|
Splicer posted:So if you're playing a *world or similar game and your players walk through four rooms, use up all their spells in those rooms, then open the last room and there's a dragon in it, that's a dick move because there's no way they can survive that. Yes, precisely. If I understand hyphz correctly, that is exactly the point. In the game where the dragon is written on the map, you can say "well you lost because you spent all your resources too early." And "too early" is judged against a fixed, objective standard. In the case where you are making it up yourself, you still say "well you lost because you spent all your resources early." But this time, "too early" was a judgment you made as DM and can feel like a punishment. You guys are focusing on "well DUH don't have a dragon where it doesn't make sense." But what about when having a dragon absolutely makes perfect sense but will also absolutely cause the PCs to lose the mission? Do you put it in and make them lose? Or do you take it out even though you would have put it in if they had more resources left and even though it makes sense to have it?
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
hyphz posted:It doesn't matter what system you're playing. what if the players talk to the dragon? what if they bribe the dragon with tasty meats? what if they turn around and find another way out which they can do because there isn't a rigid map that we all must slavishly devote ourselves to? quote:But what about when having a dragon absolutely makes perfect sense but will also absolutely cause the PCs to lose the mission? don't have a situation that must absolutely happen because you're not a robot. Elfgames fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
hyphz is tomb of horrors a good adventuring module, why or why not
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I think his argument is that if you've already put the dragon there, the PCs will be careful because they might run into a dragon, and if they're not careful they'll feel like it's their own fault. If you haven't already put the dragon there, choosing to put the dragon there makes you an rear end in a top hat, but not putting the dragon there means there's no reason for the PCs to be careful. The thing is it's all actually true, if the players have agency in the decision. They don't if opening the door is really and truly 100% blind, but that doesn't need to be case. Like if I open up one of the vaults in Dreadfell in Tales of Maj'Eyal, you'd better loving believe it's my fault when I die (in that case because I've played the game thousands of times and I know what vaults mean mechanically.) There's no reason you couldn't reproduce this kind of decision-making in a TRPG. Although it'd probably be best in that case for it to be a game where making a new character is as easy as it is in a roguelike, or at least where you set aside a series of spare character sheets because you expected this possible outcome. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
I am unironically and non-mockingly interested to learn hyphz's position and feelings about Fiasco, and to a lesser extent, all improvisational acting. I always suspected Colin Mochrie and Ryan Stiles were possessed of some dark power, but now we might see it uncovered in full.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:You guys are focusing on "well DUH don't have a dragon where it doesn't make sense." But what about when having a dragon absolutely makes perfect sense but will also absolutely cause the PCs to lose the mission? Do you put it in and make them lose? Or do you take it out even though you would have put it in if they had more resources left and even though it makes sense to have it? sounds like this falls under the purview of "portray the world honestly". if it makes sense for it to be there, then it makes sense. but the players ought to have ways to either know that the dragon is there beforehand or to deal with it in such a way that they're not assured to fail (as that wouldn't follow with "be a fan of the players")
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:You guys are focusing on "well DUH don't have a dragon where it doesn't make sense." But what about when having a dragon absolutely makes perfect sense but will also absolutely cause the PCs to lose the mission? Do you put it in and make them lose? Or do you take it out even though you would have put it in if they had more resources left and even though it makes sense to have it? The only PbtA game where a situation like that remotely makes sense is Dungeon World, and that games tells you draw maps. Edit: using D&D based examples to discuss how to play Blades is pointless because Blades doesn't work on the same logic as D&D. thefakenews fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Why is "they opened the door to a dragon without spells" immediately assumed to be a combat encounter to the death that you can't run from with spells acting as the party's true measure of power? Isn't the whole point being that we are not talking about D&D?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Why is "they opened the door to a dragon without spells" immediately assumed to be a combat encounter to the death that you can't run from with spells acting as the party's true measure of power? Isn't the whole point being that we are not talking about D&D? well I mean at least one person has made the argument that no tabletop game works on those assumptions, meaning not even D&D
