| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's strange to me that Paizo is so known for their adventure paths and yet their rules system is not really suited for it- since it's based on D&D. D&D (and therefore Pathfinder) is at it's core basically still a wargame. I like that, but it kind of gets in the way of trying to tell a story about a group of heroes on and epic quest, since there is always the possibly of the story coming to a screeching halt because of a TPK or other problems like- say a failed Survival roll to track the baddies to there lair. Yet Pathfinder still has been and might still be the most popular rpg in the world when there are many games who theoretically do what it's trying to do better.
Yes, D&D was slightly based on a (very bad) wargame, but no, it's not in any way "basically still a wargame."
my boyfriend reads the Text aloud for me, because everybody just ignores the Text otherwise because nobody else seems to want to read a small girl's whiteboard. they are afraid i be writing bad Twilight Fanfics when my boyfriend knows i hate Twilight and explains it is perfectly safe.for the other stuff, i at least have my whiteboard and my boyfriend. but it never seems to work for RP XP.again, pretty hard to get RP XP when you are mutePretty much every aspect of the game is going to be difficult if you're mute. Most play in a normal RPG consists of describing what your character is doing.It should work for RP XP. Unless your GM is being unfair by awarding speech but not text?
Just a thought, my GM will bring out Youtube videos, sometimes for the music or for some action sequence. Perhaps you can try some audio/video from youtube or even have it prepared on a laptop to be used from film clips. I know it's a hassle, but it might work.
Just a thought, my GM will bring out Youtube videos, sometimes for the music or for some action sequence. Perhaps you can try some audio/video from youtube or even have it prepared on a laptop to be used from film clips. I know it's a hassle, but it might work.my boyfriend reads the Text aloud for me, because everybody just ignores the Text otherwise because nobody else seems to want to read a small girl's whiteboard. they are afraid i be writing bad Twilight Fanfics when my boyfriend knows i hate Twilight and explains it is perfectly safe.for the other stuff, i at least have my whiteboard and my boyfriend. but it never seems to work for RP XP.again, pretty hard to get RP XP when you are mutePretty much every aspect of the game is going to be difficult if you're mute. Most play in a normal RPG consists of describing what your character is doing.It should work for RP XP. Unless your GM is being unfair by awarding speech but not text?
i borrow my boyfriends Laptop that we share, it is on deaths door and has a mountain of Viruses from when his Cousin Borrowed it for 2 years without asking and returned it ruined. i at least try to baby it when possible.
but you can still have a player driven story without needing experience points, you needn't preset the milestones in advance, you just need to let the players set out their own milestones before they seek them out
say the players complete a player made revenge arc about the Orc that kidnapped the Elf Paladin's Younger Sister, you can consider the milestone condition to as player option when accomplished, save the little Elf Girl or Avenge her. but it needn't be immediate
or say, the players are struggling to start a guild and they finally get the framework of a guild started, give them a milestone for starting a guild
players can even change milestones or accomplish harder milestones, getting additional benefits for the latter. you can modify the encounters to fit the players and let them choose were to go. you don't need XP for a sandbox at all.
XP is a great Pacing Mechanic in a Video Game, but doesn't work so well in the tabletop when characters are expected to level every 2 and a half sesssions and adventures are meant to be completed in 3 5 hour sessions, tops.
Rather than exp as a reward, I've switched to using hero points and rerolls as rewards for the same purpose. Lesser examples get a reroll that is good for say, their next turn or today's session, while really good stuff get the hero points. Still worthwhile and works, but also allows me to keep the party at the same pace which saves me headaches.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's strange to me that Paizo is so known for their adventure paths and yet their rules system is not really suited for it- since it's based on D&D. D&D (and therefore Pathfinder) is at it's core basically still a wargame. I like that, but it kind of gets in the way of trying to tell a story about a group of heroes on and epic quest, since there is always the possibly of the story coming to a screeching halt because of a TPK or other problems like- say a failed Survival roll to track the baddies to there lair. Yet Pathfinder still has been and might still be the most popular rpg in the world when there are many games who theoretically do what it's trying to do better.
Want to know whats really strange? Just the other day a forumite posted telling me to pack my simulation gritty war game style and go play call of cthulhu and leave D&D to the narrative storytellers where it belongs.
All this fatalism... wow.
