What's with fluff/gameplay badassery dissonance in TTRPGs?

[InsaneWaffle]

I think there are at least five different ways that different people have come up with to let players play dragons. PC/NPC asymmetry annoys me, at least, in both directions.

1) name ANY story where the protagonists and antagonists dont have asymmetry.

2) name the RPG system that can properly handle this story WHEN the PCs leave the given story path and do something different than is scripted in the story.

I dont understand these questions at all... I dont even understand how you play when you answer like that.

[Dogbert]

Show me a game designer that's not willing to abide by HIS OWN system (i.e creating rules-breaking, GM wank NPCs) and I'll show you a system that's not worth abiding by.

[tussock]

Dragon.
1: Be a dragon.
2: Be a half-dragon (or otherwise dragon-touched) playable race.
3: Play 4e and be a dragon-man.
4: Take the "be a dragon" class, or bloodline.
5: Be a Kobold, but take dragon feats.
6: Get polymorphed into a dragon.
7: Use an arbitrary game effect (magic pools, wishes) to become a dragon for reals.
8: Those last two are already too similar. Call it 6.

I'm gunna say that's totally a valid set of ways to "play a dragon" to include in a game. Except #3, because a Lizard-man is just plain better, which folds into #4. That PC/Monster asymmetry can totally have problems, and I think character-like monsters should probably just be simplified characters, but not all monsters should be character-like.

Like, a Nymph can be a Druid with little tweaks, and a Mind-Flayer can be a Psion with the same. But "giant" isn't really a Fighter. Maybe. Werewolf and Vampire work better if they're neither class nor character options, even though characters can become either. 4e's Vampire class is not good. Neither is 3e's Lich class (even though the class itself there is not at all bad).

[RobbyPants]

<stuff>

I dont understand these questions at all... I dont even understand how you play when you answer like that.

As a general rule, we don't talk to him much about game design. He tends to do this sort of thing.

[codeGlaze]

Dogbert: They may never inspire respect (from other characters), but when they're ripped off by some powerful force or another, they survive it admirably. It's a sort of fluff/badassery dissonance, where the characters see the fluff "a bunch of poor space hoboes" and then get perpetually surprised by "who are each extremely competent at a small range of skills".

And forcing that skillset to apply to everything. I say that as a positive, it's highly amusing. xD

[shadzar]

I think there are at least five different ways that different people have come up with to let players play dragons. PC/NPC asymmetry annoys me, at least, in both directions.

1) name ANY story where the protagonists and antagonists dont have asymmetry.

2) name the RPG system that can properly handle this story WHEN the PCs leave the given story path and do something different than is scripted in the story.

I dont understand these questions at all... I dont even understand how you play when you answer like that.

the point is that people using different tools will end up with different results. there is no such thing as symmetry between DM and player tools.

a novel author or screenwriter doesnt have to "play fair" with the antagonists and protagonists. that is why there is often a theme of the bad guys can do things that are illegal to get to an end, while the good guys have less options because they must follow the laws to get to the ends. (unless they are antiheroes or the "good guys" are working for society but their selves and just happen to end doing something for the greater good).

there is NOT an RPG system that the DM uses the same tools as the players. that would require a DM-less system, and even those can have asymmetric design of the "system tools" vs player tools.

when you have effectively the players vs the world, you have to remember, "the world aint fair".

and if you cant understand those "questions", as you call them, you need a refresher course in the English language.

[Ancient History]

Mister Cavern has enough ways to fuck with player characters that it is only the laziest and most craven of game designers that feel the need to break the rules of their own system to give NPCs further advantage.

I'm going to illustrate this by invoking the opposite: video games. In video games, the NPCs' abilities are typically arbitrary and unrelated to the PC's level-up path, their treasure drops often have nothing to do with what they are holding or fighting with. That is okay, because video games are a more restrictive medium, with far less granularity available than in pen-and-paper games. Even then many of the better RPGs do customize drops to correspond to what the NPC is holding, or allow paths for PCs to develop similar abilities.

In a pen-and-paper RPG however, the action may be delimited by the rules system, but imagination need not be. If the Hero is facing a Goblin with a Sword, and the Goblin drops the Sword, the Hero should be fucking well in their rights to try and pick up the Sword and stab the fuck out of the Goblin with it - and vice versa. Neither should have a monopoly on swords, or stabbing. Giving special powers and artifacts and shit that were only available to NPCs is the Plotifact of the Week crappola characteristic of bad modules in Dungeon magazine.

