and never would; I consider GM judgement of player decisions to be pretty bad form in just about any case.)
-
Ok, a Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes conversion to d20... This thing doesn't really work, it's just an example.
1. Get rid of other experience awards. Totally. Shoo shoo. And tune down the loot, maybe
2. Get rid of alignment. Alignment is "staying in character", and is only in the way of moral judgementing.
Define a set of Spiritual Attributes for each character. RoS has 4, picked from several types, mainly Destiny, Drive, Faith and Passion. They need further definition, such as a specific character might have "Drive: Become a general of the Army", or "Passion: Love for his family". Each attribute has a score from 0 to 5, starting at maybe 1 or 2 for each.
They work like this:
1. Whenever the PC does something that any of the spritual attributes "apply" (to be defined, but for instance the love-for-family guy defending his family) to, the player adds the attributes as a bonus to his rolls (in D&D, mainly to-hit, skills, damage, AC, saves and spell DC). If more than one apply, they stack.
2. Each "scene" (to be defined) that the above happens, the player adds a single point permanently to all all SA's that applied. If the PC does something against his SA, it is lowered by one point.
3. The player can, at any time, permanently take a point away from any SA and gain an amount of experience (maybe 100 to 200) that applies immediately.
4. Whenever an SA is at 0 (such as from the use of #3), the player can change it. For instance, Passion: Love for family to Passion: Love for homeland.
#3 and #4 are crucial.
In actual play, you do this: Let's say you have two characters with the following SAs:
John:
Faith: The King.
Passion: Love for Maria, the daughter of Baron Vodstok.
Bob:
Faith: The King.
Drive: Become a noble.
Then in play, the GM does something like these:
- The King orders Baron Vodstok and his immediate family beheaded for treachery.
- The King disbands all nobility, and turns to true dictature.
- Baron Vodstok offers to take Bob as part of his family, if he takes his daughter in marriage.
...And what you get is mechanically supported decision making that completely defines the reward system. Or more appropriately, a drama-driving mechanic. In each of those examples, the characters must make a choice between their SAs, AND they get points no matter what they choose... As long as they DO make the choice.
And in Gromnir's setting...
Tiki-tiki Too-too the Thri-Kreen has:
Faith: Unethically Produced Commodities are of the Devil, and not-to-be-used.
Passion: His pack.
And then Gromnir says: "Someone in your pack has a disease that can only be cured with UPC!". And Tiki-tiki must choose whether to abandon his morals or his love, AND he gets points whichever he does.
What the GM does here is called a "bang", btw. In these kinda of games, the GM just needs to keep banging.
-
Here's the problem. The things you describe aren't really new. These are the things that DMs are forced to do just to run a successful game. Any game that has progressed for 8 months is successful.
If I did think those points were already clear, I wouldn't make them, would I?
Furthermore, saying that there should be some sort of reward associated with the players' decisions is obvious to the point of insult.The key point here is moral judgement; it's not "just" player decisions.
Turn your fine mind to specific examples. Take a chance and give us an idea rather than make observations from the stands. Seriously, you talk the talk. I even think you can walk the walk. Hell, I don't doubt you can dance the walk around me while I stumble about like a zombie.The point isn't to insult you. I'd just like to get away from general ideas or technical terms and down to the nitty-gritty.
But... But... Theory is too beautiful to be soiled by actual play!
Seriously, I don't see much to make specific examples about. Gromnir's problem: "Players do not make moral judgements". The answer: "Reward them for it, and they will". Duh.
Unfortunately, I don't remember any related reward systems that would be free and online... I'll need to dig up, or maybe make a crude d20 version of the Riddle of Steel one.
Oh, one thing though. Watch out for "Over before it even started": Making the moral judgement the game is supposed to be about (or is it? At least I'm assuming it is, from the post) seems to take 5 seconds time, and that's before Gromnir gets to say "you're at this tavern...".
Gromnir: "The world is completely dependant on the Unethically Produced Commodity. But, a revolution is starting, to rid the world of this past. Which side do you choose?"
*5 seconds*
Players: "Ok, were the revolutionaries!".
*End moral decision making, begin "staying in character".*
-
To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to:
- Reward it uniquely. That is to say, no other mechanic brings the same rewards as making moral decisions does. Or, make it the only reward system.
- Take GM judgement out of it. Player's can't make moral judgements if some outside authority dictates one is "right" and some other is "wrong". This applies to reward mechanics as well as in-world events.
A few more points:
- Reward systems are what RPGs are about. Determine your focus, and then wrap the reward system around it. Besides increase in character effectiveness, rewards can also be narrative power, or social ones.
- World/physics simulation doesn't lead to moral decisions. You need a system for it. Seriously. At least a reward one.
