Oh gosh no. That’s why things like ToH were done and are remembered. Because they were the Game played to maximum killer. They were trotted out when a player got hubris.
“Killer DMs’ certainly existed but they were down upon.
True, 1st level was a dangerous level, but then of course bringing in a new PC wasn’t a big deal. Once you made it past lvl 5 or so, death was rare. The worst curses were reversible or had benefits to offset them. (My one PC got turned into some sort of super lizard man, but over all it was a stat gain, not loss.)
@thejeff - Gygax put this out in 1987, less than a year after he severed all ties with TSR. So he had his entire run with D&D to draw upon for the book (as well as for Master of the Game, which I think came out the following year).
(as well as for Master of the Game, which I think came out the following year).Master of the Game came out in 1989
Thanks. Knew it was close but do not have it handy.
|
@thejeff - Gygax put this out in 1987, less than a year after he severed all ties with TSR. So he had his entire run with D&D to draw upon for the book (as well as for Master of the Game, which I think came out the following year).
I've never picked up Dangerous Journeys, Lejendary Adventures, or Castles & Crusades, so I don't know how much of that commentary ended up influencing his design philosophy for actual rules sets. Anyone else have any more information on that?
|
|
Oh gosh no. That’s why things like ToH were done and are remembered. Because they were the Game played to maximum killer. They were trotted out when a player got hubris.
“Killer DMs’ certainly existed but they were down upon.
True, 1st level was a dangerous level, but then of course bringing in a new PC wasn’t a big deal. Once you made it past lvl 5 or so, death was rare. The worst curses were reversible or had benefits to offset them. (My one PC got turned into some sort of super lizard man, but over all it was a stat gain, not loss.)
Thanks for the clarifications; it's amazing that even in as small a community as gamers were in the 70s there was still so much variation across it. I hope I managed to explain where I was coming from. The more I think about it, though, the more it seems as though BECMI was the way the game was actually played, and a lot of things in OD&D/1e were Rule 0'ed extensively. Certainly when I ran the game back then I tended to be a lot less lethal than the DMs I was playing under...and here I thought I was doing it wrong. But evaporating characters gets old pretty quickly.
Well, John you see, hardly anyone played OD&D straight. Crazy mad houserules everywhere. read my little supplement, the Manual of Aurania or Dave Hargraves stuff and you'll see.
Pretty much, we looked at BECMI as kids games.
One thing tho- it was bad to become fixated with a PC and his concept. Drinking from pools, Deities, good and bad pulls from decks and what not could change your PC rather quickly. Usually for the better, sure, but still you had to be open for some concept changes. And, picking a weapon to be super-specialized in? Well, since it was hard to buy anything better than a +1, but random guards could have +2 weapons, it was best to be a little flexible.
(I had a NPC become a PC as the PC's were so generous with loot they couldn;t use, he had a +2 halberd, a +3 dagger, +2 splint, etc all at 4th level, because he was the hireling for a group of 9th level adventurers and he was brave, so they loaded him down The was the infamous "Irving the Crusader"... he started with str 13, dex 8, con12, Int 9, wis 11, cha 10 but then got his con boosted to 20... and then..... etc etc....)
The D20 concept of designing a character out for 20 levels? it is to laff.
And story could be optional. I loved Tegel Manor, but that was about as plotless as a SciFi channel movie. Frog God Games' The Black Monastery is very much a Tegel Manor module (and quite cool), but it's about exploring and fighting: you make up your own story line. Characters are center, not story.
I should probably know this, but are touranment modules still in vogue with Pathinder and D&D today? I remember seeing notes in TSR and Judges Guild modules that talked about they were for tournaments. And there was something about tournament scoring associated with them.
Obviously, I'm aware of PFS.
I think Ghost Tower of Inverness was one such (maybe the whole C-series was?). And I'm pretty sure Operation Ogre (I loved those paper-thin Judges Guild modules) was also one. Just wondering if the 'disposability of characters' concept was some aspect of tournament vs 'regular' modules.
You could even argue that the increased mechanical support for different roles/backgrounds/personalities is a step backwards. There are more options, but you're kind of going back to building the personality around the mechanics. Not sure I'd actually buy into that, but it's an interesting thought.
