Just one more AP post (hopefully with more AP), since I seem to have a great deal of trouble falling asleep tonight….

Again, regarding AD&D and the “old school” insights of James Meliszewski…there’s this wonderful entry on his Grognardia blog that paraphrases the mindset of old school D&D games with contemporary RPGs (specifically “New D&D”):

The crux of it, though, is this: challenge the player, not the character's stats. That's probably the single most important difference between old school and contemporary roleplaying games. I think that it's at the root of why most old schoolers have an instinctive hatred of skill systems in RPGs. Skill systems often imply not just what your character can do but also what he knows. That creates both a powerful separation between player and character knowledge but also creates the expectation that a character's knowledge ought to be able to give the player the solutions needed to solve in-game puzzles, tricks, traps, etc.

I think the need to generate material to actually play within plus the practical ramification that dead PCs might mean a significant portion of that material doesn't gets used or seen (and all the heart and effort in it essentially get discarded) was a conflict of interest against gamist play that was set to boil over, and eventually did so at a global level ("OMG, it's about the story!"). Or something else and I don't know what the hell happened? Anyway, that problems still there and in addition a culture where people make a dex guy (or similar) simply so he can be a guy who jumps over or dodges around things - not in the cause of winning, not as an attempted winning stratagem, but simply to depict a dex guy. Even if you solve the problem, there isn't a culture that's looking for a solution to it.

Hi Jonathan,

Good point, one that always strikes me, too, when reading all those “old school” manifestos of lately. Not so much because I played all those modules back in the day (I didn’t), but because I actually feel much the same way about story-oriented role-playing.

I sometimes have a feeling that in building all these nifty rules that facilitate and shape distributed authoring and conflict and significant choices(tm), some “modern” games are doing the same to human/moral challenges that “modern” trad games do to tactical/strategic challenges. You go through the motions, following the lead of the game system, but actually the system does it all for you, many choices are obvious and/or empty, you don’t really make the game your own, not the way you used to in the “old days”.

What I’m seeing from over here among the trad games in the US is a bunch of very well designed games that work in both directions, D&D 4E being the most prominent one of the “new school” and others like Savage Worlds or Labyrinth Lord presenting an “old school” that’s stronger and better than ever. I think what I would like to see, and maybe help create, are the Savage Worlds and Labyrinth Lord of story-oriented role-playing.

- Frank

Callan wrote:

I think the need to generate material to actually play within plus the practical ramification that dead PCs might mean a significant portion of that material doesn't gets used or seen (and all the heart and effort in it essentially get discarded) was a conflict of interest against gamist play that was set to boil over,

I sometimes have a feeling that in building all these nifty rules that facilitate and shape distributed authoring and conflict and significant choices(tm), some “modern” games are doing the same to human/moral challenges that “modern” trad games do to tactical/strategic challenges. You go through the motions, following the lead of the game system, but actually the system does it all for you, many choices are obvious and/or empty, you don’t really make the game your own, not the way you used to in the “old days”.

My experience with those old modules was markedly different.  When we played we very rarely found the modules to be challenging.  I dont know if it was a comprehension problem on my part as a young teen reading these modules and running them for my friends but I never got that impression of how to run the game.  Of course I was big into Tolkien and fantasy novels in general so that influence affected me, how do you get play like those fantasy novels if you are trying to challenge the player and risk the characters death at every turn? 

So when I ran games they werent really challenges, they seemed like challenges that threatened the characters but they didnt really.  With the general power creep that happened in Ad&d products (and it was there in dragon magazine at least long before 83) it became easier and easier to have situations that seemed dangerous but really werent.  The death at -10 hp rule was a big one and that came in the DMG, characters could be bashed around and knocked unconcious but it never really hampered the game.

Hmmm…while I remember seeing the Hobbit animated film probably BEFORE I picked up my 1st D&D set, I had neither read the Lord of the Rings, nor knew its story.  But check out how the Hobbit informs game play:

- You have basically a one-off adventure (sure there are a bunch of wilderness encounters along the way, but there’s only one campaign objective)
- More than half the characters die, including at least one of the main ones (i.e. Thorin)

Nothing about the story indicates players have a particular right to survive and see the “story” to completion.

Of course, rolling up characters was pretty quick in the old days, and survivability wasn’t a big deal until a character had some XP under his or her belt…and by the time a character had developed a history and “personality” they generally had more options (e.g. raising the dead) for increasing character survivability.  But I digress…I’m pretty much in agreement with the Mr. Meliszewski that old D&D wasn’t designed to play out huge story arcs or metaplots (like the Lord o the Rings or even Dragon Lance…though the latter DID inform play when I was younger).  Without a need for metaplot or “epic storytelling” the dungeon environment can be used to challenge the players who, inevitably, will use their favorite characters. 

The only time players of my old campaigns worried about story arcs and metaplot was AFTER retiring from standard dungeon delving (i.e. as part of high level, “end game” play).  Then there’d be intrigue and machinations between domain holders and rival rulers.  Again, this was still a challenge to players rather than characters, though one may accuse our campaigns of suffering from narrative agenda drift.

LandonSuffered wrote:
Hmmm…while I remember seeing the Hobbit animated film probably BEFORE I picked up my 1st D&D set, I had neither read the Lord of the Rings, nor knew its story.  But check out how the Hobbit informs game play:

- You have basically a one-off adventure (sure there are a bunch of wilderness encounters along the way, but there’s only one campaign objective)
- More than half the characters die, including at least one of the main ones (i.e. Thorin)

Nothing about the story indicates players have a particular right to survive and see the “story” to completion.

Quick correction: I actually mixed the trad games up there, Labyrinth Lord is an OD&D retro-clone and not a new design, what I meant was Castles & Crusades. Whatever, you get what I mean.