Yes nothing really matters, your GM spoon feeds you the adventure and you succeed or fail on his whim. This isn't the kind of game I want to play. I want a clever GM who will set up challenges with varying degrees of difficulty that I win or lose on my own merits and those of my friends. I want my efforts to matter. I don't like TOZ's multi-track railroad all leading to the one outcome he as GM decrees will happen. I hate it when a GM spoon feeds us our successes and failures. I want to EARN them. I can think of nothing worse than the no XP GM of the type TOZ is describing who just tells you a story and you advance whether you spent all session striving for victory or playing games on your iphone. He just adjusts to let you win. And this IS the trap of no XP systems.
I will have to search back when I have more time and give you TOZ's exact quote where he states you succeed or fail on a whim of the GM (I am paraphrasing). The thread is moving too fast for me to do this quickly... and in the off chance I misunderstood TOZ in my haste to catch up with the posts I apologize in advance.
And I am not arguing about the faults of the current combat focused XP system. I am saying XP is an amazing tool. If used well it can greatly enhance your game, if used poorly it can ruin it. But throwing away the tool because some people haven't mastered it's use leads to other issues not solutions. The biggest of which is many players will stop going to the edge to achieve victory if they are guaranteed to not only survive but will always be at the level they need to be. Why think creatively at all if it will achieve no greater victory than the hack and slash approach?
Hmm… I’m probably going to make a hash of explaining this, but I will give it a try.
I do understand most of the reasons some people vastly prefer to use individually awarded experience points. To a large extent I agree with most of it. However…
I was finding in our group (when I was GM) that I was needing to spend nearly as much time trying to figure out what to do with XP as I was with all of the other parts of being a GM. That was causing me to be a much less effective/entertaining GM. I wasn’t hearing a lot of complaints (I wasn’t hearing much praise either), but I did not find it to be acceptable in myself.
Some examples
1) Party with a diplomat and diviner were managing to avoid entire sections of the AP suggested sidequests. Party will not be high enough level to be likely to succeed. Do I give XP for figuring that stuff out to get them up to level? So they gain a level for casting see thoughts (because one of those side quests was easily a level’s worth of xp)? If yes, do I give it only to the guys that figured stuff out? How much do I give and to whom? What about the next time? Now everyone or just some of them are gaining a level every session because they cast a few spells or used a high diplomacy on some NPC. Either the martials are a couple of levels behind or they are gaining levels just for walking near the smart guys. I ended up trying to dance down the middle of the extremes. They got some XP for bypassing stuff. The martials were a bit behind but not too far. The next part of the story was hideously difficult for them. They just didn’t have the levels to cope with what they were encountering without me rewriting everything. And I could figure out a way to do that with the storyline still making sense. X type of demon or a disintegrating wizard were quite literally written into the story and they couldn’t deal with them.
2) Exact opposite. After the 1) above. The next campaign the party tried to make sure they didn’t skip anything. Literally every single thing that might be an adventure hook was pursued to make sure they had the levels to deal with what would come later. The campaign bogged down in sidequests. I actually stopped reading the given descriptions since almost everything described something in some way that would make them think there might be something else they should do before proceeding.
3) Not all of our players makes it to every session. She has to work late, he has a church function, they have relatives in town, whatever. When someone isn’t present we generally assume that PC is back guarding the horses/campsite or whatever. Unless he has a particularly necessary skill for some specific event. Bob is the only one that can handle OoC healing, JJ is the only one that can open a lock without smashing it, etc… So Bob or JJ will come forward for that specific task then be off again. Now the different things that happen in different sessions result in different character levels (sometimes wildly) between the PC’s. Dave happened to not be there when the party got repeatedly ambushed, so he is way behind in levels. The session before that when he was very active was mostly the party planning what to do next and making preparations. Should I give him a bunch of RP experience for being active during the prep session? If I do and he is present at the ambush session, now he will be ahead on level. Eventually we end up with a party that has 7th and 4th level characters in it. In PF that level difference is huge in terms of power and survivability. I believe much more of a difference than in early versions of the game. So if I challenge the 7th level character, the 4th level character has almost no chance of surviving.
4) I do not always have a lot of free time in between sessions. When I am making up stuff on my own (not using published material) I often have to do a lot of my prep work fairly far in advance. I have to guestimate how much the part will have done/accomplished by the time they get to Cave of Awefulness. Ok, they will probably be about level 9. If they really go for the sidequests, the Cave will be a boring cakewalk. I can try to beef it up on the fly, but I’m not really good at that and it will give them more unanticipated XP. If they head straight for the goal they can’t handle the cave. So I have to try and figure out how to give them clues that they can’t handle it without making it a meta-game don’t go yet. Stall in the countryside until you are suddenly more powerful.
