Why does 4th Edition have classes anyway?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

Manxome wrote:In addition to Frank's very reasonable points, I'm not remotely convinced that the measures you've taken will actually prevent PCs from being ambushed by the system, K. Your categories are too broad to cover all the things that you have previously declared as necessary--for example, you haven't listed anything that would stop someone from having all of his attacks be melee (or all ranged). You haven't guaranteed that everyone gets a mobility-related ability. You haven't made sure that everyone can unravel enemy effects. As I noted in a previous post, the list you've claimed so far includes at least 8 things (mostly by reference to Frank's list of things that people don't all need to do), plus there's several plausible candidates that you haven't explicitly ruled in or out.
Heh, pretty demanding considering I didn't even realize I had enough write up a sample scenario until last night...

But here is what I have so far are things like this:

-For warriors, there can't be a ranged power using bows and melee powers using swords. If you have a power, it works regardless of how you use it; however, powers used at range are harder to use because of ranged and armor penalties. I'm working on a similar mechanic for spellcasters.

-Counters and defenses are used to unravel enemy effects, as well as some attacks. The way the set-up works, you do have some of them. Some characters will have more than others.

-Mobility is blended into attacks, defenses and counters. I mean, a Warpath power that lets a warrior AoE in a line gets him to the other side of the battle as much as a defensive combat teleport.

-Counters involve doing some damage like an attack for a tradeoff of only giving some defenses.

That being said, control powers do "damage". If you read closely you'll note that I mentioned a "wound system"...I won't go into it now, but rest assured that there is always a way to kill things with this set-up.

I also want to note that there should never be powers that go obsolete. this thing were a high level spellcaster started trying to find ways to use low level slots for asymetric power because his early powers are now too weak....that's dumb. Each power has to be a niche, and in ten levels you should still be using magic missiles for the same niche you used them for at 1st level.

-----------------

At this point I'm doing more work explaining the system than writing it, so I'm going to write it and stop arguing hypotheticals.

This has been valuable because it's forced me to hammer out a few issues.

Thanks guys.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6343
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

And the times you modify it so that those 'traditional' tactics are actually valid and level-appropriate, they feel dirty for being min-maxers and avoid it like the plague, seeking a new way to fail. I've seen this, it's rather sad.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Draco_Argentum »

Yes people are going to make failed characters. No that isn't an excuse for cure light wounds being a combat action. The system should ensure that every action you can take in combat is a worthwhile one in at least some situations. The one time CLW is useful (someone bleeding out) is also a time that it can give you 1hp. Then you get up only to get splatted by an annoyed rat sneezing.

Frank, a lot of what you are posting relies on assuming "If you see someone throw down a briar wall maneuver, you don't really want to spend the rest of the combat having the dude psychic blast you because it turns out that he only dabbles in Nature magic and actually he's pretty much a hard-core brain eating Psychic." is true. I don't think you've posted anything backing that claim up.

I would think that deciding classed or classless comes before working up ability lists.
User avatar
Ice9
Duke
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ice9 »

Sure, people can make failed characters. Especially people new to the system. But there's a simple fix for that, and it doesn't involve straightjacketing the choices for people who do know exactly what they want: Preselected Builds.

So you have your Elementalist, or whatever, and in the class description you have two or three example paths, with all the powers preselected - maybe some spots where you can pick A or B power. And then you can just pick up those builds and start playing right away, confident that the character will work.

And then when you want to start tinkering around, you've got a starting point; you can tweak the example paths and see what works. And when you know exactly what you want, you can build exactly that, including less orthodox strategies. The tinkerers get to tinker - the people who want to make a character in 10 minutes can do so - it's win-win.
Last edited by Ice9 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Draco wrote:I don't think you've posted anything backing that claim up.
Backing that claim up?


Look, people need to follow the rules or the game doesn't exist. And while Barter Town only has two rules*, any game worthy of the name is actually going to have sufficient mechanical and thematic constraints that people can predict how things are going to work. Having magic behave in a consistent and rational fashion is every bit as important as having objects fall towards the Earth when not suspended by force.

If the abilities that creatures have are not following an internal logic, then tactical decisions are meaningless. Essentially you're just playing Magical Teaparty: Adventures in Surrealism. And while that can be a diverting evening when played well, there's flat no reason whatever to bother busting out character sheets and dice for that. A fight against a giant turtle should not, when the characters ut some distance between themselves and the beast, change into an archery duel when the turtle reaches into its shell and draws a repeating crossbow. That's stupid, but more importantly that's so surreal that it has no place in any kind of game where decisions are expected to matter.