Equal opportunity does not mean power cannot be asymmetric between PCs and NPCs - only that such asymmetry should not be nailed in place with an exception to the rules. If the Dark Lord has a million-orc army, that is symmetric and perfectly acceptable as long as the Hero can also potentially raise an army. It is, if nothing else, much better storytelling not to give plot-protection powers to various NPCs. Case in point: anyone could have slit a hobbit's throat and taken the One Ring, and that was a major fucking plot point of the book. People thought about it, long and hard, and ran callused thumbs up and down the edges of sharp blades until the blood ran thinking of sticking it to those curly-haired little fuckers until they squealed just to take the Precious.

One last thing, because this annoys me to know end:

and if you cant understand those "questions", as you call them, you need a refresher course in the English language.

Pot. Calling. Fucking. Kettle. You can barely write complete sentences in English, and I've yet to see you start one with a capital letter.

[shadzar]

I've yet to see you start one with a capital letter.

1. dont assume Dungeon Magazine has anything that means anything to D&D. they are only following the example of White Dwarf that was a required purchase to play Warhammer, as it contained the errata to the rules, and GW wouldnt give out ANY part of the rules for free. aside from the fact that most of Dungeon was fanfic quality adventures and built around houserules, not the core of the game.

2. nothing says you cant pick up a goblins sword and use it against him. the problem is that he is likely to try to pick it up also, so the player doesnt get free reign to do it by virtue of being a player.

3. your problem lies not with the game or rules is a DM doesnt let you try to do something, it lies with the DM. you cant blame the rules for a bad DM that you let continue to be a bad DM. that is like blaming poker for letting someone cheat and you continue playing with the person taking all your money by cheating you at the game. stop playing with a bad DM is they dont understand how to DM. the rules will NEVER make a bad DM into a good one, only the players can make a bad DM either stop being bad, or if that doesnt work, stop being a DM.

4. you also rarely if ever see me use an apostrophe, because frankly i dont think you are worth a shift, and dont give a shift about you. this is an informal forum, not a piece of school homework or scientific paper. the words can be read as the letters are all mostly present, and it has even been proven that the mind doesnt need the letters in the correct order to read the word, so long as they are all present.

[ishy]

the point is that people using different tools will end up with different results. there is no such thing as symmetry between DM and player tools.

a novel author or screenwriter doesnt have to "play fair" with the antagonists and protagonists. that is why there is often a theme of the bad guys can do things that are illegal to get to an end, while the good guys have less options because they must follow the laws to get to the ends. (unless they are antiheroes or the "good guys" are working for society but their selves and just happen to end doing something for the greater good).

The beautiful thing here is ofcourse that in your example they are playing with the exact same tools, but just make different choices.
If you are playing D&D and one player makes a wizard, while the other makes a cleric, the outcome and story you tell for both chars can be completely different yet you are playing with the exact same rules/tools.

That being said, I do agree that DMs and players sometimes have to use different rules. To give an example in D&D, I don't think players should play mindless plants while a DM can sometimes play as mindless plants.
Though shit like you can't use this sword because you are a PC are obviously terrible.

[RobbyPants]

One last thing, because this annoys me to know end:

and if you cant understand those "questions", as you call them, you need a refresher course in the English language.

Pot. Calling. Fucking. Kettle. You can barely write complete sentences in English, and I've yet to see you start one with a capital letter.

He's turning into what PR did towards the end of his stay here, once he stopped caring about the place.

[shadzar]

the point is that people using different tools will end up with different results. there is no such thing as symmetry between DM and player tools.

a novel author or screenwriter doesnt have to "play fair" with the antagonists and protagonists. that is why there is often a theme of the bad guys can do things that are illegal to get to an end, while the good guys have less options because they must follow the laws to get to the ends. (unless they are antiheroes or the "good guys" are working for society but their selves and just happen to end doing something for the greater good).

The beautiful thing here is ofcourse that in your example they are playing with the exact same tools, but just make different choices.
If you are playing D&D and one player makes a wizard, while the other makes a cleric, the outcome and story you tell for both chars can be completely different yet you are playing with the exact same rules/tools.

except when they are not, for a wizard must memorize the spells he wishes to cast the next day, while the cleric can cast any spell he wishes from those he has access to within the limits of his available spells.

that is different tools between the players.

