Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9177921" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Whereas I see "it's what my character would do" as, in almost all cases, a rather weak excuse for being, if you'll pardon my language, a little @#$% screwing up the table's experience for brief personal jollies. And yes, I have in fact seen this at the table. I don't play with that person anymore.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay...but like...why would you want to when you could...not? When you could have the game's actual incentives be to do the fun things, not to punish people for not doing the fun things?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you're going for something rather more abstract than I am. "The way it's supposed to be played" is exactly what you're saying when you say that players will (willingly) choose to avoid bothering with the tedious stuff unless pressed to do so. That's exactly why you propose it as a game design choice: the intent is that players will see and recognize, "oh, doing that cheesy thing would be frustrating, boring, tedious, and just generally un-fun. I should do the fun things instead, even though they don't work as well." That is the way your proposal is supposed to be played. But it won't be. Overall player psychology doesn't work that way--<em>individual</em> players may, but the game isn't made for individual players, it's made for players collectively.</p><p></p><p>For example, you already agree that a class which is simply crazy powerful all the time, able to do everything by itself, would be bad design. I know we've discussed it multiple times previously. And you recognize that, in the absence of other considerations, a system built around the idea of "the player can be extremely powerful, but they have to do a dull/tedious/complicated thing first" inherently encourages players to find whatever tricks they can pull, whether skullduggery or sincere, to <em>not</em> do those things but still get to be extremely powerful. We are, as far as I can tell, fully in agreement on all of that.</p><p></p><p>Your proposal is, "Then we should simply make the tedious things impossible to ignore," but that's <em>not possible</em> with rule design. That would, in fact, require a perfect system that can catch all possible exceptions. Instead, we must substitute the adversarial (or worse, <em>nanny</em>) GM who punishes bad players who stubbornly do what the rules are intended to punish, because the reward is, to most players, pretty much always worth the crap you have to put up with to get it.</p><p></p><p>But we could design things quite differently. Instead of <em>punishing</em> that behavior, reward it--that is, make it so the player's natural ambition to subvert the limitations placed on them <em>is the effective thing to do</em>. In effect, it's applying the underlying philosophy of "separation of powers" to game design. Make it so the ambitious player, the player who wants to do strong and effective things, <em>can only do so</em> by being a team player. Make it so the powergamer is at her mightiest only when she acts pro-socially, rather than anti-socially. This, unlike the previous, is quite doable in game design; it is not trivial by any means, but it's not horrendously difficult either.</p><p></p><p>That is what I mean by "the way it's supposed to be played." The game presents itself as a cooperative teamwork fantasy roleplaying game. Make it so being powerful requires cooperation, depends on teamwork, supports fantasy, and rewards roleplaying. Then you have no need to be draconian or nannying; you have no need to <em>police</em> your players' behavior, because their own natural ambition--"their job," as you put it--<em>is</em> to do the things the game was designed for, e.g. the aforementioned description and more specific things (like 5e's three pillars.)</p><p></p><p>If your players' own ambitions (power, success, wealth, equipment, etc.) spur them directly toward cooperative teamwork fantasy roleplaying gameplay, then there is no <em>need</em> to punish them for avoiding those things--because they'll only avoid them when they really, <em>really</em> want to, rather than avoiding it simply because that's where the advantage almost always lies.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's fair. I think there's still room between the 4e and 5e approaches, but I can't really argue with a sincere preference.</p><p></p><p></p><p>TBH, I don't really know what differentiates a Scout from Ranger or Rogue, and Swashbuckler from Rogue (or certain flavors of Bard.) Aren't Clerics <em>already</em> basically War Clerics? They all get at least medium armor, shields, and plenty of good weapon options, and that's been the case since 3e at least. IIRC even 2e's Priests still had good armor and okay-ish weapon options.