And having people pull out magic powers that are not already established to be associated with the kinds of magic that they are capable of is in no way less surreal, less insulting than having that giant turtle pull a set of winches and quarrels to harry distant foes.

Now, as has been repeatedly noted the specific set of magic-physics that your game runs on is completely optional. But whatever it is, you have to stick to it. And frankly, the "magic can do anything and anyone can get any kind of magic" model of D&D is basically so crazy hat that it is little different than just having Bugs Bunny narrate the whole thing.

Magic without limits means that player actions don't have consistent meaning, which means that it's just a storytelling experience where the DM rants at you and the players shrug in confusion.

*:
[*] Break a Deal, you Spin the Wheel
[*] Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves
-Username17
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

Frank --

I'm with you 90% of the way here, except that there actually are in the literature a *large* number of characters who use more than one of their world's power sources. I'm not saying it's functionality that you *must* support (I understand the reasons for keeping to one source per character) -- in fact, as I've said upthread, I favor the one-power-source setup. But I don't think you can so conveniently dismiss it.

This may just be a matter of poor examples. I think a Natural/Psychic type character would be awesome, and appropriate to many settings. I understand that we could do this simply by redefining the power sources to have psychic and animal powers in the same class. But I'm not convinced having a secondary power source is unworkable. Especially for really generic things like "psychic powers."
User avatar
CatharzGodfoot
King
Posts: 5668
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CatharzGodfoot »

FrankTrollman wrote:A fight against a giant turtle should not, when the characters ut some distance between themselves and the beast, change into an archery duel when the turtle reaches into its shell and draws a repeating crossbow. That's stupid, but more importantly that's so surreal that it has no place in any kind of game where decisions are expected to matter.
It that equivalent to having the turtle raise up a horde of zombies between it and the characters?

Boolean wrote: This may just be a matter of poor examples. I think a Natural/Psychic type character would be awesome, and appropriate to many settings. I understand that we could do this simply by redefining the power sources to have psychic and animal powers in the same class. But I'm not convinced having a secondary power source is unworkable. Especially for really generic things like "psychic powers."
FrankTrollman wrote:And having people pull out magic powers that are not already established to be associated with the kinds of magic that they are capable of is in no way less surreal, less insulting than having that giant turtle pull a set of winches and quarrels to harry distant foes.
[my bolding]

[tl]
At any rate, I think that the whole 'closed system assumption' may be taken a bit far. It's probably better to view each individual campaign as a closed system than to view the entire game in such a fashion. As long as you're following the asymmetric narrative responsibility of D&D, it's O.K. to have an invasion of the Githyanki (who have the power source of 'Lich Queen') into your otherwise closed system. As long as the new power source is internally consistent, it will not 'cheapen the other sources to an arbitrary extent'. It will make them less different from each other, but in a one campaign setting, the gain in fun is likely to more than offset the loss.

On the other hand, the system still works if all of the Githyanki have 'Death' as their power source, and nobody else in the world does. That strengthens the difference between sources, but it (at least initially) restricts necromancer PCs. And sending a Githyanki invasion fleet to Sumeru is just dumb.

Working within the system can also work in the sense that the Druidic Order absolutely hates the Society of Lifecrafters, but they're both groups that use the 'Life' (or 'Nature'; whatever you call it) power source in very different ways. That, however, works against the unity of any single power source. Whatever.
[/dr]
User avatar
Ice9
Duke
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ice9 »

It also seems like while a given campaign might be better served by a fairly small number of power sources, the system could have dozens. When making a campaign setting, you simply pick which power sources exist, and which of those are common or rare. Not really any different than the fact that thousands of monsters exist for D&D, but a given campaign will only use some of them.

Also, I think some degree of "false information" can be a good thing when it comes to what tactics a creature will employ in combat. What about an assassin that disguises himself as a wandering healer, and maybe even knows some basic healing skills and realistic chanting to further the illusion? I don't feel that something like that turns the game into surrealism.