Things like the above made it so I was spending a huge amount of time trying to figure out how to get Matt to catch up in levels, not give too much XP to Larry, I need to spread out enough XP for the next 2 towns so they are about level Y when they get to the mountain pass, etc… I’m am certainly not saying there are not potential solutions for the above situations, but I was spending more time in pursuit of those solutions than in any other part of my prep work. I was more worried about the XP of an encounter than whether it was exciting/sensible/challenging. In my opinion, that one mechanic was interfering more than it was helping.
I have been in groups where the GM did not seem to have any of my above problems. But looking at it objectively, I can see essentially no difference between awarding a bit of experience for every encounter/event and just saying after about every 3 session and a major encounter that the party goes up a level. That seemed to be pretty close to what happened anyway.
|
I will have to search back when I have more time and give you TOZ's exact quote where he states you succeed or fail on a whim of the GM (I am paraphrasing). The thread is moving too fast for me to do this quickly... and in the off chance I misunderstood TOZ in my haste to catch up with the posts I apologize in advance.
What I am talking about is the difference between watching a stage magician perform before and after you know how the tricks work. Nothing has changed but your perspective. I would also compare it to breaking kayfabe in the 'sports entertainment' world. Knowing The Undertaker is an actor rather than an undead monster changes how you view the show, but it is still an entertaining performance either way.
Why think creatively at all if it will achieve no greater victory than the hack and slash approach?
I guess we all need to come up with our own reasons to strive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I leave the XP rewards for roleplaying in the hands of the players, not myself.
The system has evolved over the years and taken many forms, but currently it goes as follows:
-At the start of a session, every player gets a number of XP rewards (we call them "tickets") equal to twice the number of players sitting (so if 4 people made it that session, each gets 8 tickets).
-Players can dish out 1 ticket to another player whenever they feel they have roleplayed well enough, as a reward for a clever idea, or when the player does something that greatly improves the game.
-At the end of the session, tickets are tallied and converted to XP. The XP value depends on the number of players and the Average Party Level, recalculated so that the total number of tickets a player can give out equals 10% of the experience needed to get the next level (so in a game with 4 people with 8 tickets and an APL of 3, each ticket would be worth 50 XP, and a character who was awarded 5 tickets would get 250 XP for roleplaying that session).
I've noticed it really makes people more committed to both their characters and to paying attention what everyone else is doing, since being able to give out rewards seems to entice them. It also seems to feel more rewarding to them, since it's their peers the ones who are rewarding them for playing well, rather than the DM. Of course, it also takes some work off my back.
So I've surfed through here and skimmed some posts, mostly TOZ's 'cuz, well, he's him. Anyway, I have to say I agree w/one of his basic premises: the whole game is basically the GM saying "you win" or not. No matter how fair, clever or dice-ruled your GM is, at the end of the day they can tell you whatever they want is the result of every roll. They can lie, cheat, add extra HP, spontaneously change rules or whatever to fit their view. The fact that some DON'T do these things doesn't put any more control in the players' hands; it just means that the GM's decision or whim swung that way.
That's the reality. Players can cheat too, but they're bound to the character they have in front of them, so their control is limited. The GM on the other hand has control over the entire game. They decide what you're facing, why, and what the result of your actions are.
I know that's tough to swallow but this isn't a board game where we're all playing to the same rules. One participant is making everything up, presenting it to the others and then presiding over the result. The other participants are simply making suggestions to the GM and hoping for the best.
This is why it always strikes me as funny when someone says "I want a GM who challenges me to think, RP, and is generally clever." GM's aren't clever; they're either good or bad manipulators, nothing more.
Now please understand: I'm writing this even as I'm actively pursuing becoming a player in a couple guys' games. I accept all of the above as fact in this hobby. I don't see it as good OR bad, just the reality.
I don't mean to disparage or offend. If I did, I'm sorry. And TOZ, keep being you. Your wit-grenades in these threads are freaking awesome.
|
So I've surfed through here and skimmed some posts, mostly TOZ's 'cuz, well, he's him.
...
And TOZ, keep being you. Your wit-grenades in these threads are freaking awesome.
:D
In any event, I'm not meaning to disparage or offend either. It's my view of the situation, and I believe it meshes with reality. It just explains why I can't agree with other peoples views and isn't a condemnation of anyone. (Despite my strong language.)
|
So I've surfed through here and skimmed some posts, mostly TOZ's 'cuz, well, he's him. Anyway, I have to say I agree w/one of his basic premises: the whole game is basically the GM saying "you win" or not. No matter how fair, clever or dice-ruled your GM is, at the end of the day they can tell you whatever they want is the result of every roll. They can lie, cheat, add extra HP, spontaneously change rules or whatever to fit their view. The fact that some DON'T do these things doesn't put any more control in the players' hands; it just means that the GM's decision or whim swung that way.
