PDA

View Full Version : Focused vs. unfocused RPG design



kaomera
2011-12-02, 12:01 AM
This is in regards to something that came up in the ''Why on earth did anyone play an illusionist?'' thread over in ''Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems'' section; and it's something that I've been giving a fair amount of thought to for probably the last ten years or so...

Game design has changed and evolved over the years. This has come about in a wide variety of forms and for an equally wide variety of reasons. One thing in particular that I have noticed is that more recent games tend to have a much more focused idea of what the game is about and what the rules are intended to do.

An issue was specifically brought up regarding racial level limits in 1e AD&D. Basically, 1e AD&D allows a player to play various (6, as of the original PHB) demi-human races, but it then puts a strict limit on how high in level these characters can advance. In some cases, without particularly high ability scores, this restriction can kick in as early as 4th or 5th level.

(Interestingly enough, only the Thief class has unlimited advancement potential, and it's also the only class other than Fighter that can be accessed by all races. I think this represents a view of Level as social status - Thieves being more willing to work with / for anyone than any of the other classes. Does that make sense?)

Now, it has been noted that a significant number of players never played at levels where this particularly mattered. I'm going to ignore those instances (for this discussion) on the basis that the system allowed and supported play at levels where it definitely did matter. Also it has been noted that it was easy enough to house-rule away these limitations (and from what I have read I would say that many groups did). Again, I'm going to put that idea aside for now, and focus on the RAW.

So you have here two rules that seem to have conflicting agendas for the game behind them.

1) Players should be allowed to play as demi-humans
2) There should be no high-level demi-humans in the game
(And 2 basically boils down to wanting a human-centric world.)
These aren't strictly contradictory, but modern design standards seem (in the main) to say that if you want to allow an option you should not then place unreasonable penalties or restrictions on that option - it's better not to allow that option at all. There are other ways to encourage a human-centric world, and in fact 1e never really comes out and says that this is what it's aiming for.

Overall 1e doesn't really do much to lay the agendas behind it's rules out on the table. More modern games (and editions) tend to be a lot more transparent about what they're trying to do, and possibly even why. And this isn't even the only instance of 1e contradicting itself this way. My take on this is that 1e's design was unfocused - from what I've read over the years it seems like a lot of individual rules were included because someone, somewhere had asked for something to be included. The design process seems to have been a lot more haphazard.

So you'd think (and it doesn't seem to me that it really out to be unreasonable) that a more focused design approach would be better than this unfocused style. There are certain differences based on the time-frame of these releases (obviously), but even beyond that I've found that one is not simply superior to the other.

So (finally) my question: Is this correct, or am I overlooking something? And why should this be, anyway?

--

So, my own thoughts would be that 1e (and D&D in general, really) supports multiple different play-styles. 1e is really all about being and doing what the players and DM wants. From what I've read I'd say that Gygax was probably being tongue-in0cheek when he said that his biggest fear was that DMs would realize that they didn't need the rules - his real concern seems to be that they might come to rely too heavily on the rules to tell them how they were supposed to play the game.

Of course, having rules that tell you how to play isn't a bad thing, either. I mean, that's basically what the rules are for. But in 1e the fiction had a big impact as well - often as big if not bigger than the rules. And I've found that I miss that. I don't know if I should have to miss it, certainly more modern editions are pretty clear that the rules should not be a limitation, and that imagination is still a key component in the game. But despite these admonitions and reassurances I have found that all too often players are willing to sabotage their own fun just to do what they think the rules want them to do...

Which ultimately makes 1e seem horribly backward and even a bit back-handed. I don't think it was ever an actual design intent to ''make rules so bad that the players will be forced to think for themselves''. I think it was more a case of acknowledging that the rules couldn't cater to every desire, and then rather than trying to narrow down what the rules were in fact trying to do, instead just letting the rules do the best that they could and leaving it to the players to carve their own path where needed.

navar100
2011-12-02, 12:48 AM
D&D in particular evolved from DM is Overlord Ubergod bow down to his awesomeness you puny players who are not allowed to do anything unless the DM grants you permission which he can revoke any time he damn well pleases to players are entitled to have fun and have characters that can do things, be powerful, be awesome.

In any case, it was because of those early D&D years of DM fascism that other RPGs came out for player liberation. GURPS got rid of the idea of classes and levels altogether. Players can spend points to do whatever the heck they want. Rollmaster got rid of the idea of high or low numbers actually mattering. They matter to some degree, but as in the example of armor, having high armor meant you were hit more but got damaged a lot, lot less while having low armor meant you got hit a lot less but when are hit you take a ton of damage. Vampire: The Masquerade came out and players got to play monsters - the Vampire! It was a kewl factor that unfortunately had the side effect of eventually unmonstering them so that now instead of Dracula and Nesferatu we get Twilight drivel, but I digress. :smallsmile: Ars Magica comes onto the market and players get to be powerful magi casting spells of phenomenal power from game day 1.

It was no wonder TSR D&D was going down the tubes. Players did not like having their options limited. They tried to save the product with 2E's Players' Options series, but D&D DMs were still mostly in Il Duce mode and hated PCs doing stuff. Players' Options got used, but it wasn't popular.

The 3E revamp had D&D see the light. The DM was no longer Il Duce and was seen as the proper role as controlling the game, yes, but a facilitator in everyone having fun. Complaints of 3E magic wasn't about the idea of PCs doing stuff but rather what the critics see as an imbalance between classes. Someone criticizing something as "too powerful" is not auto-bad in my perspective. Chain Gate or Wish is an abuse. Pun-Pun is just for kicks, not to be taken seriously. I disagree with a lot of the complaints against 3E and I don't intend to argue them here, but the point is it's mostly about personal taste rather than the D&D DM Overlordship of olde.

That is how I see RPGs have evolved. Today the rules of almost any RPG will stress what players can do rather than what they cannot. There will be limits, yes, but that's not the focus or overall atmosphere. Pre-3E D&D was all about Thou Shalt Not to players.

bloodtide
2011-12-02, 12:56 AM
You can easily say 1E was unfocused. The rules and such were written over years and it's not like anyone ever stopped to put everything together.

A couple of points:

1. 1E was human centric as all most all fiction up that point was human centric. Take the overly classic LotR, human centric. Connan, human centric. Barssom, human centric. Even Star Wars for that matter is human centric. So at the time human centric was the popular way to go. You did not see very much non-human heroes. The idea was more that humans wanted to play a game about humans.

2. 1E saw demi humans as super powered already. All the abilities made them better then normal humans. So they needed a limit. And you needed to explain how if a human could gain a couple levels in a couple years, then why was not every 50 year old demi human 20th+ level.

3. 1E just gave a basic framework. It left a lot up to each DM. The idea was more to get a dm/game started, not detail out every tiny thing. This was great for some DM's as they had freedom to be creative....but not so great for others.

4. 1E was not a massive book selling machine, where the company put out a 'must have book' every couple of weeks to try to make more and more money. Nothing like 3e/4e.....

5. Illusionist in 1E were super uber powerful. In 1E you could make an illusion of a pit and have a creature roll a save and have them die if they 'thought' they fell in the pit...and all other such illusion stuff.

TheThan
2011-12-02, 02:00 AM
In the beginning, it seems clear that the designers didn’t really have a plan as to what sort of game they were designing. So the game ended up completely unfocused. As the game evolved, the designers have become more focused. Consider how focused DnD 4E is in certain areas compared to others. The next version of DnD will most likely will be even more focused in certain (most likely different areas but still).

Whether unfocused design is better, worse, or equal to focused design is really dependent on what the designers want to accomplish. If the game has a specific genre focus or a specific aim, then a focused design will make that game better at it’s aims. If on the other hand the game in question is non- genre specific or “jack of all trades, master of none” system(D20, gurps etc), then I’d say a large, dynamic “unfocused” design is key to being able to be “good” at delivering that sort of experience to the player.

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-12-02, 05:28 AM
The demi-human level limits are mostly a function of demi-humans' starting power level. Just as magic-users are fragile and less powerful at low levels but gain Phenomenal Cosmic Power if they survive to higher levels, causing them to vary in relative power over the course of the campaign, demi-humans have both powerful racial features and the ability to multiclass for more power and survivability at low levels, so to balance this out they are weakened at higher levels by level limits that sap XP from multiclass demi-humans and outright stop advancement of single-classed demi-humans. This method of balance, combined with the desire for humanocentrism in the default setting (remember the "let your PCs play monster characters, then kill them for it" section in the DMG? :smallwink:), is actually relatively focused and internally-consistent compared to some other aspects of the game.