- Frank

LandonSuffered wrote:

Callan wrote: I think the need to generate material to actually play within plus the practical ramification that dead PCs might mean a significant portion of that material doesn't gets used or seen (and all the heart and effort in it essentially get discarded) was a conflict of interest against gamist play that was set to boil over,

Well, one of the things I’ve realized from Mr. Maszewski’s blog (fairly well researched it seems to me) is the preponderance of the “mega-dungeon” as the central campaign piece to these earlier gaming groups…a dungeon (like “Blackmoor” or “Castle Greyhawk”) that could never be completely cleaned out and which would be constantly revisited by the player characters during the course of the campaign.

Actually, reminds me a bit of the background for Dragon Fire Castle if anyone’s familiar with the old Dungeon Quest board game.

Anyway, I can certainly say that when I created “dungeon adventures” back in the day, I put my coolest encounters/traps at “bottle neck” points which makes certain characters will encounter them if they are going to “complete” or “beat” the objective of the dungeon.  I believe this is inherent in old school game design…some encounters are neat may be circumvented, some cannot.  I recall specifically the Hidden Shrine of Tamochan…there is a vampire encounter (probably the strongest monster in the dungeon) that plays no central part to the adventure objective (i.e. “finding a way out before poison gas kills you”) and which can be completely bypassed without any repercussions in the game. On the other hand, some of the cooler traps/puzzles (the animated “ball game” the imprisoned quetzacoatl) require the players (note: PLAYERS, not characters) to solve them in order to progress…they cannot be avoided in game play.

Callan:

Ahh...I see your point.

Yes, I guess for the thing to work, you have to have players willing to play the game, and the challenge presented has to be commensurate to the players' ability (note: PLAYERs' ability, not characters).  Certainly, I can recall players that would horribly fail/die no matter how many what cool magic items they or exaggerated ability scores they possessed...for the most part, though, the challenge was just about right, perhaps because my friends and I were all within about the same age, from the same socio-economic background, and educated in the same type of schools...we had a certain pool of (real world) experience to draw upon, so it was a fairly even playing field with regard to player ability.

Still, while you'd need to gage the abilities of your players (perhaps with a warm-up adventure or two), and gradually scale up your challenges (certainly many of the old adventure modules with connecting threads did this).

But if your players are just going to throw up their hands and leave, or if they are looking for a different style of gameplay, well then "old school" D&D is NOT necessarily the right game for them.

Still, I really do think it's a worthwhile notion to keep in mind with regard to game design...do you want your game to challenge the player or the character?  Does your system appear to (inherently) skew towards one or the other?  Or to put it another way: do you need to do a lot of EXTRA work to facilitate one form of play?  With the original D&D game, I think that the same amount of work gets used whether you're challenging the player OR the character (whether you're stocking an adventure with a devious trap or a devious monster makes no nevermind).  On the other hand, I think it is much harder to craft a D&D3 adventure that challenges players and not just their character stats...and you have to really work hard if you want to find non-rule breaking ways to pull off certain effects.

Callan wrote:
So that hasn't solve the problem, except perhaps in the commercial area, ie modules were sold - the writer being paid for his work regardless of whether it was played, and the group being able to write off an expense should they wish not to play it.

You know, thinking back on those old games, even our personal dungeons/creations were impersonal. That is to say, we (well, me for sure) had no emotional investment in what I had created.  For example, the biggest, baddest dungeon I designed…a sprawling double or triple digit encounter scenario featuring a twice- or thrice- powerful beholder as the big bad…was only ever used once and the was never completed.  The party suffered too many losses early on and then we never got around to returning to the dungeon at a later date.  The group just got preoccupied with other dungeons to explore.

Did I feel me investment of time and energy had been wasted? No.  The adventure simply got filed along with my other adventure modules to be played at a later date…presumably with the same players, perhaps with the same characters though maybe not.  Adventures, especially purchased modules, were easily and often recycled for repeat play. If the Tomb of Horrors had never been conquered in a particular game world, then it sat there like a blight on the land…perhaps ignored or avoided, but still available for adventure.  This is one of the great things about the “locale based” adventure…and one of the fun things about old school D&D.  Your “party” is basically a group of looter/merc types looking for their next score.  This aspect of game play is definitely informed by Howard’s Conan stories, even as the party of strange classes/races is informed by Lord of the Rings.

No, I perhaps misspoke when I was talking about “bottle-necks”…I never used them myself in adventures, though several old school modules did (the throne room in Tomb, the riddling sphinx in White Plume Mountain, the gateway to the Abyss in Vault of the Drow). I was just tossing the idea out as a stop-loss to save on...uh…”emotional investment.”  But really, the original game was NOT to be played with a lot of emotional attachment.  I mean your characters DIED (at least they did in my campaigns).  A resurrection spell was used as another gamist measure to try and “win” the game (a more powerful and useful version than “raise dead”)…it was not specifically designed to save a beloved character (though I know even we gamist-types used it for this).  Characters were cheap (time-wise) to make, back them…it didn’t take hours to select skills and feats and class options and back story.

Anyway…challenging the players, IMO, gives you much more bang for your buck as far as intense entertainment.  I think it showcases what a table-top RPG can do (as opposed to a video game).  Old school D&D was encouraging and (by example) masterful of this style of game play.  And it attracted a lot of players to it that didn’t simply “give up” when a paper avatar went down with a poison needle in his neck.

Hrm, but isn't the stat block the method through which one challenges the player? I guess, for me at least, I like skill lists and character-based challenges. I'm still the one using the pieces I have to solve the puzzles, after all.

And I say that because I don't like being relied on myself to come up with solutions that my character would know even if I, the player, am clueless or unskilled. Such as my guiding example: the social arena. I'm no smooth-tongued diplomat, but if I run a character that is? Then they better BE, regardless of my personal ability or performance (I'm not LARPing, fer chrisakes).