Man! Now there's flipping something on it's head, and no doubt. I never even thought about the fact that by creating a "mechanical" system for story background you were actually binding a character's personality, instead of freeing it. The Ultimate Campaign random background generation process would be a great support for that argument though. Want a dwarf that was raised in a human village? Sorry, your d100 roll says you were raised underground? Want your character to have both parents alive so you have some anchoring NPC contacts? Too bad your d100 roll says both your parents are dead, etcetera, ad nauseum. That just shows the power of perspective. I look at the background tables and see a wealth of knowledge that can help me make decisions for the rich and complex history of my character. Someone else might look at it and see shackles that restrict their creativity to play the character as they want.
Now in terms of what Gygax said:
You should be bold and aggressive as a knight, while as a worker of magic, you will tend toward reclusiveness and mystery. The rules and spirit of the game tell you what you can and cannot do in general and somewhat concrete terms, but it is very much up to the individual to take on the role of the PC and play it well.
This quote leads me to believe that Gygax assumptions of the classes were pretty rigid. A knight (fighter) is aggressive, and should seek out melee combat. A wizard is mysterious and reclusive. There doesn't seem to be any margin for leeway there. What if I want to play a fighter that is actually a bit cautious, and avoids combat whenever possible? According to Gygax that's a failure to play the "role" correctly.
You've definitely given me something to think about though. Maybe all the rich options for character background have become a set of shackles (of sorts). Maybe even just in the small way that they create a game where having a rich background can become an expectation. What's wrong with somebody rolling up a character and saying, "I have no idea who this gal is, I'll find that out as the game progresses."? Maybe nothing. I dare say, though, in Gygax view, if that gal were a cleric, her personality would be nurturing, which is part and parcel of her role...
@Alzrius - that was a very good post on tournament modules in the day. Thanks.
Escape From Astigar's Lair (which I used to own) had the tournament rules inluded.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not just the mechanics. People were doing this long before even kits appeared in 2E.
Gygax here seems to still be responding to a purely token playstyle, probably stemming from the wargaming roots. You can see a lot of it in early discussions in Dragon, for example. (When did Gygax write this, btw?) Taking on different roles and personality based on class is a step away from that and towards making the characters actually distinct personalities and not just stereotypes of their class.You could even argue that the increased mechanical support for different roles/backgrounds/personalities is a step backwards. There are more options, but you're kind of going back to building the personality around the mechanics. Not sure I'd actually buy into that, but it's an interesting thought.
Properly done you'd build the mechanics of the character around its personality and history, but it's not surprising how much of it goes the other way. In practice I tend to do them both together. The other consideration is that no set of game mechanics is going to be all-inclusive, so there are personalities and concepts that just won't be supported. And when you and the GM make something up, it can be hard when Paizo comes out with the official version and you're left scrambling.
Folks probably saw the Paizo blog post, but just thought I'd mention the Pathfinder Dice Game kickstarter going on. I backed it because I like board games and I'm interested to see how this rather odd looking game comes out; hard to know what to make of it.
I consider most of Paizo's PF RPG stuff to be of very good quality; the PFACG is fantastic and the Wizkids minis I've gotten have been good. On the other hand, I think PF Online is going to be a disaster.
But generally, I think Paizo officially aligns itself with quality product. We'll see which side of the line this game falls on.
Back to normal discussion....
Properly done you'd build the mechanics of the character around its personality and history, but it's not surprising how much of it goes the other way. In practice I tend to do them both together. The other consideration is that no set of game mechanics is going to be all-inclusive, so there are personalities and concepts that just won't be supported. And when you and the GM make something up, it can be hard when Paizo comes out with the official version and you're left scrambling.
Thinking about it, I build around the mechanics. I look at the game I'm going to play in (an Urban Ranger in the deserts of Osirion would be dumb), pick the class and race I want, then do the build. I try to tie in background, personality, etc (fluff) to the adventure (I find GMs really do appreciate that effort), but they are definitely the clothes over the skeleton (hopefully there's some flesh in between..).
In relation to the OP, I still try to RP my character the "right" way, but as far as constructing the character, I'm definitely mechanics driven.
Since we've epanded upon playing the character and touched a bit on player creation, Gygax says, "For instance, the AD&D game uses a character system based on profession, or “class.” In that game, the direct, highly physical approach is embodied in the fighter and cavalier classes. The magic-user class offers the indirect, possibly intellectual approach- a sort of mixture of artillery and superscience. Between these two extremes lies the cleric class, with its mixture of direct and indirect action (being able to use both heavy weapons and heavy magic).
