Well chance decided it actually.
He picked a fight with a rough old dwarven barkeep. Who was an ex-fighter, that much was not random. So I rolled for level and... what do you know? So I quickly did some calculations in my head and he was a twf axes build, which he drew from the bar (and he was cut while doing so). Then after the player's turn he got off a full round and I believe it had two crits. Near max damage, x3. The dice are cruel, but sometimes just.
Giblets.
In general this thread strikes me as a lot of "this works best for me, so it is clearly best period".I'm unsure how exactly that differentiates it from all the other threads on the site. Or indeed, the internet.
It's very possible to talk about roleplaying without going into "I don't like your method, therefore your method is bad". I agree with you in that it does tend to happen a lot. That doesn't mean it's required to happen though.
There's an aspect of the topic I'd be super interested, but I'm doubting that it would be discussed, or if it were that wouldn't receive the same treatment.
How the game rules encourage "party balance" or punish a lack of it and how that impacts games.
I've found the past few years that I drift a little towards games with self-defined roles, because it removes a portion of the problem that D&D style games have, not having a pre-defined role places the players at a disadvantage. A GM can mitigate that disadvantage if they choose to, but that has reverberating consequences throughout the game as well, advantaging certain roles/abilities, while disadvantaging others.
The down side of self-defined roles is that they are less impactful in the mechanics of the game though. It works with a group of high descriptive players/GM, but loses some of it's punch when analyzed from a mechanical standpoint. The differences between self-defined roles becomes superficial mechanically. It places a higher priority on "why" instead of "how".
Anyways, just some late night musings.
There's an aspect of the topic I'd be super interested, but I'm doubting that it would be discussed, or if it were that wouldn't receive the same treatment.How the game rules encourage "party balance" or punish a lack of it and how that impacts games.
Well for one, I'll bite!
I've found the past few years that I drift a little towards games with self-defined roles, because it removes a portion of the problem that D&D style games have, not having a pre-defined role places the players at a disadvantage. A GM can mitigate that disadvantage if they choose to, but that has reverberating consequences throughout the game as well, advantaging certain roles/abilities, while disadvantaging others.The down side of self-defined roles is that they are less impactful in the mechanics of the game though. It works with a group of high descriptive players/GM, but loses some of it's punch when analyzed from a mechanical standpoint. The differences between self-defined roles becomes superficial mechanically. It places a higher priority on "why" instead of "how".
Anyways, just some late night musings.
My POV:
A well-defined role, whether by the rules or the player themselves (and heavy rulesets, in general) allows for a bigger audience, as they're far more inclusive to the type of player that is looking to contribute at a gamist level. It also gives much-needed guidance and structure to the group. The average human mind seems to be more geared towards being happy and willing to contribute but wanting to be told how best to do so in order to get it right (e.g. the many quotes on not wanting to be a burden to the party.) Then there's the issue that not everyone gets to choose who they play with - sometimes there's a requirement that the rulebook be the arbiter because nobody in the group trusts anyone else enough to let them be it.
Because of those issues, and least one is bound to affect the average group at one point or another, it's natural that a game that wants to sell big numbers is going to aim itself at a level that reaches the most potential players. Defining things, at the end of the day, sells more rulebooks.
Game balance in those games comes from the rulebook. There isn't any unfairness, because everyone has to follow the rules. Prewritten adventures take into account that there's probably someone healing, someone to stand in front and take damage, and someone to stand over there and pelt the opposition from range.
The disadvantage, of course, is that the rulebook may not actually be all that well balanced in the first place, or even if it is - it might not suit the style of play the players want.
When you stray away from that into the realms of lighter rulesets, less role definition, and far less strict boundaries for players, you open the door to run into more problems. Many groups can easily fall apart because of one disruptive element that is now able to take advantage of that lack of boundaries. Many players also feel less personally empowered, due to previously enjoying their ability to take in and understand the complex rules - now they're on the same base level as a brand new player. There's no advantage to spending time learning the ins and outs of the rules, because there's so few you can do it during the first game session. Some people thrive on rules mastery and the tactical additions that come with knowing who does what, and thus where to position them during combat. When you remove that aspect of the game these players just don't enjoy it any more, there's just no "game" there that they can see.
On the other hand, what you gain is far more freedom to push beyond those previous boundaries (as mentioned, that isn't necessarily a good thing for everyone) but far more reliance on having a group that's able to work out invisible boundaries for itself. Some people, quite honestly, don't want to have to deal with that kind of social contract crap when all they wanted to do was play a game ;) Others, however, don't like having to fit into specific roles and want to play "adventurer that happens to be a cleric" rather than "party healer."