In fact, campaigns and characters changing tone and power level as campaigns progress is a big thing in 1e; the idea of a "name level" where your HP growth slows or stops, you gain followers and strongholds of various sorts, and you transition from dungeon crawling to more politics and intrigue is the most obvious indicator, but there are many aspects of the game that change drastically from low levels to high levels and which combine to let the game cater to different tastes at different level ranges. If you want to compare it to LotR, low levels are like The Hobbit, where non-humans are mysterious and powerful and wizards rarely flaunt their powers; mid levels are like the main trilogy, where heroes rise to prominence and power and wizards duel wizards and fighters take on tons of orcs, fighting for the fate of the world; high levels are like the Silmarillion, where heroes and villains send their own armies against each other while they personally vanquish immortal creatures and accomplish deeds lesser mortals can only dream of. Given this framework and these expectations, level limits make a lot of sense, even if perhaps there would be better ways to achieve the same effect.

Knaight
2011-12-02, 05:58 AM
1. 1E was human centric as all most all fiction up that point was human centric. Take the overly classic LotR, human centric. Connan, human centric. Barssom, human centric. Even Star Wars for that matter is human centric. So at the time human centric was the popular way to go. You did not see very much non-human heroes. The idea was more that humans wanted to play a game about humans.

2. 1E saw demi humans as super powered already. All the abilities made them better then normal humans. So they needed a limit. And you needed to explain how if a human could gain a couple levels in a couple years, then why was not every 50 year old demi human 20th+ level.

3. 1E just gave a basic framework. It left a lot up to each DM. The idea was more to get a dm/game started, not detail out every tiny thing. This was great for some DM's as they had freedom to be creative....but not so great for others.

4. 1E was not a massive book selling machine, where the company put out a 'must have book' every couple of weeks to try to make more and more money. Nothing like 3e/4e.....

5. Illusionist in 1E were super uber powerful. In 1E you could make an illusion of a pit and have a creature roll a save and have them die if they 'thought' they fell in the pit...and all other such illusion stuff.
1, 2. Human Centric and unfocused are not synonymous. The problem is entirely with the way it was handled, as numerous other systems have shown other ways for a human centric game with powerful demi humans that don't unbalance things - such as most every generic or fantasy point buy system.

3. And yet, other games have done basic framework better and more elegantly. Fudge, Fate, even Savage Worlds all fit into this, as all of them are built to be easily customizable for most anything, in their focused designs. 1e D&D meanwhile had a "basic framework" that included a ridiculous number of disjointed and just odd subsystems that made it a comparatively heavy game - as far as GM freedom goes, I'd compare it to later editions of D&D before anything else.

4. Only the largest companies operate this way. WotC, Paizo, White Wolf, and Steve Jackson games all do, though only WotC ever pushed the "must have" aspect. Compared to smaller games which are actually designed from the ground up, 1e D&D is a sprawling mess.

5. They could be pretty powerful. It was entirely up to the GM.

In short, 1e was a mess. If it came out today, it would be harshly criticized for this, and the criticism would be entirely deserved. However, Gygax and Arneson didn't have the advantage of existing work to draw on. Modern designers can look at a whole bunch of games, can track design changes, and can communicate with other designers - an entire network exists that Gygax and Arneson just didn't have. Take the network away, and most modern designers wouldn't even be designing.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-02, 08:58 AM
1e was good for what it was, when it came out. Game design has come a long way since then, though, so yeah, there's a lot of oddities in it by modern standards.

bloodtide
2011-12-02, 01:32 PM
1, 2. Human Centric and unfocused are not synonymous. The problem is entirely with the way it was handled, as numerous other systems have shown other ways for a human centric game with powerful demi humans that don't unbalance things - such as most every generic or fantasy point buy system.

I'm just pointing out the feeling of the time. The late 70's/ early 80's everyone wanted normal human characters in all most all fiction. Take any Clint Eastwood movie, he was basically a normal guy(though a tough guy). TV shows, even most kid TV shows, had all normal human characters.

The idea of 'not being human' had not caught on yet. There were not thousands of people obsessed with being 'furry', like you see today.





3. And yet, other games have done basic framework better and more elegantly. Fudge, Fate, even Savage Worlds all fit into this, as all of them are built to be easily customizable for most anything, in their focused designs. 1e D&D meanwhile had a "basic framework" that included a ridiculous number of disjointed and just odd subsystems that made it a comparatively heavy game - as far as GM freedom goes, I'd compare it to later editions of D&D before anything else.

Again the 'basic framework' of 1E was made over years. Piece by piece. Going from 'wargame with magic' to 'looting dungeons' to 'adventure roleplaying' with very little direction. And there was never much effort to gather it all together and edit it and look it all over. And when they did do that, well that was 2E.

Games like Fudge, Fate and such were created at one time to be a basic framework.



4. Only the largest companies operate this way. WotC, Paizo, White Wolf, and Steve Jackson games all do, though only WotC ever pushed the "must have" aspect. Compared to smaller games which are actually designed from the ground up, 1e D&D is a sprawling mess.

Yes, 1E was a mess.



5. They could be pretty powerful. It was entirely up to the GM.

Ah, the good old days of the Supreme DM.



In short, 1e was a mess. If it came out today, it would be harshly criticized for this, and the criticism would be entirely deserved. However, Gygax and Arneson didn't have the advantage of existing work to draw on. Modern designers can look at a whole bunch of games, can track design changes, and can communicate with other designers - an entire network exists that Gygax and Arneson just didn't have. Take the network away, and most modern designers wouldn't even be designing.

This is true. Almost every game designer or even just role player started with D&D. For the most part it was all there was. If you went into a store in 1985 and they even had any role-playing games, chances are they only had a couple of D&D books. (And in the Ye Old Days it was common to photocopy/hand copy D&D stuff as you simply could not buy it anywhere.)

And when you played 1E, it was easy enough to see it's faults and problems...and then sit down and make a 'better' game.

GungHo
2011-12-02, 02:11 PM
2. 1E saw demi humans as super powered already. All the abilities made them better then normal humans. So they needed a limit. And you needed to explain how if a human could gain a couple levels in a couple years, then why was not every 50 year old demi human 20th+ level.
And moreover, when elves can live 1,000+ years and dwarves 400+, they had a logical consideration of why elves and dwarves didn't rule the every D&D world. This is directly spelled out as a possible consequence of removing level limits in some of the DM literature... and was repeated again for caution against removing level limits of multiclass characters in the AD&D 2ed DMG.

The possibility of "our elves are different" didn't really go into the design because they'd played/designed worlds where their elves and dwarves were like Tolkien elves and dwarves. They didn't really expand the ruleset to allow you to do more with it until much later because they never played it that way.

The same thing with the DM being the judge rather than a facilitator. That was how they played, and they designed a game that they would play.

Delwugor
2011-12-02, 05:51 PM
D&D in particular evolved from DM is Overlord Ubergod bow down to his awesomeness you puny players who are not allowed to do anything unless the DM grants you permission which he can revoke any time he damn well pleases to players are entitled to have fun and have characters that can do things, be powerful, be awesome.
I would not be in gaming today if my experience matched that. In fact the GMs I gamed with spent most of their time trying to keep up with all of the wacky stuff we players where doing.

Otherwise as others have said, the early designers didn't have the experience, resources, theory and (most importantly) communication that games designers have today.
Yes games today tend to be much more structured (focused) and consistent but that doesn't mean the original designs where bad. In fact like old Westerns from the 30's, they where great for their time.

Eldan
2011-12-02, 06:49 PM
Was the God-DM ever really a thing? I mean, I never met one, though I only came into the hobby in 3rd version. Now, granted, I give the last word in an argument to the DM, usually, but isn't he supposed to at least listen to his players?

navar100
2011-12-02, 07:31 PM
Was the God-DM ever really a thing? I mean, I never met one, though I only came into the hobby in 3rd version. Now, granted, I give the last word in an argument to the DM, usually, but isn't he supposed to at least listen to his players?

Yes, but it was before 3E. The rules encouraged it though not outright saying it. One example is the DMG telling the DM to disallow a player wanting to play a ranger because he didn't roll well enough even if you are going to adjust ability scores. In 2E, you needed at least particular ability scores to play certain classes. 2E DMG Page 11: "For example, if Kirizov has the scores he needs to be a half-elf fighter, does he really need to be a half-elf ranger? Encourage the player to develop a character who always wanted to be a ranger but just never got the chance, or who fancies himself a ranger but is allergic to trees. Encourage role-playing!"

What bullfeces. It's the player's character. If a player wants to play a ranger, he should be able to play a ranger. There's no reason to deny him that. Similar idea regarding paladins. The 2E DMG tells the DM not to adjust scores to enable a character to be a paladin. Paladins are rare and special and wouldn't be if you just give them away. Also bullfeces. Fine, paladins are rare and special. Why is it so verboten for a player to play one of those rare and special paladins?

