PDA

View Full Version : Should everyone in the game follow the same rules?



Morithias
2013-10-31, 09:59 PM
The thread talking about the "hardest games" in the gaming section got me to thinking...

Almost every old "Hard" game, is hard for basically one simple reason.

The enemies are almost never placed on the same level as the player. They follow different rules.

The player is a one hit point wonder? Enjoy enemies that have 30 hp.

The player can only jump once? Enjoy enemies that can jump twice.

And the thing is, you rarely ever get the ability to get those powers later on.

Thinking back to extra credits, and their episodes on hard games, they make one thing clear that made a certain game (I think it was Dark Souls) a truly 'hard' game. Namely that every single character in the game world, followed the exact same engine and rules.

So if one is trying to design a 'hard' campaign. How much should the DM be allowed to bend the rules, give homebrew feats that the players can't have, and so on in order to make it hard? When does giving enemy exclusive equipment cross the line from "hard" to "Cheap"? And so on.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-10-31, 10:17 PM
It doesn't seem so odd when you consider that in boardgames where you play against the board (like Pandemic or whatnot), the opposition doesn't play according to player rules either. They use 100% different mechanics.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-31, 10:22 PM
I really like the idea It's the simulationist in me I guess. Thematically an narratively, heroes are often be able to mow down minions, mooks, and redshirts without breaking a sweat, and many more narrative games give support to it but . . .
I just like the idea of NPC/PC transparency. Not to say I would simply hand the abilities to the players on silver platter, no, they have to earn them, but I really like the idea that everyone is playing in the same world, by the same rules.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-10-31, 10:59 PM
Well, it depends what you count as "the same rules." Several enemies in dark souls can fly, but the player can't. Is that cheating? What about bosses that get huge area attacks you'll never have?

Personally, the games that really infuriate me are the ones where the player isn't actually made aware of the challenge they're actually expected to perform. So you try what's apparently the smart thing to do, only to get gotcha'd at the last second. Crap like this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1084), basically.

The real problem is lack of communication, whether accidental or deliberate: If the DM hands me a button that says "Push button to receive candy!", and pushing the button actually disintegrates me, that's just being a sadistic jerk and any DM who does this too often will lose my trust. And when trust is gone the whole game disintegrates.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-31, 11:47 PM
As an ardent follower of the Tao of Shamus Young, I agree. I hate when a game becomes a game of 'Guess is the GM/Game Designer is thinking'? as opposed to something that can potentially be solved multiple ways with the tools at hand. It's bad enough with a computer, who can't adapt like a live DM, but if you *are* a live DM, what the freak?
On the subject of cheating, things fly. If it's part of their nature, I can accept that. If they flew by obviously non-innate magical means that you can not loot or learn, I'd be rather less tolerant. If there was flying creatures but no ranged weapons, I'd be less tolerant still. On boss attacks, if it was part of their nature, I'd be OK with it. If it was an otherwise ordinary spell, that's when I feel it is 'cheating'.

KillianHawkeye
2013-11-01, 06:59 AM
I think it's fine for antagonists and NPCs to have different resources than what is available to the players. That's life sometimes. However, they should not be capable of blatantly impossible things without a really good explanation. In order to maintain versimilitude, non-players and players must suffer from most of the same constraints.

Frozen_Feet
2013-11-01, 07:09 AM
Depends on the system. In, say, D&D 3.X, it is trivially easy for a GM to build pretty damn challenging campaign using only the same resources as those available to players, especially if the GM is better at optimising than them.

This is one of the few things d20 games are pretty near ideal for. Very few game systems actually follow PC - NPC symmetry, because it increases GM workload massively.

Though I'll note it's not that hard in a lot of retroclones, like, say, Lamentations of the Flame Princess. A typical monster will only have half the stats of a player character, but it's easy to keep those stats they do have (HD, AB, AC, saving throws) within the same range as the PCs.

DigoDragon
2013-11-01, 07:36 AM
Personally I like to try and follow the rules (even house rules) when building NPCs. I can still be crazy creative and often I'll come up with outside-the-box builds for a challenging encounter.

erikun
2013-11-01, 08:43 AM
I'm not sure. The primary benefit of having PCs and NPCs run off the same system (in the case of a pen-and-paper RPG) is allowing components to be interchangable between the two. For example, a PC could pick up and use a NPC weapon, or they could both participate in a challenge of the same skill. However, I don't really see much benefit beyond that. Fairness is certainly not a factor one way or another - you could place 1 PC against 100 NPCs, and it would still be considered "fair" by that definition.