That's the reality. Players can cheat too, but they're bound to the character they have in front of them, so their control is limited. The GM on the other hand has control over the entire game. They decide what you're facing, why, and what the result of your actions are.
I think you and a few other GM's here are projecting a bit Mark.
I run games that are very fast a loose with the rules (for several reasons: time, rules not heavily defined, style, etc)
I run games where I maintained my GM discretion/neutrality; the bad guy stats were their stats, rolls were made out in the open and players died - when I didn't want them to. Their deaths were not desired in-game, out of game, subconsciously, due to poor encounter design or pro/con player sentiment while running said encounter. I ran it as I listed (stats made ahead of time) and whatever happened, happened.
I will periodically show my players the bad guy/creature stats and explain their abilities/mechanics after the encounter.
-
What seems to be going on here is that people running games their own way are assuming that everyone does it the same as they do. That isn't the case. Some DMs/GMs remain impartial, even if they are sympathetic to the players.
Let me clarify the last part also: being that this is still a game, and all the data is filtered to the players primarily through that games GM there is going to be plenty of "extras" thrown to the players.
This isn't because the game is rigged, or the GM wants an outcome (it can be and seems to be from several posters) - this extra "help" if you will exists because the GM is the primary filter and source of information to the group. I always err on the side of the players because I am the GM and if a mistake is made, even something being misinterpreted by a player then it's my fault and it's on me to deal with it or fix it. This slight bias to impartiality is due to the medium of the game. The GM should take every precaution so that each player action is their own and accurate based off of the players knowledge.
That extra attention to players (who are the focus of play) =/= rigged game or outcome already determined.
At least not at every table.
Again, I've met several neutral GMs who ran very tight games, they didn't "lol" at player mistakes and use it as a chance to kill them off, but they also didn't let them win because they were supposed to. I've seen this primarily in large group and tournament environments, but I've also seen it in casual play.
I do understand that the GM sets the challenges, but that doesn't mean he sets the success even though success is tied to the difficulty of the set challenge.
There are varying degrees to which each GM will provide extra data, rolls, etc, some being more adherent to the stats in front of them while others are looking at the overall story making "adjustments" as they see fit.
There is a range though, it exists. The Impartial GM also exists, though - it is a concept that is dying out as play styles and game expectations change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I leave the XP rewards for roleplaying in the hands of the players, not myself.
The system has evolved over the years and taken many forms, but currently it goes as follows:
-At the start of a session, every player gets a number of XP rewards (we call them "tickets") equal to twice the number of players sitting (so if 4 people made it that session, each gets 8 tickets).
-Players can dish out 1 ticket to another player whenever they feel they have roleplayed well enough, as a reward for a clever idea, or when the player does something that greatly improves the game.
-At the end of the session, tickets are tallied and converted to XP. The XP value depends on the number of players and the Average Party Level, recalculated so that the total number of tickets a player can give out equals 10% of the experience needed to get the next level (so in a game with 4 people with 8 tickets and an APL of 3, each ticket would be worth 50 XP, and a character who was awarded 5 tickets would get 250 XP for roleplaying that session).
I've noticed it really makes people more committed to both their characters and to paying attention what everyone else is doing, since being able to give out rewards seems to entice them. It also seems to feel more rewarding to them, since it's their peers the ones who are rewarding them for playing well, rather than the DM. Of course, it also takes some work off my back.
I actually kinda like this. I'll see what the guys think. Since I'm not using the xp system though, I'll probably do it as hero point rewards. Say each ticket is worth a 1/8 of a hero point. I'll still give them away for things I particularly like though.
|
|
What seems to be going on here is that people running games their own way are assuming that everyone does it the same as they do. That isn't the case.
It absolutely isn't the case. (That people are assuming their game is the way every game is.)
What IS the case is that before you even get to playstyles or GM/player actions, the game is already a case of 'the GM must let you win, else you will lose'.
I don't know how to say that any clearer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this fatalism... wow.