Finally, the thief class presents a manner of approach that is basically individualistic and unobserved (as differing from indirect). Of course, other PC types and the nonhuman races add to the mix. If the AD&D game has a single obvious shortcoming, it is the attempt to present so many facets of the whole world to itsparticipants that players lose sight of the reason for all these classes of PCs. Because the game is so extensively detailed and reflects a fantasy milieu in world-scale terms, there is no meaningful level of character success that is achievable with respect to the world community. That is, no matter how powerful a PC becomes, the choices for the player are but two: Continue to ue the character as an adventurer, or retire the character from active play and have the figure become a tool for use by the Game Master (GM).
He added, In addition to delineating a field of endeavor for a PC, some game systems allow for selection of a race, or species, other than human for the PC. This can be a so-called demi-human, such as a dwarf or an elf, in a fantasy setting; or it can be some alien creature type in a science fiction milieu.
Whatever the selection of races or species presented, the choice facing the player is quite similar tothat of profession or skill grouping. There will be advantages and drawbacks to each potential selection. The rules must be understood, and all the decisions that pertain to profession or skill area should be made prior to selecting a PC’s race. If you simply must play a magic-user in the AD&D game campaign being developed, then your character cannot also be a dwarf, because the rules of the game prohibit dwarves from being magic-users, and vice
versa. The inclusion of choices for race or species in RPGsis simply another method of allowing participants to explore the possibilities and solve the problems of the system.
And, Knowing the whole of the system, and studying carefully that portion of the rules that deals with the creation and advancement of player characters, gives the participant a great advantage when choosing and developing a PC. Since the game persona is created to serve in a lengthy series of play sessions (the campaign), care must be used in selection of profession or skills, race or species, gender, and alignment of the new PC. Above all, the player must be enthusiastic about long-term participation in the game with the chosen PC.
|
I just finished reading this thread. Very excellent topic, worthy of time and reflection. Thanks for everyone's contributions.
As a big Gygax fan myself, I will share my all time favorite quote with you from the First Edition Dungeon Masters Guide:
"... NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU... BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. [...] YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER."
Note: before anyone agrees/disagrees with this quote, please know that I'm not interested in debating it. I just share it with you. Sure the game and the culture have climbed the mountain and come back down over this type of verbiage. At the end of the day, I share this because the wisdom still has value today for any aspiring GM.
Regards,
Pax
I just finished reading this thread. Very excellent topic, worthy of time and reflection. Thanks for everyone's contributions.
As a big Gygax fan myself, I will share my all time favorite quote with you from the First Edition Dungeon Masters Guide:
"... NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU... BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. [...] YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER."
Regards,
Pax
Sounds like my approach to being a dad :-)
That quote immediately reminded me of the subheading at the start of The Master GM chapter: THE CREATOR, ORGANIZER, AND ARBITER OF ALL
It is also a strong indicator that Gygax wasn't a devotee of RAW (rules as written).
I'll probably drop a few more concepts from The Master GM chapter along the way.
Welcome to the thread.
Bob's Character Building
Mechanics - the skeleton of the character
Background - the flesh of the character
Equipment/Goods - The clothes of the character.
The insubstantial concept becomes substantive with the selection of class and race. Gender is less important in most cases. Alignment is a reflection of personality and could be included in this step or the next: I lean towards the latter.
The character is basically a golem at this point, a construct. It exists but is inanimate. Life is breathed into the character with a story. Background, history, personality traits: Now it's a living being with depth.
But it's naked as far as being an adventuring character goes. The skeleton and the flesh are essentially permanent. They can be enhanced, but not simply removed as if they never were. Now, the character is equipped and outfitted at ye old general store. It's clothed. Those clothes will change. New and better stuff will be obtained through adventuring. But frame, flesh and clothes: we have a player character.
Humble fellow that I am, I kinda like this analogy.
There are some who would reverse one and two: if the build works, hey, it's not a perfect analogy. But for my character build, this works.
Above all, the player must be enthusiastic about long-term participation in the game with the chosen PC.
