D&D and the Strategy Guide concept

[Mike Holmes]

OK, I think that we can probably agree that the game isn't entirely "known" then, at least to some extent.

Here's a better question. Is the strategy of making these choices really engaging (with the way levels work, it certainly is momentous), actually "difficult" enough to give the player a sense that they're making "good" or "bad" decisions? Is it fun to do?

Maybe more importantly, is the fact that the player can think it over, has access to other players, possibly has resources like the strategy guide - does any of this make the decisions less important?

Does the idea of leting Ethan get a "do over" represent some sort of drift? That is, shouldn't he be penalized for wrong decisions as part of the course of "normal" play? Or is the idea of penalizing a player for his decisions broken? Does that penalty in perpituity make the character "unfun" to play?

Mike

[Vaxalon]

For some people, it is.

For some games, it is.

For others, it's not.  Some people don't want to have to worry about whether their character is "powerful enough" and just play the game.

I can tell you that I have been in several games where there were people with highly-optimized characters, when mine was not; it didn't detract from my enjoyment one little bit.  The games had a nice mix of situations where this power mattered, and situations where other things mattered.

Yes, a "do over" is drift, it really isn't part of the standard DnD paradigm... but that doesn't make it bad.  His GM allowed it, it helped him enjoy the game, as long as noone else felt left out, then it's all good.

[Mike Holmes]

Drift is almost always a good thing. People forget that.

Would you say that there's an effect of "self-handicapping" that occurs? That is, the player refuses to play the optimization game, and instead focuses on winning, despite not having optimized? What Gleichman and others refered to as "Gentlement Gamists," IIRC?

On another note, can you say that you've never felt jealous of the PC with the most power in a party? I have, certainly.

Mike

[hanschristianandersen]

Would you say that there's an effect of "self-handicapping" that occurs?

Absolutely.  Wading into the fray with a competent, but non-optimal character is an act of sheer chutzpah that elicits grins and cheers from my gaming group.

In the D&D games I run and play in, there's a constant trade-off between perceived-style and in-game effectiveness.  There's a certain range of characters that are definitely handicapped, but not so much that they're completely ineffective, especially in the low (1st-6th) level environs that my group prefers.  The canonical example in my group is the Gnomish Barbarian, which will *never* be as mechanically effective as a human or half-orc barbarian... but the idea of a mangy midget with a massive mallet is just too entertaining to pass up.

This leads to the related art form of taking an inherently non-optimal character concept, and plotting what combinations of feats, abilities, and level gains will allow that non-optimal concept to remain effective.  And since our games never really get past 8th level, it doesn't matter so much if the character is hopelessly mired in suck by 15th.

[epweissengruber]

The past few posts show players exploring the hard-core gamist side of D&D.  They are maximining -- getting the biggest bang out of the limits imposed by the games.

Where is a good source of advice for Dungeon Masters interested in minimaxing -- reducing the bangs that the players can get.  I don't mean by doing sneaky stuff or death-by-GM-fiat.  I mean where -- in the spirit of gamist play -- a GM exploits every possible rule, feat/class combo, movement rule to keept the players on their toes.

Is there a guide to frustrating your players WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME, not by being an arbitrary creep?

[Halzebier]

Is there a guide to frustrating your players WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME, not by being an arbitrary creep?

There are a number of frustrating strategies, such as concentrating your fire on one PC or making sure a dropped PC is dead (i.e., not just at -9 to -1 hit points).

However, these do not necessarily make for a better game.

It's less problematic if the strategies in question are good winning strategies (e.g. concentrating fire), but strategies designed to hurt the *players* are another matter (e.g. targeting items because you can't win anyway, but want to hurt the party -- surrender would be more realistic here in most cases).

No wonder that RUNE has explicit rules for monsters' choice of targets.

Regards,

Hal

[epweissengruber]

Great example of Gamist DM play in the spirit of fair play, and good example of Calvinball.

I didn't know that Rune had such rules.  That seems to be a smart design choice.  You don't target players for vindictive reasons and monster aggression is another unpredicable challenge to the players to be factored into their strategizing.

But I need more examples of how to give the players a "Step On Up" challenge, the kind that really exploit the kinks and twists of the rule system.

(I am normally a Nar. game master, so I need to know how to make a D & D game fun for hard-core gamists)

[Sean]

Is 3e D&D 'solved'?

I don't think it's quite that kind of game. But I do think that there are right generic answers for most characters of most levels. Increasing splatbooks makes the decision space more complex but also yields increasing numbers of 'broken' combinations. (For example: add a Reverse Magic spell along with the Reactive Counterspell feat from Magic of Faerun.)

On the other hand, the problem is complex enough that even after I got good at it it would take a few hours of thought over several days to optimize a character with a level in the mid-high teens. And the fact that I did it for a while probably indicates that there's a game there that some people could really enjoy. It's just not my cup of tea.

I grant the point about the importance of cresting level in these calculations (and mentioned it myself for 20th vs. epic) but the issues about campaign focus etc. don't really quite wash for me. Of course such variables matter, but I'm not sure they matter in a principled way to evalutaion of a system like D&D, perhaps by definition. (I'd be interested to hear an argument against that, though.)

Ethan - I would agree that 1e provided a certain amount of support for Sim - think of all the non-game-essential details on those charming old official AD&D character sheets, or my preferred Armory ones - but in 3e I think that this is a trap. In particular, I think that old grognards who scream at minimaxers about 'not playing D&D right' are (a) expressing Sim priorities which had a place in many forms of 1e play and (b) in the wrong - the kids have it. 3e is a Gam-facilitating design and using Sim as a subsidiary mode will cause you to enjoy it less over time. I think your experience with your fighter is an example of that.