And really, what makes someone who throws out a single Nature power and then turns out to be Psychic more of a fake-out than someone who stands in the back and throws out a single ranged Transmutation attack, and then turns out to be a melee-oriented "morph and kill" Transmuter?
Last edited by Ice9 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IGTN
Knight-Baron
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:13 am

Post by IGTN »

Ice9 wrote:It also seems like while a given campaign might be better served by a fairly small number of power sources, the system could have dozens. When making a campaign setting, you simply pick which power sources exist, and which of those are common or rare. Not really any different than the fact that thousands of monsters exist for D&D, but a given campaign will only use some of them.
Which works just fine until the group falls apart over a fight between the DM and the one player who wants to play a Totemist in a world that only has Shadowcasters, Clerics, and Warblades.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

Ice9 wrote:Sure, people can make failed characters. Especially people new to the system. But there's a simple fix for that, and it doesn't involve straightjacketing the choices for people who do know exactly what they want: Preselected Builds.
Those archetypal or even role-enforcing builds must hold up to actual CharOp twinkery, or else new players will see the game as a hopeless cause.

It would be a good thing for CharOppers to max out the effectiveness of a set of abilities within the definition of each role, then simply provide those "builds" as actual power progressions.
And why? Because that's what works best.

A prefab build might not as personal or finetuned as a custom one, and sure there could be room to customize as well, but the point is to save time and effort as well as show players what works.
The difficulty will be in getting the right CharOppers (and I don't mean as in "From the WOTC subforum" but masterful optimizers in general)
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
MartinHarper
Knight-Baron
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by MartinHarper »

sigma999 wrote:Those archetypal or even role-enforcing builds must hold up to actual CharOp twinkery, or else new players will see the game as a hopeless cause.
They also need to be simpler than the typical CharOp twinkery. "I move and attack" needs to be in there, and needs to work simply and effectively.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

FrankTrollman wrote:
If the abilities that creatures have are not following an internal logic, then tactical decisions are meaningless. Essentially you're just playing Magical Teaparty: Adventures in Surrealism.

But the real question is: just how much internal logic is needed?

Card games have hundreds of potential cards, but when you face a "Unicorn Clan" deck or a "Black" deck you know that the first uses Calvary and that the second uses a lot of direct damage effects and ways of bringing back dead monsters. You might even know of a few optimum builds for both of the decks, but the actual composition is a mystery.

After that, it really is a moment by moment action and reaction to find out what someone's deck can do. You see a monster get played and you know it's ability. You do an attack and see if they have counters. You know what tactics your deck does well and you leverage the ones you think the other deck is weak to. There is a lot of tactics and strategy going on there, and the other person might literally have any effect at all like a unique Shadowlands hero or a Blue effect fueled by an Artifact.

At the end of the day, the whole 4e idea of sources is a fallacy. None of the classes in 4e that share the same source have anything in common, thereby sources fail as a thematic or mechanical consideration. It could work if you had unlimited numbers of sources like Rakshasa and Blood and Light and you knew that rakshasa-worshipping cultists all have illusion powers and maho mages don't get summons except for the Blood Elemental and clerics of the Lightbringer use Body of the Sun as a melee counter.

In novels, the potential skills set of any particular character is set by the author, and his only limit is his unwillingness to confuse things. Watt-Evans has around eight kinds of magics in his Ethtar novels, and if he keeps writing them he might get more. Jordan keeps tossing in submagics and unique magics like Dreamwalking so that Source users over here and different from the ones over there, and settings like Shadowrun seem to be unable to stop making new traditions. One-off villains in most fantasy fiction can just have unique magics and no one cares once they get the general gist of it. Brook's novels have a different kind of magic in every novel and no one has ever complained that his novels make no sense (though opinions of the quality vary).

There is no way to give choice of options and predictablity The two things are binary, and if you want a predictable strategy game I recommend you take up chess or go. If you want a fun RPG, people need choices to make a variety of characters. At best, you can help people not make bad characters by scaling effects that they get at low level so that they are still useful at high levels and no high level effect renders them obsolete. You can insure that people get the necessary range of powers to succeed in a sit-down game at a con.

