On Wikipedia I see 3rd edition starting in 2000, 4th edition starting in 2008 and 5th edition 2014. (8 years for 3rd, and six years for 4th.) Are we not counting 3.5 and 3.0 as the same edition? Well I guess not because by that logic Pathfinder counts making 3rd edition 15 years old and still active. Although I would argue 3.5's girth more than it's length when it's compared to 4th edition due to the amount of clones and expansion. 4th edition went on pretty hard but is kind of weak and floppy compared to the 3rd edition boom.
That said I'm not going to say that 4th edition was universally reviled or even a bad game. I also see HWalsh's point in not trying to make the game something else. But this only goes so far. I fell in love with Pathfinder for the same reasons 3rd edition was so strong. With the third party material I have I can play any kind of game I want and nobody has to learn a new system. I think that the spirit of 3.5 is patching. That's why my general attitude is that asking for drastic changes to martials from Paizo is futile and that the greatness of 3pp is what makes the game really go round. Pathfinder is an engine that runs pretty good but its still the factory setting that settles to run well in the greater macrocosm of the game where casters aren't THAT great because people generally don't have master degrees in Pathfinder. Martials get by okay because they're easier to play competently. with 3pp we can do more. We can play beyond medievel stasis, we can shoot past the moon and patch things to our own microcosms. So much has been said by developers about the spirit of modding and patching when Pathfinder Unchained came out.
If you want to call 3 and 3.5 seperate than you have to call fourth edition and essentials as separate as well, and fourth only gets, what, two years?
On Wikipedia I see 3rd edition starting in 2000, 4th edition starting in 2008 and 5th edition 2014. (8 years for 3rd, and six years for 4th.) Are we not counting 3.5 and 3.0 as the same edition? Well I guess not because by that logic Pathfinder counts making 3rd edition 15 years old and still active. Although I would argue 3.5's girth more than it's length when it's compared to 4th edition due to the amount of clones and expansion. 4th edition went on pretty hard but is kind of weak and floppy compared to the 3rd edition boom.
That said I'm not going to say that 4th edition was universally reviled or even a bad game. I also see HWalsh's point in not trying to make the game something else. But this only goes so far. I fell in love with Pathfinder for the same reasons 3rd edition was so strong. With the third party material I have I can play any kind of game I want and nobody has to learn a new system. I think that the spirit of 3.5 is patching. That's why my general attitude is that asking for drastic changes to martials from Paizo is futile and that the greatness of 3pp is what makes the game really go round. Pathfinder is an engine that runs pretty good but its still the factory setting that settles to run well in the greater macrocosm of the game where casters aren't THAT great because people generally don't have master degrees in Pathfinder. Martials get by okay because they're easier to play competently. with 3pp we can do more. We can play beyond medievel stasis, we can shoot past the moon and patch things to our own microcosms. So much has been said by developers about the spirit of modding and patching when Pathfinder Unchained came out.
If you want to call 3 and 3.5 seperate than you have to call fourth edition and essentials as separate as well, and fourth only gets, what, two years?
If we split it all the way up then 2nd AD&D, by TSR, completely destroys all of that. 11 years. AD&D had around 10 years.
3.0 had 3 years
3.5 had 5 years
If we consider them separate editions then, yes, we must also consider 4th and Essentials as separate editions meaning that 4th only has 2 years making it tied for the shortest lived iteration of any Dungeons and Dragons product.
If we include 4th and Essentials together as one item it gives them 6 years, which is dwarfed by 3/3.5's 8 years, and completely annihilated by 2nd Edition's 11 years.
If we split them all up it goes as follows:
1. 2nd Edition AD&D 11 years
2. AD&D 10 years
3. Dungeons and Dragons Rules Cyclopedia 9 years
4. 3.5 Edition Dungeons and Dragons 5 years
5. Basic Set 1st Edition 4 years
6. D&D Essentials 4 years
7. Dungeons and Dragons 3 years
8. Basic Set 3rd Edition 3 years
9. 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons 3 years
10. Basic Set 2nd Edition 2 years
11. Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition 2 years
I've just taken a look at the Book of Martial Action mentioned here earlier, and from what I saw in the preview PDF it doesn't really seem to fix what it sets out to fix. The list of feats in the pdf is clearly incomplete but all these techniques do is giving you (very cost intensive) numeric bonuses to your still very much normal attacks (more crit range, auto-confirm, more attack bonus). It doesn't really give the user more flexibility in what to do each round, but just makes them slightly better for a turn.
It's not much different from Unchained combat stamina except that the effects slightly better for the points expended, but on the other hand the feats you buy for it have no additional static or "passive" effect.