- "Roleplaying", as it is commonly understood as "staying in character", does not lead to making moral judgements. "Staying in character" is being static; moral judgement is all about change.
For an example of reward systems and mechanics on "moral judgement", you could check out the Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel. They're all about answering "what is worth fighting for?".
-
I don't think there's anything missing in today's games, what you're missing is instead that feeling, which you won't feel again until something new that suits you as well as the IE games did back then comes along.
Agree with the above. Happens to everyone, IMO.
Another pit trap is to start thinking "why can't they make great games like game A anymore", always comparing new games to that game, not willing to accept how some new game might be great in it's own way.
-
Final Fantasy XII and X.
Geneforge 3 ... I haven't updated my computer in 5 or 6 years, haven't had the chance to play any newer PC games.
FF12?Yeah, 12 (not 10-2). It came out in Japan a month or so ago.
-
Final Fantasy XII and X.
Geneforge 3 ... I haven't updated my computer in 5 or 6 years, haven't had the chance to play any newer PC games.
-
However, on point 2, (D&D's intentional design), I'd call it poor design to essentially weed out 1 statistic in favor of 2 others. It seems ridicuous.
Agreed.
It's not only AC that does that though, D&D 3E seems to do a complete turn around when getting to high levels from low. Different things start to matter. It's weird.
-
Now, for the actual topic at hand. Should NPCs be given a different set of rules than PCs?
Discuss.
Don't see any reason they need to. You just need a rules set designed for the type of playing you want to conduct. If you want drama, then you need a drama driving mechanic. A system that only has rules for stuff like how to hit opponents and skills checks will bring about drama only accidentally. In other words, very rarely.
In D&D, AC simply stops mattering for players, bad guys have to-hit bonuses that easily outweigh their AC. So players are forced to rely on DR.D&D 3E is designed to do this. Secondary attacks wouldn't make much sense unless it became alot easier to hit opponents. I'd say high level characters rely more on HP though, as that keeps going up more than melee damage (spells are another thing, though...).
-
Ah, but there is an important distinction here, which you don't seem to consider. We can argue about how extensive D&D 3e should be, depending on what we expect from our various games, but the same is not true of d20.
I don't care if 3e, or any system for that matter is "extensive". What matters to me in a system is that it is coherent in what it is trying to do, not that it answers all my prayers. Why would you want all chocolate bars to taste the same?
<SNIP>My problem is that for an industry-wide standard for RPGs, d20 is about the worst foundation I can think of, since it's horrible limited and inflexible to me. I find that I cannot write or play the sort of games I like with d20, and so I don't think it, or any of its offsprings, can be called "intuitive".
I'm personally unable to find any "d20 foundation" anywhere. All of them seem to be just variants of the same system, or at the least, based on a similar resolution mechanic (add stats roll d20 compare to DC).
It's basically just a marketing gimmick, IMNSHO.
However, that should not be taken to mean that this makes the question of well-designed rules an non-issue. You have to look at why the GM decided to add houserules to his campaign. If he did so simply to perfect his own game-style, then things are okay, and he's on the right track with his game IMHO. But if he made houserules because he felt the core rules were flawed, then we have a design-flaw instead of a simple matter of personal taste and preference. Those two are not the same.Certainly. But this requires two things - For the designers to make a system that is internally coherent (in other words, that it doesn't try to achieve a different type of game with rule A than it does with rule B), and for the users to realize what type of game the system is trying to achieve.
If both of this do not happen (to at least some extent), then the user will be on a wild goose hunt with his houserules.
No, not always. You say you prefer a "gamist" approach, but there is a question of how far that goes.No, I don't prefer gamism, nor have I said I do (I certainly don't mind playing it, though). I'm simply claiming it is the type of gaming D&D is aimed at, or rather, the one it best supports regardless of what designers intended to do.
As an example I will take random loot. In most CRPGs, loot is exceedingly random indeed.<SNIP>
Of course not, but you might accept it in a "gamist" environment, so if I understand you correctly, you would have no problem with this. I, however, do, since I find that it doesn't suspend disbelief. In fact, I find it blantantly annoying to the point of obvious stupidity thrown right in face. It tells me what the designers/programmers think of me, if I accept this, and what they think is not something positive...
I probably wouldn't mind this happening in a gamist RPG (especially in a CRPG, which are mostly very gamist indeed), but I wouldn't consider it a very elegant thing either. Mostly because it is something where both reward and plausability are easy to implement, if the system can be worked from the ground up. As I see it, it wouldn't be a flaw, just lackluster design.
-
BTW, recommend RPG-theory reading:
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/
and
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
These both have to do with distinctions in playing styles. The 2nd is more of an in-depth variant of the 1st one.
Even if you don't agree with all of them (I certainly don't), they are very enlightening reading.
-
The rules can be imperfect whether you or I like them or not. If obvious flaws can be pointed out in the rules, doesn't that mean that they should be fixed?