Just take a look at one of the most popular old-school "hard" modules: Tomb of Horrors. It is considered extremely difficult, unfair, and nearly impossible to get through. But absolutely none of that unfairness has anything to do with any PC-NPC difference. A goblin sticking its head inside a disintegration-trap would have the same results as a PC doing the same thing. The unfairness is from a completely different variable.

I'm wondering where you are getting your examples from, as well. What game gives the player character 1 HP and all enemies ~30 HP? What game limits the character to a single jump while the enemies double-jump? Heck, in the case of video games, you frequently see the exact opposite: the hero gets a ton of unique abilities that the enemies don't get, but still faces a challenge because there are lots of enemies sometimes fortified in that need to be defeated.

skyth
2013-11-01, 08:57 AM
One thing that sticks in my mind that upset me is a DM I had for 2nd edition D&D...He had a cleric cast a spell that took a full round to cast plus made multiple melee attacks...Something that a PC would never be able to do.

lytokk
2013-11-01, 09:24 AM
I think if its a rule for the players, its a rule for the NPCs, and vice versa. For example, one of my players was killed by a vorpal weapon (actually lead to a tpk). After that we ruled that vorpal weapons no longer existed. The players felt that giving up their ability to have them was worth enemies no longer having them.

Acatalepsy
2013-11-01, 09:41 AM
I'd also add that "difficulty" in tabletop/PbP games is often entirely different from video game difficulty. Players often expect to die, and sometimes they expect to die fairly frequently. Players usually know where to go next, and those playing on the hardest difficulties have usually gone through the game at least once on a lower setting. The scope of things to go wrong is very limited by the fact that it's a computer game; the enemies might use different mechanics or abilities, but they use expected mechanics or abilities. And if the player is surprised, so what? They go back one save and try again.

What I think you're getting at is whether or not the DM can surprise the players by going outside of the system. And the answer to that is "no", with the caveat that what "the system" is depends on the philosophy of the DM and players. Homebrew abilities, spells, etc - could very easily be 'within the system' because the PCs aren't guaranteed to know every spell or ability that could possibly be cast ever, and the most powerful and important things are those that break common assumptions. New abilities and spells, new mechanics, etc, are thus fair game, as long as the DM and players agree on this expectation. If this expectation isn't communicated, or the players feel like they should have a strong grasp of what is and isn't possible, then we're back to square one - don't.

In general you shouldn't break fundamental mechanical assumptions (like action economy, or HP/saves) lightly, and if you do, it should be communicated unambiguously that something very important is going on (like a cleric pouring out power from their hands as they are filled with dark energy that lets them cast spells at insane speeds, or the ninja that has a constant ethereal sheen, letting him evade attacks that no one could have dodged).

Syrinth
2013-11-01, 09:49 AM
Personally for me, everything follows the same rules. The playing fields aren't necessarily the same, NPCs may have access to more gold at a lower level depending on circumstances for example. There is no spell, item, or feat that an enemy can use that the party couldn't in theory get.

Jay R
2013-11-01, 11:03 AM
Assume the PCs are a wizard, fighter, thief, cleric, and druid.

Unless you've decided that every single foe they ever face will also be a wizard, fighter, thief, cleric, and druid, with the same spells, weapons, skills, stats, levels, and feats, then you've already decided that one side has powers the other side doesn't have.

The pixies can hide; the ghouls have three attacks; the hippogriffs can fly; the dragons have breath weapons; the giants can throw huge rocks.

And the PCs have their own unique mix of powers and abilities.

Not only is having the same powers available to both sides not desirable, it's not even possible.

supermonkeyjoe
2013-11-01, 12:03 PM
I personally never create enemies that can do anything that the PCs couldn't ever do, In some cases it might not be feasible during play for the PCs to acquire if the Lich has spent millennia crafting and collecting items and spells that let him have a giant undead army then there's nothing to stop a player doing the same, except that he isn't a Lich and doesn't have millennia to work with. He could steal most of the Liches items after they've beaten him and maybe reverse-magic some of the spells.

Good DMing is sometimes said to have the ability to say "Yes, but..." instead of "No" and I think that applies here too.

Acatalepsy
2013-11-01, 12:11 PM
I personally never create enemies that can do anything that the PCs couldn't ever do, In some cases it might not be feasible during play for the PCs to acquire if the Lich has spent millennia crafting and collecting items and spells that let him have a giant undead army then there's nothing to stop a player doing the same, except that he isn't a Lich and doesn't have millennia to work with. He could steal most of the Liches items after they've beaten him and maybe reverse-magic some of the spells.