In that regard Martial Maneuvers from Path of War are a lot better because the user actually gets to impose effects beyond simply more damage or a more likely hit. I mean some of them are simple "You deal +XdX damage" deals, but there are also those that have the target take a save or be sickened/stunned/knocked prone/whathaveyou
Path of War suffers from using the rather contrived "vancian combat" mechanic of preparing and expending your maneuvers as slots. I think with the Martial Action/Combat Stamina system the pool of points at least makes some sort of sense, basically expending your physical resource, becoming too fatigued, at some point, to continue pulling these tricks off.
What I have been wondering is, why not just add tricks like Path of War's strikes in a less powerful form and make them available to martial characters without expending any resource, or at least with using a resource like stamina, which is a more believable system and does not immediately feel like weapon-magic?
In this respect I am reminded of ultimate combat and the Called Shots system. This mostly overlooked system lets martials make attacks that do impose effects on the target that go beyond just adding numbers to your attack roll and does not rely on a handwaved resource system. The only problem with it is you have to do it as a standard attack and take penalties to your attacks that may make the attack not worth attempting. But this seems easy to tweak.
There was even an article where the 4th Ed devs did admit that they did base elements of the character mechanics on MMORPG mechanics.
If people didn't like it, they evidently failed to replicate the MMORPG mechanics that are so popular.
Rub-Eta wrote:
4th ed would probably be better off if it was more "MMORPG"-esq
MMORPG mechanics don't translate well into tabletop actually. People don't like them. MMORPG mechanics are largely about fast reactions on hitting binds while also maneuvering. The same audiences in general don't like each other.
MMORPG players tend to be poor tabletop players because the GM, as arbiter of the rules, can more quickly make alterations and is usually far more quick to react. MMORPG players are usually all about hyper-optimization which relies on knowing not only their own mechanics but also the mechanics of everything they will be facing. They don't get that in tabletop because the options a GM has at their disposal are so varied that it makes the same kind of planning incompatible.
Edit:
You can spot a tabletop player who cut their teeth on MMORPGs from their extreme dislike for the GM to ever create an NPC that has powers that are "not in the book." Which, well, every Paizo AP has characters who violate the rules and it is impossible to know, without prior knowledge, what some enemies can do. You can see this first hand just by mixing in a few GM created enemies that follow their own rules. Watch a look of shock and surprise when a Cinder Troll's regeneration isn't stopped by acid and fire.
Tabletop games are basically turn based strategy games. More similar in vein to X-Com (both the original and the new version) to how they function and each has a completely different style of play. The problem with 4th Ed was they legitimately did try to mimic the "bind abilities" of MMORPGs (they backed off on that in Essentials) and it simply doesn't work in tabletop. Part of the appeal is in the quick decisions, whereas at a tabletop, the world stops while you decide on your actions. Thus the hurried rush is gone.
I think 4th ed. is a perfect example of designers taking the easy way out in terms of game balance. Balancing limited-use magic with at-will martial abilities is hard, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
Yes it's hard. From some approaches it's even impossible, as the entire idea from certain angles is that limited-use magic is more powerful than at-will martial abilities (SKR explains it very good here).
@HWalsh: You present a number of very loose statements as facts. I don't even know where to start...
But we seem to agree that 4th ed and MMORPGs aren't similar in very fundamental ways (one being more action oriented and the other one turn based).
Because it is not universal and unambiguous to all parties. Not only is not 3PP available to everyone who might play Pathfinder, but the bigger issue is the discovery of the "proper" 3PP material that you really "need".
Also if you really want to make 3PP the solution, first persuade GMs around the world not to treat 3PP with suspicion.
I think 4th ed. is a perfect example of designers taking the easy way out in terms of game balance. Balancing limited-use magic with at-will martial abilities is hard, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
Yes it's hard. From some approaches it's even impossible, as the entire idea from certain angles is that limited-use magic is more powerful than at-will martial abilities (SKR explains it very good here).
It's interesting that he specifically states that getting rid of Vancian magic is the way to get out of the nova-wizard-now-we-rest paradigm. I pretty much agree, and have long since instituted changes in my game which take that tack.
I've just taken a look at the Book of Martial Action mentioned here earlier, and from what I saw in the preview PDF it doesn't really seem to fix what it sets out to fix. The list of feats in the pdf is clearly incomplete but all these techniques do is giving you (very cost intensive) numeric bonuses to your still very much normal attacks (more crit range, auto-confirm, more attack bonus). It doesn't really give the user more flexibility in what to do each round, but just makes them slightly better for a turn.
It's not much different from Unchained combat stamina except that the effects slightly better for the points expended, but on the other hand the feats you buy for it have no additional static or "passive" effect.