Yes nothing really matters, your GM spoon feeds you the adventure and you succeed or fail on his whim. This isn't the kind of game I want to play. I want a clever GM who will set up challenges with varying degrees of difficulty that I win or lose on my own merits and those of my friends. I want my efforts to matter. I don't like TOZ's multi-track railroad all leading to the one outcome he as GM decrees will happen. I hate it when a GM spoon feeds us our successes and failures. I want to EARN them. I can think of nothing worse than the no XP GM of the type TOZ is describing who just tells you a story and you advance whether you spent all session striving for victory or playing games on your iphone. He just adjusts to let you win. And this IS the trap of no XP systems.
Except XP doesn't inherently solve the "problem" you're talking about.
I could be wrong, but I believe some of what TOZ is talking about is a philosophical situation. Consider this:
Brand new party, 4 players with 1 PC each starting at level 1.
As the GM I get to design an adventure and determine what monsters are included.
Taking the old trope of meeting at the inn, I decide it could be exciting to have the inn attacked. I could go one of three ways (the actual monsters can vary, but examples given to show intent):
1) A single house cat attacks the party
2) A small group of goblins attacks the party
3) A great wyrm red dragon attacks the party
As the GM, I have to make that choice. By making one of those choices, I am inherently determining the odds of success and failure. No matter what, the GM is always making these decisions and so success and failure is inherently up to the GM's whim.
In Pathfinder (or most any version of D&D) the GM is not constrained by rules in determining encounter design. The GM is actually given a wide range of latitude to design and build encounters as they see fit. There are systems that help aid the GM in balanced encounters, but they do not enforce it or even ensure it.
There are other games out there that give the GM explicit resources that are used up to challenge PC's. I've played some, they're actually really fun, both as player and GM. As player, I know I'm almost always being appropriate challenged. As GM, I have less effort to spend in designing the mechanical aspect of encounters and get to focus more on my descriptions and roleplaying.
Anyways, using an XP system doesn't actually solve the problem you claim it does. It actually has almost nothing to do with it at all.
|
|
As to ITs post
NO
If you keep throwing cats or great wyrm red dragons at your 1st level PCs and you won't have a gaming table.
The former due to the Zzzzzz's involved and the latter because it's a waste of time everyone's time. Both are actually.
Players can expect many things out of a game - one of them is a decent chance of survival at the start and a sense of fairness of play. This can be all curved based on the experience of the players (easier or harder) but if the experience is unfulfilling or a waste of time either way they will walk.
They are actually part of the agreement, not the GM by himself. He can try those tricks out a few times and the players may put up with it for awhile, but at one point they will throw their hands up in frustration or boredom and walk.
If that's the argument for "GM must let them win" then it's a terrible one.
Player want a chance to win, and (Imo - the good ones at least) want a chance to lose.
And they want to play a part in dictating those chances. Once you take any of that away from them and they realize it then you will start to lose players.
What IS the case is that before you even get to playstyles or GM/player actions, the game is already a case of 'the GM must let you win, else you will lose'.
I don't know how to say that any clearer.
You sound like Pierce Hawthorne "I won Dungeons and Dragons, and it was advanced!"
I never thought of RPG's as a game you win or loose to be honest. The goal for me first and foremost was to have fun with friends while telling stories. Characters live, characters die but the story goes on.
-MD
|
|
I never thought of RPG's as a game you win or loose to be honest. The goal for me first and foremost was to have fun with friends while telling stories. Characters live, characters die but the story goes on.
-MD
Then swap them for succeed and fail. I guess I COULD have said it clearer. Thanks for helping with that!
And the goal, whatever it may be, doesn't change that. Nor does it change the goal in any way.
I also have no idea who this Hawthorne guy is.
|
|
I think there are a couple of ideas that are being miscommunicated here and I would like to address them.
I don't think the its a case of the "GM must let players win" but more of game assumptions about letting them win, or at least having a chance. And I think this is derived from fiction format of story telling.
Players are generally (in most games) the protagonist, so having them get squished in the first 5 minutes probably isn't a very good idea. So there are some concepts in place that guard the protagonists. In RPGs this is "level appropriate" or "fair shot". Neither of which factor into things once an encounter has already started unless you, as the GM decide to take those protagonist guards beyond the system, rules and rolls as they are being played.
My point being is that pretty much every GM follows the first part of the format, but not every GM extends the protagonist armor beyond what the players start with as the scenario unfolds. Some GMs run it as written (by themselves or someone else) and the story may end very quickly.
The first part of the format - the genesis and beginning of the protagonist may be extended or curtailed or it may be circumstantial (you can die, just not a stupid or worthless death).