How exactly is that different from "no, you can't"?

Like, if the qualifier for "enemies that can do what the PCs can't" means "enemies that can do what the PCs can't even if the PC had infinite time, money and XP" - then it seems pretty trivial. As a player, I wouldn't care; the things that I would care about are whether or not I could conceivably know about, anticipate, or understand what the enemy is doing within the scope of the game, not whether or not there's some method (beyond the scope of the game I'm actually playing) in which it is RAW possible to duplicate the enemy's actions.

(Additional note: Doesn't this automatically make all E6 campaigns 'unfair' if they contain, 4th level spells, or indeed any enemy with abilities that the players can't get because they're limited to 6th level?)

Arbane
2013-11-01, 02:23 PM
I'm wondering where you are getting your examples from, as well. What game gives the player character 1 HP and all enemies ~30 HP?

Pretty much any Bullet Hell shooter game, the Metal Slug platformers, and probably others. (Not ALL enemies, mind you, but quite a few, and all bosses.)
Also, some of the Devil May Cry games on Ultra-hard mode.

Vitruviansquid
2013-11-01, 02:48 PM
"Hard" is easy to do. Give the players a goal and make it unlikely or time consuming for them to reach it.

I think what Dark Souls has that other "hard" games do not have is that Dark Souls is both "hard" and *fair*. Make no mistake, though, the enemies do NOT follow the same rules as the players in Dark Souls - skeletons can regenerate after being killed, a lot of monsters cannot be backstabbed, and so on. However, players have a good chance at figuring out how enemies break the rules just by looking at them or during a fight before they lose.

Dark Souls's fairness is what its difficulty engaging. If the game was just hard without being fair, it would merely be frustrating. Because it is also fair, Dark Souls rewards players for thinking and reflecting.

To achieve hardness in a game, all you need to do is raise the numbers for opponents - enemies who are balanced to have 30 hp get 40 hp, and such. It's not very interesting. To achieve fairness, you need to give players a fighting chance at figuring out how to solve your encounters before they are over. To achieve hardness and fairness, you need to give players a fighting chance at figuring out how to solve your encounters before they are over, and also make your encounters complicated enough that solving them is difficult.

RochtheCrusher
2013-11-01, 06:42 PM
Personally, I'm all for the players and the DM playing by different rules. In 4e, the monster and NPC statblocks are nowhere near as complicated as the PC character sheets, which is great for me... I simply do not have time to deal with the same level of detail that my PCs do (especially since I often aid them in building their characters), and my Orc does not need a Thievery score, nor the six feats which justify his attack bonus. He just needs combat stats, mostly.

However, it's important that the world feels like it's playing by the same rules. Telling players that they can't ressurect the dead, but their enemies can, will not fly. Neither will having the villain get guaranteed monologue time (enforced by DM fiat and nothing else) or giving random mooks absurd amounts of knowledge about this party they've never seen.

Interestingly, much of D&D is heavily biased in favor of the players, actual rules-wise. Social mechanics, for one, do not work on them... they can Diplomacy a price cut out of the merchant, but he never gets the option to respond with, "Oh for pity's sake, sirs... I have five children with hungry bellies! I am sorry, I simply cannot go any lower..." at least not mechanically.

jedipotter
2013-11-01, 07:14 PM
Of course the knee jerk reaction is for everyone to say that ''everyone must follow the same rules''. But that is just Hollywood Brainwashing.

Here is the trick: you always want the game to be fun and exciting and interesting for the players and the DM. And you can't always do that in the rules.

Though 99% of the things mentioned so far are ''following the rules''. A dragon can fly and breathe fire, a human can walk and use a weapon. Both still use the same movement rules and both roll a to attack. Both are different, but use the same rules.

Morithias
2013-11-01, 08:02 PM
Though 99% of the things mentioned so far are ''following the rules''. A dragon can fly and breathe fire, a human can walk and use a weapon. Both still use the same movement rules and both roll a to attack. Both are different, but use the same rules.

And if the PC uses the Dragon monster classes, they can fly and breathe fire too. Exactly.

Basically nothing should be beyond the PCs reach. If the Big bad has some kind of special level 6 spell, when the PCs get level 6 spells, they should be able to get it too.

Basically no "Plot Powers", that are breaking the engine.

Jay R
2013-11-01, 09:41 PM
It's a meaningless restriction. If the DM wants to arrange unfair encounters, he can easily do so with characters who have the same abilities available to the PCs. If he wishes to arrange fair, challenging encounters, he can do so with monsters whose abilities are not achievable by the PCs.