Indeed. I wasn't trying to say the rules system is necessarily perfect. However, whether or not something is flawed or not would require one to know what it is trying to achieve in the first place.
Besides, there is also the question of what D&D we're talking about. I liked 2e player option rules. I didn't like 3e and onwards, because I thought the system regressed instead of growing. I can excuse 2e, but the core is all the way back from the late 80s, and so its age shows. 3e is brand new, however, and is a very different game, so there is little excuse fo the rules being mind-numbingly simplistic and rigid (at least to me).D20 might not be bad for some very simple hack'n slash games, but that also means that is a very superficial and inflexible system. It's an old but functional gamecube or PS1, not a slick anc advanced PC with fancy graphics and able to handle whatever you want it to. I just think it could have been a far more playable game without too much trouble.
I only have hands-on experience with Basic D&D, core 2e AD&D and the majority of 3ed. IMHO, despite alot of differences in detail, the assumed creative agenda is mostly the same.
I also think 3ed D&D is pretty inflexible. D20 is too, at least when it comes to trying different kinds of settings.
I don't much see the distinction, but I suppose you could say that. However, while rules a secondary to the role-playing experience, you still use them to set the foundation that your game will be built on. Therefore they are important, even if secondary. For example, I'm not planning to score low grades on my exams, but I'd still like to know what the passing grade is in case my own is pretty bad. In the same way the rules, though of lesser priority, are significant because they decide matters, when they come into play.As a player, I prefer to have knowledge of the rules, if I can. The reason for that are a few bad experiences with GMs who made the house rules up spontaneously, so that I never knew what his rulings would be. I don't mind that he changed the rules from the book. I do mind that he did so without telling me what they were instead, because that meant I created my character and played how I would play on a faulty foundation. And if you overrule the rules as a GM, that ruling should be consistent - it should work the same way next time, which it didn't always do. We had a very positive thing happen to one character after a specific situation. However, when the exact same thing happened to my own character, the outcome was not the same. Very annoying. Consequently I made a note to always write my own house rules down and make them available to the players so that they could always find out what to expect.
I would rather say that the rules are a tool in trying to achieve a creative agenda (which can be generally described as "what your game is about"). Not the only one, but an important one. The agenda is the primary goal however, so it doesn't matter as much what tool (rules) is used, as long as it achieves the agenda.
I agree with your second paragraph pretty much, I've also had bad experiences in similar situations.
I don't agree with that, since if the rulesystem is extensive and perfect, I will have no need to write house rules to make up for rules that I find to be flawed. And even if I do write house rules to suit my own preferences in my campaign, they will be few and therefore comprehensible to my players.Well, I wouldn't mind talking about the game with your specific house rules if I knew what they were... But person B playing by the same ruleset might not have the same houserules, and might have alot more of them. So it is kinda futile to talk about your and person B's games with the name of the original system, since there's a big chance that your houseruled ones are widely different.
It all comes down to "perfectness" being a guestion of preference.
-
No, one part of the rules says something specific, only you don't agree with it. The other part implies something else to you.
You are welcome to your interpretations, but bear in mind that that is indeed what they are.
Certainly.
Except the rest of the rules do not support your interpretation per se. Your interpretation is not impossible, but it's still your's and not what the rules dictate. I don't agree with your interpretation, and you have not been able to prove me wrong on that point, nor are you about to, since my interpretation remains just as valid as your's. That's fine, except I argue from a position of what my own preferences and experiences as a player and GM tell me, whereas you try to "prove" your position and "disprove" mine, which is futile.Yes, because I don't think it's a guestion of preference. The rules are a means to an end. What end someone is trying to achieve with them for their game is up to preference, but the effectiveness of the rules as written in achieving this is arguable.
Also, you are misinterpreting the argument. The fact that you have problems with the D&D rules is proof that they are not a good tool in achieving the type of playing you're trying to do. You are simply arguing this is because it's an imperfect system, while I'm saying it's because it is a tool meant for a different kind of job.
I don't play "wrong" D&D just because I play it differently than you like to. Your preference is not the "correct" one by definition.It is not about what kind games you or I play or prefer. As I said before, anyone can play the game anyway they want, but if their playing style differs from the one the rules are intended for (and they don't houserule), they might end up with problems like you are having. That doesn't change the game that is being run, it just might bring out problems with it.
In other words, not all D&D-games being played are gamist, but those that are not have the chance of getting incoherency problems, like the ones you are having.
The same could happen trying to play in gamist way in a non-gamist system.