I've been burned in the kind of games you mention when my high CHA character fails because I stutter and bumble, which I found incredibly distasteful. In some cases to the point where I don't even feel like playing any longer because my character wouldn't stutter, or my character WOULD know what to do even though I don't (that's why I took those skills, after all).

My question always has been: why should my character's success depend on player skill at some task?

Seriously, I'm not asked to actually learn orcish in order to have my character know orcish, and if I manage to solve a piece of the dungeon puzzle because my character has the key to it (knows orcish, or has an 18 intellect, or is a puzzle-master, etc), I don't see that as not challenging me. I'm winning through the use of an optimal character build for the situation, which is itself a challenge: "Oh yeah? Let's see how THIS works in your grimy dungeon!"

Because what's the point of "Intelligence" or "Charisma" or whatnot, if all such really is are stats for "extra languages" or "spell power" and "number of henchmen"? Why not just call it that, then, and avoid the whole illusion of it being something it isn't? If "Intelligence" doesn't really mean how smart your character is?

Note I say all this coming from an old school background: I loved and played the heck out of old D&D and AD&D. I still love OD&D, dungeon crawls, pure Pawn-stance Gamism. So I really wonder if this is "the difference" because I'm not attracted to what you're saying at all, yet love the same old stuff. I'm guessing I'm the flip-side of the old school that James is presenting, and I--well, I'm surprised to admit--I guess I find it slightly distasteful(?) that he's presenting his version of old school play as THE way we did it or thought about it back-in-the-day.

Heh…don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying JM’s blog is THE way to play.  I’m just saying I think some of his observations are right on…and I don’t think he’s presenting something as THE way to play (his whole Dwimmermount campaign is an “experiment in organic rules evolution,” after all).
: )

Still, I think that some of your concerns are un-founded. For example, all the old school versions I played had NPC “Reaction” tables that were modified by a character’s CHA value.  If you wanted to interact with an NPC (as opposed to charging, sword drawn), you’d roll the dice and hopefully your suave-tongued character would talk his way out of a bad situation.  Depending on your DM, you might receive a bonus to this roll depending on how you phrase your negotiation (backed up with armed might or convincingly with bribe in hand)…all without requiring you to put on a performance or use a fake accent.

When I say challenge the player, I’m talking intellectual challenge…I mean, it’s an intellectual game right? Hitting monsters isn’t based on your ability to do push-ups and a bard’s charming ability isn’t based on YOUR ability to sing!

Yes, any action that requires a random roll is going to based on some “stat” of your character (one of the reasons characters have stats…to determine game world capabilities)…I suppose the “fleshing out” of characters with extensive skill lists could be seen as a way to reduce negative reaction to DM fiat (“I have craft boat at Rank 12…I should definitely be able to build a raft out of these giant mushroom stalks!!”), but it also has an unfortunate tendency to become a crutch that waters down the game play, IMO…at least with regard to “challenging the player.”

I guess my point (as relates to the Forge) is that from a design standpoint, I think it is an interesting design choice and one that doesn’t get enough consideration in 21st century game design.  I remember getting a copy of Dragon Quest (the RPG) and thinking it was cool that there was no “Intelligence” stat…I assumed that characters were simply as smart as their players, which fit with my perspective of RP’ing at the time.  But looking back at as an adult, I can’t help but think D&D modeled things just fine with its limited attribute list.  I know plenty of “Intelligent” people that are not particularly clever or quick-witted…some that aren’t even well educated, and certainly ones that don’t speak well.  Likewise, I know people that are charismatic and very likeable without being able to write a speech, improve a rhyme, or form a logical argument.

Limiting the amount of info on a character sheet PLUS adding challenge forces players to come up with creative solutions.  They WILL find a way to use that 10’ pole or that sack of iron spikes, necessity being the mother of invention and all.  As long as there is an understanding between the folks at the table (i.e. players are going to be challenged, DM should allow leeway for creativity), I think great fun can be had by all.

You can stat up your character to the Nth degree, but I’m not sure it’s going to improve the “fun” quotient. Or to be perfectly blunt, I’ve found in my DND3+ games that it doesn’t. 

Do you think there is any way to make rules for this stuff? As in GM prep aids that help them to build internal logic to their dungeons so that people can work out puzzles from each other, or flag systems so that GMs can see what kind of puzzles they like defeating? See to me that sounds like a perfect use for the mental stats! Or something close to them. So if my character has high tactics rating, then put in more grid combat, if he has a high linguistics or literary-ness or whatever, give him more word puzzles. If you allow players to choose say 3 of these and rank them, then you can use them as a way of keeping track of GM loads. I'm not sure which is harder, lots of players who are good at the same stuff, or who are good at everything. But perhaps there are methods that could be used to make a GM who is good at dealing with one better at another.

Hi Landon,

I think I'm being indistinct when I talk about emotional investment. I'll put it this way - I myself think it's a bad thing to spend time and effort on something, only for it to be discarded. Perhaps if your mega dungeon had poofed and turned to ash, it would have had more emotional effect - while filing it away gave the (as it turned out), illusion that it'd get used again? As you say, you didn't use it again and its pretty clear you never will. But regardless, I think it's a practical life concern - you don't put effort into things that you then effectively discard.

And I mean jeez, you've never lost a post on the forge or some other forum, and growled at the server? Discarding a dungeon isn't much different.

I think it's a practical problem that needs to be solved, somehow. Off the cuff, rough ideas coming to mind is a board game structure that can be played instantly and if the GM is struck with inspiration during play, adding stuff thats off the boardgame path and into the imaginative. Once he runs out of inspiration, slip back onto the board game. That's a rough idea, to start with.

Hi Gareth,

I don't think modules are a terrible solution, either. But I've never seen an RPG that said it worked strictly from modules only? That gives the impression even the ones with modules you can functionally make material to play from. And by functionally I mean not go against the idea of 'if you put time and effort into something, discarding it is bad'.

