TTRPGs should punish people who play DMFs.

[Whatever]

Of course, a PC Fighter isn't really infantry. He's special forces, which is a heck of a lot more versatile than that. Special forces do things like jump off of perfectly good flying carpets over enemy territory and make contact with local resistance (diplomacy, linguistics) and plan sabotage operations.

A special forces team is seriously like 20-30 people, plus support and logistics. And they bring about as much to the table as a single high level spellcaster. Sure, you can have a game where one person plays Gandalf and another plays Seal Team Six, but that doesn't solve the basic problem with the "fighting man" archetype.

[Username17]

That's really terrible, because the Fighting Man, in reality, is a very versatile archetype. He doesn't just sword things. He's also combat engineer, because your medieval soldier is totally shit if he can't build siege-works and fortifications. He's a leader, a strategist, a linguist, a diplomancer, And he should get UMD because a wand is just a gun that shoots magic.

If you take your Fighter's role from real-world infantry, you get something like "The role of the Infantry is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize or hold ground and repel attack, by day or night, regardless of season, weather or terrain."

That's a rather broad mission statement, with little specification in regards to methods and weapons. It leaves a lot of wiggle room. Of course, wizards can complete that mission to, which is problematic, but that's more an issue with game design than the archetype itself.

Of course, a PC Fighter isn't really infantry. He's special forces, which is a heck of a lot more versatile than that. Special forces do things like jump off of perfectly good flying carpets over enemy territory and make contact with local resistance (diplomacy, linguistics) and plan sabotage operations.

Honestly, the fighting man should be able to do a lot of stuff that's generally relegated to the rogue, like detecting and disarming traps (infantry on room-clearing duty need that particular skill)

You have that exactly wrong. "Fighting Man" isn't versatile at all, it's "Mook #4". It runs around with a sword or spear and either comes in sufficient numbers to capture the heroes or it does not. There is no versatility there.

Concepts that actually have versatility include "Warlord", "Knight", "Swashbuckler", "Ranger", and "Rogue". Because those are archetypes that, while they might well have a sword, also imply some ability other than the totally uninteresting and insufficient capability to swing it.

There are a few perfectly mundane abilities that actually conceptually scale in usefulness to whatever level of play is currently being passed around. Most obviously, Diplomancy scales based on potential allies and opposition and is thus always proportionate in power to the challenge of the adventures the characters are in. Stealth and Scouting scale based on the strength of the encounters you avoid or ambush. And so on. But "Fighting Man" does not have any of those.

-Username17

[Maj]

Hyzmarca, I think you wrote the best post detailing why the fighter should just die. I don't think that's what you intended - I think what you were trying to do was redefine "fighter" as something that doesn't suck. But the lame concept of "fighter" has been so etched in the minds of gamers that I think it's irretrievable.

So you're going to have to find some other term to describe the character you're talking about - the fighter is dead.

[shadzar]

i have been reading this for a while and not to reply to anything outside the main topic, just figured the best thing to say is ... NO.


a game should NOT punish anyone for not playing someone else's metagame.

a GROUP may determine its best case method of play, but games themselves that attempt this will end up like Alternity. have little to nothing and only be a footnote in time and in landfills.

the game itself MUST accept all possible ways to play as valid, even if unwelcome in some circles.

also assume the dumb-melee-fighter is the easiest intro into the various game worlds... punishing new players isnt really a way to get them to want to play again, let alone to want to play something else.

[Mr. GC]

I'm not sure how to feel about an RPGsiter having over 3k posts here.

[Mistborn]

I'm not sure how to feel about an RPGsiter having over 3k posts here.

feels bad man.

[Leress]

I'm not sure how to feel about an RPGsiter having over 3k posts here.

Read his previous posts and then judge.

[Mr. GC]

I'm not sure how to feel about an RPGsiter having over 3k posts here.

Read his previous posts and then judge.

I prefer sanity.

[Kaelik]

Unfortunately, we can't make him seem to go away. As evidenced by him not being here for so long a happy time, and then suddenly coming back.

Between Tzor and Shad, they really do like getting our hopes up and then making us sad.

[Koumei]

Unfortunately, we can't make him seem to go away.

Ignore makes him seem to go away.

Between Tzor and Shad, they really do like getting our hopes up and then making us sad.

It really is depressing. I'm not even getting my hopes up for Tzor never returning.

[fectin]

I've heard the transition between the last two editions described as "3E is improvisational theatre, occasionally interrupted by a crunchy tactical miniatures game. 4E is improvisational theatre, occasionally interrupted by Monopoly." It resonated with me strongly enough that I can't actually say whether it's true, because I've never gone looking for a 4E game.