Demi-human level limits were mentioned earlier. Notice the pattern? No, no, no, can't, can't, can't, forbid, forbid, forbid. DMs were trained to deny player requests. Players had to cajole and had to be happy if a DM finally does say yes to something.

3E changed that. Players were given control and choices for their characters. They had freedom to multi-class or not, choose what skills to develop, decide what feats to take that even differentiate your character from another character of the same class. Splat books increased the choices. Certainly the DM had the necessarily control of what source books could be used or where certain things within them were banned because they would disrupt the game, but players still got to make their own choices of what they want to do. They didn't have to beg the DM's permission for every little thing. In 4E, the DMG specifically encourages the DM to say yes. Of course it cautions against giving away the farm, but it's a far contrast from pre-3E for the DMG to encourage the DM to work with the player instead of against him.

Randomatic
2011-12-02, 07:36 PM
Was the God-DM ever really a thing? I mean, I never met one, though I only came into the hobby in 3rd version. Now, granted, I give the last word in an argument to the DM, usually, but isn't he supposed to at least listen to his players?

I've been playing for nearly 30 years, and yes God-DM very much was a thing. Usually you stopped playing people when you realized they were a control freak that mainly gained their amusement at the expense of their players.

Though I think I was particularly unlucky, or at least I hope I was. I read on forums about how 1E AD&D was so amazing that you could try anything and the DM would work with you. In my first two experiences with 1E if you tried something not specifically covered by the rules the DM would describe the result of your action either permanently crippling or killing your character, without any type of saving throw.

Edit: While the above post is true for DnD, RPGs in general started straying from that behavior with the explosion of games on the market during the 80's and 90's. There were many choices that encouraged differences in gaming styles well before 3E was conceived.

bloodtide
2011-12-02, 08:47 PM
Was the God-DM ever really a thing? I mean, I never met one, though I only came into the hobby in 3rd version. Now, granted, I give the last word in an argument to the DM, usually, but isn't he supposed to at least listen to his players?

Also in Ye Old Days very few players knew the rules or even had very many books. A typical player would have a Players Handbook, but often nothing else. And a typical player did not really have a need to know any rules except the one they might need to know for a character. A player was encouraged not to own or read the DMG or any other DM book. And the DMG had about half of the important rules, so a typical player would would not know them.

And even more so, lots of rules were vague or did not even exist. So a player could not know them. 1E and even 2E left a lot up to the DM. And every DM was a bit different. Something as simple as what stacks is very clear in 3E, but old E said nothing...each DM had to just figure it out for themselves.

kaomera
2011-12-02, 09:38 PM
I've encountered very few players who actually had to go through the whole ''power-mad DM'' thing. Certainly it existed, and perhaps many players who experienced it simply game up on RPGs, but I've really never seen any evidence that it was typical of 1e AD&D. At the same time I can say that it definitely does still happen with 3.x and 4e. I believe it's mainly a social thing, because really it can only persist if and when players feel trapped in the game - where they are either unwilling to simply go without any gaming and unable to find other gaming, or where there is some other social pressure being exerted.

One of my biggest issues with modern games is how many players seem to think that they immunize them from bad GMs, jerky players, and just plain unfortunate choices. This leads to sloppy gaming, not thinking about or being prepared to deal with the consequences of all of the choices these games give players. I find a certain contradiction in the very concept of optimization in 3.x and 4e in particular: On the one hand, the games are designed to promote optimization, which requires that one option be better than another, but on the other no-one actually wants to deal with it when the option they want is the lesser one.

Honestly I like giving the players options and choices, but I want those choices to be meaningful - otherwise why bother? And I really have a limited ''space'' to work with in my game - one session most weeks, four or five hours, with much of that time taken up by mechanical stuff. I just don't have the time in the game to address every single option that's out there. Ideally I'd like to be able to include / support every option the players actually care about, and nothing else.

Two specific major (confidence destroying / fit-inducing) problems I have with 3.x / 4e as opposed to 1e would be: One - players who sabotage their own fun because they think they're doing what the system wants to / what they're supposed to do; and Two - running games where the players never actually address / interact with the story / fiction of the game, it's just ''Oh, that's cool, and then what happens?'' The thing is I think that both of those have to do with the tendency towards seeing the story as ''oh, that's DM stuff'' and again, just not actually thinking about the game at any point (again - ''DM stuff'')...

jackattack
2011-12-03, 11:02 AM
I think I'm confused about what "focused" and "unfocused" mean in this context.

I like a set of rules that are comprehensive and consistent, that were written to be a single game and not a collection of mini-games. I like a set of rules that allow a GM and players to do as much as possible with as little confusion as possible. A good game designer typically points out that the rules are a starting point, and should be adapted during play to accommodate the gaming style of the people who are sitting at the table playing the game.

What I don't like is a set of rules that try to force a style of play, or restrict GMs and players from having fun. Prior editions of D&D required certain ability scores for certain character classes. The Firefly/Serenity RPG forbids psychic powers other than mind reading. Some source materials try to dictate how characters react to various races. It gets to a point where the GM and players are just proxies for the game designers, and that's no fun at all.

Raum
2011-12-03, 12:26 PM
GURPS got rid of the idea of classes and levels altogether. Minor historical point - I think Traveller predated GURPS by about nine years.


Was the God-DM ever really a thing? I mean, I never met one, though I only came into the hobby in 3rd version. Now, granted, I give the last word in an argument to the DM, usually, but isn't he supposed to at least listen to his players?Sadly, we still see it all too often. Just watch for all the arguments online that devolve to "...because I'm the DM!" as a reason for whatever. I've seen that end far too many previously rational discussions. :smallannoyed:


I think I'm confused about what "focused" and "unfocused" mean in this context.I agree...not sure the OP's usage (or definition) matches what I've seen elsewhere.

-----
Regarding 1E and races, level limits for demi-humans were pretty well balanced by the ability to multi-class if I remember correctly. I think humans were limited to a single class. I'd have to dig through boxes to confirm that though.

-----
To the OP:
Game design has changed and evolved over the years. This has come about in a wide variety of forms and for an equally wide variety of reasons. One thing in particular that I have noticed is that more recent games tend to have a much more focused idea of what the game is about and what the rules are intended to do.I think this is true of many niche and small press / indie games. I haven't seen it in anything reaching a wider audience. Which brings up an interesting theorem to test: "Must RPGs have a wide focus to appeal to a broad audience?"



So you have here two rules that seem to have conflicting agendas for the game behind them.

1) Players should be allowed to play as demi-humans
2) There should be no high-level demi-humans in the game
(And 2 basically boils down to wanting a human-centric world.)
These aren't strictly contradictory, but modern design standards seem (in the main) to say that if you want to allow an option you should not then place unreasonable penalties or restrictions on that option - it's better not to allow that option at all. There are other ways to encourage a human-centric world, and in fact 1e never really comes out and says that this is what it's aiming for.

Overall 1e doesn't really do much to lay the agendas behind it's rules out on the table. More modern games (and editions) tend to be a lot more transparent about what they're trying to do, and possibly even why. And this isn't even the only instance of 1e contradicting itself this way. My take on this is that 1e's design was unfocused - from what I've read over the years it seems like a lot of individual rules were included because someone, somewhere had asked for something to be included. The design process seems to have been a lot more haphazard.You may be reading too much into those restrictions. Remember, 1E evolved out of a tabletop wargame where some amount of balance was required. So what we really had was:

1) Players should be allowed to play as demi-humans
2) Humans are specialists (can't multi-class) while...
3) ...demi-humans are generalists (and expected to multi-class) therefore...
4) ...humans should be able to reach higher levels in a given class to maintain a rough balance.

I don't really see any intentional message in the restrictions. It was simply a method of providing mechanical restrictions which were backed up in the fluff.

So you'd think (and it doesn't seem to me that it really out to be unreasonable) that a more focused design approach would be better than this unfocused style. There are certain differences based on the time-frame of these releases (obviously), but even beyond that I've found that one is not simply superior to the other.

So (finally) my question: Is this correct, or am I overlooking something? And why should this be, anyway?See my theorem above. :smallwink:

Though we'd really need good definitions of what focused design and unfocused design are for a serious discussion.

Randomatic
2011-12-03, 05:35 PM
-----
Regarding 1E and races, level limits for demi-humans were pretty well balanced by the ability to multi-class if I remember correctly. I think humans were limited to a single class. I'd have to dig through boxes to confirm that though.

-----
You may be reading too much into those restrictions. Remember, 1E evolved out of a tabletop wargame where some amount of balance was required. So what we really had was:

1) Players should be allowed to play as demi-humans
2) Humans are specialists (can't multi-class) while...
3) ...demi-humans are generalists (and expected to multi-class) therefore...
4) ...humans should be able to reach higher levels in a given class to maintain a rough balance.

I don't really see any intentional message in the restrictions. It was simply a method of providing mechanical restrictions which were backed up in the fluff.