I don't think that any and every GM who follows the opening premise of the protagonist needs to default to "GM must let them win". This comes down to the individual GM on how involved they want to be in the controlling process once the whole affair has started. Some more, some - not at all, let the mechanics and dice decide. Most of us are probably somewhere in between I suspect. I believe that GMs should follow most "fair shot" and "level appropriate" philosophies as guidelines when designing scenarios, but he shouldn't be 100% stifled by them also.
So I would say that the GM is following a trope, one that has some guarantees for the games protagonists (PCs) but that is just at the beginning, at the start of the story. Different GMs will play up those protections at different levels after starting shot is fired.
Anyway.
It's an interesting way to play. Sounds more in line with Gary Gygax's tournament style and it's not a style that I'm overly familiar with.
Success and failure from my perspective is Did we have fun or not.
My favorite GM who I had the pleasure of playing with for many years lead us in telling great stories that stick in my brain for just about 20 years. Some characters made it to the end of his campaign, others did not but we all won at D&D playing in his sandbox.
So your experience is in not mine TOZ.
-MD
I also have no idea who this Hawthorne guy is.
You need to watch Community.
:)
"Need" only in the hyperbolic sense, true... but it is a good, humorous show that I, my wife, and most people I know who've seen it thoroughly enjoy.
Pierce Hawthorne is one of the characters. He's a racist old jerk, and most of the time no one likes him, but they're friends so he ends up hanging around anyway.
Seasons 1-3 were fantastic. Partway through Season 4 now and it's... still quite good, but not as fantastic (partially, I think, due to a change of everyone except the actors). I've yet to see Season 5, which saw the return of the people who were out of season 4... and was the last one by NBC (who cancelled it), but Season 6 was picked up by Yahoo! due to fans seeking "Six seasons and a movie"... which is actually pretty impressive.
I would strongly recommend watching it and not basing judgments until you've seen it. It's on DVD (I know, because it's been given to us), and it's probably also available on Hulu or Netflix or somesuch.
Regardless, it's a fine series, and I recommend it.
If you've seen it and just don't care for it: okay, that's fair.
(It's great! Six seasons and a movie!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:)
"Need" only in the hyperbolic sense, true... but it is a good, humorous show that I, my wife, and most people I know who've seen it thoroughly enjoy.
Pierce Hawthorne is one of the characters. He's a racist old jerk, and most of the time no one likes him, but they're friends so he ends up hanging around anyway.
Seasons 1-3 were fantastic. Partway through Season 4 now and it's... still quite good, but not as fantastic (partially, I think, due to a change of everyone except the actors). I've yet to see Season 5, which saw the return of the people who were out of season 4... and was the last one by NBC (who cancelled it), but Season 6 was picked up by Yahoo! due to fans seeking "Six seasons and a movie"... which is actually pretty impressive.
I would strongly recommend watching it and not basing judgments until you've seen it. It's on DVD (I know, because it's been given to us), and it's probably also available on Hulu or Netflix or somesuch.
Regardless, it's a fine series, and I recommend it.
If you've seen it and just don't care for it: okay, that's fair.
(It's great! Six seasons and a movie!)
Season 5 is fantastic. It even includes a second D&D episode.
Oooo~ooh!
Count me "in"! :D
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why think creatively at all if it will achieve no greater victory than the hack and slash approach?
I'm just going to borrow this question as a good starting point-- well, because creativity is the goal, not the means...
To me, at this point of my participating in the RPG hobby, the best games can easily be seen as exercises in collective storytelling. It's not so much about "win or lose"-- it's about creating and telling an interesting tale, about everyone having some good escapist fun immersing themselves in the personas of fantasy characters exploring and interacting with a different world (one must still exercise sufficient common sense to separate oneself from the game and the character in it, however).
In many ways, the journey is every bit as important if not more important than the ending. Lack of creative thinking makes for a boring game, a boring story, and not a whole lot of fun. And in the games I prefer, trying to go for the straight up hack'n'slash approach will ensure your failure (though not necessarily your death-- they are not always the same thing). "Victory"-- accomplishing your goals and achieving success at the end of each adventure and each campaign arc-- can be wonderful, but again to me is best when it represents the climax of a great story. And yes, in this approach the players' input is vital and to a large extent as important as the GM's-- but it's not "win or lose" in the conventional sense... the PCs are the protagonists-- they have a big role to play in the story, and (IMO) a GM who recognizes that and does work together with the players to tell a better story is doing it right-- the players are participants in the story, not a passive audience. As a GM, I always feel like I've "won" when we've ALL had a good time and have many memories and tales to tell from the game. I lose (as a GM and as a Player)-- whether the characters lived or died and whether the characters succeeded or failed in "IC" terms, if we didn't have fun, enjoy the game, and have good memories to take home afterwards. I've been playing role-playing games for a long time. I've seen a lot of changes in approaches to playing role-playing games, and have seen a lot of systems come and go. I have personally gone through many different approaches to RPG gaming (part of that is even the result of age and experience in the real world... :P )-- this is where I stand on it now.