The advantage here is that the balance has been taken out of the hands of game developers that had no idea how this particular group was going to play their game ("we don't need no stinkin' healer!"), and in the hands of the only people qualified to balance it (the GM thus *ensures* they don't need no stinkin' healer). The disadvantages here - not everyone wants, or is particularly suitable for, that extra responsibility. Prewritten adventures can (depending on the game system) also be an issue - the GM is now responsible for constantly tweaking things to suit the party makeup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find balance to be a bit of red herring. It's hard to have very different things and have them be balanced, because in RPG terms, weight is only one portion of the balance equation. Size and shape are matters of balance as well.
The term impact might be more appropriate, or influence. Measuring the impact or influence of a character on the story it's easier to consider the value of a role.
That I think is part of what gets to the heart of the issue about the thread (at least much earlier, away from the pissing about "my game is better") is that players gravitate towards the roles they feel are most impactful. But when you run the game that requires all the roles be filled, if no one finds some of the roles interesting the party, and potentially the game, suffer from it.
Referring to healers, it's one of the things I like about 13th Age. It uses a recovery mechanic very similar to 4th Ed. Every player gets their pool of spare Hit Points to use during the "day". What a Cleric does is make it easier to tap that pool during combat. They don't provide healing, they expand healing options (specialization in healing does provide some extra healing though). A party can get by just fine with any sort of "healer".
Combat remains mechanically complex and has options, but I feel like 13th Age gets pretty close to "self-defined" roles. The roles are of course archetypal from fantasy genre, but none are required of the game mechanically, making them all optional. One of my favorite aspects is that everyone is a damage dealer, they just do it with different styles. The Barbarian and Fighter feel very different mechanically, even though the differences aren't huge, they make a major impact on the feel of play.
Had an appointment so I had to cut it short. Here's more.
The other factor that applies to the thread is the idea of expectations. Playing a D&D based game means your using a rule set that encourages filling certain roles. If as a GM, you further run the game in a way that emphasises those features of the game, you are also rewarding the players for creating a "balanced" party. To then turn around and be mad that players are meeting those expectations and taking advantage of the rewards you are implementing is a double standard.
To encourage players to "play what they want" without being concerned with party balance or "metagaming" to create a balanced party, it pays to be aware of how the ruleset your using and how you implement it. Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages, being aware of how they work and what they mean empowers the GM to get closer to the game session they truly want. That's why I think talking about the concepts is important and useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meta-gaming to the purpose of everyone's enjoyment and to other productive purpose is forgivable—even desirable, at times. Meta-gaming to job the game itself is absolutely reprehensible, and I'll slap it down hard every time I see it. Meta-gaming that cuts into role-playing by, for example, allowing everyone to know everyone else before play begins when it's just not necessary, well ... that falls into the unacceptable category, from where I sit.
Well, we're in agreement with the first two points. I'm fine with a 'metagame' that improves the game, and hate when it's just someone cheating.
About two weeks ago we had to spend about 3 hours of game night trying to kill a vampire because nobody could roll a knowledge check to save their lives.... almost literally!!! :D :D
The last I don't agree with at all. SOMETIMES the 'getting to know each other' is fun and interesting... sometimes its just a drag. Knowing people ahead of time... can REALLY help with the 'I'd take an arrow for this guy' concept. Also, there ALWAYS seems to be some kind of loner, clint Eastwood/wolverine type of character who really has interest in running with the group that... is just frustrating.
Knowing people ahead of time... gives a built in reason to travel with people.
So ... interesting, integral origin: Play it out.
Run-of-the-mill rendezvous: Skip to the meat.
KIND of depends on WHERE your story starts?
If two of our players are from the same village... do I have to roleplay out going to school with them? Running from Bullies and hiding out in the corn patch to avoid our abusive parents? OOOOOOOOR can we skip that part and get to the actual adventure you had planned for us?
Really, this kind of thing is ALL OVER THE PLACE... The fantastic Four all knew each other one way or another before the powers kicked in. Antman and Wasp were already dating before they formed the avengers. The A-team fought in Vietnam before the series ever started. The X-men all had their powers and were trained in the school before issue #1 came out...
Heck, Dragonlance was a major RPG backbone for the longest time and started with old friends meeting back up '5 years later' and gave justification for Paladin Sturm to hang out with evil wizard Raistlin.
If anything, "I've known him since XXXXXX" is MORE cliche' then 'strangers met in the bar'...
And is a more realistic beginning in my mind. I've had a lot of characters start a game only to think "Why would he hang out with THEM!?!?"