Oh sure, no game has ever relied totally on modules, and I don't think it would be practical to do so exclusively.  But D&D had, and I believe still does, whole series of linked modules, which ran on from one another.  If you worked your way through the lot of them, there would be a substantial amount of play available.  Running through most of the Giants/Drow/Slavers/Elemental Evil line of modules kept us happy for actual years - most of my highschool gaming.  And really the only reason I wrote stuff myself was because I couldn't get them easily or cheaply, and that was more a function of the local exchange rate than anything else.  Frankly in terms of start-to-finish playing, that was some of the best stuff we ever did, and I find it frustrating that the general climate is now to regard module play as inherently unsatisfactory or impractical.

JoyWriter wrote:
Do you think there is any way to make rules for this stuff? As in GM prep aids that help them to build internal logic to their dungeons so that people can work out puzzles from each other, or flag systems so that GMs can see what kind of puzzles they like defeating?

Player skill is good- imagine playing half-life with auto aim, a dice rolling method to solve puzzles, and way points to guide you through the mazes. Leveling up your auto aim and puzzle solving-

ok stop. that was painful!

What about real life boxing, you against your buddy... except where your to-hit is determined by a dice roll, and your dodging is represented by your AC.

stop again! ouch!

Not to forget that having to actually aim in a table top RPG would also be excruciating...

thus:

=====================================

A few years ago when we played roleplaying games we decided that the intelligence and charisma attributes a)replaced actual roleplaying, or b) tried to either force somebody to play a dumber character than themselves (lame), or a smarter one (impossible- gonna give the players clues or something? can you say 'railroading'?), or c) were extremely vague in implementation.

So we eliminated those attributes completely. Same thing for many skills. In the end, we mostly just had combat and magic mechanics left, and, frankly, I sort of liked it that way.

In a system I built up 2 years ago, again, those attributes/skills were completely absent, except for certain ones that roleplaying didn't represent properly, like determining whether a lie was delivered believably or not, or whether a character could spot the lie, since we were interacting with each other and everybody already knew whether it was a lie or not, especially the DM, and thus bypassing a great deal of player-player lying (entertaining, but weird too. too many notes/out of room discourses) and confusion/ pretending to not know/ trying to guess whether it was a lie while knowing what it actually was.

Basically, dice rolling only came in in situations that couldn't be handled well by... well, roleplaying.

In 4e, we've been using a lot more skills, especially conversation skills. In a way, I like them, but in a way, I strongly dislike them- I'd like to retool them to something closer to our old methods.

I remember I think it was 2e D&D, saying if a player learnt a new skill in real life, they could bring it into the game - as if this was wonderful. It struck me as really bogus at the time - because in real life they learnt some skill, they get a range of new resources/opportunities in the game. Skillfully using resources and getting resources because of a real life skill you happen to have, are very different.

Don't get me wrong - if you want to have a minigame like throwing darts in RL to determine a hit, that's cool. But just because you have a RL skill, you just get X or Y? Actually I suppose I'm okay if a skill is demonstrated at play - but if someone just talks the talk about a skill and gets something without walking some walk, it's bullshit!

Oh I realised I neglected something important in my first description of mental stats; if all the players have no ability in a certain field, (or below a certain threshold) then that is a signal not to include such puzzles in the game. They can still be parts of the fiction, but if Conan and family happen upon a literary trap, well it's as good as a wall to them! Like any other locked door it can have a key to resolve it, but this is resolutely not played out as a language puzzle for the players. The GM should think about this just like putting any set of locked doors in front of players, i.e. it's not fun if you do it too much!

@Shallow Thoughts, I will get back to you on that internal logic thing soon, much thanks for the link!

I'm have the exact opposite viewpoint of this thread, I think.
One of the reasons why I've tried to get AWAY from Challenging the Player is that it lead in my groups, to a "Player Vs GM" mentality. 
Invariably, that mentality lead to hurt feelings and frustrations, where I felt punished for revealing that I was smarter or more social than the average player
(or worse, that I was more socially adept than the GM).

I liked it when the GM challenge was based on my Stat Block, because then I could concentrate on my Immersion, and let my Effectiveness handle the Challenge.  I could role-play the character during the combat, instead of having my Effectiveness depend upon whether or not the GM found me clever, funny or convincing enough (let alone strong enough or skilled enough) to get through the challenge.

D&D (from 1E to 4E) is not a system I enjoy at all anymore though, so take this comment with that in mind.
-Fred

What is the game about?

Challenging a players cognitive functions?..challenging their morality?..challenging their physical ability?

Most decent games that I've encountered offer one sort of challenge to the players [via descriptive devices], then offer another sort of challenge to the characters [via the stat block]?

This could be read to say...

Some good game toolkits [D&D, White Wolf's Storyteller System, GURPS] provide options to create scenarios in which one type of challenge can be offered to the players while another type of challenge is presented to the characters.

Some specifically tailored games provide narrow settings with very specific challenges for their players and their characters.

But personally, Ive found some of my favourite gaming sessions have simply been the ones that have engaged both of these levels of play. Sessions that have involved challenging only the player OR the character feel like they're missing something.

Just my ideas on the topic...

V

Fred wrote:

I'm have the exact opposite viewpoint of this thread, I think.
One of the reasons why I've tried to get AWAY from Challenging the Player is that it lead in my groups, to a "Player Vs GM" mentality. 
Invariably, that mentality lead to hurt feelings and frustrations, where I felt punished for revealing that I was smarter or more social than the average player
(or worse, that I was more socially adept than the GM).