So there is nothing to be gained by adding that restriction - and a great deal to be lost in the areas of mystery and facing the unknown and unknowable.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-01, 09:59 PM
It's a meaningless restriction. If the DM wants to arrange unfair encounters, he can easily do so with characters who have the same abilities available to the PCs. If he wishes to arrange fair, challenging encounters, he can do so with monsters whose abilities are not achievable by the PCs.

So there is nothing to be gained by adding that restriction - and a great deal to be lost in the areas of mystery and facing the unknown and unknowable.
I think we have a disagreement on what is meant by 'fair'.

jedipotter
2013-11-01, 10:17 PM
Basically nothing should be beyond the PCs reach. If the Big bad has some kind of special level 6 spell, when the PCs get level 6 spells, they should be able to get it too.Basically no "Plot Powers", that are breaking the engine.

I don't agree with this. The game does not need to be some fantasy dream of equality. There is not reason the Dragon Lords of Valtti can't have special, unique spells the players can never have. Or the elves of the Dark Wood have special arrows. Or a fighter has a unique magic sword.

Morithias
2013-11-01, 10:22 PM
I don't agree with this. The game does not need to be some fantasy dream of equality. There is not reason the Dragon Lords of Valtti can't have special, unique spells the players can never have. Or the elves of the Dark Wood have special arrows. Or a fighter has a unique magic sword.

Okay but what happens when the PCs kills the elves of the Dark wood and steal their arrows. Do they just magically not work or something?

jindra34
2013-11-01, 10:27 PM
Okay but what happens when the PCs kills the elves of the Dark wood and steal their arrows. Do they just magically not work or something?

Depends on why/how the arrows are special. If its because they are made from branches of trees that the elves are bonded to, then yes they stop working. If its because of the methods and resources used, then no.

Playing by different rules and standards is fine, so long as there exists an IN WORLD reason for the differences.

Morithias
2013-11-01, 10:35 PM
Depends on why/how the arrows are special. If its because they are made from branches of trees that the elves are bonded to, then yes they stop working. If its because of the methods and resources used, then no.

Playing by different rules and standards is fine, so long as there exists an IN WORLD reason for the differences.

Could the PCs create and breed a tree with similar quantities? Except it only works for them?

Tengu_temp
2013-11-01, 11:08 PM
I am okay with different characters using different rules. NPCs often don't need the same stat block as PCs, and can operate by different rules because their role in the game is different. DND 4e was mentioned already, but there's also a lot of games where minions use different rules than PCs and major NPCs (Exalted, Mutants and Masterminds, Legend of the Wulin) and games where players have access to some kind of resource NPCs don't (fate points in WFRP, action points in DND, hero points in M&M again).

As for the "anything the NPCs can do, PCs should be able to do too" rule, it depends. If an NPC is allowed to look behind the corner and fire safely with no chance of getting hit back, a PC should be allowed to do that too. But just because NPCs can be dragons, or death knights, or use evil magic, doesn't mean that PCs should be allowed to do all this stuff as well. The "every ability NPCs use must be available to PCs" approach quickly strips the game of any feel of mystery.

Acatalepsy
2013-11-01, 11:09 PM
So there is nothing to be gained by adding that restriction - and a great deal to be lost in the areas of mystery and facing the unknown and unknowable.

I basically agree with this, only with the caveat that the mystery must come within the scope of the game in order to feel like mystery rather than the GM 'cheating'.

erikun
2013-11-02, 12:08 AM
I think we have a disagreement on what is meant by 'fair'.
I would refer to "fair" as "The challenge and scenario presented is of similar to the actual challenge."

I could easily create a scenario with entirely ab-lib numbers and stats designed to challenge PCs and give them an exciting experience. I wouldn't even need to "break any rule", including in D&D3e - simply loading the adventure with traps, DCs, and other things that don't have a PC statblock would give us a game where absolutely nothing followed the same rules that the players use.

Conversely, I could place the PCs against a CR appropriate wizard. A wizard who has already taken the time to Dominate the rulers of every kingdom, take treasure equivalent to part of the value of every town, and Planar Binding an army of Efreeti to their will. All such would be by the rules that the PCs play, all such would be things that the PCs could do themselves. However, presenting this NPC as an equal CR challenge would be incredibly unfair, because even if it is following the same construction rules as the PCs it is most certainly not the "one character of a matching level to the party" it appears to be.