This quote, and what comes before it, go a long way to dispelling that myth that Gygax was a sadistic and lethal GM. He clearly had a concept that the game was meant to be played long-term, over many sessions. Many others have offered substantial reasons why Gygax may have been perceived as lethal, but clearly, even if at times he was lethal, he knew that the life of the game was going to be in campaigns with longevity. I'd be inclined to say that part of Gygax viewpoint was from a business perspective. The more players you have playing the game for long periods of time the more likely you are to be able to continue to sell them gaming materials (just look at Paizo over the past few years and you'll see a similar mentality). I'm guessing, though, that part of it was also the storyteller in him, realizing that having a "main" character means having a character that participates in a centralized and lasting conflict.
As I wrote this it struck me that my vision of gaming in the early days was that you had to adjust your "style" of play to fit into the role of the character you'd selected, and that nowadays you scoured the wealth of customizing options and designed a character to fit with your own personal style. Said another way, I envisioned the "old days" being a player fitting into the skin of their character, and modern gamers fitting a character around their existing skin, so that playing them came naturally, at least to begin with.
Within my own games I always suggest players find a character that fits with their own personality first, and then, after they've "mastered" some of the more social and subtle elements of the game they can "branch out" and play a character that might be more difficult or even completely foreign to their "normal" gaming style.
The reason that vision of the "then and now" struck me is I realized I might be waaay off, and be basing that assumption on my own personal experience only, and not on the actual collected stories of those people that have also played for the past three plus decades. Yet another reason this thread is spectacular.
@MendedWall - a comment from Gygax sorta related to the second part of your post:
These nonparticipants had no intention of taking part because they were fearful that the process would reveal too much about their actual personalities. What these people don’t realize is that players generally prefer to choose and develop a character type that is not similar to one’s true personality, and most games are designed so as to encourage this sort of selection.
A master gamer will understand that one of the most intriguing aspects of RPGs is the opportunity to portray a character that bears no resemblance to his actual persona. In some cases, depending on the particular game or the result the player desires from the activity, it may be appropriate or even necessary to reflect one’strue self in the choice of a PC, but the general statement still holds.
He also said this, which reflects your comment on more experience resulting in being able to handle more difficult character challenges:
Do you really have the proper mind-set to play the particular game persona at this time? While it isn’t possible to perform at peak level at all times, an uninteresting or a distasteful PC is sure to lower your performance drastically over a long period of time. This might be acceptable in a casual episode in which experimentation and aberration are of no import, but it is quite destructive in an ongoing campaign. You will not gain enjoyment, the others in the group will have theirs hindered because of your imprudent choice, and the whole level of the campaign could suffer. Until you are a master-an individual capable of accepting any challenge and dealing with it willingly to the extent of its limits-it is always best to let your enthusiasm direct your selection when in doubt.
Above all, the player must be enthusiastic about long-term participation in the game with the chosen PC.This quote, and what comes before it, go a long way to dispelling that myth that Gygax was a sadistic and lethal GM. He clearly had a concept that the game was meant to be played long-term, over many sessions. Many others have offered substantial reasons why Gygax may have been perceived as lethal, but clearly, even if at times he was lethal, he knew that the life of the game was going to be in campaigns with longevity.
As I wrote this it struck me that my vision of gaming in the early days was that you had to adjust your "style" of play to fit into the role of the character you'd selected, and that nowadays you scoured the wealth of customizing options and designed a character to fit with your own personal style. Said another way, I envisioned the "old days" being a player fitting into the skin of their character, and modern gamers fitting a character around their existing skin, so that playing them came naturally, at least to begin with..
From talking to other grognards, some of whom played with Gygax, his games weren’t all that lethal. What is perceived as “Gygaxian lethality” comes from some players saying “My PC is bulletproof, he can defeat anything” and Gygax saying “Oh yeah, well try this…” and throwing them in ToH. Even so, you often only risked a clone, instead of your “real” PC. But the sin of hubris is always the worst sin anyway….
Mind you, you ignored traps at your extreme peril, this idea that all a trap is gonna do is a few HP or slow you down was laughable in those days.
You are more of less right. Instead of archetypes and dozens of classes, etc, one came up with a concept :“Uncle Nadrak, the Cleric who gives homage to all deities but worships none” “The Knight of Sward, the enigmatic fighter who will only use swords as weapons, and treats intelligent swords as sentient beings that should be freed.” and played within the cleric or fighter “skin’ for that, choosing spells, weapons, etc.