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:well I mean at least one person has made the argument that no tabletop game works on those assumptions, meaning not even D&D I pretty much stand by it too, if you are in an RPG and RP is not a valid tool for problem solving (roll augmented or not) then something is hosed
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:I pretty much stand by it too, if you are in an RPG and RP is not a valid tool for problem solving (roll augmented or not) then something is hosed nah, D&D as an asymmetric tactical wargame with a very thin layer of narrative to help keep you invested is cool and good in much the same way and for the same reasons that PBTA games having a certain amount of resource expenditure / tactical decision-making to create a sense of tension, despite in no way really being about tactics or resource management, is also good Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:well I mean at least one person has made the argument that no tabletop game works on those assumptions, meaning not even D&D A good game of D&D doesn't work on those assumptions. Most games of D&D are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:In the game where the dragon is written on the map, you can say "well you lost because you spent all your resources too early." And "too early" is judged against a fixed, objective standard. In the case where you are making it up yourself, you still say "well you lost because you spent all your resources early." But this time, "too early" was a judgment you made as DM and can feel like a punishment. A fixed, objective standard...that comes solely out of the DM’s judgment. Are players demanding to see their DM’s notes to verify that she didn’t (gasp) change anything about the adventure? That she didn’t adapt it to the players’ play or to maintain the desired pace, horror of horrors? “Your idea about it having been stolen from the prince was really cool, but I’d already written that it came from a farmer’s field  ”If you all had fun, who cares whether the dragon was put in the room 15 seconds or two weeks before the door was opened? If you didn’t have fun, who again cares when the dragon was put there? If it wasn’t fun (and losing can be fun) then everyone should figure out how to make it more fun in the future. *Especially* in a PbtA game that gives the players more explicit narrative control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Okay so I don't remember any of the details of BitD, but what would you do if you've established in the fiction that the vault is guarded by a fearsome monstrosity that once was human and is now possessed by a vicious ghost, and the PCs are on the BitD equivalent of 1HP and 0 Fate Points to spend, and they decide to open the final vault anyway? Would you say "oh wow, nobody is home. I wonder why. Maybe you'll find out in our next adventure," and let them get the loot out? Or would you have them make some rolls against this monster, knowing that if they fail the rolls (as is likely), that will end their hopes of getting away with the loot this time? I think both are valid, honestly. Hyphz is worried that if you do the former, then the players will know that they never have to ever be careful and can do whatever without any fear of ever failing. That is not necessarily a bad thing, IMO, but some players would hate that because they would feel like it makes things pointless. The problem with the latter is that it can feel like you are punishing them by putting in a challenge you know they likely can't beat. Some players will be fine with losing this way, others will think that the GM is screwing them unfairly. And, sadly, sometimes the same player who will feel annoyed by the first issue will also feel annoyed by the second, meaning you are in a no-win situation. It sounds like hyphz had one of those players.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:A good game of D&D doesn't work on those assumptions. Most games of D&D are bad. See this is bullshit, and precisely why it's important to distinguish between hyphz not understanding PBTA games on the one hand and those dynamics being real and applicable in other contexts on the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:
The answer here is: some non-zero amount of people. I don't necessarily think it's a concern that makes sense, but it does matter to some people, and that's OK. It just means some games and some GMs won't suit them. Tuxedo Catfish posted:See this is bullshit, and precisely why it's important to distinguish between hyphz not understanding PBTA games on the one hand and those dynamics being real and applicable in other contexts on the other. So you claim is that, in D&D, any time there is a monster on the other side of the door the only outcome is that combat starts? I mean, who ever heard of a reaction roll? thefakenews fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Nail on the head. Well, with one exception: it's in the GM's head. It's not "the GM making up some bullshit to kill you", it's "me making up some bullshit to kill the PCs", again even if it's exactly the same monster. BUT hyphz posted:It doesn't matter what system you're playing. Also, magical tea party games tend to come with better consequences than "You died, roll up a new character". But you are also 100% right that some people will never enjoy a game like BitD, or will enjoy running but not playing, or playing but not running, for the reasons you posted. You'll also get people who will never enjoy games like D&D, or will enjoy running but not playing, or playing but not running. But you have to look at the rest of the game in context to get why some people do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:So you claim is that, in D&D, any time there is a monster on the other side of the door the only outcome is that combat starts? It could be the case in a particular campaign, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If I have four PCs who are painstakingly built to be dragon-murdering machines and I spent the previous day robbing video and board games for cool bossfight mechanics, then you'd better believe I'm not going to give the possibility of a peaceful solution too much consideration, because that's not what anyone came to the table for. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It could be the case in a particular campaign, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I would find it boring and bad. When I talk about good and bad D&D it's obviously subjective, and about what I find bad and good. Edit: also, you phrased your post as if it was universally true that D&D operates on those assumptions. That's obviously wrong and I was disagreeing with the idea that it was universal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:I would find it boring and bad. When I talk about good and bad D&D it's obviously subjective, and about what I find bad and good. My point is more that first, it's incredibly important to understand that this tension exists because it impacts game design in very significant ways, and games that try to have it both ways fail both audiences, and second, that designing the latter type of game makes the dragon-behind-door problem significant in ways somewhat (although not exactly) similar to what hyphz is saying. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
having never read or played a pbta game, let me tell you how pbta games work
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
quote:I don't really care what you consider good and bad D&D. Sorry for expressing an opinion on RPGs in an RPG discussion. Tuxedo Catfish posted:My point is more that first, it's incredibly important to understand that this tension exists because it impacts game design in very significant ways, and games that try to have it both ways fail both audiences, and second, that designing the latter type of game makes the dragon-behind-door problem significant in ways somewhat (although not exactly) similar to what hyphz is saying. Sure the tension exists in terms of player expectations, but I'm arguing that D&D is not actually designed with assumption that all encounters with monsters will immediately become combat encounters without any other solution. It's a way of playing the game, but not one the games assumes is the default.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Sure the tension exists in terms of player expectations, but I'm arguing that D&D is not actually designed with assumption that all encounters with monsters will immediately become combat encounters without any other solution. It's a way of playing the game, but not one the games assumes is the default. D&D is designed from the assumption that fighting is the default. It doesn't have to be 100% of the time but if it isn't at least the baseline, why would you play D&D instead of something else? There's no reason to have a game with fantastically detailed combat mechanics and kind of a vague handwave for everything else, where that mechanically detailed combat is full of complicated decisions that players can get objectively right or wrong, where monsters are budgeted against the power of the players as a party, where the rewards are all things that make you better at combat, if the assumption isn't that, most of the time, you'll be fighting things. Now, the flip side of this is that D&D over the years and editions has tried to be all things to all people, so it's absolutely full of weird edge cases and small allowances to more narratively-oriented stuff. And if you really want to run a narratively-oriented campaign in D&D, it's not like I'm going to try to stop you. But I am going to take issue with "combat-oriented, antagonistic D&D isn't real and rules or guidelines designed to facilitate it don't mean anything."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:But I am going to take issue with "combat-oriented, antagonistic D&D isn't real and rules or guidelines designed to facilitate it don't mean anything." Ok, but I never made that argument. In fact, I agree with it (see my first post where I was explicitly addressing the idea that Blades doesn't operate on that logic, and that seemed to be a disconnect for hyphz). I disagreed with the very specific proposition that opening a door and finding a dragon, in D&D, means you immediately start a fight that can't be avoided. You made the claim that D&D operates on that assumption, and I disagree. That fact that the solution to the problem of a dragon is often combat doesn't mean that's the only one, or that there is no opportunity to find another solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Ok, but I never made that argument. In fact, I agree with it (see my first post where I was explicitly addressing the idea that Blades doesn't operate on that logic, and that seemed to be a disconnect for hyphz). I didn't make that claim, though. I just disagreed with the claim that a good game of D&D can't operate on those assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I didn't make that claim, though. I just disagreed with the claim that a good game of D&D can't operate on those assumptions. Your response to Cirno reads like you are saying that D&D operates on those assumptions. Edit: and your response to Elfgames.