As I said before, one good part about building NPCs like you do PCs is that stuff is interchangable between the two - the PCs can use the NPCs weapons, and vice versa, without difficulty. That's about the only benefit I see as well. "Fairness" doesn't come into play, either by using the same rules for PC design or not doing so.

jedipotter
2013-11-02, 12:14 AM
Okay but what happens when the PCs kills the elves of the Dark wood and steal their arrows. Do they just magically not work or something?

Yup. The arrows only work for the Dark Wood Elfs. To anyone else they are normal arrows.

It makes the world more unique to have unique things. The highland trolls do X, but no one else does or can. It makes them trolls unique.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-02, 12:27 AM
Yup. The arrows only work for the Dark Wood Elfs. To anyone else they are normal arrows.

It makes the world more unique to have unique things. The highland trolls do X, but no one else does or can. It makes them trolls unique.
What if a player decides to play an Elf from the Dark Woods?

Tengu_temp
2013-11-02, 12:30 AM
It's completely within the DM's rights not to make Elves of the Dark Wood a PC race.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-02, 12:39 AM
It's completely within the DM's rights not to make Elves of the Dark Wood a PC race.
Within their rights, yes, but within their responsibility?
That's another question.
Personally, I would consider "But I don't want players to play with this awesome toy I made for this race, even though they are otherwise a PC worthy race" to be a Bad Reason.

DeadMech
2013-11-02, 01:24 AM
There is nothing inherently wrong with asymmetrical gameplay. Plenty of games operate like that and they are fun.

Players having one hit point and enemies having dozens isn't really the best example though. They still die when they get hit too much. A better example is saying that players die when they take lethal damage and the badguy dies when the player solves the puzzle. For instance the lich in DnD. He doesn't really die until the players track down his soul hidey thing and deal with it along with the lich. Or say the old legends about vampires. Find the guy in his coffin, put a stake made of a certain wood through his heart with a grave diggers shovel, but make sure you only hit it once, then proceed to remove the head from the body, once you have done that light the body on fire, If anything crawls out of the coffin such as insects then throw them back into the fire they might be the vampire trying to use shape shifting magics to escape.... and such. Or maybe the sphinx is easiest to bypass by knowing the towels are what gets wetter as it dries.

The difficulty isn't so much that the rules are different but rather that suddenly the players have to know two sets of rules to play the game. And sometimes these rules get very very complicated. Other times the game fails to tell the players that there are two sets of rules. Those can make Asymmetry difficult.

Equipment is something that might be hard to give to enemies and not to players. Unless of course your game's enemies are ant men and don't use any form of equipment that a human could realistically make any use out of. Mandible attachments for weapons, armor sets made with holes for six limbs, ect. Or maybe the aliens sidearms have a bio sensor on the grip that causes the laser rifle to explode when an unrecognized being tries to fire it.

I think a reasonable player is willing to play a game where he doesn't get the shiny things that his enemies have. As long as it makes enough sense and doesn't break the game. Though your players may try to work around your limitations in a roleplaying setting.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-02, 01:45 AM
Oh, I agree that many games do this, and it can be a very good thing. A good example is minions.
Many games, from Mutants and Masterminds to Savage Worlds to Fourth Edition D&D have enemies that are explicitly designed to be easy to take down.
They can preform various functions, but mostly they are there so the players can have the joy of hacking through a sea of enemies or blowing them up with a single fireball, without having to give each little pud a full stat block. From a narrative perspective, they make sense, from a game play perspective they make sense, I just . . . don't like how much of a game they make it feel, instead of interacting with a world through the interface of the rules.

TheOOB
2013-11-02, 02:18 AM
This is a topic I've thought a lot about, and my opinion is as follows:

The opposition of the players should follow similar rules.

One of the biggest problems with D&D 3.5 IMO was that everyone followed the same rules. Enemies has classes, spells, feats, and skills just like players, and it was always obvious when the DM was trying to cheat the system. It also took way too long to design encounters, and it was really hard to balance(eg spells are balanced for a player because they have x number of spells to spread over y encounters, but NPC's typically only have 1 encounter for their x spells.)

One of the things I liked from 4e is that foes had more uniqueness in their abilities. That NPC wasn't a 4th level fighter with a weird feat that let him make you bleed, thats just what he did. No one questioned that a kobald could sling pots of glue, thats what they did. It allowed for more interesting and easy to balance monsters. Still they all followed a similar system of hit dice and hp and attack rolls, so you could reasonably try to adapt your tactics.

In 7th Sea, one of my favorite flawed masterpieces, Foes fall into three catagories, brutes who are weak and simple, henchmen who are like simplified and weaker heroes, heroes who play like the PC's(they are rare), and villians who actually have different rules(but similar) to the PC's. The rules were all similar, but they were different.