Strangely, despite today having dozens of classes (and what a hundred archetypes?) The PC’s were more different then. “Optimized” & “Min/max” were Bad Things (at least in my groups). You choose a weapon, not for an extra point of DPR but because you were the Knight of Swords. If you found a +3 lance, you traded it off. Despite the so-called “Stormwind fallacy” it *IS* true that Optimization, Min/Maxing and stuff like Attacks of Opportunity do distract from Roleplaying. Not that you can’t have a full optimized Mix/maxed PC in a super tactical set of rules and still roleplay the heck out of him, but generally us mere mortals just have so much attention span and brain power. Thus, if you’re thinking about not provoking at AoO or doing 10% more DPR you’re not thinking about “What would Uncle Nadrak do?”. The idea of NOT picking a crossbow as you wanted to do “The dwarf with no name’ who carried twin CB and smoked cheap cigars was unthinkable. You’d just do it, and screw the DPR. Giving up that +5 Flaming Burst sword as it was Intelligent so you “freed” it by taking it to Kelanen the Lord of Swords? Of course!
OTOH, the chance you’d get a super bene or wish or something was very very high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you really have the proper mind-set to play the particular game persona at this time? While it isn’t possible to perform at peak level at all times, an uninteresting or a distasteful PC is sure to lower your performance drastically over a long period of time.
Those statements, and their exaggeration or perversion by people outside the gaming hobby, are exactly why the uneducated masses think everyone that plays RPGs has to be a thespian nerd. Performing a persona sounds exactly like acting camp. Of course, a bit of play-acting is, in fact, a part of this hobby, but not everyone has to be able to fully thespianize (<---that's not really a word) a character in order to fully participate in, or enjoy this game. Some people are extremely shy, and can still be active and enjoyable players at a game table.
but generally us mere mortals just have so much attention span and brain power.
Very true. The fact that two things aren't mutually exclusive, and therefore can coexist simultaneously does not also mean that their coexistence is extremely likely. Is it possible for someone to be an optimizer and a thespian? Sure. Is it statistically likely that someone who invests heavily in mechanical optimization is also excited about the prospect of performing their character's persona at a peak level? I'd argue probably not. I'd also add, in support, that at the various tables I've run over the years, I have personally only ever encountered one person that was good at both. Thankfully I still get to play with that individual. In his particular case, he sees optimization as a way to make sure his character gets to continue participating in the collective story. His fear, and it is completely legitimate, is that a character that is developmentally rich in persona playability, but lacking in mechanical goodness, could end up falling to the guillotine of the machine. Then you've invested in a character's story for naught, because they couldn't survive mechanically in the gaming world.
I remember playing Ravenloft and the GM did a great Strahd. Of course, he went on to be a professional improv performer who is on track to break it nationally. So, no suprise there. The rest of us just played, not acted. That worked out fine for everybody.
Totally unrelated: If you are looking for a fun present for Christmas that won't break the budget (under $20 on Amazon), I highly recommend Munchkin (including the new Pathfinder version). We started playing it during lunch at work this year (average game is 30 minutes to an hour) and it is an absolute BLAST. It's very funny and it's also kid friendly (they might not understand everything..). It works for two players, but because of the help someone/shaft someone element, it really shines with three or more. Alliances shift constantly based on self-interest. While I am a big fan of the PFACG, I think Munchkin is probably the all around most fun game that I play.
Ravenloft was one of my favorite gaming experiences of all time. The GM I had at that particular time WAS sadistically lethal. He thoroughly enjoyed with great revelry every hit point he was able to "remove" from us. While the overall module was very fun, there were contentious moments at the table because it really felt like an "us versus him" game, instead of an "us versus the module" game.
Edit: After I reread that, it made me realize that I just said I had one of my most enjoyable gaming experiences at a contentious table with a sadistic and lethal GM... I need to clarify that that was one of my most enjoyable experiences as a player. Shortly thereafter I picked up GMing duties, and I haven't been able to be a player in a game since. Just so we're all on the same page, that was 1992. I guess that's more a statement about the lack of available GMs at the time, than maybe anything else.
I think that Ravenloft was an amazing gaming experience. It broke new D&D ground and offered a spooky vampire atmosphere. I recall liking the Swords & Sorcery third edition books, though I never played them.
I did spend a little time in Prisoners of the Mist, a Neverwinter Nights persistent world with a Ravenloft theme. Fun stuff.
Paizo did a nice job with Ustalov, which is pretty different from Ravenloft but fills that vampire region niche.
