Challenge the Player, not the Stat Block (D&D)

[greyorm]

Since I'm being asked directly, I'll answer. To me, this is indicative of part of the problem: clearly, we're speaking different languages, because (though I'll agree I see how the terms I used could be taken to be polarizing) I just don't agree that what you're saying the thread started as and what it is now is what it always has been about.

Quite honestly, "stat block" and "the rules mechanics" are two very, very clear and distinct things for me. Nowhere in a stat block does it say "roll a d20 plus modifiers and compare to AC" or "now subtract the results of your d8 from the HP". They are quite clearly to me "tools you have" (things in your stat block) and "things you do with the tools" (actions to which mechanics are applied).

I have been approaching this from the standpoint that the thread began with complaints about character detailing rules (such as skills, feats, or otherwise) creating a state of "gamism before" where play is pre-ordained and no choices are made in play because the options are set--now you just push buttons--contrasted with how we supposedly did it in the old days when characters didn't have feats or skills or big blocks of stuff on their sheet, and it was loose, and freeform, and open-ended.

But the only example I've seen thus far showcasing how things get futzed up because of character stats has been one of: hit points making the combat portion of the game into one of attrition.

How does a problem with the mechanics of combat making hit points cause breakdowns in player choice at high levels support or bring one to conclude that the problem is that skills, feats, and various other character stat bits cause gamism before?

This seems to me to be two very separate issues being confounded as a single issue. Or at least a number of very different issues being discussed under the heading of one single issue. Because right now I'm seeing: the stat block problem (ie: character detail) = gamism before problem = problematic rules issues. Based on some very flimsy and tenuous connections that aren't necessarily true.

It seems to me--given the thread beginning with the claim that "hey, in the old days we didn't have all these details on the sheet...I think they are the source of this problem I'm looking at"--the claim is being made that "skills/character detailing = broken mechanics/gamism before", when I'm looking and seeing "broken mechanics = gamism before" and nothing to do with the inclusion of skills or character detailing/power boundaries/expressed options and limits/etc. at all.

[Callan S.]

Well, if character skills, power bounderies etc are chosen by a player before gameplay, and they are more significant in determining whether you win or lose than in game choices, then that is how character skills, power bounderies, etc etc strongly facilitate gamism before rather than gamism now. Because the player is choosing them before gameplay begins and they matter the most in terms of whether you win.

Though if the character skills, etc, didn't mean much towards the result of play, then it's true, they wouldn't matter much in determining whether it's a gamism before or gamism now game. I'll grant that.

Quite honestly, "stat block" and "the rules mechanics" are two very, very clear and distinct things for me. Nowhere in a stat block does it say "roll a d20 plus modifiers and compare to AC" or "now subtract the results of your d8 from the HP". They are quite clearly to me "tools you have" (things in your stat block) and "things you do with the tools" (actions to which mechanics are applied).

I think your seeing more choice involved than there is? If I give you three options, one gives you fifty bucks and the other two give you one and two bucks respectively, do you have three options? No, it's an illusion of choice. Combat in D&D and other RPGs usually broke down to one superior choice - and thus there was no choice. You didn't have tools that you could choose to use, you were just playing out a statistical simulation where all the important choices were already made. There's not much point in distinguishing 'tools you have' and 'things you can do' when you have no choice about either. It's better to see it as the stat block vs stat block that it actually is.

I'm thinking either you always gameplay where what was the optimal choice was largely uncertain rather than a forgone conclusion, or you only thought you did. That's a hard thing to ponder.

Also, anyone remember progress quest?

[contracycle]

I don't disagree that this is, at root, a mechanical issue, but you asked for examples of how the system, whether or not we refer to it as a "stat block", can disemplower the player.  Yes, I would agree that much of the problem is was implicit from the beginning, and I'm not entirely convinced that reverting to an earlier version would make the problem go away.

The question you asked, though, was not phrased as a contrast between mechanics and bloat of those mechanics; rather, you drew the comparison with a CCG and argued that however pre-designed the deck  was it did not deny player decision in play.  Thus, I was trying to illustrate ways in which the system can indeed deny such decision.