You can't force people to play your setting, especially when the logic behind doing it make no sense on first principles.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

FrankTrollman wrote:If the abilities that creatures have are not following an internal logic, then tactical decisions are meaningless. Essentially you're just playing Magical Teaparty: Adventures in Surrealism. And while that can be a diverting evening when played well, there's flat no reason whatever to bother busting out character sheets and dice for that. A fight against a giant turtle should not, when the characters ut some distance between themselves and the beast, change into an archery duel when the turtle reaches into its shell and draws a repeating crossbow. That's stupid, but more importantly that's so surreal that it has no place in any kind of game where decisions are expected to matter.
I sorta follow you, but what the fvck you're going to do to actually surprise (thus challenge) people mid-battle (aside from, yeah, adding combatants)?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
RandomCasualty2
Prince
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

Post by RandomCasualty2 »

FrankTrollman wrote: If the abilities that creatures have are not following an internal logic, then tactical decisions are meaningless. Essentially you're just playing Magical Teaparty: Adventures in Surrealism. And while that can be a diverting evening when played well, there's flat no reason whatever to bother busting out character sheets and dice for that. A fight against a giant turtle should not, when the characters ut some distance between themselves and the beast, change into an archery duel when the turtle reaches into its shell and draws a repeating crossbow. That's stupid, but more importantly that's so surreal that it has no place in any kind of game where decisions are expected to matter.
Actually I'm not sure why stuff like that can't happen. Magic is about creatures doing unexpected things. You're playing the "apparent realism" game, and what happens to be stupid for one person, might not be for another. Some people are going to see any fighter type leaping in the air 100 ft at epic levels to be stupid and unrealistic, because in reality humans don't jump that high.

And once you get into that sort of game logic, it's just a hidden kick to the balls for the fighter. Because naturally, wizards can do anything, because it's magic, so the only people who get hit by this hidden "apparent realism" thing are the fighter types. Dwarves look clumsy, therefore they have to be clumsy. But Gandalf the wizard can totally be agile and a great fighter despite looking old and frail because he's using magic.

No, this is seriously fantasy and creatures can do weird stuff. Turtles can have breath weapons that go farther than a bow shot. Hell, maybe the turtle even sprouts wings and flies Mario style.

And you're also living in a world with illusions, where things may not be as they seem. Dopplegangers assume the form of other people and your friend may not really be your friend. Dragons sometimes turn into humans as a disguise and then may suddenly turn back and catch you by surprise. And yeah, you probably didn't expect a human to randomly turn into a dragon either.

Magical monsters have all kinds of crazy abilities. Who would have guessed a woman with a headfull of snakes can turn you to stone with a gaze, or that an aboleth can mentally dominate you with psionic fish powers? Until you've actually fought one and then it becomes common knowledge, nobody would guess. And then suddenly it becomes perfectly natural, because "apparent realism" is now okay with medusas turning people to stone.

But all this really means is that an RPG can't ever make anything new. All you can do is recycle the same old boring tropes from mythology and existing fantasy, because if you make anything new and fresh, you're breaking "apparent realism".

Part of the tactics of an RPG needs to be responding to surprises, because surprises exist in fantasy. It is one reason I don't like rocket launcher tag as a fantasy RPG paradigm, simply because as soon as the initial surprise is over, you're probably already dead. You get caught with your pants down, you die. It's really that simple, and for a game with so many ways to surprise people, that seriously sucks.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

RC wrote: You're playing the "apparent realism" game, and what happens to be stupid for one person, might not be for another.
Apparent realism in a game system flows entirely from what the rules establish. D&D has no apparent realism, because the rules tell you that anything can happen. It's always a trip through Wonderland (some of the available modules are literally a surrealist trip through Wonderland). And that's why you get people editorializing about how such and such a thing is dumb or cheezy or whatever.
K wrote:Card games have hundreds of potential cards, but when you face a "Unicorn Clan" deck or a "Black" deck you know that the first uses Calvary and that the second uses a lot of direct damage effects and ways of bringing back dead monsters. You might even know of a few optimum builds for both of the decks, but the actual composition is a mystery.
When you're in more solidly defined games like Magic or L5R then the fairness or unfairness of an unexpected pull is never questioned. Anything that was not expected could have been. In more open ended games, the Game Master always has the ability to say "Rocks fall, everyone dies" - but of course doing so is completely unexpectable and thus completely unfair.

The line between the rocks fall maneuver and mixing and matching power types to do weird crazy shit that no player has ever seen or thought about in the game before is nonexistent. Having the one unique dude who has access to unexpected power because he mixes multiple power sources together and does what no one else can do is fine for a novel, but it ruins a game. Such a setup requires authorial fiat - the equivalent in a game to writing new cards and playing them in the middle of a tournament.