Only now you're overlooking my point for mentioning house rules in the first place, which was that their constant presence in every campaign I know of says something definite about RPGs. House rules are not impossible in soccer, chess or monopoly, but they are fairly rare, because they create doubt about what the rules really are. But there always seem to be house rules in RPG campaigns (that I know of, at least), which tells me that the rules themselves are secondary to the greater purpose of improving the role-playing experience. It also means that the final rules are settled to a large degree by the players and not the designers.If the rules were really secondary, then why the need for houseruling? If people didn't care about the rules that much, then there'd be no need to houserule them.
What I think you're really saying with this is that adhering to the rules as they are written in the books is not a primary concern, and with this I agree. However, this brings us back to what I said in my previous post about the futility of talking about any specific system if you have to assume an undetermined amount of houserules.
-
(I'll try getting the code to work this time...)
But then you're guilty of exactly what you accuse me of - you look at the rules only through your own eyes. I do too, but I never claimed otherwise, and I did point to what the rules said as well.<SNIP>
That gives you no basis for your position. You have said I speak only from my own views, but I can point to things in the rules that supports my position, while you cannot...
An alternative way to look at it is that it's rule incoherence; one part of the rule implies it's one thing, and another part implies it's something else.
There's no way I or anyone can claim that the sentence "D&D is not competitive" isn't saying what it is, so the only worthwhile discussion is in whether the rest of the books conform to this sentence or not. That sentence alone certainly does not mean they automatically do.
Soccer is a game with very specific rules. In that sense it is not that different from the chess example you mentioned earlier. But RPGs are different. You cannot let your pawn feign death in chess, because the rules won't allow it. You cannot bring a chair into the penalty field of the opposing team so you can better head the ball into the goal, because the rules do not permit it. RPGs allow you to try absolutely anything you can think of. May not work, but you are allowed to try. Even if the GM tells you your action can never ever succeed, you're still the one who decides whether you will take the action or not, the GM is not. So you're comparing apples and oranges, if you compare RPG rules to the rules of soccer or chess, where the permissible courses of action are determined beforehand.What you are basically saying here is that all RPGs are happen in an imagined world something like our own. This is certainly true (or at least, I haven't seen any RPG that doesn't assume that). It is, again, a question of whether you prioritize the plausability of this world or not. More on the rules below.
The soccer thing is more of a metaphor (or whatever that word is) than a comparison.
Also, I've never seen a RPG campaign (and I have seen many indeed) that did not include house rules. House rules are a proud tradition of RPGs, especially in D&D, where even the elistist comments of the author did nothing to stop the tradition.So rules are obviously not nearly as fixed in RPGs, as you seem to imply.
This is certainly true, but it is pointless to discuss the rules of a specific RPG if we have to assume any unspecified amount of unspecified house rules. Any game (RPG or not) can be houseruled to anything, and at some eventual point to an extent where it simply is nothing like the original game.
So any worthwhile discussion of "the rules of D&D" will have to assume playing by the book, or extremely close to so (or with a specified set of house rules.)
No, because you can gain rewards and certainly will gain experience in any event. Even if you choose not to face the opposition, while the thief sneaks in and steals the treasure... As pointed out before, there is no predetermined course of action that the players *must* take to succeed. The GM must eventually decide how much experience - but not rewards, since if the players can lay their hands on it, then they can take it whether the GM likes it or not - the players should get. He could punish them for not doing things the way he planned it, but being vindictive in that way is the mark of a very bad GM. Note also that the rules prompt the GM to reward the players for being ingenuitive and finding new ways to overcome their obstacles. That means that if they can avoid fighting and reach their goals in an easier why, then they should be rewarded for good thinking. That's what bonus xps are for, after all.As I said before, the method does not matter. A session that is all about diplomacy can be as competitive as a session of killing orcs, it again depends on the focus.
Furthermore, a game that would reward the PCs more experience for defeating their enemies than sneaking behind them might or might not be a gamist game. It depends on what the game is about. If the PCs are actually trying to get past the enemies for whatever reason, then simply doing that means they've won and should be rewarded. If the PCs have no reason to avoid their enemies (no other agenda) and still do so, then they've forfeited the game, and get no reward... But no penalty (loss of life, for instance) either. (There is certainly GM arbitration needed here, but so is there in any system.)
Arguments that the PCs should get a better reward for engaging in combat are often based on plausability ("combat is more dangerous, they should get more xp", "they learn more stuff in combat", etc.), not gamism. I'm not saying this is what you're claiming, but I'm certain you have seen arguments like that before.
Similarly, if the thief decides to steal the blacksmith's fancy sword, then he is partaking in the game, where the prize is the sword (and maybe some xp), and the penalty is getting into jail (or getting your hand cut off).
These are yet again stuff that can happen in any game; the question is also yet again about whether the game focuses on the competitiveness (win/loss/prize/penalty) or doesn't.