Artificial experience point systems such as many advocate here do NOT inherently improve, nor do they inherently hurt, character's and player's motivations to use their imaginations to the utmost in each gaming session. I doubt I am going to convince any of the true believers on either side, but I have not found the XP systems in D&D and its variants helpful to good role playing-- thus far, they have either been neutral towards character personality development, or have actively hindered good social/persona role playing, but in my experience they've never actively assisted in encouraging good character role playing (they have sometimes encouraged good tactical war-gaming play though-- but, in case you didn't already guess-- I detest campaigns that require extended "meat-grinder"/Ex.P. farming sessions, "WoW" style, because characters have to hack'n'slay to earn more points so that they can get to the next level so that they can be tough enough for the next <arbitrarily-assigned level-based difficulty> challenge-- at least make the challenges have meaning in the context of the story and the character's lives, please). To me, the best accomplishments are the stories I remember, the stories I can tell, and the great tales that I participated in with various friends around gaming tables. Those matter much more to me than how you measure mechanical character advancement in a level-based game-- whether you use experience points, tally-marks, milestones, or AP "you should be this level at this point" expectations.
The last several PF homes games I participated in, btw, including two that I ran, did use the "you should be at this level at this point of the adventure" as milestones for level advancement-- and it worked very well for the groups I gamed with, because the in-character story-linked motivations were what drove the games forward-- not the artificial goal of gaining levels. Should add though-- I play PF (and currently PFS these days-- haven't found a decent home game with room for new players since I moved into my current area five months ago), because that's what almost everyone I know in my current area plays-- I'm not really a fan of the whole class/level-based aesthetic even though I did start gaming with OD&D back when it was the only RPG in existence. YMMV-- I do not claim to have found the "one true path" of gaming, but I do claim that there isn't "one true right way" to game that all of us must follow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, you leave a thread for a few days and it gets whacky.
I don't know... People run games at every level of RAWiness from "PFS" to "freestyle", but the goal is always the same: to have fun. My preferred playstyle is slightly on the freestyle side because I don't want to get bogged down in rules (hence I'm PFS-free these days), but I also prefer to GM because I like to weave the narrative.
XP, or going without, is nothing more than a tool for the GM to control the flow and pacing of the game. Depending on a GM's comfort level they can run anywhere from rule-driven XP mode to a more narrative-driven story mode.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to ITs post
NO
If you keep throwing cats or great wyrm red dragons at your 1st level PCs and you won't have a gaming table.
The former due to the Zzzzzz's involved and the latter because it's a waste of time everyone's time. Both are actually.Players can expect many things out of a game - one of them is a decent chance of survival at the start and a sense of fairness of play. This can be all curved based on the experience of the players (easier or harder) but if the experience is unfulfilling or a waste of time either way they will walk.
They are actually part of the agreement, not the GM by himself. He can try those tricks out a few times and the players may put up with it for awhile, but at one point they will throw their hands up in frustration or boredom and walk.
If that's the argument for "GM must let them win" then it's a terrible one.
Player want a chance to win, and (Imo - the good ones at least) want a chance to lose.
And they want to play a part in dictating those chances. Once you take any of that away from them and they realize it then you will start to lose players.
Your jumping to conclusions and assigning value to things that I didn't say in my post. You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with an imaginary person that you invented.
I didn't say you SHOULD throw cats or great wyrms at the party. I said that the GM is making that decision between those 3 options. You've made that decision as a GM. By your post, I would guess that you avoid throwing cats and great wyrms at your players.
If you had bothered to ASK me, I would say I agree with you (mostly).
Even still, the XP system does not inherently solve the issue of properly challenging players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brand new party, 4 players with 1 PC each starting at level 1.
As the GM I get to design an adventure and determine what monsters are included.Taking the old trope of meeting at the inn, I decide it could be exciting to have the inn attacked. I could go one of three ways (the actual monsters can vary, but examples given to show intent):
1) A single house cat attacks the party
2) A small group of goblins attacks the party
3) A great wyrm red dragon attacks the partyAs the GM, I have to make that choice. By making one of those choices, I am inherently determining the odds of success and failure.