There are real advantages to cooperative storytelling. But there are needed limitations as well. You can put together available story elements in infinite different ways, but there are much larger orders of infinity of ways that you have to accept that you can't mix things together. You have to be clear on what exists and what does not, or you can't tell stories in this format.
Bigode wrote:I sorta follow you, but what the fvck you're going to do to actually surprise (thus challenge) people mid-battle (aside from, yeah, adding combatants)?
You have to use abilities that are available in the game in the manner that they can be used according to the rules. The Elemental list can cover everything from Desert Wind sword maneuvers to Evocations as far as attacks go, and an evil Sauron stand-in might very well use a crushing mace attack to hurl enemies away from him so that he can go back to shooting fire bolts. Or whatever.

You can draw and play a Terror or an Animate Dead, but you can't reach into other decks to pull out a counterspell and then decide to pay for it with Black mana instead of Blue. If the ability lists are large and distinct, then you can surprise people without being unfair. If the ability lists are small, you can't surprise people, and if they are indistinct then you cannot help but be unfair.
Boolean wrote:I'm with you 90% of the way here, except that there actually are in the literature a *large* number of characters who use more than one of their world's power sources.
Yes, but sadly main characters in novels are substantially more special than player characters in RPGs. When people tell you about their game where the DM let them have home-brew powers that were totally awesome it just sounds dumb.

-Username17
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Draco_Argentum »

FrankTrollman wrote:The line between the rocks fall maneuver and mixing and matching power types to do weird crazy shit that no player has ever seen or thought about in the game before is nonexistent. Having the one unique dude who has access to unexpected power because he mixes multiple power sources together and does what no one else can do is fine for a novel, but it ruins a game. Such a setup requires authorial fiat - the equivalent in a game to writing new cards and playing them in the middle of a tournament.
There is a clear line between a level inappropriately deadly rockfall and a monster with level appropriate abilities that aren't normally seen together. One just makes you dead. The other is just a curveball.

In any well designed rpg a monster suprising the players won't kill them before they can react.
Frank wrote:You can draw and play a Terror or an Animate Dead, but you can't reach into other decks to pull out a counterspell and then decide to pay for it with Black mana instead of Blue. If the ability lists are large and distinct, then you can surprise people without being unfair. If the ability lists are small, you can't surprise people, and if they are indistinct then you cannot help but be unfair.
This only holds if the players know the ability space represented by a power source. That is a very poor assumption. People will be just as suprised by an ability they didn't realise was on the black list as by an ability that wasn't on the black list. Relying on players to know everything on every list is senseless. I think we all know that won't happen so there will still be suprises meeting your 'unfairness' criteria.

[Edit]
Frank wrote:When people tell you about their game where the DM let them have home-brew powers that were totally awesome it just sounds dumb.
No more dumb that hearing about an official campaign world with different classes etc. Unless you're attempting to claim that there can only ever be one campaign setting that statement makes no sense.
Last edited by Draco_Argentum on Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
RandomCasualty2
Prince
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

Post by RandomCasualty2 »

FrankTrollman wrote: You can draw and play a Terror or an Animate Dead, but you can't reach into other decks to pull out a counterspell and then decide to pay for it with Black mana instead of Blue. If the ability lists are large and distinct, then you can surprise people without being unfair. If the ability lists are small, you can't surprise people, and if they are indistinct then you cannot help but be unfair.
I think the flaw in your logic here is that you're trying to establish "fairness" in a game that is inherently unfair. In D&D, the DM is a more powerful role than that of the PCs. He can create his own terrain, his own adventures, his own monsters and so on.

And this means he can create new stuff to surprise the PCs. Whether that's a monster ability, a dungeon riddle or a plot mystery, there are going to be things that DMs create in the game. DMing isn't a hard science, it's an art form. Being a good DM isn't about not creating new things, it's about creating new things and making it fun.

Limiting what a DM can create to some arbitrary list is a really bad idea. This isn't an adversarial game like Magic. There's no need to straitjacket what a DM can and can't put in his world so that every world is boring and cookie cutter.
K wrote: At the end of the day, the whole 4e idea of sources is a fallacy. None of the classes in 4e that share the same source have anything in common, thereby sources fail as a thematic or mechanical consideration.
Yeah seriously, role is the important thing in 4E, not power source. Power source is some vague flavor attached to something, but what you really care about is what you are. A paladin is a divine warrior, warrior is the important thing there, not divine, because warrior actually tells you the kinds of things a paladin does.

And whether you have swordmages or paladins or fighters, it doesn't really even matter. The power source is just an afterthought as far as mechanics and strategy go.