I liked it when the GM challenge was based on my Stat Block, because then I could concentrate on my Immersion, and let my Effectiveness handle the Challenge.  I could role-play the character during the combat, instead of having my Effectiveness depend upon whether or not the GM found me clever, funny or convincing enough (let alone strong enough or skilled enough) to get through the challenge.

Hi Michael,

Strangely I kind of agree in terms of two levels of challenge, except I'd be agreeing the two levels would both be challenging at the cerebral(and/or physical level) AND the moral level - really everything challenging the player. One would be dominant and the other challenge more of a side serving. But both aimed at players. Strangely I'd agree in a strange paralel sort of way that only having one or the other would seem to be missing something. Odd, aye?

Sounds like a juicy, delicious debate we have goin' on here. X-D

Here's my point of view: it's impossible to challenge a stat-block. A challenge is defined as a simple contest, but the word "contest" implies there is some give-and-take. A stat block is a set of statistics that does nothing on it's own; it's a sheet of paper. Even if the stat-block is run by a computer, the computer is simply following instructions which I'd hesitate to say constitutes a challenge. (That said, I think a game of chess versus a computer opponent is still a round-about challenge, because you're pitting your mind against the programmer's ability to build a program capable of dealing with all possibilities; I would argue this is also true for computer RPG quests, for a similar reason, but that's another thread)

So, putting aside GM-versus-players for a moment, if a stat-block battle actually translates to a challenge between players, how is this so? Well, you're giving players a set of "weapons" or "tools" to use, those tools being the stat blocks themselves. It is up to the players to make good decisions in bringing the stats together, and make more good decisions during combat, in order to succeed. In a way, you could say a 60-card deck composed of cards from a finite pool is a stat-block since, let's face it, each card is just a collection of stats, but no one would say that Magic the Gathering is a game of competition between "stat-blocks". (Err... come to think of it, some people do, but I think the elite champions would argue that deck design is a skill that not something anyone can do, and therefore qualifies as a genuine competition.)

Next question, if RPG battles are always player-vs-player, how is it that some games feel like they're strictly stat-block vs stat-block? In my opinion, this comes about by reducing player input and minimizing the tools available to construct the stat-block pre-combat, or at least by minimizing the number of ways you can build the stat block and be successful. It gets to a point such that a computer very nearly could run the character and still be reasonably successful, or downright kick-ass if the program was optimized. This, unfortunately, limits the options for not just the GM, but the PCs as well, because anything less than a min-maxed character will not do well. "I built this character and the GM can't screw me," when in fact the player didn't so much as build the character as lay down to the will of the system.

(Side note: I wonder how well a computer would do playing Magic TG? Surely, Magic has far more combo-holes, and so a program capable of defeating a Magic champion would be easier to build than a program capable of defeating a chess champion.)

FredGarber, as LandonSuffered pointed out, that "player-vs-GM" ugly style of play can come about in any game with a GM, so it sounds like you've just had a bad set of GMs. In my time as GM, I have tried very hard to accept the consequences of the world as much as the players do, so that the players really do feel like it's the world itself responding to them. As a GM, accepting consequences in this way is absolutely vital because it implicitly shows the players that the world is separate from you, and that the WORLD has power over the GM, and not the other way around. By separating yourself from the world, it creates the illusion that the world is real, which injects the threat of consequence into the game. With genuine consequence (for both players AND the GM), the challenges and risks become far more visceral.

In order to be able to accept consequences, you first have to be able to admit when you make mistakes as a GM. Certainly, this is the most difficult part of GMing, but such mistakes are fairly difficult to hide from players and they're a bit embarrassing. However, hiding the mistake does no one any good, especially since players can usually tell. When the evil genius who is clearly being set up as a long-term character suddenly gets taken out by a PC's stray bullet just as the genius is teleporting away, it's a pretty see-through argument when the GM says

Err.. OH! And the REAL evil genius, three-feet away, cackles as he says 'HAHA, my clone/illusion/disguised-buddy trick WORKED!' 

Wow, (player A), very, very nice shot. Downright unlikely! With a blood-curdling shriek, the evil genius looks in horror at his wound, realizing all his plans were for naught. He collapses in a gory heap.

Just for clarity, I wasn't debating with Michael, just illustrating a different way of doing things that none the less shared certain qualities. I'd sort of assumed Michael meant somthing by challenging the character and indeed I had penciled in that he meant something like the integrity of an idea challenging the integrity of another idea. Kind of like having Batman vs Hulk - it's idea vs idea (meme vs meme?). I was thinking he mean something like gamism or nar, with something kind of like a sim spine to it, otherwise something feels like it's missing. While I refered to gamism with a nar spine, or nar with a gamist spine, or otherwise it felt like something is missing. Some paralels there, which are interesting and a bit feel good - unless I didn't understand Michael at all. Michael?

As a GM, accepting consequences in this way is absolutely vital because it implicitly shows the players that the world is separate from you, and that the WORLD has power over the GM, and not the other way around.

...The apocalypse is truly nigh, Callan and I seem to actually agree on something...

Hmm...reading through this last couple of posts has made me rethink some of my earlier assumptions.

This is never a bad thing.

If anyone's been watching the development of Vincent Baker's clouds and boxes theory, this might make a bit more sense.

My first set of assumptions were very simplified.

• Characters are challenged through the stat box.
• Challenges to the character's stat box are typically resolved by the comparison of a stat to a difficulty (or another character's stat), with some kind of randomiser user as a filter.
• Success from a character sense result from situations where a character's stat plus random filter overcomes the number it is compared to.
• Players are challenged by methods not involving the stat box.
• A challenge to a player often involves morality, or the types of abstract thought process that dice and numbers handle poorly.
• Success from a player sense depends on what the game was trying to achieve and how successfully this was resolved.

It makes me think of the saying that appears around here every couple of months...

A game isn't about the the aspects covered by the rules. A game is about the aspects that players have to make up for themselves to fill in the gaps.

