The Sword of My Father and the moustache of Strum

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:21 am

That's also best handled by encouraging people to do that.

"The most important thing about heroic items is not the bonuses or abilities they provide, but the way they contribute to the flavour of the chronicle and encourage roleplaying. Rather than seeking out a powerful enchanted item, a player should want to keep his character's heroic item because of what it signifies about the character and how it fits into the charac'ters backgroudn. For example, Aragorn's sword Anduril is far less powerful, in game terms, than Gandalf's blade Glamdring, but would Aragorn trade Anduril for Galmdring - or any other sword for that matter? OF course not! Anduril is his ancestral blade, forged of the shars of Narsil that Elendil himself wielded and which Isildur used to cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. That's far more important, and worth far more to the character, than a few extra test bonuses or other powers."

Decipher's LOTR RPG, page 194.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:28 am

Elennsar wrote:If that's all that a game is - the math - then your game sucks.

There are four ways to make a game:

1) Mechanics, no story. This is chess.
2) Story, no mechanics. This is playing with toy soldiers.
3) No story, no mechanics. This is 1001 blank cards.
4) Both story and mechanics. This is everything else.

#4 can be subdivided a further two options:

4a) Mechanics and flavor agree.
This makes something like Diplomacy, where you're supposed to be a cunning diplomat making and breaking alliances and the mechanics encourage you to act like one.

4b) Mechanics and story conflict.
You end up with Mousetrap, where people either try to play the board game 'correctly' and get bored because the mechanics for playing according to the flavor aren't good, or just play with the traps and have and get bored once the 5th time they set of the traps a few times.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:32 am

I think we pretty much said that game stunk to high heaven.

Just because something was printed doesn't mean it has any veracity on the subject. It's not like publishers are peer-reviewed.

In the books Aragon happily used other swords to get the job done. Anduril happened to be bad assed and represent a high set of bonuses.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:34 am

The problem is, if the flavor is that of dashing heroes doing dashing things because they believe that saving damsels in distress is a good thing - why do you need to make rushing gallantly better, mechanically?

Having bad mechanics and having the mechanics not reward a given action that is supposed to be desirable are two different things.

I mean, do you honestly need to be given a +1 to attack rolls when shouting a battle cry to do so?

Crissa: It stunk for other reasons than Anduril not being as strong as Glamdring or the game encouraging you to have heroic items that fit your background rather than seeking the most powerful items you can get.

After all, Glamdring -is- (probably) better than Anduril - just because Anduril is also pretty good doesn't mean it is better.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:39 am

Umm, because we're in a different thread than your response? That's the 'why should heroes be heroic' thread.

You're getting into 'why should any tactics get bonuses' stage, which is, 'because this is a game and roleplay, and we want to encourage a particular story with game mechanic.' In other words, the exact point of roleplaying games as opposed to 'roleplaying' or 'games' separated.

-Crissa

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:40 am

Only if you get a +1 to attack rolls if you don't shout a battle cry. If it's equally good mechanically to roleplay vs. not roleplaying, people will go ahead and roleplay because that's more fun.

The issue comes up when you have to decide between getting a mechanical advantage and roleplaying because alot of people will opt for the mechanical advantage.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:46 am

You're getting into 'why should any tactics get bonuses' stage...

No, I'm in the "Why should we mechanically reward actions when those actions are not done because they're Better?" stage.

If I'm playing someone who uses his father's sword to honor his father, then "because its the best sword available" is not supporting that any more than if it was a lesser quality sword.

The issue comes up when you have to decide between getting a mechanical advantage and roleplaying because alot of people will opt for the mechanical advantage.

Then a lot of people are more interested in being good gamers than good roleplayers.

Not necessarily more able one way or another - but certainly more interested.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:58 am

Elennsar, speaking as someone who has to deal with undergraduates in a grading capacity, and has to deal with their almost complete inability to express themselves in a clear and meaningful manner, let me just say:

You are a complete waste of flesh.

Let me explain a simple concept that you should have learned long ago:
a choice that is purely for roleplaying reasons happens regardless of the mechanics. If the system is *encouraging* that choice, it is no longer done for roleplaying reasons. There is no way around this inherent contradiction. So...

Shut. Up.