Fear not, I haven't abandoned the thread (again..). Working on a Solar Pons project (what? You don't know who Solar Pos is?) and will have the next step up shortly.
Interesting. I read that quote very differently. Not about performing or thespianizing (it's a word now), but just about picking a PC you'll want to play for the long run. "Performance" being more of an overall "how well you'll do with the character..."
I read it the same way...
If that's the case it strikes me as awfully metagamey and a little sad. If "performance" is something that can be quantifiably measured, it further creates the idea that to be a player in the game has rigorous expectations, and that people will "perform" at different levels of excellence. If that's true perhaps Gygax would have been better off using his profession:herbalism, or craft:alchemy knowledge to design a performance enhancing pill or supplement for RD (role-playing disfunction). That way instead of educating people about how poorly they are performing, he could have provided a magical blue pill that would enhance their performance for up to eight hours.
This talk about characters makes me think about mine.
When I started my present campaign, I started out Bard, and I planned to stay Bard. However, because I started doing a number of survival-type things, I ended up picking up a level of Ranger.
But then, in one of the early adventures, I ended up taking and keeping an evil magic dagger. At first, I took it to make sure that no bad guy ended up with it. But over time... I learned more and more about what I could do with the dagger, and more and more about what the dagger was doing to me.
I eventually abandoned my Bard nature and started taking levels in Witch. Now, from an optimization point of view, a Bard/Ranger/Witch is pretty darn horrible, and it shows. I am not winning any DPR Olympics. However, my plot line with my PC and the dagger is one of the strongest and most enduring subplots in the campaign, and the GM is happy to milk it for all it's worth. I'm happy to go along with is because it's a good story.
One of the other PCs commented that my PC is either the best person to carry the dagger, or the worst person to carry the dagger, but he can't tell which. Even now... we still can't tell.
Now, if I focused on the mechanics, I would have abandoned all this long ago. Indeed, the mechanics are fighting me every step of the way. However, to play's the thing.
Oh, and I LOVELOVELOVE Ravenloft. Best world ever. It places the focus on what you choose to do, and not what you are capable of doing, and in that way, the stories all become more meaningful.
I also think that when you consider the "performance" of a player, that what got measured in the old days wasn't acting, necessarily, or anything like that. It was, for example, how trained and systematic you were in dungeoneering and the like. Knowing to ask, "What kind of oil does the lamps use?" or "I prod the bottom of the pit with my 10' pole, do I hear any hollow spaces?" was the sort of performance that got measured and rewarded.
In the end, survival mattered less on how many bonuses you could pile up, but on how crafty you, the player, could be when presented with the situation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that's the case it strikes me as awfully metagamey and a little sad. If "performance" is something that can be quantifiably measured, it further creates the idea that to be a player in the game has rigorous expectations, and that people will "perform" at different levels of excellence.
You have to remember that in original D&D through 2nd edition AD&D, problems and puzzles were usually presented to the players rather than the characters.
Even for simple things like searching for secret doors and whatnot, the players were encouraged to explain in explicit detail, just how their characters went about searching a room (usually with no dice being rolled at all during the process)... Or if the characters needed to talk their way past the castle guards for example, it was the players who told the DM exactly what their characters said, and it was the DM who decided (sometimes just by fiat alone) if the "bluff" worked or not.
It was a different game...
It's all ultimately which player skills you want to reward. The old style emphasized the player's table skill, and the approach of how you use limited resources. The new style emphasizes the player's character building skill, and the approach of how you can maximize the resource availability to your character.
Both are valid, but they result in different importances.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That bothers me more than skill in character building.
Playstyles did indeed vary back then, but after all, this is a discussion about Gary's book on what HE thought "Role Playing Mastery" was all about...
So it's important to remember that the angle he was coming from in this book was all about player skill over character skill (which is why his gaming philosophies tend to be dated, especially by today’s gaming standards).
December combines year-end close at work, Christmas and my son's birthday. Man oh man! Here is step 10:
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Ten - Always seek to contribute the most to the team’s success
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
From the players’ and the PCs’ standpoint, any role-playing game is a group endeavor. Individual success is secondary to the success of the group, for only through group achievements can the quality of a campaign be measured.
We discussed this quite a bit earlier in November. Chapter Four of the book is titled "The Group: More Than Its Parts."