This has been restated in a few different forms, but that's the general idea. I haven't actually had the chance to play Dogs in the Vineyard, but from what I'm aware it's a game that really delves into questions of faith and morality, but it leaves the answers to these questions purely in the hands of the players rather than including any kind of "Faith" statistic.

The questions of what the character can do are defined by the stat block, the questions of "why" are answered by the players in the context of the narrative.

It's still a very trite way of looking at things, so I'll expand my assumptions.

• Characters are challenged through the stat box.
• Challenges to the character's stat box are typically resolved by the comparison of a stat to a difficulty (or another character's stat), with some kind of randomiser user as a filter.
• Success from a character sense result from situations where a character's stat plus random filter overcomes the number it is compared to.
• Players are challenged by methods not involving the stat box. Challenges to players don't directly involve the stat box.
• A challenge to a player often involves morality, or the types of abstract thought process that dice and numbers handle poorly.
• Success from a player sense depends on what the game was trying to achieve and how successfully this was resolved. (eg. a game intending to tell a good story can still be considered a victory if all the characters died in a dramatic fashion that really got the players thinking...)
• Players are typically capable of manipulating the stat box through XP, meta-game currency and actively narrating their actions to maximise the potential of their stats.
• The stat box can often apply restrictions to the actions and thought processes of a character. A player's actions within the narrative need to be limited according to these filters.
• Challenges can come in one of four forms:
1. Challenges purely involving the character/stat box. (eg. GM picks a stat, player rolls a die, compare result to target number)
2. Challenges where the player's actions are filtered through the stat box. (eg. Player manipulates the narrative, picks the best stat for the job, rolls a die, then compares to target number)
3. Challenges where the player's mind is tested through the context of the character. (eg. Character gets into a morally challenging situation and the stat box indicates that the character has an aversion to one of the outcomes, the player must choose another outcome that works within the story)
4. Challenges purely involving the player (eg. Event unfolds leaving a question that simply isn't covered by the rules, the GM asks the player "What do you do?")

Suddenly there's a spectrum of challenges from those purely involving characters to those purely involving players.

ShallowThoughts wrote:

Wow, (player A), very, very nice shot. Downright unlikely! With a blood-curdling shriek, the evil genius looks in horror at his wound, realizing all his plans were for naught. He collapses in a gory heap.

Obviously, for the players this is a hollow victory. They feel like they won, but not in that satisfyingly crunchy way. However, it's okay for this to happen once in a while.

ShallowThoughts wrote:

So, putting aside GM-versus-players for a moment, if a stat-block battle actually translates to a challenge between players, how is this so? Well, you're giving players a set of "weapons" or "tools" to use, those tools being the stat blocks themselves. It is up to the players to make good decisions in bringing the stats together, and make more good decisions during combat, in order to succeed. In a way, you could say a 60-card deck composed of cards from a finite pool is a stat-block since, let's face it, each card is just a collection of stats, but no one would say that Magic the Gathering is a game of competition between "stat-blocks". (Err... come to think of it, some people do, but I think the elite champions would argue that deck design is a skill that not something anyone can do, and therefore qualifies as a genuine competition.)

I was getting a bit tired of the PCs winning combat flawlessly, as in, barely over a couple of rounds and with few to no injuries. Maybe the PC's had min-maxed enough to throw off the CR's or something.

Actually Jonathan, I didn't intend that to be a counter, and in fact totally agree with you. I guess I've GMed too many games that eventually turned gamist despite their promising beginnings. But I see your point. And although it all reduces to player challenges, I have come to agree that calling it a stat-block challenge is a good way of talking about preplay-generation competitions. (I'll shut up now.)

Callan wrote:
The mangler as I see it is that the 'world' is seen as a shared object in the group.

Callan wrote:
The mangler as I see it is that the CHARACTER is seen as a shared object in the group. But a persons own imaginative reflexes are his own - they don't nescessarily match anyone elses. But with the perception it's a shared CHARACTER, if the PLAYER's imaginative reflex goes against someone elses imaginative reflex, the PLAYER gets told he is cheating. Or the PLAYER tells the GM they are cheating. Or being a jerk, or a number of things. They get socially sanctioned for their natural, artistic creativeness/reflexes.

ShallowThoughts wrote:
Here's my point of view: it's impossible to challenge a stat-block.

I guess I've GMed too many games that eventually turned gamist despite their promising beginnings.

This is actually something I've been struggling with, myself.  A problem I've had with a lot of my RP experiences is that the challenge is all at the start, during character creation.  Game-play turns into me watching the stat-robot I created make it's way through the challenge the GM has created.  Success or failure becomes a die roll, not a choice backed up by a die roll.  Obviously this isn't how the whole session goes, usually, but it can be a problem with the stat-heavy bits, like combat.  Non-magical fighters are especially vulnerable to this, as a lot of the time combat just turns into parking your character next to your opponent and seeing who runs out of HP first.  Even worse, these combats can take hours to resolve under some systems, during which the players really don't have any meaningful input.

I've come up with a few ways around this, but they're all risky in their own ways.  Giving the players multiple 'balanced' options can bring more of the challenge to the gameplay, rather than the character creation.  I think this is what 4th ed D&D is all about, and I think it succeeds fairly well.  The danger to this is that it only adds a bit of extra player-challenge.  A lot of the time the best choice is still obvious, and the player's input goes from strategy to 'not picking the obviously inferior choice'.

Re-enforcing cleverness with stat bonuses can work, but is tricky.  Let's say a character has a +6 to persuasion.  Giving the character another +2 on top of that +6 if the player himself gives a persuasive argument brings the strategic wiggle room into the present fairly well, but it's really difficult keeping this sort of judgment from being arbitrary.  Accusations of GM favoritism and other inter-player problems flow easy from this solution.  Over long periods of time, especially, it can be hard to be consistent with player rewards.