Find some people who want to play the way you want to, and stop fucking whining already.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:08 am

If you really want to make this concept work in D&D, you could make the sword a Masterwork Weapon and allow it to be augmented with various enchantments throughout the campaign. Or the sword could start off as a magical weapon with all kinds of "secret powers" that need to be unlocked as the character gains levels. You could even mimic LOTR, have a bad guy use Sunder Weapon to shatter the sword, and then have it get re-forged into an uber-powerful weapon towards the end of the campaign.

But aside from the first option, you're probably going to have to bend some rules here if you plan on doing this in a "standard" D&D game. Not that it matters that much anyway - the spellcasters are going to be the guys doing all of the heavy lifting at higher levels anyway. If you're using the 3.5 rule set, this character might be able to contribute if they inherit their father's Spiked Chain and takes the Improved Trip Feat, but they are still probably going to end up playing pack-mule - albeit one with a colorful backstory and an awfully well-kept moustache.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:09 am

Elennsar, speaking as someone who has to deal with undergraduates in a grading capacity, and has to deal with their almost complete inability to express themselves in a clear and meaningful manner, let me just say:

You are a complete waste of flesh.

Let me explain a simple concept that you should have learned long ago:
a choice that is purely for roleplaying reasons happens regardless of the mechanics. If the system is *encouraging* that choice, it is no longer done for roleplaying reasons. There is no way around this inherent contradiction. So...

Shut. Up.

Find some people who want to play the way you want to, and stop fucking whining already.

Congradulations on utterly failing to understand why anyone would want a roleplaying game to encourage roleplaying things without rewarding them with big numbers.

Congradulations as well on being a dick.

Ganbare: None of those actually make having a +2 flaming sword something you can actually have as good enough while not being the best option.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:33 am

It's been literally less than 12 hours, and this thread has started and advanced four pages. Yet again, it's a thread currently dedicated to arguing with Elennsar.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:37 am

Given the shortage of people on the Den interested in the idea of games that encourage a given behavior through anything other than mechanical effects, do you honestly expect anything would make that happen?

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:38 am

Okay how about this: (I going on the tangent of "encourage" role-play)

Your father's sword is a recognized weapon. People see you display it and they generally more welcoming to you. You get free meals at the inn and you are more likely to get an audience with the king. People look up to you as long as you maintain the honor of the what the sword represents.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:42 am

The question then is why use it.

I mean, seriously, its not like you can't carry the sword, get all those bonuses, and then not use it, if all it is that the sword is recognized as a Hero's Weapon.

I don't mind those bonuses - seriously - but I don't think it encourages wielding the sword any more than if it was a plain and unrecognizable sword to anyone but you.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:46 am

Elennsar wrote:The question then is why use it.

I mean, seriously, its not like you can't carry the sword, get all those bonuses, and then not use it, if all it is that the sword is recognized as a Hero's Weapon.

I don't mind those bonuses - seriously - but I don't think it encourages wielding the sword any more than if it was a plain and unrecognizable sword to anyone but you.

Than what do you suggest then. I see a lot of talk from you but no real solutions from you.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:48 am

Elennsar wrote:
Congradulations on utterly failing to understand why anyone would want a roleplaying game to encourage roleplaying things without rewarding them with big numbers.

Sigh. Look, the system doesn't inherently do that. The system provides a framework of rules and numbers so you can resolve actions. If you want a *game* to reward something, the easiest way for the game to do that is to provide a bonus to resolving actions.

Roleplaying, however, is done *during a game,* and can only be responded to *during a game*. Seriously, the roleplaying is the character's response to the situation and people in a story, a story which has impartial (kinda) rules to help things move along. However, the system can support a huge number of potential stories, so the system has no fucking clue what it should give you for good roleplaying, so its easiest response is "A bonus or ability."

But what you want could easily be supplied by a willing DM. If you played a PC who used his his ancestral sword, wielded by a dozen generations of ass-kicking warriors, I would gladly have NPCs give the PC respect and recognition as the heir of an honorable line. I'd even have it help the story along, because you're doing my job for me and giving me something to work with.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:49 am

Elennsar wrote:Given the shortage of people on the Den interested in the idea of games that encourage a given behavior through anything other than mechanical effects, do you honestly expect anything would make that happen?