In that regard Martial Maneuvers from Path of War are a lot better because the user actually gets to impose effects beyond simply more damage or a more likely hit. I mean some of them are simple "You deal +XdX damage" deals, but there are also those that have the target take a save or be sickened/stunned/knocked prone/whathaveyou
Path of War suffers from using the rather contrived "vancian combat" mechanic of preparing and expending your maneuvers as slots. I think with the Martial Action/Combat Stamina system the pool of points at least makes some sort of sense, basically expending your physical resource, becoming too fatigued, at some point, to continue pulling these tricks off.
What I have been wondering is, why not just add tricks like Path of War's strikes in a less powerful form and make them available to martial characters without expending any resource, or at least with using a resource like stamina, which is a more believable system and does not immediately feel like weapon-magic?
In this respect I am reminded of ultimate combat and the Called Shots system. This mostly overlooked system lets martials make attacks that do impose effects on the target that go beyond just adding numbers to your attack roll and does not rely on a handwaved resource system. The only problem...
Meet up with me in the thread I made about it but I found a number of nice things that change a lot. For example, the techniques that makes something automatically threaten a critical means that the called shot feats have a near guarantee to cripple someone, and it makes some of the grapple weapons more reliable. Had a guy pretty much hookshot a dragon to the ground on that one. One of the scariest things that I promised not to do to players again is to send a group of grapple speced fighters with that technique and reach grapple weapons. Against a party full of mostly casters getting grappled from a distance is not fun. They are way weaker than Path of War but with some imagination and cobining them with paizo feats/rule weirdness.
You can spot a tabletop player who cut their teeth on MMORPGs from their extreme dislike for the GM to ever create an NPC that has powers that are "not in the book." Which, well, every Paizo AP has characters who violate the rules and it is impossible to know, without prior knowledge, what some enemies can do. You can see this first hand just by mixing in a few GM created enemies that follow their own rules. Watch a look of shock and surprise when a Cinder Troll's regeneration isn't stopped by acid and fire.
It's kind of funny, all these tropes you tend to associate with MMO players seem to sort of hit me sideways Walsh, having never played them and not being a perfect fit to your claims but having an uncomfortable closeness to your claims.
I am the very definition of a player who is uncomfortable not understanding everything going on in the game.
HOWEVER I never metagame, that's what knowledge checks or past experiences of the character are for.
If something doesn't align with my personal knowledge of the game I'm likely to say something to the effect of 'really? But normally they're like this, this and this.' If the GM says "Yup, normally" or something to that effect then that's cool, I accept it and do my best to immerse myself in a game that's exceeded my expectations [in a neutral way] and ask the GM about how he changed the enemy after the session is over.
If the GM says 'wait, really?' Then I'm there to help the GM adjudicate the beast if need be.
All of this is a very good argument for widespread re-skinning/naming of monsters. I like to get players out of their comfort zone; I feel it adds to the tension. I (almost) never fudge, use deus ex machina or simply make up rules on the spot, but I do love to throw curveballs. Simply giving a beastie a different name and appearance can do wonders, even with made knowledge checks.
As a GM I could care less whether or not the players know what they're facing, so long as they properly roleplay their characters not knowing.
As a player I dramatically prefer understanding exactly what's going on in the game, how it works, etc etc.
It takes me out of my comfort zone in a way that I generally find un-fun.
What happens if your GM simply invents a new monster, or gives an old one new powers?
Maybe it's my grognard predilections, but I like to challenge, confuse, and freak out the players at least as much as I do the characters.
I can't say I disagree.
I learn and work out the ebst ways to work with what I have and even look at the most fundamental things regarding combat purely so I can deal with the unknown.
If something doesn't align with my personal knowledge of the game I'm likely to say something to the effect of 'really? But normally they're like this, this and this.' If the GM says "Yup, normally" or something to that effect then that's cool, I accept it and do my best to immerse myself in a game that's exceeded my expectations [in a neutral way] and ask the GM about how he changed the enemy after the session is over.
If the GM says 'wait, really?' Then I'm there to help the GM adjudicate the beast if need be.
That is fine. The players I am referring to don't react that way. They get ANGRY and accuse the GM of trying to frag them over. They will DEMAND to see the sheet so that they can see for themselves, often refusing to continue unless they are pandered to.
Me, I'm of the school of, when a player asks I'll simply respond with:
"Normally yes." or "This isn't what you think it is."
Normally I won't reveal the changes after the session unless the player's character has reason to know.