That being said, I do agree that DMs and players sometimes have to use different rules. To give an example in D&D, I don't think players should play mindless plants while a DM can sometimes play as mindless plants.
Though shit like you can't use this sword because you are a PC are obviously terrible.

unless there is a reason for it, outside of the created party. clerics not being able to use swords is an understood default of some editions.

also there may be a sword that only a fighter can wield and that is within reason. it is ok for the DM to set these limits, it is not changing the rules for either side, but being applied for both sides in the sword case.

but the only item creation off-limits to player construct is artifacts for the most part.

[OgreBattle]

Might it have something to do with people getting influenced by tv shows like DBZ?

In DBZ, the planets actually explode.


Even if they fix it later, the planet did explode, the guy did get turned into a frog, Buu did turn a guy into chocolate and eat him, cyborg Frieza did get diced up.

[Libertad]

Show me a game designer that's not willing to abide by HIS OWN system (i.e creating rules-breaking, GM wank NPCs) and I'll show you a system that's not worth abiding by.

This is so totally becoming my new sig quote.

[name_here]

except when they are not, for a wizard must memorize the spells he wishes to cast the next day, while the cleric can cast any spell he wishes from those he has access to within the limits of his available spells.

In which Shadzar reveals he is unfamiliar with DnD rules.

[shadzar]

except when they are not, for a wizard must memorize the spells he wishes to cast the next day, while the cleric can cast any spell he wishes from those he has access to within the limits of his available spells.

In which Shadzar reveals he is unfamiliar with DnD rules.

no i know AD&D rules very well.

Unlike the wizard, the priest needs no spell book and does not roll to see if he learns spells. Priest spells are obtained in an entirely different manner. To obtain his spells, a priest must be faithful to the cause of his deity. If the priest feels confident in this (and most do), he can pray for his spells. Through prayer, the priest humbly and politely requests those spells he wishes to memorize. Under normal circumstances, these spells are then granted.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

there is a shitload of ambiguity in that passage.

-priest can pray for spells
-under normal circs those spells are granted
-requests spells he wishes to memorize

there is NOTHING saying the priest MUST memorize spells, and LOTS of discussion has been ahd on this point over the years.

it isnt even a RAI v RAW argument, but a WTF argument.

cite somewhere that states a priest MUST memorize his spells, spelled out as such to where there is NO ambiguity.

also note the already present and agreeable form of two sets of rules for the PCs. a priest doesnt need a spellbook or such, so isnt limited to casting spells only based on what he knows. he has access (barring a specialty priest) to ALL spells his level permits him having.

(which as versatile as a priest could be as opposed to a wizard, why people forced a priest to always be a walking med-kit in these anecdotes i always hear online.)

[Foxwarrior]

I can't help but feel that that interpretation is the same logic as "It doesn't say anywhere that Fighters can't design and cast custom spells on the spot, so my level 1 Fighter is going to cast Wish Minus Drawbacks"

But the tools Ishy was referring to were almost certainly character creation tools, because whether or not Wizards and Clerics have different casting mechanics, they still have different spell lists.

[Username17]

Did Shadzar just literally quote the passage that said that Clerics need to memorize spells before they can cast them in order to justify Clerics not needing to memorize spells? That hurts my brain.

Lots of people actually played Clerics as being able to cast spontaneously from their list. It was a pretty common house rule, because the flavor of Clerics was that they were getting miracles granted from elsewhere and it was never really explained how spell preparation might function "in world". But the rules were damn unambiguous: Clerics need to memorize spells just like Magic Users do.

-Username17

[shadzar]

it doesnt state memorization was the method used by priests. read it again carefully. it is most ASSUMED that is how it is done, but not the only way as when compared with:

Before a wizard can actually cast a spell, he must memorize its arcane formula.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

it is NEVER stated in the 2e PHB that a priest memorizes spells. either this was one of those oversights that was expected to be known from 1e and not reprinted, or one of the "minor" changes to the rules, since wizard and priest magic already functioned so differently.

it is also likely to be a consideration when new people buy the expected 2e limited edition reprints next year. someone at WotC will have to answer the question unless the answer is locked in an old Dragon Magazine, but it could have reaching implications on DDN when the designers realize the ambiguity of the priest class spells mechanics.

if OotS is correct, then 3.x priest did have to memorize their spells. i will check 1st to morrow, but i never played a priest in 1e, so dont recall its wording or specifics. someone go ask on Dragonsfoot if they want for both 1e and 2e if priests hand to memorize their spells. Frank Mentzer and Tim Kask still answer questions there. or it could be in a Q&A from one of the designers there. those i will check tomorrow unless someone has found it prior to then.