TheThan
2013-11-02, 02:36 AM
I’m kind of on the fence about this.
On one hand I don’t feel like I as a DM should be constrained to a set of rule the players are intimately familiar with (most DnD players). However I want to know and understand the rules of the universe I’m playing in and it irks me when I’m surprised by something that I don’t understand.

Let me give you an example.

During a DnD 3.5 game, we fought a powerful lizard man general that happened to be a formidable warrior. The party consisted of a sorcerer (me) a shape shift variant druid, a rogue and cleric. When we fought this guy we expected a “normal” battle against a powerful opponent.

However we got a battle that we weren’t expecting. This guy had the ability to “counter” spells and “counter hit” attacks. He had a limited number of charges per round that he could expend on these two abilities. However we couldn’t figure this out because these abilities were outside of the 3.5 rule set. I was searching for spells that bypassed magic resistance, because he was not being affected by my magic, so I figured he had a ton of magic resistance. The druid, our main melee couldn’t keep attacking him because of his and the cleric’s limited healing (the counter hits did damage).

We got around it by thinking a bit outside the box, the druid tackled him, while the rogue and the rest of us just beat him down while he was pinned down. We dog-piled him because we had no clue how this boss fight was supposed to go; we were supposed to whittle him down with little attacks and then make powerful attacks once he couldn’t counter us.

We couldn’t figure this out so we worked with what we had (ie not much). The Dm was a little miffed that we didn’t beat this guy using the tactics he wanted us to use (btw, we didn’t have the resources to keep up a battle of attrition.), and we were a bit miffed that the DM homebrewed this without warning us there would be homebrew or that he had something special planned for that encounter.

Jay R
2013-11-02, 09:50 AM
Personally, I would consider "But I don't want players to play with this awesome toy I made for this race, even though they are otherwise a PC worthy race" to be a Bad Reason.

Nobody suggested that as a reason. Why make up such a silly reason and imply that it's the only reason for disallowing something as a character race?

In my current game, the PCs had to grow up as humans in a human village. Two people asked for exceptions, and I allowed a half-orc and another half-race that the player doesn't even recognize yet.

There are no elves or dwarves in this world, undead are different from the books. None of this had anything to do with "I don't want players to play with this awesome toy". Why pretend somebody said something they didn't say?

The DM should provide challenging but fair encounters. I try to do this, and my players appear happy.

But I will not add an artificial restriction to how the challenges should be built that:
1. Takes away some possibilities.
2. Makes it nearly impossible to create an encounter they have to think through,
3. reduces the mystery and unknown quantities in what was supposed to be a fantasy world, and
4. adds no additional playability.

They can't use the bear's claws after they beat him. They can't use the dragon's breath after they beat him. Why add an arbitrary rule that they have to be able to use the dark elves' arrows after they beat them?

Besides, although it's a 2E game, each player has one Feat, which their foes will have no access to. Each PC has a unique ability. So do some of the monsters.

The introduction to my current game included the following:

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

The goal is for them to slowly learn about a mysterious world.

They have met my goblin race, and haven't yet figured out that they are bestial, low-willed, and easily led. When the goblins have no leaders, they have no decent tactics. Today they will face them as wolf-riders. Perhaps the players will notice that they use good tactics, hunting as a pack, because the actual leader of the wolf-riders is the alpha wolf - not the goblin chief.

jedipotter
2013-11-02, 11:50 AM
I’m kind of on the fence about this.
On one hand I don’t feel like I as a DM should be constrained to a set of rule the players are intimately familiar with (most DnD players). However I want to know and understand the rules of the universe I’m playing in and it irks me when I’m surprised by something that I don’t understand.


I've found the game to be much more fun with mystery. Once the players know ''foe #5 is using feat combo/spell 125'' the game becomes boring. The role-playing game becomes the worst sort of roll playing game.

And even when a DM uses the set rules, the players might not know the rule being used or even more so the variant like a spell/feat/item. And even the crazy roll players will admit it is ok for a DM to have a foe have a ''custom one of a kind unique item or spell or such''. But the players won't know about that. So when something happens like ''he cast a spell that turned the force effect in to glass'', they won't know about that spell or have the write up or anything.

But a Dm making up non standard stuff is a whole another thread. I remember Binica from many games ago who was ''so powerful'' that she could cast one spell with each of her hands....all four of them..at one time.

jindra34
2013-11-02, 01:29 PM
What if a player decides to play an Elf from the Dark Woods?