Let's consider some possible different approaches - all valid, though not necessarily suitable for all groups:
1: The GM wants a playful game where the player's job is to express the personality of the character they've created, and to participate in shared storytelling. The GM goes out of his/her way to make sure that no-one dies unless they want to die heroically for the sake of a good story. This allows players to have fun in a non-competitive environment without worrying that if they play non-optimally it will get everyone killed. The odds of success are pretty much 100%.
2: The GM is running an adventure path as written. Having made this decision, the odds of the group surviving depend on (a) whether the adventure path is well balanced, (b) the groups' system mastery and focus on their own survival, and (c) the luck of the dice. Occasionally the GM will be forced to make a decision that will impact the survival of the PCs (should the monster coup de grace the helpless character or try to escape?) but where possible decides such things randomly or by following pre-written tactics, to ensure that the success of the group is down to chance and to their own efforts, and not to GM whim.
3: The GM waits to see what kind of PCs the players have come up with, and then creates challenges for them based around what those characters ought to be able to handle. Survival chance is high if the characters use good tactics, low if they get careless.
4: The GM creates a sandbox world with safe and dangerous areas, lets the PCs know which the dangerous areas are, and creates random encounters within these areas. The players get to set their own difficulty level.
Where was I going with this? I forget. Possible conclusions:
(a) Any of these games could be run with or without experience points.
(b) To describe all these games as 'GM decides whether the players win or lose' is a bit of a stretch (though true to the extent that he can always say 'Rocks fall, everybody dies').
I am not understanding the applicability of what seems to be a major point of contention.
...
But in both cases, the GM is allowing the PCs to win/escape. When someone has absolute control of the game, you only succeed at their whim.
.
... Anyway, I have to say I agree w/one of his basic premises: the whole game is basically the GM saying "you win" or not. No matter how fair, clever or dice-ruled your GM is, at the end of the day they can tell you whatever they want is the result of every roll. ...
.
What IS the case is that before you even get to playstyles or GM/player actions, the game is already a case of 'the GM must let you win, else you will lose'.
I don't know how to say that any clearer.
While technically true, I guess I don't see how it applies to the issue being discussed.
Yes:
The GM could at his whim decided to throw the entire bestiary collection at the PC's to make sure the PC's don't win.
The GM could at his whim just decide to not finish the campaign to make sure the PC's don't win.
The GM could also at his whim decide to drive a truck through the living room when everyone sits down at the table to make sure the PC's don't win.
I don't get what any of this has to do with what system your group uses for gaining levels.
|
|
Your jumping to conclusions and assigning value to things that I didn't say in my post. You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with an imaginary person that you invented.
Actually no, I was busting the terrible examples you cited for your contribution to the "GM must let them win" argument.
So yeah, I was arguing with you, your examples at least. Good attempt to dismiss though, I'll give you that.
I didn't say you SHOULD throw cats or great wyrms at the party. I said that the GM is making that decision between those 3 options. You've made that decision as a GM. By your post, I would guess that you avoid throwing cats and great wyrms at your players.
No, but you listed them as a range of "potential" encounter examples for 1st level characters. That may work for new players + new DM as a mistake, but once you understand and accept the premise of certain game assumptions about fairness/appropriate, what makes a good game and having some system proficiency then two out of three of your examples are ruled out immediately.
A choice that you cannot legitimately make is not a choice. Choices 1 and 3 are not choices, not for a proficient GM or a group of players who understand the game. So they are dismissed outright.
Also fairness or appropriate =/= GM must let them win.
There are way too many outside factors that don't let this sit solely as a GM decision. Namely, people leaving your table if you run a softball/too hard of game.
Even still, the XP system does not inherently solve the issue of properly challenging players.
Neither does, xp or no xp/GM decides when it feels right system.
Accurate monster ratings or lacking those a GM who understands threat values are the best things for "properly challenging players". So the Xp-less game as argument for "properly challenging players" is inappropriate.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(b) is not, as I see it. What you're doing is describing the decision the GM makes and then saying after that it's a stretch to say the GM decides if they win or lose. Designing the adventure and the encounters is also part of "the GM decides if they win or lose".
(b) To describe all these games as 'GM decides whether the players win or lose' is a bit of a stretch (though true to the extent that he can always say 'Rocks fall, everybody dies').
There is a massive difference between 'GM decides that the players are definitely going to win' and 'GM tries to make fair and balanced encounters'.