In fact you could probably just let people choose a role and choose any power from that role, regardless of the apparent power source (or even go GURPS/BESM style and let them apply a power source to it as flavor), and it wouldn't really matter much at all.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

RC wrote:Limiting what a DM can create to some arbitrary list is a bad idea if you ask me.
You cannot play a game unless you accept limits on what the DM can create. If you do not accept limitations on what the DM and the players can add to the story, you are playing Magical Teaparty: Surrealist Adventures and you should get rid of the dice altogether.

-Username17
RandomCasualty2
Prince
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

Post by RandomCasualty2 »

FrankTrollman wrote: You cannot play a game unless you accept limits on what the DM can create. If you do not accept limitations on what the DM and the players can add to the story, you are playing Magical Teaparty: Surrealist Adventures and you should get rid of the dice altogether.
The important thing for DM creation is that it's created prior to the actual adventure, and not during. If a DM is just making stuff up as he goes along to suit a predefined story, then you're playing magic teaparty, but if your DM has an NPC cleric cast a custom spell he prepared ahead of time, how is that different from:

-The DM running a module with the same spell.
-The DM using a spell from a splatbook that the players don't have or haven't read through.

I've used creatures from different monster manuals, or just a MM1 creature with a modified description but the same stats, and players were thinking I was using custom monsters. Most of the time, they seriously wouldn't even know the difference, so why is it even a big deal if the DM wants to create custom shit?
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

"Custom shit" can be made so long as it's in accordance with the established guidelines of the setting.

For a game set on the hard streets of Chicago doing Noiresque detective work you can have a custom gang member who has a custom racket, custom skills, and even a custom gun. But he can't have a magical fairy princess wand that shoots happy stars that turn people into fuzzy ducklings. Even though fuzzy ducklings are adorable:
Image

Custom monster species is definitely entering fuzzy duckling princess wand territory unless you're specifically in an open-ended species scenario like Star Trek. But it's really been a bad fit for D&D. The worst thing that ever happened to D&D was the inclusion of the Nilbog race.

-Username17
RandomCasualty2
Prince
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

Post by RandomCasualty2 »

FrankTrollman wrote: Custom monster species is definitely entering fuzzy duckling princess wand territory unless you're specifically in an open-ended species scenario like Star Trek. But it's really been a bad fit for D&D. The worst thing that ever happened to D&D was the inclusion of the Nilbog race.
I was agreeing with you until you started saying that it's a bad fit for D&D. D&D is a game that built itself on ripping off every fucking fantasy story, myth or even horror story to get more monster concepts.

We have shit from Indian mythos, Japanese, European, Native American... Then we toss in Tolkien, Conan, Lovecraft, Elric, Robert Jordan and god knows what else...

You talk as though D&D has some kind of base guidelines, it doesn't. An individual setting like Eberron might, but the game as a whole doesn't. In fact, the basis of a hack and slash game (which is certainly D&D's roots), is to go through a dungeon and fight new and interesting monsters. Because most games where PCs do nothing but fight goblins is boring as hell.

And most fantasy games are like that. Shadowrun even has a large bestiary of fantasy monsters, so when you get bored of just humanoid on humanoid combats, you can include werewolves, dragons and barghests.

I don't think that's a bad thing for a fantasy game either. Fantasy is full of isolated pockets that contain weird monsters. Whether it's 10,000 leagues beneath the sea or the unexplored jungles of Africa, there are all kinds of weird stories about new monsters or races. Bigfoot, the lochness monster, the Yeti... I don't want to take that stuff out of D&D.

Not to mention, that stuff can make a DM's world unique if done correctly. It'd be like going to the Stargate SG-1 writers and saying, "OK, well Stargate the movie just had laser staff weapons, human aliens with glowing eyes and spaceships, so you can't have replicators, wraith, Ori or really anything else that wasn't present in the movie."

A DM's adventures are a lot like that. When a DM runs a Forgotten Realms campaign, it's like a series using that setting. And naturally during most series, new characters and threats are introduced. They seem weird at first, but if they are ever reused, then people just nod their heads and they become part of that setting.

Sci-fi and fantasy need new stuff to keep them fresh. Buffy doesn't fight just vampires, she fights demons, gods, cyborgs and all manner of shit. Saying that you can't include new races and such as the game goes along is pretty laughable for a fantasy game. If you're playing a James Bond style spy game, throwing in a dragon wouldn't make sense. You've certainly got to stick to the genre, but in fantasy, it really is about anything goes.