If they cared enough about the game world to get to the point where they know specific cultures/groups ahead of time? Probably, but there would be a penalty if it would unbalance the game. Like less experience or something for the first couple of levels.

TeddyKazooie
2013-11-02, 01:42 PM
I would have to agree with those who believe the rules of the game should be respected, but the PCs and NPCs don't absolutely have to be able to do the same things. Especially Jay R who made a compelling argument in the post above. I have some personal examples I feel make the case for me.

I played a tabletop game where the DM was hardcore for an idea that was like Water World except with a fantasy feel. It was played with D&D 3.5. Sadly we didn't get too far in the campaign. But from what we did experience the PCs were not allowed to play Gnomes.

Why not? Well, the DM had a unique idea. What if the Gnomes weren't just zealous tinkerers and talented illusionists? What if their innate power over altering reality drove them gradually insane? Until, like the Reavers in Firefly, they had become devious scourges of the open oceans.

I saw no reason not to restrict Gnomes in this way if the point was to create a menace in the campaign. Sure, it's a racial enemy, but that isn't any different from "Orcs and Goblins always want to kill and pillage!" It was unique and interesting even though we didn't get a chance to fight any Gnomes. They were a threat. A looming presence on the horizon. Is that a regular galleon or... or a cogship?

In a campaign I'm currently part of the DM is using Pathfinder and decided to run things with slow XP progression and the PCs start as Experts. Like a person previously she's running the game as 'You are villagers in a secluded village and must discover things'.

With the classes and race restricted we're going for a primarily narrative driven experience. There is some combat and skill usage, but mainly it's a mystery and a perilous journey. Since the enemy can shapeshift into people we know in the village we have to be incredibly cautious. Since the leaders of the village and our enemy are content to have the secret war we also can't trust our superiors. We have to take matters into our own hands!

Does the fact that I can't change my appearance to someone else's at a whim bother me? Not one bit. I do sort of hope we can become proper classes by level 2, but such would be a reward rather than a necessity. We would have had to show our roleplay chops to earn 'special' abilities. And for the sake of an interesting story I don't mind.

It isn't a role playing game example, but I think it's a good example of why restrictions can be fun. Ironman Challenges in video games and hardmodes are interesting. I myself managed to get pretty far on Pokemon Blue up til I made a huge mistake on where to go on the event railroad.

This feeds into the original question the OP asked. Challenge and sudden death can make the game more exciting. As long as the players are aware that things wont be fair and they agree to it it can create some memorable and interesting situations.

For an actual role playing game examples just take Paranoia or even Call of Cthulhu. The point of those games is to either have fun with unreasonable situations or to go inevitably insane. The fun is had at the expense of a character's life more often than not. I, like many others, enjoy the thrill of playing word games with the almighty computer or trying to use a fire axe against a shoggoth xD

Aside from the above PCs, normally, themselves have special abilities that set them apart unless by some strange stretch they're all playing the same class. A Fighter isn't going to be throwing fireballs, nor should he so the Wizard can feel special and the game can maintain some semblance of balance. So why should the NPCs have to fall into the 'anything you can do I can do better' category?

The wizard should be able to do things the Fighter can't and vice versa.

DMs often restrict players from using Savage Species and I entirely understand. Just because you can play a centaur in a mostly human campaign doesn't mean you should. Though I'd still love to try my hand at playing a Satyr.

Remmirath
2013-11-02, 03:01 PM
I do believe that everything in a game should basically run under the same rules. This doesn't mean that I think NPCs and enemies and such should never be able to do something that the PC in the party can't do. Not at all. It does mean I don't think that they should ever be able to do anything that no PC possibly could do. I believe that it should be possible or not possible for all involved for the same reasons.

For instance, an NPC mage who just happens to be able to teleport in a world where it's impossible for PCs at any level to do that -- with no explanation given -- would annoy me. I would certainly never do it. If that same NPC has a good reason for it, though (for instance, it's because of some item they have, some species they are, some other special power), then that's fine... and if the PCs should ever end up having the same power source, they should be able to do it also.

Really what I want is internal consistency in the world. I'll happily add all sorts of things that aren't in any rulebook -- particularly species, magical items, and spells -- but I won't restrict PCs from possibly having access to those things if it becomes reasonable for them to do so (as in, they kill some NPC and take something, one of them learns a new spell, what have you).

skyth
2013-11-02, 03:14 PM
I think the big sticking point is the internal consistancy. No one is arguing that a PC Fighter should be able to cast spells like the NPC Wizard or that they should be able shapechange just because an NPC doppleganger can.