Gaining XP itself doesn't make the XP system of an RPG gamist (much less the whole system, which has alot more to it anyway), it's the reason you gain it for. If you gain it because you won an encounter, that's gamism. If you gain it because it's plausible that you learned something, then that's realism/simulationism/plausibilism/whatever. And, yes, often these lead to gaining XP in the same instances.
So you don't demand that the setting is internally consistent? Okay, so it's okay if you encounter whales in the middle of the desert or meet an elephant on a small 10 square feet plateau on the top of a mountain... That's fine, because there is magic and gods in D&D... It's also okay to have a wizard's tower filled with 500 iron golems, though the wizard would never ever have had the funds to build them all...Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you. I cannot accept basic stupidity internally in a game setting, because that would mean I cannot use my knowledge of the world logically to my advantage. And that kills my possibility to suspend disbelief, and so my enjoyment of the game.
You still fail to understand the word "prioritization".
The "whale in the desert" is a bad example, because it is a case where the plausability is not in contradiction with gamism. If, in a gamist session, the PCs are travelling through the desert and are going to have an encounter, the GM can as well throw a band of hostile nomads/asabi/sand demons/sand worms/whatever at them. Why? Because it gains the game both gamism and plausability, while a whale (or any opponent that is not plausible to be there) only gains the gamism.
The Wizard with 500 iron golems is closer to a better example, because there might be a reason where 500 iron golems offers a better game than something else. However, even such a situation can be easily replaced with something that offers the same game and more plausability (like more wizards working on the golems). It is easy to throw out the contradiction, unless there's more specifics to the situation.
Again, a coherent gamist RPG game is when you choose gamism over plausability when they are in contradiction. It does not mean you throw out plausability whenever you can.
-
(For some reason I can't get BB code to work in my posts... duh.)
The characters and players are competing against the in-game opposition. The GM is the only one who is assumed to not be competing in tandem with the in-game characters he plays.Ah, okay. So the GM is competing with the players, since he playes that opposition, thanks for clearing that up...
I don't agree, but hey...
Read again. Highlighted for convenience.
That might be your preferred way of playing (and there's nothing wrong with that), but it is not the assumed way of playing of D&D.Actually it is - you've actually even said so yourself, when you admitted that D&D rules say they are not competitive.
The books do indeed say so, but the rules represent something completely different. A bicycle salesman might tell me he's selling cars, but that doesn't affect what I see before my eyes much.
Saying "this is how it is" can hardly be called an argument.[sigh] Time for another round of "I think", I suppose...
Exactly whose opinion and experience am I allowed to speak from if not my own? I'd like to know, since my experience as a player of two decades and GM of nearly as much (in D&D) is obviously not good enough to consider...
The existing rules are not a question of opinion. You can certainly play it anyway you want, but when you assume you're playing something different than what the rules represent, you end up with problems like you are having (in your case, problems with plausability).
To use another metaphor, it's like two soccer teams agreeing they're just playing a game to see who can do the best ball tricks, but still giving the team who makes the most goals 100,000,000$ and a ticket to the finals. Your problems with plausability are akin to a player complaining to the FIFA that soccer the game should have been just about ball tricks.
The way to deal with this, is to agree to play for goals (changing your playing style to match that of the rules), or take away the prize (change the rules to match your playing style).
The only facts you have presented so far is that one sentence in the D&D books.That makes one more than you...
As I've said before, the game rewards those who min/max their characters and attempt to defeat their oppisition, therefore it's a gamist RPG. The reward and experience rules are the proof.
Also, I speak from experience and preference, when you seem to speak from preference alone...It has nothing to do with preference. To go back to the soccer example, you might like to play soccer just for the ball tricks, but that doesn't matter much when you play in the league, and by their rules. I didn't create the rules; whether I like them or not has nothing to do with what they are.
Show where the rules say anything about D&D being a gamist system.The books don't. Which still doesn't change what the rules are.
That's not a very compelling argument, since all RPG systems must be "gamist" by that definition - reality is by its very nature far more complex than it is relevant or playable to represent extensively in a game.All RPG system have competitiveness, is just whether they prioritize it over other concerns or not. More about realism below.
Also, gamism and realism/simulation/plausability are not opposite ends of each other, necessarily in contradiction, nor the only ways to play RPGs. I for one, am only limiting the discussion to them because I'm claiming D&D prioritizes the former while you're saying it's incoherent because it doesn't prioritize the latter.
Internal consistency inside the game world's own laws is not the same as reality. There are no magical rings in the real world, but there are twenty magical rings in Tolkien's Middle Earth - if we suddenly have more than that, then the world becomes inconsistent and flawed, and so violates its own established reality. If there are to be so many magical swords in D&D, then someone must have made them - they did not grow from holes in the ground because it was convenient, so who made them? The warriors (fighters, paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc.) cannot. The clerics and wizards can, but they have little reason to, since they can't use them.Again, realism, simulation, plausability, whatever you want to call it, amounts to the same thing. Maybe "world consistency", or "world plausability" would be the best terms.