That actually isn't the case. Humans could Dual-Class, where they would level up one class at a time, but could switch later and start levelling up a new class.
If you knew that you were in a long term game, and rolled well for your character, starting your character as a fighter or cavalier was the best option you could make for your character, later dual classing to any other classes that you had the stats for, and ending your characters career as a magic user.
You'd have the hit points and saving throws of a high level fighter, and the spellcasting of a high level wizard. Also with the exp curve, you could take 9 levels of fighter, and only be 1 level behind a pure magic user in the long term.

You could also check over at Dragonsfoot and look up the Q&A thread with Frank Mentzer. He's been asked about the old Demi-Human level limits, and he explained he put them in BECMI because he was instructed to by Gary Gygax.
They weren't put in for any form of balance, expecially because being strictly better than a human for 10 levels, then worse than a human for the rest of the campaign isn't actually balance.
Both Mentzer and Gygax have explained in interviews that the entire purpose of the level limits was to make Demi-Humans a less attractive character choice than humans. So that players would choose human more often than not.
Having a humanocentric game was one of Gygax's design decisions. He went so far as to explain in interviews that he didn't want players to play Demi-humans because he didn't think that human beings, such as the players, would be able to properly put themselves into the mindset of a non human character.

Raum
2011-12-03, 05:52 PM
Shrug, I was working off decades old memory. Obviously my memory missed some nuances. :smallsmile:

kaomera
2011-12-04, 01:16 AM
I think I'm confused about what "focused" and "unfocused" mean in this context.
Perhaps there's a better set of terms I could have chosen? IMO: the 1e rules are, as some have put it, ''a mess''; they push and pull the gameplay in various directions. Some sessions might be a big fight, others nothing but talking. Advancement and treasure where sporadic with big jumps and long lulls. It supported multiple different playstyles, but only if players where willing to be patient and wait for ''their turn'' so to speak.

3.x and 4e, by comparison seem to pull more or less in one direction (in particular, the ''push'' of negative consequences has largely been removed). You still get players with different preferred playstyles, but the actual results you get seem to me to be much more consistent. There's a definite pressure to keep up a pace of encounters, and treasure and advancement are consistent to the point they they're more of a pacing device than any kind of a reward.

Let me stop for just a second here and insert a bit of a disclaimer: I don't actually dislike 3.x or 4e. I mention that because I'm having a hard time getting some of what I want to say without it seeming to me to possibly come off as edition-warring. I think I have it sorted out, but just in case I want to make as clear as I can that this is not my intention. I have been a bit frustrated and disappointed in 3.x and 4e; while I still hold 1e pretty dearly in my heart there are a lot of ways that the newer editions are just clearly better than the older. Unfortunately that hasn't really shown through in my play experiences.

I'm also not as un-fond of the old-school ways as a lot of players I've met, and this could well be a part of the problem. I'm not ready to excuse problems with a newer edition on the basis that it doesn't have the ''obvious flaws'' of the older editions when I don't actually see them as flaws in the first place. In fact there are a number of possible contributing factors to the issues I've had, it may not be a system issue at all. However, I think that it probably is, at least partially. There was a time when I really wasn't ready to buy into the idea that ''system matters'', but I've since found enough evidence that it does, at least in some cases, that I'm not really ready to throw that out entirely.

A good game designer typically points out that the rules are a starting point, and should be adapted during play to accommodate the gaming style of the people who are sitting at the table playing the game.
I've seen two big problems with this: 1) groups and even individuals don't really have consistent desires when it comes to playstyle, and 2) it doesn't seem like pointing that out typically does much of anything. It really seems to me that most players and even a lot of DMs just don't / can't / won't really examine the game and what they want out of it to the point that they can even approach adapting the game to whatever it is they want. It often seems that what the players say they want and what they actually want are at odds; they almost seem to be reading off their demands from a list they got somewhere.

I had a player who was alternately complaining that we were either not getting enough fights in or that we spent too much time in the game on combat. When I finally pinned him down on the issue he admitted that it wasn't actually the frequency of combat that he wanted, but the XP... And this was in a game where we had ditched calculated XP for simply leveling every several sessions. And this sort of thing keeps happening to me - it's like the players, and sometimes even DMs, just can't connect what they're doing with the consequences.

My biggest worry is this: So far I've basically walked out on every game I've played or run since about 2001. They just get to the point where the experience is kinda fun, and I enjoy hanging out with the group, but it's just not worth the effort that I'm putting in and my wants and needs just aren't getting met. As a DM the players insist that they're having fun, and they get upset when I prematurely end a campaign, but when confronted by the fact that I'm just not enjoying the game itself most of them either can't understand it or they just don't care. And I'm a bit scared to try again at this point, because quitting like that makes me feel bad, like I'm a failure or maybe even a jerk.

Raum
2011-12-04, 10:31 AM
Perhaps there's a better set of terms I could have chosen? IMO: the 1e rules are, as some have put it, ''a mess''; they push and pull the gameplay in various directions. Some sessions might be a big fight, others nothing but talking. Advancement and treasure where sporadic with big jumps and long lulls. It supported multiple different playstyles, but only if players where willing to be patient and wait for ''their turn'' so to speak.

3.x and 4e, by comparison seem to pull more or less in one direction (in particular, the ''push'' of negative consequences has largely been removed). You still get players with different preferred playstyles, but the actual results you get seem to me to be much more consistent. There's a definite pressure to keep up a pace of encounters, and treasure and advancement are consistent to the point they they're more of a pacing device than any kind of a reward.Hmm, I don't see any version of D&D as something I'd consider "focused". As you note, they can be played with vastly differing styles and goals. I guess I consider something like My Life with Master a focused game - it's targeted at exploring a single theme.


My biggest worry is this: So far I've basically walked out on every game I've played or run since about 2001. They just get to the point where the experience is kinda fun, and I enjoy hanging out with the group, but it's just not worth the effort that I'm putting in and my wants and needs just aren't getting met. As a DM the players insist that they're having fun, and they get upset when I prematurely end a campaign, but when confronted by the fact that I'm just not enjoying the game itself most of them either can't understand it or they just don't care. And I'm a bit scared to try again at this point, because quitting like that makes me feel bad, like I'm a failure or maybe even a jerk.Have you tried other systems? Depending on what you like about GMing, other systems may do a better job with less additional work. (I don't GM level based systems myself - too much work involved in keeping NPCs relevant.)

kaomera
2011-12-04, 06:34 PM
Hmm, I don't see any version of D&D as something I'd consider "focused". As you note, they can be played with vastly differing styles and goals. I guess I consider something like My Life with Master a focused game - it's targeted at exploring a single theme.
Certainly there are a lot of games (and indy games in particular) that are much, much more focused than any version of D&D. My only point is that 3e and then 4e design does seem to have been done in a much more structured manner, and I think that really shows through in the systems / mechanics.

jackattack mentioned that:

I like a set of rules that are comprehensive and consistent, that were written to be a single game and not a collection of mini-games.
Personally I think I do kind of prefer a collection of mini-games, in a way. I can certainly see the advantages of having a single resolution mechanic and consistency in play, but I feel like ''OK, how do I do that?'' isn't really a bad thing to be asking of yourself / the DM or the players / the system during play. Maybe ''Why am I doing this?'' is an even better question, but I think it's valuable (and even fun) to be thinking about that sort of stuff.


Have you tried other systems? Depending on what you like about GMing, other systems may do a better job with less additional work. (I don't GM level based systems myself - too much work involved in keeping NPCs relevant.)
I have. Mouse Guard, for example, comes pretty close to supplanting D&D as my favorite game ever. But I don't think it's ever going to get loser than it comes, for the simple reason that it's so many less thing than D&D. Mouse Guard does Mouse Guard spectacularly well, but that's pretty much all it does, and I don't always feel like playing Mouse Guard. D&D can just be so many more different experiences.

I'm also very interested in actually getting a Labyrinth Lord game going. (Part of the reason for the thoughts that led to this thread.) What I'm afraid of, really, is the possibility that the problems I've been having don't really have anything to with system, and that I'm just going to run into the same wall. I've talked to a fair number of players about the idea, and some of the ideas the average player I've met seems to have about old-school D&D and the way that it must be (let alone was) played are just mind-boggling. But I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised, I've run into some players who seriously seem to think that DMing is the result of some sort of mental disorder, that no-one does or ever could actually enjoy it, and DMs just can't help themselves.

Or take my sig... I changed it a while back as a joke, because I had a group tell me that I was a ''player-hater'' after they asked me to help them make a rules call (which, IMO, was 100% a social issue and I should have just declined in the first place, but I didn't...) and I suggested that maybe the player in question should just not be a huge jerk to his friends.