What you seem to want to do is prevent people from creating new stuff at all. And I just can't agree that that's ever going to be a good thing for a fantasy game. There's a difference between sticking to a genre and not inventing things at all.

But D&D as a game is a rather vague "fantasy" RPG. An individual setting may get more specific, but basic D&D is any kind of fantasy, and you should be able ot use it to run seafaring pirate adventures, or the quests of desert nomads on camels. So if I can't run Conan, Elric or Sinbad, I'm pretty upset at the rules set. Now, whether you want those setting to interact should be a DM choice.

An individual setting can certainly have a more hard fit genre, but the game itself should remain open.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

RC wrote: You talk as though D&D has some kind of base guidelines, it doesn't. An individual setting like Eberron might, but the game as a whole doesn't. In fact, the basis of a hack and slash game (which is certainly D&D's roots), is to go through a dungeon and fight new and interesting monsters. Because most games where PCs do nothing but fight goblins is boring as hell.
I think you're forgetting how badly designed D&D is and was. Recall that in the original setup, hard unbreachable guidelines existed for the players, but not for the DM. Players had to be a Human, Elf, Dwarf, or Hobbit. They later graciously allowed the players to be a half orc or a gnome. Gygax went on exciting rants about how under no circumstances should you ever allow a player to be an Ogre or a Gnoll. Those were set aside to be playthings for the DM and the DM alone.

And that's bullshit! If it's in the world, it's in the world, and if it's not, it's not. The selfish crap about how the DM can play any monster he feels like and the PCs can't is extremely bad for the game - and obviously so.

But the thing is that the answer that most people have been throwing around, that of "I want all those weird DM toys in my toolbox as well" doesn't actually work very well. The Gygaxian arguments for restricting player choice are actually pretty sound. The game does devolve into a hopeless incomprehensible trainwreck if the PCs do "whatever" long and hard enough. The thing is that Gygax just never had the discipline or the humility to admit that those very same arguments he was making applied to him as well.

The answer isn't to make everything fair by freeing the Players from the rule of law, it's to reign in the DM and the setting so it's not s much of a fucking mess. The only thing that keeps D&D from collapsing in zero time into a RIFTS-like hellscape of madness and despair is that only one person at the table is supposed to be throwing Atlanteans and Flinds at the story, and that can sometimes hold together in the same way that single-author fiction can hold together. But it's still bad. It would be better if the DM was operating on the same constraints, thematically speaking, as the PCs.

Too often players look at Gygax's legacy of selfishness and lazy world building as if it was some sort of goal to work towards. It's not. The fact that Gygax was too much of a bitch to give up authorial prerogative and too lazy to work out a game world that had consistency and an internal logic was a bad thing. Opening the flood gates so that everyone can be lazy and authorial is not an improvement, and preserving the arbitrarium crown for Gygax's successor to wear is no achievement.

-Username17
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Now I've been accused how many times on this forum alone of being anti GM and being really harsh in the nature of how I want to reign in GM power and how I distrust the GM to just do whatever he wants etc...

So if you are making an argument about how the GM shouldn't just be able to bend the rules over his knee and do what he wants with them and I'm not on board you have a problem with your argument.

I'm not on board.

You have a problem with your argument.

I think it's probably the bit where you jump straight for the "But then everything is Smurf Space Cowboys!" line every single god damn chance you get.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
RandomCasualty2
Prince
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

Post by RandomCasualty2 »

FrankTrollman wrote: I think you're forgetting how badly designed D&D is and was. Recall that in the original setup, hard unbreachable guidelines existed for the players, but not for the DM. Players had to be a Human, Elf, Dwarf, or Hobbit. They later graciously allowed the players to be a half orc or a gnome. Gygax went on exciting rants about how under no circumstances should you ever allow a player to be an Ogre or a Gnoll. Those were set aside to be playthings for the DM and the DM alone.

And that's bullshit! If it's in the world, it's in the world, and if it's not, it's not. The selfish crap about how the DM can play any monster he feels like and the PCs can't is extremely bad for the game - and obviously so.
No it's not. For you to run a game, the PCs all have to be on the same side. In many worlds, this means that being on Team monsters is right out. You just can't have one PC be a brutal eye of Gruumsh and another guy be a paladin of Pelor. It just doesn't work. D&D is based on the PCs being a team. If one guy is a cop, then the other PCs can't be robbers.