If something doesn't align with my personal knowledge of the game I'm likely to say something to the effect of 'really? But normally they're like this, this and this.' If the GM says "Yup, normally" or something to that effect then that's cool, I accept it and do my best to immerse myself in a game that's exceeded my expectations [in a neutral way] and ask the GM about how he changed the enemy after the session is over.
If the GM says 'wait, really?' Then I'm there to help the GM adjudicate the beast if need be.
That is fine. The players I am referring to don't react that way. They get ANGRY and accuse the GM of trying to frag them over. They will DEMAND to see the sheet so that they can see for themselves, often refusing to continue unless they are pandered to.
Me, I'm of the school of, when a player asks I'll simply respond with:
"Normally yes." or "This isn't what you think it is."
Normally I won't reveal the changes after the session unless the player's character has reason to know.
Dude I'd hate to GM those people.
I thought the whole point of templates and monster feats was to make creatures behave beyond the norm so that they are at least somewhat unpredictable without a knowledge check. How are players supposed to act when a custom AP monster or third party monster/templates come up? It behaves weird because its a monster and not a person. It may not even be mortal. There's no telling where it came from or why it can do the things it does until you find out.
Once made a colossal centipede using it's arms to play drums. Each drum had an arbitrary bardic performance. The centipede did not have bard levels. destroying a drum got rid of an environmental effect or a buff to the baby centipedes or the defenses of the main centipede, and would stop the Soundstriker bardic performance. My players at the time liked it because they felt it was almost like a Zelda boss and it was fun figuring out which drums to get rid of to make it vulnerable to magic, and more fun to find it had a weak spot. (Setting had Kami controlled and made evil by Oni Masks. Targetting the mask instead of the creature effectively defeats the creature and makes it an ally) I would HATE to just have players that just cant stand that this creature has bardic performances without bard levels and being an animal, or that some of those bardic performances don't exist. Its just Oni drum magic I made up to as an excuse to make the environment more interesting. I at least used a ryme and reason for the DCs and stuff.
Normally I won't reveal the changes after the session unless the player's character has reason to know.
This would legitimately bother me. If it's fair enough for you to use how is it not fair enough for me to understand it?
I think it depends greatly on the mood of the campaign/story in question. I generally incorporate a fair amount of horror in my setting, and fear of the unknown is the only kind of fear that matters. I feel like I'd be doing my players a disservice by revealing too much of what's going on under the hood.
This obviously requires a good deal of trust between GM and players. In order to play this way, a GM needs to establish under no uncertain terms that there are rules, however strange, which govern how things behave in the world, and that the NPCs and monsters are just as much bound by these rules as are the player characters. I like to think of this as the deist's view of GMing. It is my job as GM to create a world that the players can interact with and figure out, set that world in motion, and then see (and describe) what happens.
Normally I won't reveal the changes after the session unless the player's character has reason to know.
This would legitimately bother me. If it's fair enough for you to use how is it not fair enough for me to understand it?
Unless your character understands it, then why should you understand it? If it bothers you, or your character, you can make the appropriate knowledge check. You can ask someone, in game, about it.
Am I saying that you would meta-game it? No.
You can't, however, meta-game what you don't know. Also, see above. If YOU don't know then it is more incentive for you to learn in-character. Alternatively, you can experiment with it. You can try things without knowing the outcome.
Also, I mean, if I am the GM, then I am the GM. I can fudge rolls, I can change things on the fly if I need to, I can break the "rules" at any point I see fit. I don't often do it, but when it is necessary I absolutely will. This isn't a competitive game, I don't have to play fair.
I'm a narrative GM, I don't sandbox. There is no "winning" a roleplaying game so there is no fair or unfair.
I thought the whole point of templates and monster feats was to make creatures behave beyond the norm so that they are at least somewhat unpredictable without a knowledge check. How are players supposed to act when a custom AP monster or third party monster/templates come up? It behaves weird because its a monster and not a person. It may not even be mortal. There's no telling where it came from or why it can do the things it does until you find out.
Once made a colossal centipede using it's arms to play drums. Each drum had an arbitrary bardic performance. The centipede did not have bard levels. destroying a drum got rid of an environmental effect or a buff to the baby centipedes or the defenses of the main centipede, and would stop the Soundstriker bardic performance. My players at the time liked it because they felt it was almost like a Zelda boss and it was fun figuring out which drums to get rid of to make it...
Very cool.
I have something like that coming up soon for my players.
My players do not open this...
Stay out if you are in my game:
They will face the Gemini Assassins, agents of the Serpent King (the big bad of my campaign) they will hear rumor of them before they show up. They are said to be immortal, one of them, it is claimed came back after being beheaded.