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Your response to Cirno reads like you are saying that D&D operates on those assumptions. I disagree. Especially with regards to Elfgames' post: Elfgames posted:I pretty much stand by it too, if you are in an RPG and RP is not a valid tool for problem solving (roll augmented or not) then something is hosed because this is literally "no, no RPG can or should work like that" and that's what I'm reacting against.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Okay so I don't remember any of the details of BitD, but what would you do if you've established in the fiction that the vault is guarded by a fearsome monstrosity that once was human and is now possessed by a vicious ghost, and the PCs are on the BitD equivalent of 1HP and 0 Fate Points to spend, and they decide to open the final vault anyway? Blades In The Dark, page 191 posted:You’ve telegraphed the threat, so go ahead and follow through when it hits. Players have several tools at their disposal to deal with adversity. If they can react in time, they can make an action roll. If they’re hit with trouble, they can resist it. You don’t have to pull your punches! BITD is pretty explicit that if a threat is established and not actively opposed in some fashion that you as the GM can and should simply let it happen, and that the players should expect this to occur. On the other hand, the book is also pretty explicit that putting the players in a no-win scenario is something to be avoided. No-win doesn't mean it can't come with a cost in terms of consequences, and there's a whole how-to-GM chapter that's all about how to handle various situations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:The answer here is: some non-zero amount of people. I don't necessarily think it's a concern that makes sense, but it does matter to some people, and that's OK. It just means some games and some GMs won't suit them. So there are players who can have a great time in a session, and then want to check the GM’s paperwork to make sure they didn’t have an unfairly good time? That sounds pathological to me, I have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I disagree. Ok. I mean, if that's not what you are saying then I don't think we particularly disagree. I don't think D&D is designed assuming you will play that way, but it can be used to play that way. Although, I wish you'd stop making unmarked edits between when you post and I hit quote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So there are players who can have a great time in a session, and then want to check the GM’s paperwork to make sure they didn’t have an unfairly good time? That sounds pathological to me, I have to say. Imagine if you were a marathon runner and you learned that your coach was secretly doping you, or that your times were being recorded as lower than they really were, or that the system was otherwise being manipulated to make it look like you'd achieved more than you actually had. Would it be "pathological" to feel cheated or betrayed in that situation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Ok. I mean, if that's not what you are saying then I don't think we particularly disagree. I don't think D&D is designed assuming you will play that way, but it can be used to play that way. I'll try to make more discrete posts instead of consolidating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So there are players who can have a great time in a session, and then want to check the GM’s paperwork to make sure they didn’t have an unfairly good time? That sounds pathological to me, I have to say. I don't think that's quite fair. I doubt people are demanding to see the GMs notes, but I think they might be upset if the GM "confessed" to improvising. I don't think the reasons for wanting everything pre-planned are necessarily ones I can agree with, but there are enough people who want everything pre-planned that they should be able to find a game together and have fun with that. Edit: Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'll try to make more discrete posts instead of consolidating. thefakenews fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Id like to post my take on the resource mechanics in *world games later tonight (assuming my kids go to bed), but before I do, it'd be nice to have some data. So in the meantime, I'd be very curious to know from the whole thread: How many BitD heists have you played in or GMed? And in how many of those did the heist end with the PCs failing to get the loot because they ran out of resources?