In other cases, the proposed PC race would just be more powerful than everyone else. Yeah, one PC could be Hercules and the rest could be mere mortals, but the idea is also that PCs are supposed to be balanced, so unless everyone else is a demigod, no Hercules PC.

And lastly, you don't want PCs being some flavor of the week race because that ruins their connection to the game world. Often times something weird like a Goliath or a Githyanki has no reason traveling with the other PCs and his very existence in the adventuring party just strains everyone's disbelief and leaves the player with uncertain motivations for the character, since even to play he must come up with some contrived bullshit story as to how he got there. Monster races aren't really limited by that, since they can be more seamlessly written into a story by the DM.

On the DM side of it, PCs seriously want their opposition to be varied. People get bored as shit when every monster is an orc or ogre, at least I do. I want some variety. The age old "Attack the kobold cave" is a trope that's been done to death. Sometimes a monster will be more powerful than any one given PC. There are massive dragons and uber sorcerers and all that shit that require that PCs team up to take them out, and that's a good thing.

Gygax seriously had it right the first time around. Some things are part of the DM's toolbox and aren't part of the PC's. Because the two play entirely different roles. The guy making the mazes and placing the monsters has a lot more power than the people who run the maze. That's just a fact of the game.

Yes, the DM is god, he can just wave his hands and say there's a stone wall there, because he fucking said so. I don't want him to have to jump through funny hoops and have to cross reference three tables to make sure that he can put a stone wall there. Because either way it doesn't matter, one way just takes longer.

World consistency doesn't come because you set up a variety of rules binding the DM's hands. Some DMs have trouble telling a consistent world period and others can make a world with a ton of races seem consistent. DMing is an art and some people are just better at it than others.

The main problem with consistency doesn't come with what happens, it comes with what doesn't happen. The first time you establish the palace of the sea elves, and the sea elves role in the world, people nod their head and say "Ok." Now if in the next adventure, the sea elves are just gone, then they start having problems.

You can very well throw anything in the story that you want, so long as you explain how it can coexist with everything else you've already included in the story. So long as the DM can keep up with all the factions it's fine.

One of the biggest problems with Forgotten Realms is that the world can't keep up with all the factions. Far too many of them are teleporting global powers yet for some reason the world sometimes behaves as though it's isolated. A teleport capable power is something that you REALLY must think over as a DM, because once something goes global, it has to actually be global. Whenever something bad happens, people ask: "Where is God?" (or Elminster), because they're a global presence that can damn well go whereever they want. That's why a world must certainly avoid having too many global presences. One reason that I actually don't think long range teleportation is good for a game in general unless it is kept ultra rare.

But the moral of that is that teleportation and global powers need to kept to a minimum, not that extra races screw things up. Even if all those archmagi are human having a ton of global archmagi is bad, because people will always question anytime they should get involved but don't. On the other hand, nobody really questions why the Yeti of the great glacier was never spotted in Waterdeep. In fact, nobody even cares. It's some random monster that lives out in the wilderness in some remote area that nobody goes to. And for a fantasy game, that explanation is enough.

But so long as you have natural borders for your factions that make sense, you can go ahead and create new stuff for certain regions and the majority of the time, nobody asks why the Flinds of the Northern forest are unique to that area, the same way that I can accept that Kangaroos exist in Australia but aren't native to North America.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

PL wrote:Now I've been accused how many times on this forum alone of being anti GM and being really harsh in the nature of how I want to reign in GM power and how I distrust the GM to just do whatever he wants etc...

So if you are making an argument about how the GM shouldn't just be able to bend the rules over his knee and do what he wants with them and I'm not on board you have a problem with your argument.
No. Because you're not my intended audience. I'm never going to convince you, because what you've been arguing for the whole time is RIFTS. You want to distribute power from the DM to the Players and then have everyone be able to shape and mold the story in any direction they want - essentially Magical Teaparty. And that's fine, but since I believe that the finest MT game that can ever be written has already been written I don't even care.

RC wants a game based on the "Storyteller" conceit - one where the DM talks you through surrealistic adventures and is hopefully sufficiently captivating of a storyteller that the players can accept their total lack of control. Frankly, I don't think such a game benefits from the illusion of fairness offered by dice. Honestly I think you should just write a book and get it over with. Again though, not my intended audience and I'm never going to convince him.

So no, it's not a problem with my argument. You are never going to be on board with what I want to do, because you keep insisting on rewriting Munchhausen with dice. And that's fine. You go do that.

-Username17
Post Reply