And yet again, D&D is not primarly concerned with world consistency. Magical items exist to reward the players, or perhaps to give them an opposition when they're being used by someone else. If they create world consistency at the same time - great, but if they don't - big deal, that isn't what D&D was trying to do in first place. "Magical items are created by some entity with magical powers" is enough world consistency for D&D.
-
So who are they competing against if not the GM or each other? There's nobody else present unless you count the characters, in which case it would be better to stop playing altogether (for your mental health - D&D sadly lacks sanity rules, which says a lot)...
The characters and players are competing against the in-game opposition. The GM is the only one who is assumed to not be competing in tandem with the in-game characters he plays.
The point of an RPG is not to "win" cool "prizes". It is not a gameshow. The pcs are exploring the dungeons, not taking the chance of seeing what's behind door number three. The "prize" lies in the narrative of the evolving plot for the characters. Whether they find "cool gadgets" along is of little or no consequence to that.That might be your preferred way of playing (and there's nothing wrong with that), but it is not the assumed way of playing of D&D.
And you're completely ignoring my points, which doesn't make for the best of discussions. It also makes me think that it's because you have no arguments to support your own position and instead just continues to spew the same points over and over while ignoring mine, in which case you're better off not "arguing" at all. And implying that I don't want to listen just because I'm not writing something you don't like to read is pretty... well, let's just say unfair, since I don't want to offend too much.Saying "this is how it is" can hardly be called an argument. The only facts you have presented so far is that one sentence in the D&D books. While you keep talking about sword prizes and 1000 hp rats, I have no idea where you're pulling that stuff from.
As for my own evidence, like I've said before, the success based reward system of D&D (both experience & items) and the focus in growth in power. I guess I could also mention the gamist combat resolution system.
You're also refusing to see that since every character or NPC in an RPG is played or represented by an active player (including the GM), that means it does become competitive between players. Who makes the decision on what the orc does if not the GM?It is competitive between the in-game characters. The GM is simply assumed to not go all-out on the players, that is to only provide encounters the players have a chance of defeating. There are no restraints determined for GM power afterall, simply because that is not what the system is aiming for. Likewise, there is no determined lose/win/prize system for GMs, while there is one for players.
What has that got to do with the whether it's reasonable for a sword to cost less than it does to create it? You're completely ignoring the issue... again.Or put differently, is being unrealistic in itself a good thing in an RPG?Again, it's about the prioritization. It doesn't mean you completely throw out the aspects that you don't prioritize, but rather only in those instances where they are in contradiction with the aspects you are trying to prioritize. Hit Points are a good example of a rule where there exists even no slight realism. The long fall in your previous example is one where some exists, but has not been prioritized.
I was commenting on the 2nd sentence, quoted here.
You're the one who argued that RPGs shouldn't be "realistic".I am not arguing RPGs should not be realistic. I am arguing that D&D prioritizes gamism over realism (or in-world logic, or whatever you want to call it). There are other RPG system who certainly are different. I am not claiming all RPG systems are gamist.
I can hardly answer your sword example unless you tell me what game it is from. Though I suspect it is only an error. I for one see no reason to have it that way in any system.
This is an example, and they do occur in some RPGs. But if you don't want to answer that admittedly academic example, we could take the other one I mentioned, and which you conveniently cut from what you chose to reply to, which was about why there are not more magical weapons of the sorts that wizards and clerics use, when they are the ones who can make magical weapons. That's basic stupidity, too.I thought it'd have been obvious, but... Magic items in D&D exist as a reward to the players. The game does not need complicated reasoning on their existance. Again, because they're there for the gamism, not for the realism. And gamism is what D&D prioritizes.
-
So even if the rules support my interpretation and conflicts with your's then both the game designers and I are still wrong and you're right...
Feel free to point out any actual rule that does that (there are those too, you know... D&D is somewhat incoherent in when it comes to gaming style). Simply the book saying "this game is not competitive" doesn't mean much when actual evidence, the rules themselves, seem to indicate otherwise.
That is monty haul and munchkinism, not role-playing. RPGs, even D&D, are not about 'getting the best prize'. If it were, then why is treasure determined randomly? Besides, you completely forget that experience is shared among the group - it really doesn't matter who killed the dragon (unless you have a kill board, but then that's between the players), since everybody was in danger and so gets an equal share of the xp. As for gaining prizes, who decides who gets what? The GM assigns xp to be shared among the group - the players have no control over it. The GM also gives out loot, but who gets what is decided among the players out of his control. Your entire argument is flawed. If you like to play D&D that way, great for you, but that's not what the rules support. You even know that yourself, so how can you even argue it.Again, group vs. GM-made opposition, not player vs. player. In by the book D&D, the players either loses or wins as group. The possibility of losing and winning and the rewards are still there, and so is the competitiveness.