The Gemini Assassins are Unchained Rogues, but with really crappy HP. Only 25 HP each. They regenerate back to 25 at the end of either of their turns so long as at least one of them is still alive. They do not stabilize, if dropped below 0 they die.
They raise from the dead, instantly, if at the end of either turn, one of them is alive. They don't suffer negative levels, nothing like that. For this ability to work they must be within 60 feet of each other.
In the event that one of them is planes shifted, they will return to the point they left at, providing the other is still on the prime plane and is within 60 feet of the point they disappeared.
The key, of course, to beating them is to kill them both before one of them has an action. They have evasion and such to prevent easy frags from a fireball or some such. They tend to keep a fair distance from each other when acting. This can be easily done by holding an action, or readying an action, to strike simultaneously on each one. They could somehow be forced close to each other and AoE'ed, one of them could be dragged out of range as well, yadda yadda.
I'm a narrative GM, I don't sandbox. There is no "winning" a roleplaying game so there is no fair or unfair.
Actually, that's false. Even in a narrative game.
I believe that you are incorrect.
Quote:
Took me a bit to realize it too.
You win when you get to play your character's story out to your satisfaction.
Sometimes you win just by having a memorable death.
I would say that you are describing playing a character, winning isn't a thing here.
Quote:
Otherwise optimization, or really even the rules have no good place.
They don't. That is why rule 0 exists.
Quote:
Because if there is no winning or losing or consequences not arbitrated by the GM.
There are no consequences not arbitrated by the GM as the GM is the final arbitrator of all of the rules. It doesn't matter what the book says, the GM can simply say no.
Me knowing is for me and has absolutely nothing to do with my character.
So kindly stop metagaming.
Don't take this the wrong way Kyrt, but, as the GM I am under no obligation to reveal my notes and variants to you if you are my player. My answer would still be no.
Maybe after the game had ended (as in not the session, the campaign) but until then I don't reveal information about mechanics to players that their characters have no way to know.
You're metagaming. You're restricting out of character information based on assumptions about in character behavior.
Now it might be warranted as part of a mystery for a campaign, not my cup of tea but I could accept it.
Doesn't change the fact you're metagaming.
Metagaming is utilizing out of character knowledge in-character. You do not seem to know what that word means. Metagaming is NOT restricting out of character information. That has never been part of the definition of metagaming in gamer parlance.
Speaking of narrative. I do kind of despise there being few mechanical benefits (not including third party) for raising INT and CHA for more combative characters. The worst thing even is being at a table of people that don't know much about monsters, no knowledge skills and playing a character with 8 INT. I know how to beat the monster easily but I can't tell nobody because my character doesn't know. So then it's my fault for not warning everyone that this thing exists. Even worse when everyone knows what they're doing but no one has the right knowledge skill. Then it's like:
Player 1: "I heard about these guys, they are timid and peaceful creatures. We should all peace tie our weapons to show them we mean them no harm."
Player 2: Uh... I'll roll a knowledge check *rolls a 5* "I think this is a great idea. Spiky creatures are normally herbivores who's spikes protect them from predators. I'll prepare spells to help facilitate our peace talks instead of offensive spells."
Player 3: Oh no! I'm rolling a knowledge check *rolls a 3* "They are so happy to see us that they are smiling! Lets greet them with hugs!"
And so we went off to have a happy adventure with the nest of baby Tarrasques...
I would say that you are describing playing a character, winning isn't a thing here.
Of course it is. Winning and losing are simply a matter of applying victory and loss conditions. A game doesn't have to point that out. It's human nature to assign these directly.
For example if you're playing an AP.
Complete the AP. Win.
TPK on the AP. Lose.
Or if your character has overaching goals.
Goals unsatisfied. The character is not satisfied.
Goals satisfied. The character is must find new goals or come to a conclusion in some form.
You may have ways to mitigate that loss and the loss itself can be entertaining enough to count as a win. But it's there.
If you think it's the opposite try paying attention to all those people who get mad at you for changing things on them.
Is it because they're bad people who don't understand?
Or is it because they hate losing arbitrarily?
At thsi point we're not even talking about D&D or traditional roleplaying but human nature and game theory in and of itself.
Quote:
They don't. That is why rule 0 exists.
There are no consequences not arbitrated by the GM as the GM is the final arbitrator of all of the rules. It doesn't matter what the book says, the GM can simply say no.
There is 1 rule. Rule 0.
If Rule 0 is your only argument than you're basically using the rest of the rules for no reason. Which I imagine would make Kyrt more uncomfortable than anything.
In which case it doesn't matter what changes you make to monsters. Since you are using Rule 0 as justification for literally everything you do.