The type of 'old school' puzzle you guys have been talking about is another solution, where the challenge is a riddle or non-stat-based trap or even a physical puzzle to put together.  I feel like this solution, done badly, can be super dangerous.  Gameplay can easily degenerate into games of "read the GM's mind to figure out the solution to this puzzle he decided on or watch your character die".  I've heard horror story after horror story of games just completely derailed due to the players not being able to figure out a 'clever' riddle or puzzle.

The way I usually run my games is actually somewhat like Vulpinoid said earlier.  Throw some moral or non-stat-based strategic choices at the players, then make them back up their choice with some stat-rolling.  If they fail the stat-rolling it doesn't negate their choice, it just accentuates the potential negatives their choice entails.  The danger of this method is when the choices take 5 minutes and the rolling takes 3 hours.  The more stat-heavy the game is the grimmer this method works out to be.

I agree a lot with Otspiii here: I want the challenge to occur during play. Otherwise, actual game-play is lacking one of the most important elements, and becomes more of a testing ground in a battle-of-the-builds scenario- suitable for MTG, but not for most RPGs.

LandonSuffered wrote: Heh…don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying JM’s blog is THE way to play.  I’m just saying I think some of his observations are right on…and I don’t think he’s presenting something as THE way to play...

When I say challenge the player, I’m talking intellectual challenge…I mean, it’s an intellectual game right? Hitting monsters isn’t based on your ability to do push-ups and a bard’s charming ability isn’t based on YOUR ability to sing!

You can stat up your character to the Nth degree, but I’m not sure it’s going to improve the “fun” quotient. Or to be perfectly blunt, I’ve found in my DND3+ games that it doesn’t.

contracycle wrote:

ShallowThoughts wrote:
Here's my point of view: it's impossible to challenge a stat-block.

I disagree.  The bit I think you are missing is that the stat block can be so weighty, so significant, that player decisions matter very little. 
<snip>

contracycle wrote:

I guess I've GMed too many games that eventually turned gamist despite their promising beginnings.

And that's a Bad Thing, is it?

As far as I can tell this whole stat block/build the deck in advance is basically gamisms equivalent to narrativisms 'story before'. All the step on up happens before the game actually occurs.

In terms of hideous, unsolvable riddles and puzzles, the problem typically is that play just stalls rather than the players losing or losing after X amount of real time if they can't solve it. Usually this occurs because the book didn't tell a new GM he'd have to set this up - and the new GM frankly isn't in the design mindset (lucky them) or roleplay is being treated merely as a social lubricant (like drinking coffee or booze together, play is used as a similar thing to 'sip') and the activity supposedly must go on in the name of the social activity, and yet its uncomfortable and unpleasant to do so. Gamism needs to be able to lose - not just sit in unpleasant limbo while people don't get a puzzle. But when it's punted to the social lubricant level of coffee or booze - well, theres no room for the idea of 'losing' when it comes to drinking coffee. So in that case gamisms been punted to a place that just can't socially support losing.

ShallowThoughts wrote: This is way off-topic but I couldn't resist. The world is no less shared than are the characters, and clearly the characters MUST be shared. The GM that asserts absolute authority over "his" world generates turtle-players.

There is a lot of discussion of this "stat block" = "deck building" thing -- where the stat block takes over and nearly no player decisions are required -- and I'm just wondering if anyone has any actual play examples from their own games where this occurred, the circumstances, etc. I've never experienced such a thing or can think of an event I might describe as being similar to it.

I also ask because I play a lot of Vampire: the Eternal Struggle, another CCG, and even after building, there's a very significant amount of strategy, choice, and table-reading that goes into playing. Even back when I played Magic, I don't recall any examples of just sitting back and letting the deck do whatever. There was always trying to do something with your deck, using the hand you had, knowing how your deck worked, responding to the plays on the table with the cards available and strategizing. It isn't at all as...mechanical/robotic as what is being presented here.

So I'm asking because I really and seriously have to wonder if this is an invented bugaboo being chased and feared rather than a real thing that regularly happens around a table? Examples from actual play, please?

Tons of times? There have been plenty of games I've been in where it's just unloading into the other side, roll after roll?

I'm sure I'm going to get t-boned by 'But you didn't see the other options!'. And then I'd get into whether I didn't see them, or they didn't exist. As much as the other two agendas like to make new rules on the fly, it's not exactly gamist to invent resources/options for yourself. Well, not for free, anyway. Anyway, I'm just reflexively cringing at a perceived t-bone that may not be about to occur.

And it depends what you mean by 'trying to do something' with a CCG deck? You can try really hard to control the outcome of a match, even when you have very little capacity to do so during play and most of your capacity to do so was before play even began. I guess if you don't plan the deck much and do most of your thinking in game, then it's playing in the moment. But really if its part of the design that your strongest influence on winning comes from pre game planning, then it's a game that supports 'game before' or however you might put it.

My ol highschool game had a series of disputes which eventually resulted in D&D being abandoned in favour of a homebrew system.  There were two major issues, the first being the inability to punch someone in the head and knock them unonscious, the second being the inability to fatally stab someone with a single blow, short of being one of the classes that get backstab as an ability.

The former arose mostly in fistfights in bars and the like, and was not too serious, becuase the whittling of HP is not totally unlike the duration of a boxing match.  But it was also the case that high level characters had so many HP, and the unarmed damage was so low, that this would take forever.  Furthermore, resorting to cliches like smacking people with bottles or chairs made little difference.  You couldn't, really, do anything except roll dice again and again.

The second arose from the perfectly understanadable perception on the part of the players that if you totally ambushed someone, especially if they were unarmoured, its not unreasonable to think that you could just cut them down.  But D&D says no; armour only changes the likelihood of a hit, and damage remains fixed.  If the target has enough HP to survive the blow, it doesn't matter under what circumstances it was delivered.  This arose in a couple of cases, and resulted in unpleasant arguments.