Delwugor
2011-12-04, 10:30 PM
Was the God-DM ever really a thing? I mean, I never met one, though I only came into the hobby in 3rd version. Now, granted, I give the last word in an argument to the DM, usually, but isn't he supposed to at least listen to his players?
Yes but from my experience the concept seems to be overblown, blame it on bad old memories or internet. It wasn't as good as others (raises hand) make it out either.
There where bad calls by GMs which would lead to disagreements, but as you say the GM had the final word. Sometimes people would get upset and a few angry but I never saw it go to great extents.

One of my contentions is that gaming today has a different style, feel and expectations. These where not prevalent in the past so attempting to judge them by today's standards doesn't really work that well. It's like saying the old Corvette Stingrays where bad because they didn't have safety bags and NaviStar.

kaomera
2011-12-05, 08:59 AM
One of my contentions is that gaming today has a different style, feel and expectations. These where not prevalent in the past so attempting to judge them by today's standards doesn't really work that well. It's like saying the old Corvette Stingrays where bad because they didn't have safety bags and NaviStar.
I definitely agree, but I don't see what the newer editions have added as being safety features. (I know that was just an example, but I'm going to run with it here...) I think that all of the extra options etc. really require more responsibility on the part of the players. It's like: in 1e a bad DM or a group of just generally jerky players could easily ruin the game, and in 3.x / 4e a bad DM or even a single jerky player ruins it.

Maybe: next time I want to run a group character-creation session or campaign planning, and players tell me they'd rather wait until we're ''really playing'' to show up, I'll insist that if they don't show up the forfeit some level of choice as to what they get to play. For example, maybe use those sessions to decide on a hard list of which splat books, etc. we'll be using.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-05, 09:08 AM
Was the God-DM ever really a thing? I mean, I never met one, though I only came into the hobby in 3rd version. Now, granted, I give the last word in an argument to the DM, usually, but isn't he supposed to at least listen to his players?

Oh, he SHOULD...but I've met plenty that don't. Hell, I know one now that is like that. A number of my players have already met him and fled in horror. Why he still has a group is beyond me. So yeah, they still exist, even with newer editions...though fortunately, they do seem to be rather rarer.

I still have a lasting skepticism of any argument that relies on the "Im the DM!" logic, though. If you have to use that, it's because you don't have an actual reason.

I agree that certain aspects of oldschool design are often good. For instance, I rather like a lot of older modules, as some of them are highly creative. Another pressure plate/arrow trap is boring. Plenty of those older ones have some wild stuff. Sure, you have to sort through a lot of fiated arbitraryness along the way, but there's valuable aspects to steal.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-12-05, 09:36 AM
I definitely agree, but I don't see what the newer editions have added as being safety features. (I know that was just an example, but I'm going to run with it here...) I think that all of the extra options etc. really require more responsibility on the part of the players. It's like: in 1e a bad DM or a group of just generally jerky players could easily ruin the game, and in 3.x / 4e a bad DM or even a single jerky player ruins it.
Well, the "safety feature" is that the Players are expected to know all the rules (not just the ones in the Player's Handbook) and to use them to play the game. This gives Players a powerful rhetorical edge against a "God-DM" and, practically speaking, makes it so that Players have a greater role/responsibility in running the game than they did in the past. This makes it harder to sustain a "God-DM" persona than in editions when the Players are explicitly told to know a mere subset of the rules and even those rules make frequent reference to the DM adjudicating basic tasks (e.g. Non-Weapon Proficiency roll results).

So yeah, now it appears more possible for a "bad Player" to ruin a game (IMHO, Bad Players can ruin a game under any system) but it also reduces the prevalence of the God-DM -- which is a boon, IMHO, because Players enjoy games more when they have a sense of Autonomy about their actions. The real problem with older editions is that the Players had little idea as to the capabilities of their PCs absent DM interpretation and that meant that Players had to spend more time working with the DM to do what they want rather than the rules.

That said: Playing under benevolent dictators can be more fun than incompetent committees (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2009-09-14) -- it's all a question of risk (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2009-09-15).

kaomera
2011-12-05, 10:14 PM
I still have a lasting skepticism of any argument that relies on the "Im the DM!" logic, though. If you have to use that, it's because you don't have an actual reason.
I can see that (well, usually...), but I don't think ''I'm the player!'' is a much better argument.

And there's a difference between ''I'm the DM!'' and ''This is what's happening, in the game-world''. In particular I die a little inside every time I have to ruin a moment of play because I'm trying to give the players an in-character clue(brick) that something weird is going on and / or that their characters don't know everything about a situation (or possibly even that their assumptions are wrong) and the players insist that I explain everything mechanically.

Well, the "safety feature" is that the Players are expected to know all the rules (not just the ones in the Player's Handbook) and to use them to play the game. This gives Players a powerful rhetorical edge against a "God-DM" and, practically speaking, makes it so that Players have a greater role/responsibility in running the game than they did in the past. This makes it harder to sustain a "God-DM" persona than in editions when the Players are explicitly told to know a mere subset of the rules and even those rules make frequent reference to the DM adjudicating basic tasks (e.g. Non-Weapon Proficiency roll results).
And, again, ime it doesn't actually work. Very few players are willing to take their role or responsibility in running and molding the game in any way seriously, which I have seen time and time again hurt games run by GMs who are trying to facilitate the players' actions, and just doesn't really help against a ''God-DM''. And there are many players who either can't or won't take advantage of this anyway, because they just don't know the rules that well or just aren't actually willing to do any ''work'' - you know, hard things like actually reading the descriptions of the feats and such that they are taking, or looking up a handbook online...

Which leads to what I said about one player ruining the game in newer editions: the ''God-player''. And yes, you're right (now that you mention it), one player could ruin things in 1e, and it's probably the same problem. Even more than with the ''God-DM'' I think it's (at least primarily) a social issue more than a system one. I was thinking that the more ''player empowering'' rules would tend to contribute to this, but on further thought I think it's going to tend to be more about just twisting the rest of the group around that one player's finger.

Randomatic
2011-12-05, 11:01 PM
And, again, ime it doesn't actually work. Very few players are willing to take their role or responsibility in running and molding the game in any way seriously, which I have seen time and time again hurt games run by GMs who are trying to facilitate the players' actions, and just doesn't really help against a ''God-DM''. And there are many players who either can't or won't take advantage of this anyway, because they just don't know the rules that well or just aren't actually willing to do any ''work'' - you know, hard things like actually reading the descriptions of the feats and such that they are taking, or looking up a handbook online...

That depends heavily on the gaming group and system.
Proactive players seem to be few and far between, but we're out there. There also isn't much reason to put that effort into DnD. The system doesn't give you any benefits or tools for the player's to be active in world building, and the inertia of decades of gameplay have made it hard to palate for many DMs.
When you switch to a different system like Burning Wheel or Nobilis 3E, the players are given tools to shape the setting, and are encouraged to use them by the game mechanics.

Raum
2011-12-05, 11:29 PM
I can see that (well, usually...), but I don't think ''I'm the player!'' is a much better argument.Yes, but how often have you seen it used (except as a sarcastic response to "I'm the DM") in a game related argument?


And there's a difference between ''I'm the DM!'' and ''This is what's happening, in the game-world''. In particular I die a little inside every time I have to ruin a moment of play because I'm trying to give the players an in-character clue(brick) that something weird is going on and / or that their characters don't know everything about a situation (or possibly even that their assumptions are wrong) and the players insist that I explain everything mechanically.A good part of that is simply trust. It's far easier to lose than to regain.


And, again, ime it doesn't actually work. Very few players are willing to take their role or responsibility in running and molding the game in any way seriously, which I have seen time and time again hurt games run by GMs who are trying to facilitate the players' actions, and just doesn't really help against a ''God-DM''. And there are many players who either can't or won't take advantage of this anyway, because they just don't know the rules that well or just aren't actually willing to do any ''work'' - you know, hard things like actually reading the descriptions of the feats and such that they are taking, or looking up a handbook online...As Randomatic mentioned, this tends to be very system dependent. However, communication is just as important. Throwing a few extra details (purely as color) has sparked player actions & plans at least as often as mechanical rules* which encouraging player agency in some of my games.

*Not including FATE. The mechanical advantages of Declarations make player input pay.


Which leads to what I said about one player ruining the game in newer editions: the ''God-player''. And yes, you're right (now that you mention it), one player could ruin things in 1e, and it's probably the same problem. Even more than with the ''God-DM'' I think it's (at least primarily) a social issue more than a system one. I was thinking that the more ''player empowering'' rules would tend to contribute to this, but on further thought I think it's going to tend to be more about just twisting the rest of the group around that one player's finger.Social dynamics do play a big part - that trust I mentioned if nothing else. Not sure how you jumped from "it's primarily a social issue" to "player empowering systems contribute" though...and, from experience, systems such as OtE and FATE had less rules arguing than D&D even with the same group of players.