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. Not really sure why the former is such a horrible thing. I know a lot of people feel that way, but it's just...why yuck others' yum so much? Does the mere <em>existence</em> of such a thing truly pain you so?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9177921, member: 6790260"] Whereas I see "it's what my character would do" as, in almost all cases, a rather weak excuse for being, if you'll pardon my language, a little @#$% screwing up the table's experience for brief personal jollies. And yes, I have in fact seen this at the table. I don't play with that person anymore. Okay...but like...why would you want to when you could...not? When you could have the game's actual incentives be to do the fun things, not to punish people for not doing the fun things? I think you're going for something rather more abstract than I am. "The way it's supposed to be played" is exactly what you're saying when you say that players will (willingly) choose to avoid bothering with the tedious stuff unless pressed to do so. That's exactly why you propose it as a game design choice: the intent is that players will see and recognize, "oh, doing that cheesy thing would be frustrating, boring, tedious, and just generally un-fun. I should do the fun things instead, even though they don't work as well." That is the way your proposal is supposed to be played. But it won't be. Overall player psychology doesn't work that way--[I]individual[/I] players may, but the game isn't made for individual players, it's made for players collectively. For example, you already agree that a class which is simply crazy powerful all the time, able to do everything by itself, would be bad design. I know we've discussed it multiple times previously. And you recognize that, in the absence of other considerations, a system built around the idea of "the player can be extremely powerful, but they have to do a dull/tedious/complicated thing first" inherently encourages players to find whatever tricks they can pull, whether skullduggery or sincere, to [I]not[/I] do those things but still get to be extremely powerful. We are, as far as I can tell, fully in agreement on all of that. Your proposal is, "Then we should simply make the tedious things impossible to ignore," but that's [I]not possible[/I] with rule design. That would, in fact, require a perfect system that can catch all possible exceptions. Instead, we must substitute the adversarial (or worse, [I]nanny[/I]) GM who punishes bad players who stubbornly do what the rules are intended to punish, because the reward is, to most players, pretty much always worth the crap you have to put up with to get it. But we could design things quite differently. Instead of [I]punishing[/I] that behavior, reward it--that is, make it so the player's natural ambition to subvert the limitations placed on them [I]is the effective thing to do[/I]. In effect, it's applying the underlying philosophy of "separation of powers" to game design. Make it so the ambitious player, the player who wants to do strong and effective things, [I]can only do so[/I] by being a team player. Make it so the powergamer is at her mightiest only when she acts pro-socially, rather than anti-socially. This, unlike the previous, is quite doable in game design; it is not trivial by any means, but it's not horrendously difficult either. That is what I mean by "the way it's supposed to be played." The game presents itself as a cooperative teamwork fantasy roleplaying game. Make it so being powerful requires cooperation, depends on teamwork, supports fantasy, and rewards roleplaying. Then you have no need to be draconian or nannying; you have no need to [I]police[/I] your players' behavior, because their own natural ambition--"their job," as you put it--[I]is[/I] to do the things the game was designed for, e.g. the aforementioned description and more specific things (like 5e's three pillars.) If your players' own ambitions (power, success, wealth, equipment, etc.) spur them directly toward cooperative teamwork fantasy roleplaying gameplay, then there is no [I]need[/I] to punish them for avoiding those things--because they'll only avoid them when they really, [I]really[/I] want to, rather than avoiding it simply because that's where the advantage almost always lies. That's fair. I think there's still room between the 4e and 5e approaches, but I can't really argue with a sincere preference. TBH, I don't really know what differentiates a Scout from Ranger or Rogue, and Swashbuckler from Rogue (or certain flavors of Bard.) Aren't Clerics [I]already[/I] basically War Clerics? They all get at least medium armor, shields, and plenty of good weapon options, and that's been the case since 3e at least. IIRC even 2e's Priests still had good armor and okay-ish weapon options. Okay. Not really sure why the former is such a horrible thing. I know a lot of people feel that way, but it's just...why yuck others' yum so much? Does the mere [I]existence[/I] of such a thing truly pain you so? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?
Top