In which case, if none of the other rules matter except those you deem important you literally have 0 stake in this argument as any rules printed you dislike will be discarded and those you do will be added to the fold not as a thing to follow but a polite suggestion and as a weapon to use in arguments against those who claim you're being arbitrary.
Believe it or not, that's not generally accepted as good behavior on a GM's part. In fact many consider it a faux paus except in circumstances where rules aren't clear or where rules are genuinely too clunky or ill fitting to fit the situation.
Or as one person put it a while back. Rule 0.5: Just because you can use Rule 0, does not mean you should,
In truth this is actually not cooperative except in the most shallow sense that you allow it to happen. Given your earlier replies about how you can make a character feel useless I'm led to believe that's actually the case. The game only happens because you deem it so.
You're metagaming in one way as a means of preventing the other type of metagaming.
It's certainly not the sort of game I intend to ever run, and a sort of game I'd generally prefer to avoid.
I strongly disagree with you Kyrt. I have NEVER heard a GM withholding information be called Metagaming, nor have I ever heard any player even attempt to insinuate it is a bad thing.
Metagaming has a very negative connotation.
And in fact you are specifically attempting to use it in a connotation that it is clearly not intended. Like many things metagaming has a definition based on the context of which it is used. I refer you to the great and powerful Wikipedia (which amusingly has a disambiguation specifically for use with roleplaying games):
But, to provide it here so that you can update your definition with the proper context:
Quote:
In role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.
Historically, metagaming in RPGs referred to the traditional military use of metagaming where players applied out-of-game information to gain an unfair advantage in a game, most commonly by reading an adventure module before playing it.
One must remember that there is only an illusion of challenge in tabletop games. Because the GM has to arbitrate the rules, in a way that allows the players to win.
More to the point, the players can only succeed if the GM lets them.
Otherwise optimization, or really even the rules have no good place.
They don't. That is why rule 0 exists.
I think this is a dangerous view to take. Rule 0 must exist because the show must go on and nothing is less fun than arguing about rules. That being said, every time rule 0 is invoked, whether openly or in secret, what is happening at the table becomes less a game and more a bedtime story.
I used to be more of a narrative guy than I am today. Eventually, I guess I realized that my favorite narratives were the ones that the players wrote themselves. I think this is why clear and coherent rules (of the non-zero variety) are so important. The rules are the ways in which the players interact with the game world. The better the rules, the more empowered the players, and the bigger the role they play in telling the story.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of metagaming then Walsh, because my definition is 'mixing the meta with the game.' That could be mixing out of character knowledge in character, it could be mixing in character expectations with out of character behavior, or perhaps something else entirely.
Metagaming is when the game and the meta bleed into one another in ways that they should not.
For what it's worth, the metagaming you're doing [in my perspective] IS very negative.
It's screwing the player out of understanding your world, for what? Because you don't trust them to keep player and character information separate?
If the player doesn't want that information [like Jeff] then that's awesome, but if a player seeks an understanding of your world, so they actually know what it is their involved in and what it is their dealing with, I'm of the opinion it's a disservice not to tell the player [out of game-time of course. If you say that type of stuff mid-game you could possibly inspire unintentional metagaming in your players as well because they're hearing it at the same time they're playing it.]
Again, I disagree with you and we will have to simply do so.
Also, your comment, "All those people..."
Nice try. It is fairly rare that it happens, but if you've ever run a convention table then you have seen how touchy gamers get at those things about anything. Bear in mind this has only, in recent years, become a real issue. Literally this is a post-WoW phenomena.
In the 90's it was accepted as normal behavior for the GM to customize monsters. Now it is considered rude.
I'm a very experienced GM Tark. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know exactly how far to push when running and my players, of which I have a freaking waiting list, are very happy so I must be doing something darn right.
Or, as I was told by a player 3 weeks ago after a demo, "This was the best game of Pathfinder I have ever played."
So, while I agree that there are different strokes for different folks I would ask that you not attempt to insinuate that I am flawed, inexperienced, or bad at running tabletop games.
Like every GM my mileage has varied over the years. You cannot please everyone. Sometimes some player's styles don't mesh.
Myself, for example. I will not play in a sandbox game. I don't enjoy them, I don't like them, and if it doesn't have an engaging story that is narrative driven, I don't have fun.
Rule 0 should be invoked when it needs to be invoked. It is something that you have to use in moderation but you, as the GM, should never ever forget that you are the Game Master. If you need to fudge, fudge. If you need to "cheat" then "cheat."
The real rule 0.5 shouldn't be, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
The real rule 0.5 should be, "Will doing it make the game better for my players?"