Has the subsequent bloat over the years made the problem worse?  I suspect so, especially when I see an example given of a starting character appearing with swords "of sharpness" - and, two of them no less.  The response to the problem that the system over-determines character action seems to have been to slather on yet another layer of determination.

The question of skills and stuff is less system specific, and I agree with the general point that if there is a "pit digging" skill in the rules, then by implication anyone without that skill trying to dig a pit would accrue some sort of unskilled penalty - however silly we may feel that is.  And therefore, it does tend to have a chilling effect on the kind of things players attempt to do.  You have pointed out that in the absence of skills there was a lot of GM fiat in play, and I agree with this too; I have no response to that except some sort of cheesy old "happy medium".

[greyorm]

Well, if character skills, power bounderies etc are chosen by a player before gameplay, and they are more significant in determining whether you win or lose than in game choices, then that is how character skills, power bounderies, etc etc strongly facilitate gamism before rather than gamism now.

Completely agreed.

But here's my problem with the thread discussion: aren't ability scores and classes already a power boundary? Thus where does it end...at complete freeforming? I know you wouldn't claim that. Yet we can't just say "creating boundaries is bad" or "fewer boundaries are better". How few? What's the litmus test? Etc?

So how can it be a "back in the old days" vs. "in our games today" issue--as per the idea it seems the thread started with--when we're talking about something that has always been because of the fundamental design of the games in question?

Consider: high level gameplay in old D&D, or in similar combat systems, has always been about attrition. I don't think detail-creep has made this either any worse or any better.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I'm looking for acknowledgment that "you know, this isn't really about the old days versus today", or an argument that supports the original contention of "it is about the old days versus today" that accounts for the above.

You didn't have tools that you could choose to use, you were just playing out a statistical simulation where all the important choices were already made. There's not much point in distinguishing 'tools you have' and 'things you can do' when you have no choice about either. It's better to see it as the stat block vs stat block that it actually is.

Complete disagreement with that characterization and conclusion. Might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater because the water is dirty and the baby is in it? Tools are still separate from mechanics, even if in play they are part of a statistical simulation created by both.

The problem, as someone noted up-thread, seems to be that this happens at higher levels. At lower levels, all sorts of tricksy things come into play for use by players in defeating their opponents. At lower levels, it isn't just an attrition game, and tactics (surprise, traps, minor combat bonuses, etc) matter in play, even if one is a dual-sword wielding combat powerhouse.

It seems: the nature of the stat block changes as the stat block passes a certain power-threshold in relation to the mechanics.

I don't disagree that this is, at root, a mechanical issue, but you asked for examples of how the system, whether or not we refer to it as a "stat block", can disemplower the player.  Yes, I would agree that much of the problem is was implicit from the beginning, and I'm not entirely convinced that reverting to an earlier version would make the problem go away.

Ok, I'm with you there, and I certainly agree about the last line.

The question you asked, though, was not phrased as a contrast between mechanics and bloat of those mechanics; rather, you drew the comparison with a CCG and argued that however pre-designed the deck  was it did not deny player decision in play.  Thus, I was trying to illustrate ways in which the system can indeed deny such decision.

Ok, understood.

And therefore, it does tend to have a chilling effect on the kind of things players attempt to do.

Well, that is one of the statements I disagree with based on personal observation of play over the years--though dependent on system design--but I do agree with this:

You have pointed out that in the absence of skills there was a lot of GM fiat in play, and I agree with this too; I have no response to that except some sort of cheesy old "happy medium".

[Callan S.]

Yet we can't just say "creating boundaries is bad"

Well, we can. Specifically we can say players deciding boundaries in advance of play, is bad for facilitating gamism now.

I think there's a bit of a blur here where your talking about putting in boundaries at all, but then using that as a support for the idea of players deciding boundaries. Presetting boundaries as a designer and players choosing boundaries (from a preset list) are quite different. I think obviously designers preset boundaries - but that doesn't say anything about players needing to decide any.