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Imagine if you were a marathon runner and you learned that your coach was secretly doping you, or that your times were being recorded as lower than they really were, or that the system was otherwise being manipulated to make it look like you'd achieved more than you actually had. I’m asking if the runner, having really enjoyed a run, walks straight from the finish line to get a urine test and a check on the integrity of a timepiece. In the context of a subjective pursuit like playing an RPG with some friends — a collaborative activity with no meaningful score system — it doesn’t make sense to me for a player to conduct an audit of the GM’s notes. Is the idea that the GM’s role isn’t subjective at all, and that they’re just some virtual machine executing the adventure’s program? Are these players worried that the GM might not have played the dragon optimally at some point? Perhaps picking some monsters’ targets for a fun battle rather than inflicting the most damage through focused fire? thefakenews posted:I don't think that's quite fair. I doubt people are demanding to see the GMs notes, but I think they might be upset if the GM "confessed" to improvising. I’m trying to imagine why anyone would or could ever be a GM without interesting improvisation. What does the role become? Just play Gloomhaven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I disagree. And i stand by it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Even if you were playing D&D, you couldn't drop a full adult dragon on a level 1 party because there's a defined range of monsters that are appropriate for the party to encounter. If this was in pre-TSR D&D, it would be based on the dungeon level they were operating in. If this was 3e or 5e, it would be based on their Challenge Rating. If this was 4e, it would be based on their level. You couldn't do this if you were planning/playing a map, and you couldn't do this either if they had triggered a random encounter. And if you were making up encounters on the fly, you still couldn't do this, because again, you're limited to whatever is on the level 1 dungeon encounter list, whatever is an "Encounter Level+5" composition, or whatever comes within the 400 XP budget of a 4-player-level-1 party with a hard cap of level 4 monsters. And you still couldn't keep dropping multiple "hardest possible" encounters either, because the DMG will also prescribe something like:   Now, I can't speak for if every pre-made adventure ever written for D&D follows these rules, but if you're making your own, whether as an entirely pre-planned adventure or as something you're making room-by-room, the rules are crafted in a manner that you couldn't drop something on them that they shouldn't reasonably have a chance against. Now, this is not to say that TPKs don't happen, or that GMs don't step outside these rules, but that's also because these rules aren't perfect, insofar as, say, the CR system isn't a great representation of actual encounter difficulty. But you still have guidelines on what you're supposed to be allowed to do as a GM even if you want be as antagonistic as possible against them. And the reason I bring this up is because, per PBTA, a Move will always tell you if it's time to make a Soft Move or a Hard Move, and how dire the possible repercussions of that Soft/Hard Move can be, so you're never supposed to be able to "arbitrarily" gently caress over the party with a trap or a dragon or some poo poo in the same way that you couldn't do that either in D&D. Except, where in D&D you have to come up with a constantly shifting set of numbers to capture how much your fuckery is capped, PBTA just tells you the scope of how far you can go. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Id like to post my take on the resource mechanics in *world games later tonight (assuming my kids go to bed), but before I do, it'd be nice to have some data. So in the meantime, I'd be very curious to know from the whole thread: I've run two sessions. I can say it's unlikely that there's no gain for the players as a team, but the main consequence for failures is increased Heat, pissing off more people, taking way more stress and not being able to nick the silverware on the way. With a team of 4 it's unlikely that they'll run out of resources on a single heist. Characters are really powerful if they team up and push themselves. You might see someone get really hosed up, maybe get arrested or killed, but outright failure is going to be rare, unless the players decide something absurdly ambitious. BITD is really oriented towards personal and future consequences, although I can't say about later on in the campaign when they go up against the setting's big hitters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I’m asking if the runner, having really enjoyed a run, walks straight from the finish line to get a urine test and a check on the integrity of a timepiece. In the context of a subjective pursuit like playing an RPG with some friends — a collaborative activity with no meaningful score system — it doesn’t make sense to me for a player to conduct an audit of the GM’s notes. The idea is that all of this depends on the goal of the game. I'm using comically extreme examples to isolate the difference between "telling a story" and "succeeding and being good at a difficult task" but yes, the satisfaction of doing something hard is undermined if it was constantly adjusted to be just below your capabilities. Subjunctive posted:I’m trying to imagine why anyone would or could ever be a GM without interesting improvisation. What does the role become? Just play Gloomhaven. You say this like it's a negative, I say it because there's not much I want more from tabletop gaming than an even better and more robust hybrid of D&D and Gloomhaven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You say this like it's a negative, I say it because there's not much I want more from tabletop gaming than an even better and more robust hybrid of D&D and Gloomhaven. It’s not a negative, Gloomhaven looks great. What’s the fun in being the DM if you don’t ever get to make any decisions, though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:15
|
|