The problem is that in D&D, you can't ignore the mechanical effects of the "magical item arms race" unless you play an extremely low-magic game and modify the monsters/encounters accordingly. If you ignore the mechanical effects of magical items in a "standard" D&D game, you end up with player characters that end up dying like bitches. You have to bend some rules and tinker with some mechanics if you want to implement any concepts that don't fit with the current magical item paradigm.

So unless we're talking about a special magical sword with "secret magical powers" or a game world where possessing a +3 sword is like owning an artifact, then no, most people aren't going to be using a Masterwork Bastard Sword at level 16, even if it is a family heirloom.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:51 am

The problem is that in D&D, you can't ignore the mechanical effects of the "magical item arms race" unless you play an extremely low-magic game and modify the monsters/encounters accordingly. If you ignore the mechanical effects of magical items in a "standard" D&D game, you end up with player characters that end up dying like bitches. You have to bend some rules and tinker with some mechanics if you want to implement any concepts that don't fit with the current magical item paradigm.

And that paradigm is extremely bad design, because it means that it is not merely "less desirable" but actively suicidal.

Honestly, that paradigm represents nothing other than D&D's own pet genre. It really doesn't.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:19 am

Elennsar wrote:And that paradigm is extremely bad design, because it means that it is not merely "less desirable" but actively suicidal.

Honestly, that paradigm represents nothing other than D&D's own pet genre. It really doesn't.

It is in fact poor game design. It is in fact an utterly suicidal choice for this person to use their father's sword throughout their adventuring career in a D&D game. And there are all kinds of examples of fantasy literature floating around out there where this would be perfectly acceptable behavior that would not put the character's life in mortal danger.

But D&D doesn't care about that. D&D wants PCs to live like crack fiends looking for the next hit, blowing all of their gold and spending all of their time either looking for or crafting magical items in an endless, pathetic pursuit of escalating magical power. But we've both seen it in action for ourselves, we've read Frank & K's Tome, and we both know that this is how D&D works.

So you either have to modify the rules of the game so that low magic is in fact viable, or you have to play something else where a man is nothing more then the sum of the magical items that he's cobbled together. And you're still going to have to figure out how this person can contribute to their party without being completely overshadowed by spellcasters at higher levels. This fantasy trope is pretty much impossible to implement in a "standard" D&D game, and I don't think there is anyone involved in the development of either 4E or Pathfinder that has any intentions of making this a viable option in their game systems.

violence in the media · Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:37 am

Elennsar wrote: Then a lot of people are more interested in being good gamers than good roleplayers.

Quit playing games and join a theater troupe. Seriously.

This is not an issue that can be solved by the game system. This is a problem that can only be solved by carefully vetting your players before sitting down at the table with them.

bosssmiley · Post by **bosssmiley** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:59 am

Elennsar wrote:Given the shortage of people on the Den interested in the idea of games that encourage a given behaviour through anything other than mechanical effects, do you honestly expect anything would make that happen?

Elennsar, anyone and his dog can change the fluff/flavour text/skin on workable mechanics to suit their tastes: not everyone can create good, internally consistent mechanics. The Gaming Den can and has, which is why I for one continue to brave the bearpit.

These acts of creation and testing require - by the very nature of the process of engineering something new - the smoke, stink and deafening noise of vociferous debate, the refining out of waste material, and even the premeditated use of cold hard maths (horreur!) to back up design decisions. It's a truism that if you want something good you have to be ruthless about throwing out what doesn't work or fit.

As for encouraging players to do the (thematically) right thing in a game, the single quickest and easiest way to encourage a player to do something in a crunch-heavy game like 3E is to incentivize that thing through the mechanics of the game. If players are more rewarded by the system for doing something thats thematically appropriate then - nine times out of ten - that's what they will do. But the rewards have to be clearly advantageous to encourage this, and that requires good clean mechanics.

Get the risk/reward mix right and you'll see mechanics and thematics pulling in the same direction with minimal dissonance. I think we can all agree that's a good thing for your game. In order for that to happen though you have to acknowledge that making certain design choices by definition wholly precludes certain other choices.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:30 pm

Than what do you suggest then. I see a lot of talk from you but no real solutions from you.

Encouraging people to make characters who care about such things without there being special perks?

Sigh. Look, the system doesn't inherently do that. The system provides a framework of rules and numbers so you can resolve actions. If you want a *game* to reward something, the easiest way for the game to do that is to provide a bonus to resolving actions.