I think the sheer detailed mass of rules contributes to such arguments.

Switching subjects on you, did you consider any better definitions of "focused" RPGs? TheForge (caveat - Edwards & Co tends to extremes) defined it as "the design facilitates a specific, identifiable Premise (or area of Exploration)" but I'm not sure that's what you were going for.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-12-05, 11:49 PM
Which leads to what I said about one player ruining the game in newer editions: the ''God-player''. And yes, you're right (now that you mention it), one player could ruin things in 1e, and it's probably the same problem. Even more than with the ''God-DM'' I think it's (at least primarily) a social issue more than a system one. I was thinking that the more ''player empowering'' rules would tend to contribute to this, but on further thought I think it's going to tend to be more about just twisting the rest of the group around that one player's finger.
"God-Player" is only true in 3.P (as far as modern systems go). You could make "God-Players" in earlier games (oWoD, GURPS) which would only be limited by aggressive DMs using the "Force Majeur" rules included in all those games. In D&D4 it certainly isn't true, and I don't know of any other modern game where this is true.

Also: The modern rules paradigm has more to do with creating rules that define the world than empowering Players. The older paradigm left most of the game rules to be broadly adjudicated with the DM either by design or omission. This meant Players never really knew what their characters were capable of, and had to rely on the mercy of the DM to do most anything in a game. The modern paradigm has fewer gaps that need to be filled by DMs as a matter of course, and as a result people have moved towards "we are playing D&D" instead of "we are playing Jim's D&D."

...okay, that was ramblier than I intended. Ah well :smallsmile:

Randomatic
2011-12-06, 12:25 AM
The last few posts have struck me with an idea. The defining idea of what differentiates many RPGs is the idea of the GM. Earlier games had an unfocused idea of what exactly a GM was. You have world design, rules arbiter, storyteller and many other roles being taken up, but the games themselves only gave you a general idea of what the GM was supposed to be doing.

With other gaming systems coming out, and a refocusing of what makes a GM you have profound changes to the approach to the games. The modern games that I'm aware of tend to have a more defined, more focused look at what the GM is supposed to do. You have modern gaming advice like "Say yes or roll the dice" or the Monarda Law that turns many old gaming paradigms on their head. Where you have gaming systems that open up the mechanics of the setting and the plotlines to players, and encourage the GM to focus on providing conflict to the elements that the players introduce.

To go back to your initial premise, it's ideas like these that have me more interested in the more modern focused game design. Though it helps that by increasing player agency, you also increase their investment in the game as a whole.

Also, on your comment about newer editions having more safety features, that seems to be more of a necessity in the current marketplace. Bad GMing can turn off potential new gamers faster than almost any other gaming issue. With the implosion of the RPG market and the heavy competition from CRPGs, it makes sense to put in a safety net to empower players to preserve their enjoyment of the game.

kaomera
2011-12-06, 11:38 PM
That depends heavily on the gaming group and system.
Proactive players seem to be few and far between, but we're out there. There also isn't much reason to put that effort into DnD. The system doesn't give you any benefits or tools for the player's to be active in world building, and the inertia of decades of gameplay have made it hard to palate for many DMs.
When you switch to a different system like Burning Wheel or Nobilis 3E, the players are given tools to shape the setting, and are encouraged to use them by the game mechanics.
Well, intentional or not, the players do end up building the world, or at least the parts that matter. I've basically not found any group that has been willing to sit through any kind of story-telling that does not directly focus on the PCs. The PCs define the focus of the game, what they do and what happens around them are all that really matter - anything that you can't bring into that radius (one way or another) just doesn't actually count for anything.

My specific complaint is with this: I ask the players what they want to play, they shrug. I ask them what kinds of characters they'd like to play, they say they can play anything. I try to set up a meeting to discuss possibilities, no-one is interested. I email out a few possible campaigns I can develop, get no response. I set up a session for character creation, no-one attends.

OK, fine, I develop the campaign by myself, send out what info they need to make characters. I need to develop the campaign to some level in order to actually have the kind of impact I want on the game. Setting that world in motion and seeing what the PCs do with / to it is what I enjoy about DMing.

Only when we are ''actually playing'' does anyone bother to participate - and a that point at least half of them have fully-developed characters that they are absolutely committed to playing, most of which will have ignored the campaign I've developed in some way. And the players will demand to be allowed to play the characters they've played - that's their privilege, as defined by the rules. If the setting would rule out one or more options they want, well that's ''cheating'', sometimes this goes so far as to include supplements and third-party rules.

So, yes, some of these players are just total jerks. They probably don't see it that way, of course. Some of them, maybe, played with a DM who allowed anything as long as they owned the book it was from, so they just figure that's the way it is. A lot of players don't seem to really understand why there would be any argument against (or for) a particular option other than play balance. And then there are the reasonable, actually otherwise good / great players who just respond to my concerns with ''No, it's not a problem, this will totally be cool!''

I understand that making characters, having all those choices, is a big part of why a lot of players like 3.x / 4e / whatever. And it is fun, totally. But, personally, I don't enjoy and just can't really deal with completely ''kitchen sink'' campaigns. I can fit a lot of different stuff into a campaign, if I get the chance. Not everything - there are just some things that I would really need to be ''sold'' on before I could really get anything out of them. So I really, really need to have some idea of what the characters the players want to play, either by them telling me (since it seems to be per-determined and not subject to adjustment), or else by them making something that fits into a setting I have laid out.

Yes, but how often have you seen it used (except as a sarcastic response to "I'm the DM") in a game related argument?
As above, basically every game I've run for at least the last ten years. Actually much more than that, but I used to be able to laugh it off - especially in Hero System I used to get at least one player who would just ignore all of the campaign limits on character creation, and then act totally confused when I wouldn't let them play their character.


Switching subjects on you, did you consider any better definitions of "focused" RPGs? TheForge (caveat - Edwards & Co tends to extremes) defined it as "the design facilitates a specific, identifiable Premise (or area of Exploration)" but I'm not sure that's what you were going for.
Again, perhaps there's a better term I could have used, I just don't know what it is. IMO: 1e was a collection of rules, some of which where contradictory (at least by modern assumptions), whereas 3.x and 4e where designed as systems. 1e encouraged players and DM to ask ''how do we do this'', and there might be a rule for it if you looked; 3.x and 4e say ''here's how you do this''. As a result, I find, 1e made the fictional reality of the game (setting, etc.) much more important, because if the answer was readily apparent then there was no need to look further. 3.x / 4e by comparison encourage players always to turn to the rules. (To the point that some players will balk at being allowed to do something just because it's a completely reasonable thing for their characters to accomplish - they want to apply the rules and assume that handwaving anything is some kind of a trap.)

"God-Player" is only true in 3.P (as far as modern systems go). You could make "God-Players" in earlier games (oWoD, GURPS) which would only be limited by aggressive DMs using the "Force Majeur" rules included in all those games. In D&D4 it certainly isn't true, and I don't know of any other modern game where this is true.
I'm not sure what you mean by ''God-player'' in this case (perhaps ''God-character''?), but what I meant was the player who takes over the game as a player. It's a social thing - get the rest of the players acceding to your authority, and then just start telling everyone what to do. The DM's authority tends to wilt in the face of even two or three united players, get all of them going the same way and there's not much you can do short of just not running the game.

I'm thinking this may be more common or more pronounced when the player can turn everything into an argument of ''play balance'', which seems to happen a lot with 3.x and 4e. I'm not really sure, but that argument (as mentioned above) has become something of a personal hobgoblin for me. It's really hard (if not impossible) to have a meaningful discussion about the game and what we want to / are going to do with it when the player simply responds to everything I say with an argument of how ''that's totally not OP''.

Also: The modern rules paradigm has more to do with creating rules that define the world than empowering Players. The older paradigm left most of the game rules to be broadly adjudicated with the DM either by design or omission. This meant Players never really knew what their characters were capable of, and had to rely on the mercy of the DM to do most anything in a game. The modern paradigm has fewer gaps that need to be filled by DMs as a matter of course, and as a result people have moved towards "we are playing D&D" instead of "we are playing Jim's D&D."
OK, this is interesting and I'll have to give it some more thought, but right off the top of my head:

Yes, I totally saw ''my D&D'' fall apart once the original (extended) group drifted apart and I started getting more and more players who hadn't learned to play with us. It's one of the reasons that I never really got into 2e at all. In our group, I don't think that not knowing what your PC was capable of trying was an issue... And I am possibly something of an anomaly (but I'd think not by much), but ''adjudicated by the DM'' didn't really end up equating to ''at the DM's mercy'' in my games, at least in my eyes.