to MANY the priest in 2e worked like the sorcerer in 3.x, if i understand it right. the spells were a limit and you could pick anything at the time of casting and not have to worry with memorization, only the limit of spells and spells per spell level you could use per day.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Unlike the wizard, the priest needs no spell book and does not roll to see if he learns spells. Priest spells are obtained in an entirely different manner. To obtain his spells, a priest must be faithful to the cause of his deity. If the priest feels confident in this (and most do), he can pray for his spells. Through prayer, the priest humbly and politely requests those spells he wishes to memorize. Under normal circumstances, these spells are then granted.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

It's pretty clear to me that the priest's options there are:

• Get memorized spells by praying, and have spells
• Don't get memorized spells, and have no spells

[name_here]

That's definitely how it works in the offical video game adaptations of 2e rules. Spontaneous cure was a new rule in 3rd because preparing cure spells was dumb and annoying.

[Aryxbez]

no i know AD&D rules very well.

Silly Shadzar, rules are for kids remember? "Play the GAME not the Rules!!!" (since they're no doubt TOO ST.AMINA!!!!)

That aside, regards to #4 ye said like 13 posts ago, when you're too lazy to even type up sane sentence structure, ye wonder why you're found in disrespect by your peers?

Ancient History, pardon this dumb question, but is it necessarily bad if NPC's/monsters have access to abilities that PC's do not have, or likely acquire? I'm not talking BS, where Orcus's rod doesn't have stats for PC's to use, or special artifact that only works on the specific NPC, but moreso them having unique innate abilities. Whereas obvious a unique magic Item "should" be accessible to PC, if they were to pick it up and use it, assuming they qualify, if it has wacky requirement (like need be immune to drain via life drinker, count/ be a goblinoid and so on).

[Ancient History]

Ancient History, pardon this dumb question, but is it necessarily bad if NPC's/monsters have access to abilities that PC's do not have, or likely acquire? I'm not talking BS, where Orcus's rod doesn't have stats for PC's to use, or special artifact that only works on the specific NPC, but moreso them having unique innate abilities. Whereas obvious a unique magic Item "should" be accessible to PC, if they were to pick it up and use it, assuming they qualify, if it has wacky requirement (like need be immune to drain via life drinker, count/ be a goblinoid and so on).

Let's go with an old standby: breathing fire. This is a characteristic attribute of dragons, and not human beings or elves or dwarfs. So off the bat your dragons can breath fire and your humans or elves or dwarfs cannot - that's not necessarily a bad thing, it makes sense within the context of the setting and the rules: elves get pointy ears, dwarves have genetic mining knowledge, dragons breath fire. It's built in to the system and the setting.

However, there will also come a point where your players want their characters to breath fire, and maybe your setting is such that it is feasible to obtain this ability - and if they work hard and it is possible within the rules, then they should be able to do so. If you have a special rule that says "Only Dragons Can Breath Fire" that is kindof dickish but maybe you have a good setting reason for it. If you have a non-dragon NPC that specifically learns how to breathe fire when the PCs cannot, and the PCs can never learn it no matter what they do - that's just being a dick.

Long story short: it's all about NPCs and PCs operating within the same context. Case in point, insect shamans in Shadowrun can summon insect spirits, other magicians cannot. That is fair; it is as fair as houngans summoning loa spirits or mages elementals or what-have-you. Everybody doing their own thing is cool and works. What sucks is that then they say "Only NPCs can use this ability." It is silly and dickish because:

1) It removes options from the players for no reason - if the class or whatever in question is overpowered, then you failed at game design and need to go back and fix it, not just say "MC only."

2) It is the Unique Snowflake Problem for Mister Cavern.

Everybody knows the Unique Snowflakes: the characters with the bizarre, wish-fulfillment fantasy characters that make no damn sense and are gamebreaking - basically, Kirsten Stewart's character from Twilight. These can be really fucking annoying to have when run by a player in a group; imagine how fucking annoying they are when only Mister Cavern gets to play with them and all their Kewl Powerz. The key thing about Unique Snowflakes player characters is that their unique character concept is usually about subverting or breaking the rules to allow some combination that is not allowed or is nominally impossible under the rules or in the context of the setting - and that is generally the sole attraction of the character.