Because ultimately, at the end of the day, my job as a GM is to make sure that they had fun. Was there the right level of challenge? Was the atmosphere right? Did the players get invested? Did everyone have a moment where they shined? (That last one doesn't happen every single session of course.) Did everyone have enough spotlight time?
So yeah, I'll use rule 0 at the drop of a hat if it is necessary.
In a recent lower level session I ran, for example, there was a fight with a clutch of Ankhegs. Simple, low level, encounter but when the Wizard made a serious tactical error and wandered into a room alone, only to come face to face with an angry Ankheg, the Ankheg bit him and grabbed him. The Oracle ran in to help him and swung.
The Oracle didn't do anywhere near enough damage to kill the thing, and in the next round he attacked it again, and once more struck home. The Wizard was already at -3 at this point, so when the hit struck... It worked... I don't care that the Ankheg had 6 HP remaining. The player didn't know that, maybe it was injured already? The player knew that he saved his friend, the Wizard knew that he had been saved, they were both happy so mission accomplished.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of metagaming then Walsh, because my definition is 'mixing the meta with the game.' That could be mixing out of character knowledge in character, it could be mixing in character expectations with out of character behavior, or perhaps something else entirely.
Metagaming is when the game and the meta bleed into one another in ways that they should not.
For what it's worth, the metagaming you're doing [in my perspective] IS very negative.
It's screwing the player out of understanding your world, for what? Because you don't trust them to keep player and character information separate?
If the player doesn't want that information [like Jeff] then that's awesome, but if a player seeks an understanding of your world, so they actually know what it is their involved in and what it is their dealing with, I'm of the opinion it's a disservice not to tell the player [out of game-time of course. If you say that type of stuff mid-game you could possibly inspire unintentional metagaming in your players as well because they're hearing it at the same time they're playing it.]
Out of curiosity, does this argument apply only to rules questions? Monster stats and the like.
Or does it apply to plot and setting stuff as well? Would you expect to be told what else was in the parts of the dungeon that you didn't explore after that part of the adventure was over? Or details of what the bad guy was doing that hadn't come up in play?
In the 90's it was accepted as normal behavior for the GM to customize monsters. Now it is considered rude.
Customized monsters are awesome [so long as the GM understands the game well enough to do so fairly relative to the party he's running.]
The only thing I find rude is refusing to inform an inquiring player about the creature after the session is over.
Like I said, it depends.
If I am running a demo, and the game is over (rather than the session) I will. If it is something that I don't think is a big deal then I might. Most of the time I'd prefer for the player (and character) to find out at the same time.
That is my style.
It works for me. It probably wouldn't work for you. I consider your attempted pushing to be a negative trait as much as you consider my reluctance to share information that the player does not need to be.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of metagaming then Walsh, because my definition is 'mixing the meta with the game.' That could be mixing out of character knowledge in character, it could be mixing in character expectations with out of character behavior, or perhaps something else entirely.
Metagaming is when the game and the meta bleed into one another in ways that they should not.
For what it's worth, the metagaming you're doing [in my perspective] IS very negative.
It's screwing the player out of understanding your world, for what? Because you don't trust them to keep player and character information separate?
If the player doesn't want that information [like Jeff] then that's awesome, but if a player seeks an understanding of your world, so they actually know what it is their involved in and what it is their dealing with, I'm of the opinion it's a disservice not to tell the player [out of game-time of course. If you say that type of stuff mid-game you could possibly inspire unintentional metagaming in your players as well because they're hearing it at the same time they're playing it.]
Out of curiosity, does this argument apply only to rules questions? Monster stats and the like.
Or does it apply to plot and setting stuff as well? Would you expect to be told what else was in the parts of the dungeon that you didn't explore after that part of the adventure was over? Or details of what the bad guy was doing that hadn't come up in play?
Rules for the most part, but it also includes setting stuff that isn't some kind of secret or limited information.
If the GM knows what the rest of the world is like, I want details, explanation, background, maps-if-available.
No point in telling me what else was in the dungeon, that's come and gone [although it would be appreciated if he felt like doing so, to better understand who built it, why and what else lurked within.]
Details of what the bad guy was doing that didn't come up in play would be cool too, to better understand the character and its motivations and origins.
I consider your attempted pushing to be a negative trait as much as you consider my reluctance to share information that the player does not need to be.
This is probably as much related to my own personality as to my gaming style.
"You don't need to know" is one of the most aggravating things someone can say to me. Not to the level of infuriating, but suffice it to say I don't take it well.
One must remember that there is only an illusion of challenge in tabletop games. Because the GM has to arbitrate the rules, in a way that allows the players to win.
More to the point, the players can only succeed if the GM lets them.