So much for the game actually promoting players actually roleplaying and actually playing interesting people and saying that doing this even if it costs the character power is a good thing.

But what you want could easily be supplied by a willing DM. If you played a PC who used his his ancestral sword, wielded by a dozen generations of ass-kicking warriors, I would gladly have NPCs give the PC respect and recognition as the heir of an honorable line. I'd even have it help the story along, because you're doing my job for me and giving me something to work with.

No, what I want is the game saying that me doing that is a viable choice that it won't laugh at without it being the same thing as the best choice I could make if I was a munchkin.

Quit playing games and join a theater troupe. Seriously.

This is not an issue that can be solved by the game system. This is a problem that can only be solved by carefully vetting your players before sitting down at the table with them.

The game should encourage people who actually want to roleplay roleplaying. It should not say "Yes, you could use a MW weapon, but there would be no point, because all it does is make you weaker."

Elennsar, anyone and his dog can change the fluff/flavour text/skin on workable mechanics to suit their tastes: not everyone can create good, internally consistent mechanics. The Gaming Den can and has, which is why I for one continue to brave the bearpit.

And almost none of them can create fluff/flavour text/skin that is important enough to make one care about it. (at best, it is underemphasised.)

Make it so that the perks for "using/keeping ancestral sword" are better than the benefits for using some other sword? Yes. They can do it in ten ways I know of and six I don't even comprehend. Not counting those not posted.

Write a game where you're encouraged to play a character who seeks to honor his father even if dad would be perfectly fucking okay with you using something else? I don't see any of them even acknowledging that this is desirable unless it has benefits somewhere else.

I would hope that a game on the Middle Ages encourages my character to feel things like going on crusade are a good idea without making it so that crusaders get wonderful bonuses obtainable nowhere else.

I'd be very disappointed in it if it made it just another mechanic to be used to gain bonuses and didn't bother with making playing a character who believed in that sound like fun whether it was beneficial to the character or not.

That is the goal, isn't it? Having fun?

Why do we have to say "Here, you'll get bonuses." when we want a game that makes people say "I had fun."?

Mechanics should not sabotage the guy who wants to honor his father, but making them reward that doesn't make that style of play more desirable than any other method of using a game system to get the same reward.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:16 pm

Elennsar wrote:
And almost none of them can create fluff/flavour text/skin that is important enough to make one care about it. (at best, it is underemphasised.)
.

What makes you think people on the Gaming Den can't create good fluff or flavor? Just because we don't talk about it?

Want us to write an article on creating the feeling of a horror game, or creating badass BBEGs? Would that make you happy?

We spend our time on mechanics because we know a lot of roleplayers don't give a damn about mechanics, so they'll be happy with anything (indeed, they could be happy with some dolls). Our concern is to make sure the mechanics are viable, because who else is going to think about it?

Anyway, fluff and flavor are things best applied in an actual played game, and they lose something when you try to lay them out for examination to people who aren't immediately familiar. Think trying to describe a novel you've read to someone, and then asking for what they think of the writing style and way things are described. The best way for them to judge would be for them to actually read the book (or be in the game).

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:30 pm

What makes you think people on the Gaming Den can't create good fluff or flavor? Just because we don't talk about it?

Want us to write an article on creating the feeling of a horror game, or creating badass BBEGs? Would that make you happy?

Not so much the article itself as the fact you're actually doing it instead of treating it as some incidental and largely irrelevant part of what makes a good game a good game.

Anyway, fluff and flavor are things best applied in an actual played game, and they lose something when you try to lay them out for examination to people who aren't immediately familiar. Think trying to describe a novel you've read to someone, and then asking for what they think of the writing style and way things are described. The best way for them to judge would be for them to actually read the book (or be in the game).

The point is, if you want a good game, it should have good fluff and flavor.

"Its a game about you know, romance and stuff. Lots of kissing." is not a good way to get someone like me to play a game like Blue Rose.

Assuming one would even want to do that (disputable - I'm using it as an example of that genre, not of a well written game), one would hope that the fluff and flavor is more interesting.

Fixing the mechanics but leaving the fluff as "Eh. Sounds okay." doesn't inspire me to do anything there.

Except hope for a good GM.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:42 pm

I'll ask again:

What is your solution to this problem, El?