However, given that most of most people's games is complete MTP, including the vast majority of the memorable bits, it's crazy to say that someone who doesn't contribute to combat should automatically be ejected/punished/opprobriated. The fundamental measure of success in a game is not winning or losing, it's whether you can have a positive group experience. I'll grant that balance is usually a strong contributor to that, but don't put the cart before the horse here.

Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit doesn't work because it's not fun. Doctor Who and Lady du Jour works fine because it is fun. That's true even though they are the exact same situation. I'd be willing to agree that you're less likely to have problems if the situation doesn't come up, but there is not automatically a problem if you find yourself playing Doctor Who.

Also, "fighters can't be viable at 20th level" is patently false. '20th level' is just a number; you could e.g. easily stretch E6 over 20 levels and suddenly have a perfectly viable fighter. It's a semantics nit, but an important one.

[DSMatticus]

It really is depressing. I'm not even getting my hopes up for Tzor never returning.

I've seen his name in the lists of browsing users once or twice since he left.

[Lago PARANOIA]

However, given that most of most people's games is complete MTP, including the vast majority of the memorable bits, it's crazy to say that someone who doesn't contribute to combat should automatically be ejected/punished/opprobriated. The fundamental measure of success in a game is not winning or losing, it's whether you can have a positive group experience.

That seems like it would be a profound statement, but it's not. Positive group experience is a vague and near-useless phrase. I can have fun playing a game that I generically hate because of unique factors, like whether I was eating my favorite gumbo throughout or playing with my best friends. Similarly, I can still have fun at a game that forces me to tolerate negative factors. If I'm playing Smash Bros. or D&D next to someone who smokes or hasn't taken a shower recently I can still have fun. But that doesn't excuse their smoking or taking a shower.

TTRPGs are about improvisational roleplay in a wargaming environment where the players contribute to other peoples' stories about equally. And what people keep forgetting (unless it intrudes on their share) is the about equally part. If you're doing shit like predeclaring that you're only going to contribute when it suits you by doing crap like playing a pacifist in D&D or a DMF then fuck you. You're making the game worse in a noticeable and well-documented way and not only don't need catering but you need a cattle prod up your ass to get you in the right direction.

[echoVanguard]

TTRPGs are about improvisational roleplay in a wargaming environment where the players contribute to other peoples' stories about equally.

This is false. There are many TTRPGs that do not take place in a wargaming environment - Call of Cthulhu, Don't Rest Your Head, and several others.

And what people keep forgetting (unless it intrudes on their share) is the about equally part.

People can contribute equally to the story without contributing equally to combat. If one player makes a character who is generally ineffectual in combat but shines in other areas and cannot be eclipsed in those areas by another character that does shine in combat, that's okay. This sort of phenomenon really only becomes a problem when one of two things is true:

1. The party needs the combat contribution that the character isn't providing (either because the game revolves so much around combat that missing their contribution damages the experience, or because the encounters are hard enough that the pinch is felt), or
2. Non-Combat character's other areas of expertise are demonstrably inferior to those of combat characters (which is really just a restatement of #1, I suppose).

Also, you're conflating two cases - those in which a character isn't well-suited to combat, and those in which the character is but the player is willfully refusing to participate. Frank's assertion that these two are the same thing is, honestly, pretty limited - it's perfectly okay in Shadowrun, for example, to have a character who is awesome at interaction-based skills, hacking, stealth, and/or rigging, but totally sucks at combat, because of how characters are built in that game and the way in which goals are accomplished. In D&D 3.X, however, it's generally a good idea to have a character that can defend themselves because there are fewer avenues for completing adventures without combat (simply due to the genre conventions of the game).

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

People can contribute equally to the story without contributing equally to combat. If one player makes a character who is generally ineffectual in combat but shines in other areas and cannot be eclipsed in those areas by another character that does shine in combat, that's okay.

Okay, this thread wasn't meant to have a combat-focus even. I picked DMF because it's a clear and persistent example of a playstyle that does what this thread is talking about that any D&D player can recognize. I now regret doing that despite the disclaimer in the first post, just like I regret putting knot-cutting in that Tactical Failures thread.

But yes, DMF is a game mechanic-side problem, too. See the dozens of 'how do I shot fightah' threads on these boards. Solving that is beyond the focus of the thread. The focus of the thread is (or was supposed to be) this:

What do you as the game designer do about players who insist on playing intentionally narrow concepts when the game provides and should require otherwise? See, that's where the DMF part came in because they're the clearest example of this problem WRT D&D. Which most people play. Personally, I say that the game should implement some kind of DM-initiated punishment. Or cutoff from reward. Which is the same as punishment.