So how can it be a "back in the old days" vs. "in our games today" issue

I don't know? Is it? I thought that was just hyperbole and just a way in which Jonathan was making his approach distinct? I mean, were looking at practical, get it to the game table tomorrow issues - the historical order of things just don't matter in terms of that. Atleast for myself I'm not interested in history for this thread (and wont be revising my memory of history based on this thread, if that's a concern)

Complete disagreement with that characterization and conclusion. Might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater because the water is dirty and the baby is in it? Tools are still separate from mechanics, even if in play they are part of a statistical simulation created by both.

Well, I gave my reasoning for it but you've repeated your position without entering into those reasons.

The problem, as someone noted up-thread, seems to be that this happens at higher levels. At lower levels, all sorts of tricksy things come into play for use by players in defeating their opponents. At lower levels, it isn't just an attrition game, and tactics (surprise, traps, minor combat bonuses, etc) matter in play, even if one is a dual-sword wielding combat powerhouse.

I think this may be veering off - your saying the problem is an attrition game, then saying it doesn't apply at low levels. I think we need to keep looking at player choices prior to play (if any) and player choices in play (if any) and which are more important toward winning.

[Daniel B]

Also, anyone remember progress quest?

8-O

I just looked...  stat-block challenge incarnate.

.. must .. resist .. unreasonable urge .. to play ... aaaaargh!! ...

[Callan S.]

I have a level 64 enchanted motocycle mu-fu monk called Revalicious. Her motto is "I will have revenge - then revenge+1...+2...+3..."...let me tell you about my character...

Noooo! But yeah, I'd also use that as the defintion of an absolute stat block challenge. And indeed it was made to parody mmorpg play, which appear to give choice but as with my 'always the same optimal choice' example from above, there really isn't a choice.

Jonathan, does progress quest sound a good example of an absolute stat block challenge? Apart from the automation, I mean, rather than people having to roll and add up manually to do the same thing.

[LandonSuffered]

Quote

So how can it be a "back in the old days" vs. "in our games today" issue

I don't know? Is it? I thought that was just hyperbole and just a way in which Jonathan was making his approach distinct? I mean, were looking at practical, get it to the game table tomorrow issues - the historical order of things just don't matter in terms of that. Atleast for myself I'm not interested in history for this thread (and wont be revising my memory of history based on this thread, if that's a concern)Folk Life Festival <enjoy that particular type of gamist play, and remembering it makes me want to get into an old school-type D&D game.

Now over the course of this thread, one could infer from my postings that I have a rather negative perspective of D20 D&D.  This is accurate<AND I thought it may have soured me to D&D (the game) completely.

However, some of those things that I dislike about D20 I found difficult to articulate<IN PLAY<the two main ways are: fewer mechanic choices prior to play (random attributes, a limited equipment selection, no skills/feats/mixing classes during advancement, etc.), AND fewer rules stipulations during<definition<you write:

again, I'm not seeing how that maps to skills and feats and ability scores ala a "stat block", things which don't have the level creep problem of hit points and combat (making skill checks doesn't or shouldn't become more difficult as your level rises) and which it seemed the thread was initially talking about.

(emphasis<character optimization<standard<World of Warcraft to my eyes) is a game of meeting a challenge prior to game play (i.e. in between sessions or before the first adventure), and resource management (hit points, spells, limited use abilities, equipment) DURING game play.  

And in MY opinion that sucks<not a blessed thing

[LandonSuffered]

Jonathan, does progress quest sound a good example of an absolute stat block challenge? Apart from the automation, I mean, rather than people having to roll and add up manually to do the same thing.Mafia

[Caldis]

	Logged

[greyorm]

Well, we can. Specifically we can say players deciding boundaries in advance of play, is bad for facilitating gamism now.

"Fighter" is a boundary. "Wizard" is a boundary. Would I assume correctly you would say that is a design boundary rather than a player boundary? (IMO, that would be splitting some pretty fine theoretical hairs and I don't think (or see) there's a good line between them. Would you be willing to give a dictionary-style definition of a design-created boundary and a player-created boundary and the difference between them? Perhaps list some of each category?)