The last few posts have struck me with an idea. The defining idea of what differentiates many RPGs is the idea of the GM. Earlier games had an unfocused idea of what exactly a GM was. You have world design, rules arbiter, storyteller and many other roles being taken up, but the games themselves only gave you a general idea of what the GM was supposed to be doing.

With other gaming systems coming out, and a refocusing of what makes a GM you have profound changes to the approach to the games. The modern games that I'm aware of tend to have a more defined, more focused look at what the GM is supposed to do. You have modern gaming advice like "Say yes or roll the dice" or the Monarda Law that turns many old gaming paradigms on their head. Where you have gaming systems that open up the mechanics of the setting and the plotlines to players, and encourage the GM to focus on providing conflict to the elements that the players introduce.
That makes sense, perhaps it would be better or more appropriate to look at the role of the DM specifically as opposed to the system in general when I say ''focused vs. unfocused''. I've always, personally, been more about world-building than anything else, I guess. I tend to get a bit hand-wavey with the rules, and I'm honestly a bit of a push-over. It has just always seemed to me that (even in modern games) the DM has enough power to simply stomp the PCs flat if that was the intention, so there's not much point in making more than a token effort at challenging the PCs. (Honestly in quite a lot of games I've run / played in, and a lot of the more fun ones, the players where much more of a threat to the PCs' safety than the GM ever was.)

To go back to your initial premise, it's ideas like these that have me more interested in the more modern focused game design. Though it helps that by increasing player agency, you also increase their investment in the game as a whole.
With 3.x / 4e I'm not seeing that much more meaningful player agency, really. And I'm definitely not seeing more investment in the world as a whole - if anything I'm seeing players who just don't care about anything that's not on their character sheets and resent any attempt to involve them in the game beyond that.

Also, on your comment about newer editions having more safety features, that seems to be more of a necessity in the current marketplace. Bad GMing can turn off potential new gamers faster than almost any other gaming issue. With the implosion of the RPG market and the heavy competition from CRPGs, it makes sense to put in a safety net to empower players to preserve their enjoyment of the game.
That makes a bit of sense, except I don't actually believe that those safety features work. You have airbags that go off when you make a controlled turn, but won't actually protect you in a crash. I've seen the players get totally hosed in 3.x and in 4e, both intentionally (well, I think so anyway) and not. The negative impact is probably less direct - I don't think players are reading these rules and thinking ''Hey, I can trust the DM to run the game, because I'm protected!'', but it seems to be rather ''Hey, I need these rules because the DM is out to get me!'' And so they end up spending their energy not doing cool stuff or adding to the game, but double-checking everything, keeping secrets, and maneuvering for advantage...

Tyndmyr
2011-12-07, 08:58 AM
Well, intentional or not, the players do end up building the world, or at least the parts that matter. I've basically not found any group that has been willing to sit through any kind of story-telling that does not directly focus on the PCs. The PCs define the focus of the game, what they do and what happens around them are all that really matter - anything that you can't bring into that radius (one way or another) just doesn't actually count for anything.

My specific complaint is with this: I ask the players what they want to play, they shrug. I ask them what kinds of characters they'd like to play, they say they can play anything. I try to set up a meeting to discuss possibilities, no-one is interested. I email out a few possible campaigns I can develop, get no response. I set up a session for character creation, no-one attends.

OK, fine, I develop the campaign by myself, send out what info they need to make characters. I need to develop the campaign to some level in order to actually have the kind of impact I want on the game. Setting that world in motion and seeing what the PCs do with / to it is what I enjoy about DMing.

Only when we are ''actually playing'' does anyone bother to participate - and a that point at least half of them have fully-developed characters that they are absolutely committed to playing, most of which will have ignored the campaign I've developed in some way. And the players will demand to be allowed to play the characters they've played - that's their privilege, as defined by the rules. If the setting would rule out one or more options they want, well that's ''cheating'', sometimes this goes so far as to include supplements and third-party rules.

Well, to some degree, this can be mitigated by having them create chars first, and then building/picking a campaign based on that. This might be of some help.

However, I don't think that not allowing third party rules can reasonably be described as "cheating". I feel like if this comes up, I will scribble on a napkin "New rule: Any char made by player (player name) will spontaneously explode", and point out that, in the interest of not cheating, we will both use our third party rules.

kaomera
2011-12-07, 09:57 PM
Well, to some degree, this can be mitigated by having them create chars first, and then building/picking a campaign based on that. This might be of some help.
lol, yes, that's what I was trying to do, actually. Unfortunately the players in question just didn't take that idea seriously, it's ''not the way it's done''. I'll admit that I should be more picky about who I game with, but I really don't enjoy the work of putting together a group much at all, and I want to game with my friends, and I'm kinda lazy... But I just figured it ought to be one or the other; either they tell me what they want to play and I build a setting / campaign to that, or else they build their characters so that they fit in the setting / campaign that I come up with.

However, I don't think that not allowing third party rules can reasonably be described as "cheating". I feel like if this comes up, I will scribble on a napkin "New rule: Any char made by player (player name) will spontaneously explode", and point out that, in the interest of not cheating, we will both use our third party rules.
Good idea. :smallwink: It's an extreme example, and it's only happened a few times, but some players do think that they should be able to use anything that's been published. For that matter, if that's what they like, they probably should - I'd just prefer it was in some other DM's game that was more amenable to that sort of thing...

I'm going to a local D&D meetup group tomorrow night - it's just a meet and greet to see who's around locally. I actually don't have a lot of great expectations, as there's already been a bit of edition-wars sniping between the players before we've even met. But I'm going to give it a go and see what happens.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-12-08, 09:14 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by ''God-player'' in this case (perhaps ''God-character''?), but what I meant was the player who takes over the game as a player. It's a social thing - get the rest of the players acceding to your authority, and then just start telling everyone what to do. The DM's authority tends to wilt in the face of even two or three united players, get all of them going the same way and there's not much you can do short of just not running the game.
Ah.

That is a classic Player's Revolt -- common across all systems. If enough of your Players have a problem with how you're running the game, then you've lost control of the game. This can be a good thing, because it gets you to re-examine your DMing style. If you didn't see it so much with older games then it is probably because the Players, without defined rules to appeal to, instead left the game rather than get into a shouting match.


Yes, I totally saw ''my D&D'' fall apart once the original (extended) group drifted apart and I started getting more and more players who hadn't learned to play with us. It's one of the reasons that I never really got into 2e at all. In our group, I don't think that not knowing what your PC was capable of trying was an issue... And I am possibly something of an anomaly (but I'd think not by much), but ''adjudicated by the DM'' didn't really end up equating to ''at the DM's mercy'' in my games, at least in my eyes.
They both mean the same thing; they're just framed differently.
In AD&D when your character wanted to cross a rickety bridge, you made a Dex Check. Aside from the fact that your LV 10 Master Thief and your LV 1 Apprentice Thief had the exact same chance of passing this check (if they had the same Dex) the actual results of failing that check were entirely up to the DM. He had little external guidance as to whether failing this check would cause you to plummet to your death or hang onto the edge or even just stumble before moving on -- so he had to decide it all himself.

Without anything to rely on he had to make a human decision, and humans are affected by stories and charm. Perhaps the charismatic Player could convince you that his stalwart Ranger could surely grab onto the edge and haul himself back up no problem while a duller Player with the same character might have never thought to make that appeal and plummeted to his death. Or perhaps you were feeling merciful and never even asked anyone to make that check in the first place and that means the Full Plate Fighter moves like a tightrope walker across a creaking bridge that day -- and then falls to his death the next session when he fails the next Dex Check you ask for.

In modern RPGs, when PCs approach a bridge they don't have to ask themselves how their DM is feeling that day before figuring whether they can make it across; they consult the rules. They can figure out, ex ante, how likely their character is to succeed at the task and even the likely results of failure. Sure, the DM can still decide to screw them over afterwards but that is the exception and not the rule.
Tl;dr -- every time the DM must make a decision without the benefit of rules, he is relying on his personal judgment which is always affected by the human condition. This makes the Players' ability to influence the DM more important than the PCs' actual stated abilities. Rules reduce the influence of human adjudication on tasks that don't need them -- climbing walls or crossing bridges -- which give the Players a better ability to judge what their characters can do and what sort of risks they're capable of taking.

navar100
2011-12-08, 09:50 AM
Ah.

That is a classic Player's Revolt -- common across all systems. If enough of your Players have a problem with how you're running the game, then you've lost control of the game. This can be a good thing, because it gets you to re-examine your DMing style. If you didn't see it so much with older games then it is probably because the Players, without defined rules to appeal to, instead left the game rather than get into a shouting match.


They both mean the same thing; they're just framed differently.
In AD&D when your character wanted to cross a rickety bridge, you made a Dex Check. Aside from the fact that your LV 10 Master Thief and your LV 1 Apprentice Thief had the exact same chance of passing this check (if they had the same Dex) the actual results of failing that check were entirely up to the DM. He had little external guidance as to whether failing this check would cause you to plummet to your death or hang onto the edge or even just stumble before moving on -- so he had to decide it all himself.