S

[hanschristianandersen]

But I need more examples of how to give the players a "Step On Up" challenge, the kind that really exploit the kinks and twists of the rule system.

Remember that the GM gets as much control in designing environmental hazards and NPC stats as the players do in designing their own chacacters.  With that in mind:

Flooded dungeon areas - PCs must remove their armor to get to the other side, which gives you an opportunity to hit 'em with a monster while their armor is off.  Note that this sort of complication usually warrants a higher net Challenge Rating than the monster would have otherwise.  Still, it's a great way to make a seemingly "known" monster much scarier than usual.  Particularly effective with straightforward damage-dealing monsters.  If the monster is aquatic-based anyway, then you have a perfect rationale - "It's the creature's natural habitat!"

Reasonable military tactics. - A group of orcs with reach-weapons and archers throw down caltrops in front of them, and start taunting the party.  In a narrow hallway.  This can make ordinary "mook"-class monsters surprisingly vicious.

Extreme Monster Makeover - Take a stock monster, and completely change its appearance without changing its game stats.  Watch as the players try to figure out "What *IS* that thing?", adding a level of psychological uncertaintly to the mix.  This is expecially good to throw at players who know the Monster Manual cover-to-cover.

Monsters with specific immunities - for example, a series of monsters, one at a time, each of which is tailored to be specially resistant to the abilities of exactly one party member.  Never EVER pick on one party member exclusively with this strategy; spread the love.

Monsters with immunities, nastier version - A series of monsters, one at a time, each of which is specially vulnerable to the abilities and weapons of exactly one party member.  Again, spread the love; give each of the players' characters a chance to shine.

Quid pro quo - NPC foes built with the same loving attention to mechanical detail as the player characters.  Lets see how the players like a taste of their own medicine.

All of these can help to keep players on their toes.

[Mike Holmes]

Good comments Sean.

Hans, Ethan, OK, so given that apparently one can play with handicapped characters, what does that say about Ethan's experience? I'm guessing that maybe this has to be a group CA for it to work? That is, Ethan didn't feel that way because there was no support for playing a sucky character well amongst the group?

Or was it just that the discrepancies get too large by 15th level. That is, characters can be so sucky as to be devoid of tactical relevance at all?

Mike

[hanschristianandersen]

Mike,

Or was it just that the discrepancies get too large by 15th level. That is, characters can be so sucky as to be devoid of tactical relevance at all?

I can't speak to personal experience, but I can relate an anecdote from a friend of mine who played through the entire "Adventure Path" series of modules with a very gamist-oriented group that put a lot of emphasis into optimizing their characters.

He said that after around 15th level, the modules became incredibly difficult, because their characters suddenly found themselves barely able to hit, much less damage, the broad side of a barn.  In comparing their characters against the "stock characters" provided in the back of the modules, the stock characters were significantlt more powerful.

[hanschristianandersen]

ack, hit "post" too soon.

Anyhow, the point is that a group of players who thought they were making highly-optimized "dream" characters for the long haul suddenly found themselves outmatched by the stock characters.

That suggests to me that high-level 3E play was designed with a *very* specific definition of "optimal" in mind, and that characters that stray from that definition start to suck past that threshhold.

[Mike Holmes]

Is there any chance that the "stock" characters were "cheaters" in that they couldn't have developed to that point from scratch? If not, were they "unlikely"? Or were they just incredibly well made (or the players in question not really good at optimizing)?

Would the solution have been to merely change the level requirements of the game? That is, wait until they had another level (or more) before presenting things? Would it be possible to see that coming? Would one or two levels have made the difference? Or were the disparities beyond that?

Mike

[ethan_greer]

Regarding our group's CA, we're pretty much playing Gamist. There's an undercurrent of Sim going on, but that only comes into play during non-combat. We get some good role-play going, but it rarely if ever happens in combat. In combat, it's all about the Gamism - kicking ass and taking names, and when your character has a good round, you get high fives.  It's a really fun atmosphere in which to play.

Now, "role-playing" is largely an undefined activity in D&D. Sure, there's the Bluff and Sense Motive skills and things like them, but they usually have defined combat uses, and non-combat uses are left pretty fuzzy as far as details go. So, my non-optimal character worked just fine in the role-play portions of the game, but sucked during combats (of which there are several per session).  If combat were rarer, and the Gamism less prevelent, I could see having lots of fun playing Gwynn (my character) as he was.

I would certainly agree that D&D 3 is very Gam-facilitative. I would also point out that outside of combat, D&D is extremely driftable.

[hanschristianandersen]

Mike,

I sincerely doubt that that stock characters were cheaters; they were the so-called "Iconic" characters (Tordek, Mialee, etc.) that were used by the Wizards as the core "playtest party" for 3E in general and for the modules in particular.

This also implies that the game's monsters and challenge ratings were calibrated w.r.t. the effectiveness of the Iconics at each experience level.

As for level requirements, normally I'd say "Yeah, give 'em another level and then try it again", but this problem (disparity relative to the stock characters) continued up through 20th level, which is where vanilla 3E tops out.  Comparing the effectiveness delta between the Nth-level "build" of the WotC stock fighter and the player character's Nth-level incarnation, the effectiveness delta was sufficiently large as to render the game un-fun.  (When your best fighters consistently can't hit unless they roll a 20, well, that's un-fun.  I think my friend said that the magic-users had less of a problem than the fighter-types, so the game devolved into "Keep the Sorcerer alive while he does all the heavy lifting.")

Eventually, the players in question had to acquire an "epic level" or two in order to complete the adventure.  Keep in mind that the "Epic Level Handbook" post-dates 3E, and post-dates the specific WotC-published adventures in question.