But let's say I decide my character is a war-priest who doesn't have access to healing spells. Or a one-handed thief who has penalties to picking locks. Maybe he's a clever merchant so I give him a bunch of high social skills. Or a cruel wizard with a thing for cooking weird foods. Are those player-created boundaries? Are the randomized stats a player-created randomized boundary per unique character (they seem to be)?

If so, I can't do any of that or it's "gamism before" because I'm deciding on boundaries before play, whether mechanical or presentational. And where would the challenge be if I don't set character boundaries before play? Are we going to freeform it and now my character can do anything/everything? What you are suggesting would be, to me, completely inimical to fun, to the challenge of gamism: utilizing the set of tools at one's disposal to overcome a particular challenge or set of challenges.

(It would seem instead to me, the fewer tools with which to solve a puzzle, the greater the challenge. The more boundaries you have, the more thinking is required. Which is what makes challenges fun.)

Well, I gave my reasoning for it but you've repeated your position without entering into those reasons.

Is it my turn to say "what the fuck?" There were words after the statement that I disagreed with you, the part where I explained why I thought your reasoning was erroneous.

I think this may be veering off - your saying the problem is an attrition game, then saying it doesn't apply at low levels. I think we need to keep looking at player choices prior to play (if any) and player choices in play (if any) and which are more important toward winning.

But let me try one last time to be clear about my point with attrition: someone else pointed out "attrition" is an example of the "gamism before" problem--the system making choices for the player--specifically, how it prevents game choices like making surprise checks. To which I noted that particular issue isn't a problem in low-level play and suggested there may be mechanical break-points where play moves from "gamism now" to "gamism before".

Exactly what you've said we should be doing: looking at player choices and which are important to stepping up to challenges in play.

Also note: I'm responding to the arguments others are putting forth. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to change goalposts and say "well, that isn't actually important" when I ask a question about or make a contrary observation regarding the nature of those arguments. But that does clear at least one thing up: having read J's response above, all I can say at this point is you and he are presenting two different arguments.

That is really making for a messy thread, and trying to discuss those two arguments has done nothing but created confusion, as I respond to points in one argument, and have those points judged in the other argument. Maybe once these arguments are separated out, I'd discuss them further, but right now it is proving quite aggravating to juggle two very separate discussions.

	Logged

Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio

[LandonSuffered]

	Logged

Jonathan

[Callan S.]

I was rather hoping this thread could turn into a discussion about WAYS to challenge players in play (with examples from other readers Actual Play history), or even ways to incorporate player challenge into game design

I've tried out rolling a d12 not only for its number, but to try and hit a small cardboard target. And, so embaressing, I think I put some miss chance on the roll - imagine hitting the target and being told you missed! So silly. But outside of that, that was fun.

Also another time rather than the player, as GM I determined monsters on the map, then I had to throw a dice (always throwing them, aren't I?) into a bowl from a distance, otherwise the designated monster didn't show up. Kind of challenging the player semi directly with my own throwing skill, there

In terms of narrations that might win - I'm skeptical about always thinking people are syncronised imaginatively enough to do that. I mean, did the guy make the wrong move, or do both player and GM simply think in different ways? (and isn't it good for us to think differently, to begin with - thus something we aught to expect given we think it's good?) So I always think you should get some bonus for just trying a narration, because the mutual thinking that it would have made it work, might not be there in that particular instance. Though this always seems to be tricky ground to talk about - people always seem to think of, what appears to me to be non mutual thought, as an error on the part of the other.

If you start a new thread, I might cut and paste this over, if that's okay?

[Ron Edwards]

This might surprise everyone, but I think it's been a pretty good thread. I do think everyone who contributed should look back and see how or whether he misinterpreted or reacted strongly to what someone else posted, and remember that no one initially responds rationally as soon as the words "old school play" or "original D&D" or anything similar. The key is not to go with one's initial reaction in responding, nor even with the second reaction which typically rationalizes the emotions as arising from some tone or implication in the post.

Let's close it here and head for the new thread when it starts, started by whoever wants. Callan, I'm sure your final post will do well there, or if you want, let that even be the new thread-start if that makes sense for what you want.

Best, Ron