There are snippets throughout the book like: Group operation and cooperation are at the nucleus of any RPG activity.[i/]
And [i]Whatever rewards you seek, all that might come are based on
the play group.
I'll sprinkle in some more, but it's clear that Gygax measured success and accomplishments via the group, rather than individual characters. Which makes this Step a natural one for his list.
Merry Christmas to all of you.
You have to remember that in original D&D through 2nd edition AD&D, problems and puzzles were usually presented to the players rather than the characters.Even for simple things like searching for secret doors and whatnot, the players were encouraged to explain in explicit detail, just how their characters went about searching a room (usually with no dice being rolled at all during the process)... Or if the characters needed to talk their way past the castle guards for example, it was the players who told the DM exactly what their characters said, and it was the DM who decided (sometimes just by fiat alone) if the "bluff" worked or not.
It was a different game...
The DM would often call for some sort of roll, but yes, the Players action is what ‘set the DC” so to speak. Good detail, easy roll. Poor detail, hard roll. But a good DM would usually allow a Player, who personally was poor at whatever, but whose PC had great stats in that, to make a check instead of acting it out.
But yes, acting it out was the standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm not joking when I say I had a wall of text typed up to discuss all the myriad and sundry complexities of role-playing game success. Trust me when I say it was brilliant, substantive, and humorous.
Somehow the digital gods decided to eat my post, and now I do not have the energy to try and re-type my genius.
In the end, though, I summed it all up with this statement: There are two absolute truths to success in gaming: success at every gaming table must be measured differently; and, the parameters of that success need to be established before the game ever begins.
Is Gygax right when he says:From the players’ and the PCs’ standpoint, any role-playing game is a group endeavor. Individual success is secondary to the success of the group, for only through group achievements can the quality of a campaign be measured? Of course, but the criteria for success have evolved a great deal over the years, and what one table might consider successful, another table would consider a complete waste of time.
As I only play PbP these days, 'acting it out' is different than sitting around a table. I'm still using my imagination and the words are key, but there's no "delivery." Acting it out through a keyboard is its own form of character immersion.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
Merry Christmas Holmes, and Merry Christmas to all my fellow gamers. May your 2014 be filled with gaming greatness, and greatness of every other sort as well!
Merry Christmas to all.
As far as character building, I do often start at mechanical concept. But what I often do is get my baseline mechanical concept, then find a basic personality & background concept, and build inwards from the two of those.
We just did some (late) playtesting of the ACG. I played an Investigator in a PFS dungeon/puzzle module (more on that later), and a Bloodrager in an old 3.0 module converted on the fly (we'll finish that up in a week or so).
For the Investigator, I started by picking that because I was aware the module would involve puzzles. I thought that a skill-heavy character would be a good choice. Then I tried to figure out who this character was. I've often wanted to (successfully) play a James Bond type. I've got one now, a Rogue/Magus rebuilt now into a Dreamscarred Press Soulknife. He's doing ok, but he's got about 10 levels worth of being unlucky and sometimes comically inept (especially with people), which colors it. So I decided to emphasize the drinking aspect, rather than the suave aspect. As an Investigator, the character makes extracts, and could pass them out, so I simply decided to treat those like mixed drinks. I envisioned him as a broadly competent person with a dry wit, and a penchant for handing out specialized beverages.
In practice, I ended up being ineffectual and out of character most of the time. (Combats were trivial because the GM didn't adjust the old PFS module for our being more optimized than PFS assumed at the time, and honestly, probably moreso than PFS assumes now, which I know is more than in the past.) In combat, the Arcanist's boosted fireballs just ended everything. Out of combat, I had expected puzzles that would challenge the characters. Instead, I got puzzles that challenged the players. And those pull me right out of character and into analytical mode. Which, granted, my character supported, but it didn't matter.
Made worse was the fact that these puzzles were really not something the characters could contribute to as opposed to the players. We determined (incorrectly, I'd say, even though I proposed it) that the portable alchemy lab I carried had scales that would permit weighing items (I think the scales would be too small to be useful in this case)... after completing that puzzle through trial & error, and a resist energy to eliminate the risk of damage. Other than that, character contribution to puzzles was a set of appraise rolls by the Arcanist. (I have no idea how that puzzle was supposed to be solved without someone good at Appraise.) Coupled with a few misleading clues and the way the puzzle punished you based on how far wrong you were from the correct answer, we started transitioning to an algorithmic approach - "well, if the intensity of the punishment is tied to how wrong we are, we can just make single adjustments and see if it's better or worse each time" - two computer programmers faced with no definitive answer (we got distracted from the correct solution by too many proposals at once and the punishment mechanic) go straight to how you'd make a computer solve it. And no time pressure meant we could suffer the punishment and heal until we ran out of resources, then rest & repeat.