[echoVanguard]

What do you as the game designer do about players who insist on playing intentionally narrow concepts when the game provides and should require otherwise?

As the designer, my job is to determine three things:

1. How best to fit the game together to enable the players to tell the story they want,
2. How best to encourage behavior conducive to a good game, and
3. How best to present the decisions that come out of 2 and 3.

Note that "stop people from playing in a way that I don't like" isn't anywhere on that list. It's a lower-energy solution to simply make it easier for people to play better. The solution I chose was to make every class equally capable of contributing to every arena of play in the general sense, while choosing different specific areas or methodologies for each archetype to shine in.

When performing our initial analysis, we determined that there are five areas in which every player, regardless of class, must be able to participate competitively:

* Combat Offense
* Combat Defense
* Perception
* Deception
* Social Interaction

The methodologies by which each class is able to meet these requirements varies widely, but all the classes must be able to leap all these hurdles in relatively equal (but differing) measures. Some abilities can fulfill more than one role - for example, Stealth abilities can serve as both Deception and Combat Defense - and some classes may have multiple ways to contribute to each arena, but the minimum is evident.

The goal isn't to "stop" players from playing intentionally narrow concepts, because that's logistically impossible - a player can simply choose not to use their abilities at any given turn. The goal is to provide every class with at least one option in every situation which is both appropriate and effective. This fulfills your metric of the game "requiring otherwise" - player characters are by definition broadly capable, and the classes are designed in such a way that it is impossible to build a character who cannot contribute meaningfully in any given arena - in other words, removing the refuge of incompetence.

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

Note that "stop people from playing in a way that I don't like" isn't anywhere on that list.

Then you shouldn't ever design a game, because getting people to play the game the way you want is the most important thing of game designing. If you think that you can design a game without in some way rewarding or not rewarding certain playstyles or paradigms or strategies then you're deluding yourself.

[name_here]

What do you as the game designer do about players who insist on playing intentionally narrow concepts when the game provides and should require otherwise?

Absolutely nothing. If you've set up the concepts you want your game to support and people choose to play others, that is not your problem. If the game actually should require broader archetypes and the mechanics are structured so that is actually the case, the game designer is done. There is nothing that can or should be done to prevent people from playing things that are not properly supported.

If the DMF is a problem for the group, then the DM should handle it. At most, the game designer could include tips for what to do about it, but writing denying rewards into the game just smacks of spiteful attempts to get people to stop liking what you don't like. If the archetype is mechanically invalid in the system as constructed, you're already punishing people who play it. If it's mechanically valid (say, melee guy with flight) then punishing it is pretty much twisted Gygaxian sadism.

[MGuy]

Note that "stop people from playing in a way that I don't like" isn't anywhere on that list.

Then you shouldn't ever design a game, because getting people to play the game the way you want is the most important thing of game designing. If you think that you can design a game without in some way rewarding or not rewarding certain playstyles or paradigms or strategies then you're deluding yourself.

Ummm no you do not force people to play the game you want. You can "encourage" them to do it like he said:

2. How best to encourage behavior conducive to a good game

but you do not attempt to "force" people to do it. I'm struggling to figure out [how] exactly you think you can. DnD already punishes people who play fighters or poorly made characters and that doesn't keep people from playing them.

[Mr. GC]

Note that "stop people from playing in a way that I don't like" isn't anywhere on that list.

Then you shouldn't ever design a game, because getting people to play the game the way you want is the most important thing of game designing. If you think that you can design a game without in some way rewarding or not rewarding certain playstyles or paradigms or strategies then you're deluding yourself.

This. If your game does not reward the sorts of play it is supposed to reward you have failed as a designer. If the game tells you you're supposed to be brash, bold heroes but the correct way of playing it is to be very cautious and methodical and never pick a fight with unknown variables you, as a designer are doing it wrong.

Now look at how D&D tells you it should be played vs how you actually should play it. These two things are nothing alike at all.

Look at how the DMF is presented as a valid and equal option vs what it actually is.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There is nothing that can or should be done to prevent people from playing things that are not properly supported.

I'm struggling to figure out what exactly you think you can.

First of all, we're not even at the stage yet where gamers-at-large realize that there is a problem with the game as she is played. People are barely past the -4 STR and Lawful Stupid hurdles. See this very thread where people are still in denial that the playstyle that the DMF encourages is actively bad for the game.

Second of all, while the task might in the end be a fool's errand I'm not convinced at this point that this is in fact the case. TTRPGs, D&D in particular, can and has used the rules, campaign setting, and promotional materials to socially engineer a playstyle. It's been done for piddling-ass tasks like alignments and trap wariness and corpse-looting, why not for something more positive like character development?