And what "prize" do you get for avoiding a war? None... except perhaps the knowledge of knowing that several thousand people lived instead of died, but then that's not a "prize" as such...You cannot twist a character's attempts to reach a goal into a competive process just because it fits your argument better.
If there is a chance for losing and winning and rewards it is a competitive process, and these exists in almost all RPG game systems... However, if the game system focuses (prioritizes) on these elements, then the game system itself becomes competitive.
But since the GM sets up that opposition, that's just GM vs. players by extension.Not unless GM tries to all out kill the players, or do whatever constitutes as winning at any specific GM vs. players game... D&D, however, isn't such. (A part of) The GM's job in D&D is to create encounters for characters, and these are the competitive part of it. The GM helps create the Game for the characters, he doesn't try to win it.
That doesn't mean the orc, the pit trap or the haggling merchant don't try to "win" against the players in the game world. This is what players vs. GM-made-opposition competitiveness is about.
Besides, let me repeat myself: No, they don't need "realism". They do need to have rules that suspend disbelief. They do not rules that are not obviously stupid.Like I said, whatever you want to call it. Amounts to the same thing: a simulation of the real world, or a simplification there of.
You're not saying anything new. You're just repeating yourself and sounding like a broken record.Because you are not understanding what I'm talking about. You are still assuming that competitiveness always means person vs. person, and that all RPGs should prioritize simulation/realism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it over others.
Is it "realism" to demand that a sword costs more than the iron value listed in the same rulebook? Or put differently, is being unrealistic in itself a good thing in an RPG?Again, it's about the prioritization. It doesn't mean you completely throw out the aspects that you don't prioritize, but rather only in those instances where they are in contradiction with the aspects you are trying to prioritize. Hit Points are a good example of a rule where there exists even no slight realism. The long fall in your previous example is one where some exists, but has not been prioritized.
Anyway, I have no idea where you're getting this sword prize thing from. It certainly isn't so in 3rd edition. Wouldn't know about previous editions, I don't own the books for those.
-
One of the first gaming concepts I ever read in any RPG was that it was not a competition between the GM and the players or among the players themselves. It was right first in the book and a fundamental principle in the game. That was in the red D&D box...
So by your own definition, even D&D is not a "gamist RPG".
RPGs are not about killing the monsters and overcoming the opposition. That is also just secondary. It's perfectly legitimate to avoid the opposition, make an agreement with them, join them if possible, etc. Though it often turns out differently, it is a fairly important principle that you don't have to solve things in the way the GM thought you would. If that were the case, there would be no need for GM, and you might as well play a CRPG, board game or similar where all the goals and how they must be reached are predetermined, and you just have to figure out how and what is "the correct way" to do it.
It is mentioned in the current edition of D&D as well. It is however, incorrect.
D&D is based on success. Those who are successful, get a prize (experience, items, whatever). Gaining a prize gives you both the higher chance to be successful and the possibility to gain better prizes. Those who are not successful don't get a prize, or can even get a penalty (loss of items, death, whatever). If that is not competitiviness, then I don't know what is.
Whether the opposition is monsters, traps or diplomacy doesn't matter. If you have a diplomacy roll, where you succeed in a treaty and get lots of prestige on success or degenerate to a war on failure, then that is competitiviness right there. If the game revolves around concepts like success and rewards, then the game prioritizes it over others and is thus a gamist/competitive game.
D&D's rules of success-based experience, item hauling and exponential power from levelling are all part of it's gamist style.
And as I said, D&D is not a player vs. player or players vs. GM type of competitiveness, but player vs. GM-made-opposition style.
My guess as to why the designers decided to include the part about it not being competitive is either to differentiate it from player vs. player competitiveness (which is isn't), or because the designers themselves don't realize what it is.
If you like board games better than RPGs, then that's fine. I don't, but it's fair enough - to each his own. However, they are not the same. They are different games. RPGs are, very obviously, about ROLE-PLAYING. All the stats and skills and abilities are all just means by which to promote the role-playing experience.It seems to me you are assuming roleplaying needs realism. While some kind of simulation of a real world (or a simplification of such) can be roleplaying as well, it is certainly not the only type. Again, you're trying to define the whole genre according to your own preference. Also, again, it is about prioritization.
By that logic you can make up any stupid rule you want in an RPG, and when players and gamemasters then criticise it, you can just say that it's because they want something else than what was written. Well, duh... But you're ignoring that there is a rule that is illogical and is stupid, and you're ignoring the people who use the rules and who say this is a problem. 3e Epic rules has DCs for swimming up a waterfall. Sounds silly to me, so I won't buy or use those rules.This is simply because you are equating "illogical" and "stupid" with "not realistic".