The second one, I picked a Bloodrager because the class interests me. We were originally going to play a demon-heavy PFS scenario, so I decided to pick the Celestial bloodline. Then I thought about why. And that's where I decided I was playing a half-orc, raised by orcs, with the mentality of a paladin informed by divine revelation. So I started with mechanics (which makes some sense in a one-shot playtest of the classes), and then worked to explain why my character had those mechanics.
Other times I've had a story concept in mind, and then searched out mechanics that suited. My current wizard, all I knew going in was "spellcaster and lots of lightning". Then I surveyed options and ended up with wizard, and played up the mad scientist angle (if I'd liked a sorcerer bloodline more I would have played up "I am the storm").
What I find important in the optimization vs. character concept & development question is this: how are the challenges of the game being built? I've played in games where I knew that making a suboptimal choice for flavor reasons would put me in trouble; as much as I wanted the character to make a given decision, it might well get him killed or make the party struggle much more. (This happens when the challenges are built against an assumed level of party optimization, rather than the actual level.) But I've also played characters who have made sub-optimal choices because that's what they would do, and metagame, I felt comfortable doing it.
Oh side note: the PACG arrived as a Christmas present, so I'll be cracking that open to play soon.
@Pehlan: Have you played yet? What do you think? I've got the Skull and Shackles Beta but we haven't mananged to get together and play it yet.
the madness that is mid to late December for me has come and gone. So, back to the book!
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Eleven - Put forth your personal best during play.
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
The advice given in step 10 does not mean that you should ever compromise in your efforts to succeed as a player. Your PC may have to subjugate his or her individual desires from time to time to ensure the general welfare of the group, but that is as it should be, and this does not mean that you should ever allow your enthusiasm and drive as a player to lessen.
I think this is our last kicking of the dead horse and we'll move off of the group focus with the next step. I found the last part of note. I read this as saying sometimes it's not all about what you want and you shouldn't get depressed or down on the game because the group's welfare comes before your own.
In our 'It's all about me, and if it's not, I'll take my ball and go home' culture, what Gygax is saying is counter to that. However, RPGing is a past-time and something to be enjoyed. He's talking about a mindset; a different way of thinking about your play. He's not saying you should keep playing if you're not having fun. He's saying that you should still be able to have fun even if it's not all about you. And you should be able to play well.
He's saying this in the context of doing your best at each session. Don't get down on the game and go through the motions, or overtly or covertly adopt a "Fine, whatever," type of attitude where you pull less than your full weight.
I mentioned I was a competitive Ultimate (Frisbee) player for a long time. I didn't always agree with the captains and had little snit fits during games. But every time my cleats (with me in them) went out on the field, I gave 100% to the extent I was capable. I gave my personal best. Of course, that wasn't always good enough, but hey, I tried.
Gygax is sort of tying a bow on the package of 'Group First' with this step.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm blocked from the D&D webpage that hosts these walkthrough comics, but click on this link to see some very cool depictions of classic D&D modules.
This is one of the neatest graphical D&D things I've come across in awhile.
Oh man! Holmes, you've sparked an idea that I've wanted to chat with knowledgeable people about for a while now.
The question is essentially one, but can, and probably should be looked at from two different perspectives. The question is: What is to be done when a participant in a running game isn't feeling emotionally enthusiastic about the game?
Being a human being I know that every other gamer out there will be able to empathize with that day that you really just "aren't feeling it," when it comes to playing an RPG.
The two different angles for this, though, depend on whether the person "not feeling it" is a player or the GM.
One could argue it's okay to continue playing with a player that is emotionally "under the weather." (Which is a ridiculous euphemism, by the way.) It's much harder to continue a game with a GM that is under that same proverbial weather though.
One of the reasons I ask is because I am the GM and I've almost cancelled a game session because of my own lack of enthusiasm, but I know that's not fair to the players. However, I wonder, is it fair to the players to play in a session where the GM isn't giving it his/her "all." Holmes post, makes this topic of conversation completely relevant.
Thanks Holmes!