The fact that this is apparently a novel observation only goes to show how successful TTRPGs were at getting people to internalize it. Apparently what people are rebelling at isn't the fact that they're being socially engineered but that they're seeing the man behind the curtain.

[MGuy]

So you're asking (in essence) how to manipulate people into not using the concept?

Well that there is a bit much. A lot of our media still has the regular dude fighting against, or with, people that are far better than them. I have been watching Marvel's Avengers the animated series) and I physically cringe every time a blast or explosion occurs that is bad enough to knock out/back the Hulk/Thor and doesn't kill the weaker team members. However my reaction is an uncommon thing and I suspect that nothing you can do in a TTRPG is going to change people's expectations. You're dealing with something that goes beyond just DnD. It is present in more stories than I could possibly list.

[hyzmarca]

Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit doesn't work because it's not fun. Doctor Who and Lady du Jour works fine because it is fun. That's true even though they are the exact same situation. I'd be willing to agree that you're less likely to have problems if the situation doesn't come up, but there is not automatically a problem if you find yourself playing Doctor Who.

I don't think they are the exact same situation. The Doctor has a shitty and unoptimized powerset that's practical from a worldbuilding perspective but rather useless in an actual game. His biggest power is Time Lord Regeneration, which serves as extra lives, but only twelve of them and they're accompanied by radical stat and personality changes so the Doictor's player might as well Just roll up a new character and say that he's the Doctor's cousin.

He also owns a TARDIS, which is a piece of equipment, not a power, so hypothetically anyone of any class could just buy or steal one. And though the TARDIS should be an extremely powerful piece of equipment, the DM freaks out every time someone tries to use it for knot-cutting and sends unkillable super-monsters to enforce his pet plot railroad or throw a tantrum and declare that you destroyed reality. Fixed point in time my ass.

The Doctor's other iconic power is just a screwdriver. Likewise, anyone could buy a sonic screwdriver, or just build their own, as one version of Amy did.

Take away that equipment and the doctor is just a normal guy with a second heart a racial ability, which doesn't even have any mechanical effect unless the DM feels like pulling out the random hit-location table.

The Doctor doesn't even carry a weapon. He's almost totally useless in combat. The only reason he's even half-way useful is that he read the monster manual. Give one of his companions a gun and she'd be vastly more useful than he is, as River Song so aptly demonstrates.

Really, Doctor Who and Companions aren't Angel Summoner and BMX Bandits. They're BMX Bandits and a douchebag BMX Bandit who sucks the DM's cock really well in a crazy MTP game.

And that's strangely fun to watch. It isn't all that fun to play with, however.

[echoVanguard]

Note that "stop people from playing in a way that I don't like" isn't anywhere on that list.

Then you shouldn't ever design a game, because getting people to play the game the way you want is the most important thing of game designing. If you think that you can design a game without in some way rewarding or not rewarding certain playstyles or paradigms or strategies then you're deluding yourself.

Your opinion is noted. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't take it to heart, however.

You are conflating "encouraging desired behavior" and "punishing or discouraging undesired behavior". They are not the same thing, and my previous post laid that out in exceedingly clear detail. I can appreciate what you're trying to accomplish in this thread, but quite frankly, if you are at all legitimately interested in a real solution, you should be a bit more open-minded about what approaches you are willing to discuss.

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

However my reaction is an uncommon thing and I suspect that nothing you can do in a TTRPG is going to change people's expectations. You're dealing with something that goes beyond just DnD. It is present in more stories than I could possibly list.

This analysis of course misses the fact that DnD is or at least pound-for-pound one of the works most responsible for the long-term manipulation of audience reactions towards this sort of thing. And to a lesser extent WoD and Shadowrun.

Yet even if you can't get lightning to strike twice, I still say that TTRPGs should at least try to shape a better audience rather than throwing up their hands and surrendering to maladaptive audience expectations.

You are conflating "encouraging desired behavior" and "punishing or discouraging undesired behavior". They are not the same thing, and my previous post laid that out in exceedingly clear detail.

When we're talking about designing a game, they're the same thing. Awarding everyone in the group but the perpetrator 500XP is no different from a game design perspective than penalizing the perpetrator 500XP. I'm aware that due to loss aversion people bristle more at direct rather than indirect punishments so when we actually get to the phase of the game when non-designers test it you'll have to manipulate people into thinking that they're different things and that you're only "encouraging desired behavior".

But while we're operating behind the curtain in the dark corners of the Internet we don't need to deceitfully tailor our language to avoid such triggers of human cognitive bias. Otherwise TGD loses its ability to be the TGD.