Again, D&D is a gamist game. That means realism takes a back seat for competitiveness, but it can still be there. In the case of your swim check or long fall examples, the competitiveness is in the possibility of creating characters that can make such checks, or dealing with a problem requiring that check with a character who can't make it.
-
What's a "gamist RPG" anyway? And if it is what it sounds like to me, what RPG wouldn't that be true for?
It's a question of prioritization, not whether something exists or not.
Gamism refers to competitiveness. Player vs. player, players vs. GM, or (most often in PnP RPGs, D&D included) players vs. GM-created-opposition. Gamism is about encountering problems, and figuring out a way to solve them, and most likely getting some sort of reward out of it (or getting a "penalty" if you don't). There's alot more that can go to it, but that's the basic idea.
A gamist RPG is an RPG that prioritizes this above other needs.
Also, it seems pretty silly to compare an RPG to a simple board game like chess, where the rules are very strict, limited and simple. Those simple rules are there to give you a framework by which to set up your strategy and then see how far it can take you. RPGs aren't like that at all.That is exactly what gamist RPGs are about, though they certainly can be simpler or more complex in rules. That certainly doesn't mean that that is everything a gamist RPG can be about; it is simply a question of prioritization.
And no matter how "realistic" or not you may prefer them to be (or not), you really cannot deny that it doesn't impede the gaming experience if you constantly have an incredibly unreaslistic rule glaring right in your face. I mean, what if the cost of buying a sword is lower than the components needed for making it? That's right in the rules, but it's just plain and basic stupidity and needs to be changed, no questions asked.The same goes for a lot of other areas. I really don't care how many thousands of hit points that 37th-level warrior/paladin/whatnot is - if he falls off a mountain for a few miles right onto sharp pointed rocks, then he's dead and should be. Period. Of course, you could then argue that I can impose that ruling as a GM, sure, but in that case, why would I even need those stupid rules in the first place, if I'm going to overrule them anyway? Besides, shouldn't a game by professional game designers take this relatively simple and straightforward situation into account in its rules?
As a gamist RPG, D&D gives the player the option to overcome a problem by making a character that can survive such a fall. Or it might as well not, if it is not relevant to the Game at hand... But apparently the designers felt it is, so realism automatically takes the back seat because it becomes a question of the Game. Again, prioritization.
Your problem is that you're trying to prioritize something else in your game than what the rules system prioritizes. You might call it realism, or whatever you want, but the fact itself that you are having these problems with the system proves that you're looking for a different thing in your game than what the system is trying to provide.
Neither you or the system are wrong, just different kind of goals. (Though it can certainly be argued whether D&D manages to do well what it tries to do; as long as you don't confuse it with what it isn't trying to do.)
There's alot more that can be said on gaming styles, incoherence in gaming styles (in rulesbooks and actual games), and ways to use rules for different kinds of styles... But I'll stop here this time.
-
The basis for most (if not all) RPGs is that you can try to do anything you can think of. This is even more relevant in a game like D&D, where there is magic and other supernatural phenomena. In that case it's more of a problem than a solution that you have to relearn or rather unlearn the laws of physics of real life before you can enter the "reality" of the game itself. That does not enhance the experience.
This is an incorrect assumption. D&D for one, is a gamist RPG, that tries to create an interesting game for the players, similarly to (for instance) chess. Trying to find an in-world representation for its rules is somewhat futile, as it is not the point of the game. Some rules will have it, some won't, but in general it is beside the "point" of D&D; D&D simply doesn't prioritize it.
Some other systems naturally will. However, it is not the main priority of all RPG systems, even if it is important to your way of playing.
-
Sorry if had been brought up before, but I recommend Killap's Fallout 2 patch which eliminates dozens of bugs to increase your enjoyment:
Are these patches supposed to give me a ridiculous amount of random encounters? Because they're getting pretty unbearable. Can't move an inch.
-
If you prefer a more point-based system for spells, check out the Expanded Psionic's Handbook. It presents the system as Psionics, but it's really just a varian rule for magic.
As for the races, check the subraces provided in various supplements. Most of them already cater to the ideas you presented for your races.
FF12?
when good campaigns go bad
in Pen-and-Paper Gaming
Posted · Edited by MrBrown
Oh, I don't mind alignment as such. I know D&D doesn't work without alignment. Like I said, the example I provided doesn't really work (EDIT: in D&D that is, because D&D has alignment); it's just an example of how things could be done.
Yeah yeah... Read the link I provided. Sorry, but I really don't want to get into this discussion again; it's repeated ad nauseum (sic) at the D&D boards.
It is not a "roleplaying" mechanic. It's a drama driving mechanic.
It isn't telling the players how or what they should play; the players change it according to how they play.