Both of these problems got solved by moving to a system which was less attritional, and in which armour reduced damage, and that made for much better play in terms of setting up, engaging with a tactical problem, and being able to enjoy the challange presented.

ShallowThoughts wrote:

Not in principle. But when "gamist" = "the stat block can be so weighty, so significant, that player decisions matter very little", then most definitely yes.

Raven: congrats on your placement in the EO art challenge, by the way…that was a cool pic!

We may have to agree to disagree on this point.  You don’t like mental challenges (for the record, I’m not talking about “puzzles” specifically…I’m talking about the ability…hell, the necessity!...of learning to improvise in order to overcome challenges), and I don’t like being constrained by limited skills and feats.  You want rules that “fairly adjudicate” Intelligence and Wisdom…I just can’t help but say, “gaaaah!!”

I KNOW there can be issues when things are left to DM fiat, yeah…it’s always possible to have a crooked umpire when you’re playing a game.  But failing to play by the spirit of the rules, is…well, against the spirit of the rules.  And DM fiat can play a part it even the highest statted games (doesn’t the DM get to assign situational bonuses and penalties in D20?). 

Okay, you asked:

There is a lot of discussion of this "stat block" = "deck building" thing -- where the stat block takes over and nearly no player decisions are required -- and I'm just wondering if anyone has any actual play examples from their own games where this occurred, the circumstances, etc. I've never experienced such a thing or can think of an event I might describe as being similar to it… So I'm asking because I really and seriously have to wonder if this is an invented bugaboo being chased and feared rather than a real thing that regularly happens around a table? Examples from actual play, please?

To me, it seems you want more of a war-game feel than an RP feel to play: sure, there are some stats, but they don't matter as much as the tactics the player is using in the engagement.

There is a lot of discussion of this "stat block" = "deck building" thing -- where the stat block takes over and nearly no player decisions are required -- and I'm just wondering if anyone has any actual play examples from their own games where this occurred, the circumstances, etc. I've never experienced such a thing or can think of an event I might describe as being similar to it.

LandonSuffered wrote: b]Raven: congrats on your placement in the EO art challenge, by the way…that was a cool pic!

To this I say: what the fuck?

And one question I have is: does a player think to TRY to dig a pit if they don’t have the requisite digging skill on their character sheet?

Well, the bit I think you are missing is the weight issue I mentioned above.  It's not that the existence of stats of some kind is problematic, it is that when stats are so bulky and pervasive that they effectively supercede decisionmaking, then they become problematic.

Another problem we encountered from D&D was the issue of surprise.  In a surprise attack, you could get a free round of attacks, and then roll for initiative normally.  So far so reasonable.  However, with the attritional model in place, at moderate to high levels a single round of attacks just wasn't enough to make a difference.  If your opposition was decent match for you, they would either be of such a high level that your attacks couldn't drop them that fast, or there would be such a large number of inferior level opponents that dropping a few was of little import.  Either way, the surprise attack mattered little, and the issue would be decided by the usual combat grind. So, not unreasonably, the players stopped trying to stage surprise attacks, and made little effort to guard against them - they made so little difference they were barely worth worrying about at all.

At that point stats were not faciliting enjoyable play, they were impeding it; the characters had become the "stats robot" mentrioned up-thread, and very little the players did, very few decisions they made, would have much effect on whether or not they succeeded or failed.

To me, Gareth, that is completely a "mechanics" issue, and has nothing to do with the stat-block. I agree with you that is a problem, I just don't see it as a "stat block weight" problem, because I don't see how that is about stats (except for HPs) and not broken rules.

Except I'm going to think about your last line, because that makes sense. Though...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.

Greyorm, I think the 'RP feel' vs 'wargame feel' was polarising things. The activity is roleplay - to say something has a roleplay feel seems to indicate it more about the activity than something that is not described as having a roleplay feel. Perhaps if what you call a 'RP feel' you called a 'Diplomacy feel' then it's be more equal to a 'Wargame feel', rather than one seeming to be more about the activity than the other.

In terms of stat blocks, I had assumed everyone has been talking about mechanics when refering to a stat block - it's a bunch of mechanical stats. Gareths not mistakenly talking about another issue that's to do with mechanics - this stat block issue is mechanics. The issue is about broken rules, or atleast if your design goal is to do gamism now (rather than gamism before) they are broken rules. Were not just talking about the 'feel' of the game, were talking about what it actually, mechanically is. What it feels like because of what it literally is in this world, rather than a feeling which is based on an imaginary world.

Or alternatively, I don't know why your sidelinging this as a "mechanics issue" when it's been one from the start (as far as I can tell), and the above is me trying to grope for some reason for that?

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.

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 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".

Callan wrote: 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.

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.

contracycle wrote:
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.

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".

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

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

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.

Callan wrote:

Also, anyone remember progress quest?

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.

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)

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.

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 wrote:
1) Recent readings of some of the Old School Renaissance forums (Grognardia, Odeforblackdougal, etc.) as well as threads on other “old school” forums has reminded me of an important difference between old D&D and more recent versions: what I called (perhaps in rather inflammatory fashion): "challenge the player, not the stat block."

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

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

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.

And if you have a problem with creative problem solving in game…well, all I can say is that the mind is a muscle, and you might want to exercise it with some of these old school games. It WILL get stronger.

Quote
And if you have a problem with creative problem solving in game…well, all I can say is that the mind is a muscle, and you might want to exercise it with some of these old school games. It WILL get stronger.

...and given this kind of patronizing tone throughout--about old school games requiring more challenge and creativity, and the new school games somehow requiring less creativity--and going so far at this point to call me stupid without coming out and saying it. Honestly, wow. Not classy, J. Just not.

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

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