I'd argue that whether or not the challenge is an illusion is dictated by the GM but the actual win/loss conditions are set by the player.
Like take a simple scenario: A locked door.
The nature of the challenge is in large part dependent on how its handled.
If the door has a hard written DC and a rogue rolls to disable that it's a simple mathematics challenge. Not an illusion but a simple skill test.
If the door has a key that must be gotten from around the horn of the gorgon that carries it than it becomes either a skill challenge or a combat challenge also largely dictated by hard numbers and tractics.
If the key can only be gained through tricking or wooing the guard than it becomes a roleplay challenge. Where the players through roleplay must convince the GM playing through the guard to grant them the key If rolls are involved as well than it's either a hard numbers challenge or a combination roleplay+skill challenge where the roleplay provides bonuses or penalties (which I tend to favor).
The loss condition is simply failing to get through the door. It's what the player's want to do.
Now if the GM chooses numbers based purely on numbers than the challenge isn't necessarily dictated by the GM and isn't an illusion.
If the GM chooses numbers based on hard numbers but with addition or subtraction based upon the nature of the game than that too isn't necessarily illusional.
If the GM arbitrarliy decides that the numbers don't matter the win or loss goes to the first roll that satisfies how they feel than at that point is the actual challenge from the rules illusional.
That last bit is what I hate because that makes the drama and tension illusional too.
You're metagaming in one way as a means of preventing the other type of metagaming.
It's certainly not the sort of game I intend to ever run, and a sort of game I'd generally prefer to avoid.
I strongly disagree with you Kyrt. I have NEVER heard a GM withholding information be called Metagaming, nor have I ever heard any player even attempt to insinuate it is a bad thing.
Metagaming has a very negative connotation.
And in fact you are specifically attempting to use it in a connotation that it is clearly not intended. Like many things metagaming has a definition based on the context of which it is used. I refer you to the great and powerful Wikipedia (which amusingly has a disambiguation specifically for use with roleplaying games):
But, to provide it here so that you can update your definition with the proper context:
Quote:
In role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.
Historically, metagaming in RPGs referred to the traditional military use of metagaming where players applied out-of-game information to gain an unfair advantage in a game, most commonly by reading an adventure module before playing it.
Sorry, but that article is taking a single view ("metagaming=bad", and related "powergaming=bad"). It does not reflect all the versions or nuances of metagaming (and powergaming). I mean its one of the regular questions here on the boards and you cannot get three people to agree on what is what. So pointing to an article that has only one side of the argument as some kind of universal truth does not make you right (it does not make you wrong either 'cause those are legitimate cases of "bad metagaming". well at least in some games). I consider every role of the dice to be metagame so my definition of the word is pretty broad.
One must remember that there is only an illusion of challenge in tabletop games. Because the GM has to arbitrate the rules, in a way that allows the players to win.
More to the point, the players can only succeed if the GM lets them.
I'd argue that whether or not the challenge is an illusion is dictated by the GM but the actual win/loss conditions are set by the player.
Like take a simple scenario: A locked door.
The nature of the challenge is in large part dependent on how its handled.
If the door has a hard written DC and a rogue rolls to disable that it's a simple mathematics challenge. Not an illusion but a simple skill test.
If the door has a key that must be gotten from around the horn of the gorgon that carries it than it becomes either a skill challenge or a combat challenge also largely dictated by hard numbers and tractics.
If the key can only be gained through tricking or wooing the guard than it becomes a roleplay challenge. Where the players through roleplay must convince the GM playing through the guard to grant them the key If rolls are involved as well than it's either a hard numbers challenge or a combination roleplay+skill challenge where the roleplay provides bonuses or penalties (which I tend to favor).
The loss condition is simply failing to get through the door. It's what the player's want to do.
Now if the GM chooses numbers based purely on numbers than the challenge isn't necessarily dictated by the GM and isn't an illusion.
If the GM chooses numbers based on hard numbers but with addition or subtraction based upon the nature of the game than that too isn't necessarily illusional.
If the GM arbitrarliy decides that the numbers don't matter the win or loss goes to the first roll that satisfies how they feel than at that point is the actual challenge from the rules illusional.
That last bit is what I hate because that makes the drama and tension illusional too.
I'm not sure what you mean by "If the GM chooses numbers based purely on numbers".
Regardless, the GM is setting the difficulty of the lock or of the encounter (gorgon) that must be done first or of persuading the guard to let you through. Whether they're handwaved at the time or set ahead of time doesn't really change that.
If the GM is doing his job, that difficulty will present an appropriate level of challenge for the group. If he's not it'll be too trivial or impossible. That's where the "illusion of challenge" comes in. The very world is shaped for the PCs to succeed.