Without anything to rely on he had to make a human decision, and humans are affected by stories and charm. Perhaps the charismatic Player could convince you that his stalwart Ranger could surely grab onto the edge and haul himself back up no problem while a duller Player with the same character might have never thought to make that appeal and plummeted to his death. Or perhaps you were feeling merciful and never even asked anyone to make that check in the first place and that means the Full Plate Fighter moves like a tightrope walker across a creaking bridge that day -- and then falls to his death the next session when he fails the next Dex Check you ask for.

In modern RPGs, when PCs approach a bridge they don't have to ask themselves how their DM is feeling that day before figuring whether they can make it across; they consult the rules. They can figure out, ex ante, how likely their character is to succeed at the task and even the likely results of failure. Sure, the DM can still decide to screw them over afterwards but that is the exception and not the rule.
Tl;dr -- every time the DM must make a decision without the benefit of rules, he is relying on his personal judgment which is always affected by the human condition. This makes the Players' ability to influence the DM more important than the PCs' actual stated abilities. Rules reduce the influence of human adjudication on tasks that don't need them -- climbing walls or crossing bridges -- which give the Players a better ability to judge what their characters can do and what sort of risks they're capable of taking.

Aha! The other aspect of changing the DM role from Il Duce to everyone have fun facilitator. In early D&D the DM had to decide results on his whim. Later D&D the rules have referential guidelines so players can make informed decisions. The DM doesn't need to decide everything anymore.

kaomera
2011-12-08, 09:17 PM
That is a classic Player's Revolt -- common across all systems. If enough of your Players have a problem with how you're running the game, then you've lost control of the game. This can be a good thing, because it gets you to re-examine your DMing style. If you didn't see it so much with older games then it is probably because the Players, without defined rules to appeal to, instead left the game rather than get into a shouting match.
That's not actually what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the player who will try to step in and over-ride other players' actions, the DM's descriptions of results, the rules, whatever. It happens, and it gets accepted (when it does) for the same reason that players would accept a ''God-DM''. Examples I've run into include "I know how this game works better than you do, so you should do what I say or we're all going to die", "I know the rules and that's not how it works, here let me show you...", and "That's not how it should work / how I thought it would work, so you have to let me go back and change all of my actions". Mind you, those are the only three examples I have (that where more than one-off occurrences), and I didn't actually put up with any of them once they became obvious (once as a DM, twice as a player).

They both mean the same thing; they're just framed differently.
Well, I never allowed or rolled an ability check in 1e (well, maybe once or twice while fooling with UA and/or the Survival Guides before deciding I didn't enjoy them). If there was a rickety bridge the players might need to cross, and there needed to be some chance that something ''bad'' happened, it would be either a simple die roll or a saving throw. If the player wanted to cross, he was entirely welcome to ask how risky it would be (both in terms of chance of success / failure and the general consequences) and I would happily tell him.

Yes, the players' ability to influence me and/or each other mattered, a lot. D&D is a social game, this hasn't changed through the editions. The ''God-players'' I described above happen because the player in question can convince the rest of the group to go along with it. In my 1e games players could and did over-ride the rules by coming up with an idea they could convince me is cool (or convince me that they think it's cool enough that I can't say ''no'' without actually ruining their fun), and this still happens (only much more rarely despite the fact that I now explicitly ask them to do this) in 3.x and 4e.

In the bridge example above, the players might decide that the halfling thief should be able to get across without any chance of falling off (since he's light enough not to break rickety slats and nimble enough otherwise) and thereafter rig up a system of ropes to get the rest of the party across safely. I let them do this both because it's something I probably would have included in my spot-rule if I had taken a full page or more to write it up (instead of just scrawling ''bridge 1d6 fall in river to area 29E'' on the map), and because that's what playing the game is all about, much more than rolling dice.

OK, this is a bit flippant, but it's basically how I feel: You should only roll the dice when you don't care what the outcome is going to be, because they aren't an active participant in the cooperative aspect of the game; and because since they never chip in for pizza no-one really cares how the dice feel about that. Ideally you should never care about the outcome of the sort of stuff that dice get called on to adjudicate, any outcome should lead to something cool happening. But, in practice, that's just not the case. I'm sure I err too much on the side of not falling back on sheer random chance, but I'm just not comfortable / not having fun when everyone at the table is staring at a bad result and wondering ''Wow, so what do we do now?''

Oracle_Hunter
2011-12-08, 11:21 PM
That's not actually what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the player who will try to step in and over-ride other players' actions, the DM's descriptions of results, the rules, whatever. It happens, and it gets accepted (when it does) for the same reason that players would accept a ''God-DM''. Examples I've run into include "I know how this game works better than you do, so you should do what I say or we're all going to die", "I know the rules and that's not how it works, here let me show you...", and "That's not how it should work / how I thought it would work, so you have to let me go back and change all of my actions". Mind you, those are the only three examples I have (that where more than one-off occurrences), and I didn't actually put up with any of them once they became obvious (once as a DM, twice as a player).
...no, that's still a Player Revolt. If one or more Players is taking over the running of the game and the other people let them, it is a Revolt. Note that the DM has to let this sort of thing happen too -- Players argue about the rules in every edition but most will stand down if the DM tells them to.

Anyhoo, that may happen more in games where there are more rules (written rules are a powerful rhetorical device) but the core conceit is the same. Additionally, rules that define the game should overrule DM whims as they set the default for Player expectations. A game where the DM rarely follows the rules is hardly a game at all.

As to the rest: a pure difference of opinion, I suppose. I always have the Players roll dice when it matters, not when it doesn't. It matters whether the PCs hit a goblin or not and it isn't something DMs should determine in D&D. As a rule, I don't write adventures where things that should be determined by dice rolls cannot be for the story to continue -- IMHO it's poor craft to have the PCs fight a BBEG who needs to escape at the end of Act 1 for there to be a story.

Dimers
2011-12-09, 01:14 AM
So you'd think that a more focused design approach would be better than this unfocused style. There are certain differences based on the time-frame of these releases (obviously), but even beyond that I've found that one is not simply superior to the other.

So (finally) my question: Is this correct, or am I overlooking something? And why should this be, anyway?

Point 1: A game that achieves its design focus satisfies a subset of players who consider that aspect of a game to be The Most Important Thing. There are many goals desired by gamers, and many people who don't consider anything The Most Important Thing. So succeeding in design focus is going to be vital only for a very small percentage of possible players.

Point 2: Until game design is so close to perfect that it's beyond the imagination of the imperfect humans who are currently performing it, success in one area precludes success in others. GURPS has such a huge variety of optional rules that it could serve basically any genre and playstyle with aplomb -- but it requires a huge investment of time, training, thought and supplement-purchasing money to get there. You can't have one system that's easy to apply, versatile, cheap, intuitive, easy to write adventures for, realistic, heroic, funny, serious, full of good writing, full of good art, etc etc etc all at the same time. That means a game that succeeds in its focus can't be significantly better than one that doesn't even have a focus.

Point 3: Interactions with people have always proven way more important to a game's enjoyment than the game's design has. And so -- except insofar as game design makes for quote-unquote "better" interaction between the participants -- a focused or unfocused methodology is irrelevant to the ultimate value of a game.

Point 4: Sometimes the intended focus sucks. See also: FATAL.

I'd say that there's no question 4e is a better-designed game than 1e, thanks in part to its focus (and thanks in larger part to its budget, upkeep and corporate infrastructure). But that doesn't make it a better game. Only a group of actual players can do that, and only relatively, not absolutely.

Edited to add: This is a great topic, Kaomera. Thanks for kicking off a discussion.

Jayabalard
2011-12-09, 01:16 PM
1. 1E was human centric as all most all fiction up that point was human centric. Take the overly classic LotR, human centric. Connan, human centric. Barssom, human centric. Even Star Wars for that matter is human centric. So at the time human centric was the popular way to go. You did not see very much non-human heroes. The idea was more that humans wanted to play a game about humans.Barsoom was kind of Martian centric, not human centric...

LoTR - of the fellowship, only 1 vanilla human (you also have a Maia, and a Númenórean with elven blood in his lineage). The hero is a non-human. I'd say that isn't really human centric, though the world is on the way to becoming human centric (with the departure of the elves, leaving the world to men). Star wars was human centric for budget reasons. It wasn't human centric because humans are actually better than aliens, so it, and LOTR for that matter, are not analogous to D&D's human-centric-ness


4. 1E was not a massive book selling machine, where the company put out a 'must have book' every couple of weeks to try to make more and more money. Nothing like 3e/4e.....That's a bit exaggerated.