Consider, maybe, Vampire: the Masquerade. Vampire werewolves were the original Unique Snowflakes, and over the editions WW fucked with the rules and the setting to make them as rare and short-lived as possible, but they didn't restrict them to NPCs only. This is true of a lot of V:tM's approach to things. Sabbat? No no no yes, okay. Baali? No no no yes, fine, fuck you. Ghoul sorcerers? Fine, fuck it, here's your sourcebook. Ghoul changeling? Fuck you, we're going to make rules that suck, but here you can play these sucky characters if you want to.

And that is really the freedom of the bloated, convoluted mess that was V:tM. That was what everybody who cared wanted: the ability to play the character they wanted, and do what they wanted with the character, and fuck the gamemaster if they decide that your character can't learn Blood Sorcery X under any circumstances.

Then you had, in Vampire: the Requiem, shit like VII. A whole clan/organization of "these are some fun powers that you can never fucking use, you fucking players! Mister Cavern Only!"

Consider again, Drow. Now, Drow get a lot of shit, and rightly deserved. But the thing is, the rules let you play a drow, even a good drow, even a fat good drow that likes extra jam on his lambras bread and to wash it down with a healthy pint of dwarf stout. That is all acceptable. But look at how drow started. Magic fucking weapons and armor that disintegrated in sunlight. It was a PC railroad trap to try and keep them from making off with awesome magic swag! BUT, you notice this wasn't a blanket rule "Fuck you, PCs cannot use drow equipment." It was an environmental limitation. That shit was a guantlet thrown down, it was a challenge to PCs, and damned if they didn't come up with ways around it.

And fun was had. And it was good.

I need a nap.

[hyzmarca]

Everybody knows the Unique Snowflakes: the characters with the bizarre, wish-fulfillment fantasy characters that make no damn sense and are gamebreaking - basically, Kirsten Stewart's character from Twilight. These can be really fucking annoying to have when run by a player in a group; imagine how fucking annoying they are when only Mister Cavern gets to play with them and all their Kewl Powerz. The key thing about Unique Snowflakes player characters is that their unique character concept is usually about subverting or breaking the rules to allow some combination that is not allowed or is nominally impossible under the rules or in the context of the setting - and that is generally the sole attraction of the character.

I'd argue that Bella Swan doesn't fit that description, since the rules for becoming a vampire in setting explicitly include "Roll 1d100, look up the result on the random vampire power chart," thus anyone could have gotten the same power. And the power that she does have, psychic shielding, is useful only because the Volturi rely on some truly gamebreaking direct telepathic attacks. While she is highly effective against them, her power is absolutely worthless against melee bruisers, snipers, heavy weapons guys, fliers, minion-masters, and drone operators.

If Bella were an NPC and the Volturi were PCs, she'd be taken out by a laser-guided bomb dropped by a mind-controled F16 pilot


She's special because a vampire and a werewolf both want to bang her. But mechanically, she's a one-note wonder. The same is true of her daughter, psychic shieldbreaker powers are great if you rely on psychic shields to protect you from attack, utterly worthless against physical shields and evasion and just not being there. And PCs could get these powers if they rolled well, anyway. Even being a half-vampire isn't unique, as it's possible in setting for any male vampire to knock up any human woman.

[shadzar]

However, there will also come a point where your players want their characters to breath fire

why? they cant point a stick and do the same thing?

are the player going to hold their breathe and stamp their feet during their tantrum until they get it?

a dragon also has wings, and some players will want them, while other will just want the ability to fly.

there are such hard-limits as times to preserved "balance" between DM side and player side.

there is 1 DM and X players. if the DM tools were all in the lap of the players, the DM couldnt present a challenge for the players because 1 < X imaginations.

there is a real point where normal non-flying creatures in games attain flight, and it literally changes the entire scope of the game from that point on.

it really is just a clash of new-age players vs old-age players, and the fact that the "age" is present no matter the era.

some people want to play in games that have Avatar Goku Kent, while others want to overcome obstacles with their personal skill and ability.

WotC for example seems to cater to the AGK style, and a lesser extent some other companies do. but it shouldnt be the only game, because one size does NOT fit all, as they will learn with DDN as they did with 4th.

some people dont want humans to be able to breathe fire due to SoD, and others just dont want humans in their game. depending on how you flavor it, tells whether or not you have humans present, and for those wanting humans, the flavor can irreparably damage the entire game.

Avatar, DBZ, Naruto, and Bleach d20 systems, while not having license to use that IP, just didnt catch on mainstream.

[Koumei]

My favourite part of this thread is when AncientHistory finally had enough and blew up at shadzar, who had it coming for a very long time.