They are arguing against things like in my example where simply for being an NPC, the enemy cleric could cast a spell that takes an entire round to cast plus attack twice in melee (In 2nd edition).

Or in 3.5 where a hasted enemy mage gets 3 spells off (one quickened) but a PC mage is limited to 1 spell (Maybe 2 if they quicken one) while hasted.

It's fine if an NPC casts a spell that we've never seen. However, we expect to be able to research and cast that spell ourself if we want.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-02, 05:24 PM
Nobody suggested that as a reason. Why make up such a silly reason and imply that it's the only reason for disallowing something as a character race?

In my current game, the PCs had to grow up as humans in a human village. Two people asked for exceptions, and I allowed a half-orc and another half-race that the player doesn't even recognize yet.

There are no elves or dwarves in this world, undead are different from the books. None of this had anything to do with "I don't want players to play with this awesome toy". Why pretend somebody said something they didn't say?

In your case, it's much simpler: they simply don't exist, or at least not in the part of the world the PCs are from, just like I wouldn't as a rule allow something specifically from Dragonlance into a Forgotten Realms game.


The DM should provide challenging but fair encounters. I try to do this, and my players appear happy.

But I will not add an artificial restriction to how the challenges should be built that:
1. Takes away some possibilities.
2. Makes it nearly impossible to create an encounter they have to think through,
3. reduces the mystery and unknown quantities in what was supposed to be a fantasy world, and
4. adds no additional playability.

They can't use the bear's claws after they beat him. They can't use the dragon's breath after they beat him. Why add an arbitrary rule that they have to be able to use the dark elves' arrows after they beat them?

Because you can pick up a Dark elf's arrow and use it an an arrow, while you can't pick up a bear's claw or dragon's breath after the creatures dead and use them in the same way or at all. Keeping the mystery is one thing, but eventually people want to be able to try and find answers, especially in an interactive medium like a pen and paper role playing game.

TuggyNE
2013-11-02, 07:23 PM
They can't use the bear's claws after they beat him. They can't use the dragon's breath after they beat him. Why add an arbitrary rule that they have to be able to use the dark elves' arrows after they beat them?

Complete non-sequitur. Arrows, generally speaking, are expected to be usable by anyone, because that's how arrows normally work. Claws or complicated breath weapons are built into a creature, and (barring occasional bursts of ingenious improvisation) are not naturally usable by anything but that specific creature — even another bear or dragon couldn't use those, but another dark elf certainly could use the arrows.

In other words, you're misidentifying where the arbitrariness is. It's not in "letting" players use the dark elf arrows; it's in saying that they can't for no particularly obvious reason.

Mind you, it may be possible to come up with an actually good reason for this, but the default is that there is no reason at all for dark elf arrows to be unusable by others, and it requires extra thought and effort both for the DM out of character and the dark elves in character to restrict it in this way.

Sith_Happens
2013-11-02, 07:55 PM
Really what I want is internal consistency in the world.

This. I'll add that personally, I think that usually the question is less about whether PCs and NPCs actually work the same "under the hood," and more about whether their respective mechanics outwardly result in a comparable range of capabilities.

jedipotter
2013-11-02, 11:38 PM
For instance, an NPC mage who just happens to be able to teleport in a world where it's impossible for PCs at any level to do that -- with no explanation given -- would annoy me. I would certainly never do it. If that same NPC has a good reason for it, though (for instance, it's because of some item they have, some species they are, some other special power), then that's fine... and if the PCs should ever end up having the same power source, they should be able to do it also.

So here is my question: How do you want that explanation? You want the DM to make an announcement to the players and say ''Ok the NPC has this or that, so it is with in the rules. But remember that your characters don't know that, I'm just telling you the players so you can have omnipresent knowledge of the game so you you don't get annoyed.''

After all in a normal game it the DM would just be like ''and Zod Teleports!'' and then you as the player would be annoyed as Rule 12 said no teleports and you don't have the explanation.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-02, 11:46 PM
I'd prefer something in-universe myself, like "Zod made a pact with the Master of Gates Between Worlds, giving him the power to teleport." The players don't have to know this right away. In fact, it can be part of the quest in itself: how is the villain doing the seemingly impossible feat, and how can this advantage be negated?

TuggyNE
2013-11-03, 12:02 AM
So here is my question: How do you want that explanation? You want the DM to make an announcement to the players and say ''Ok the NPC has this or that, so it is with in the rules. But remember that your characters don't know that, I'm just telling you the players so you can have omnipresent knowledge of the game so you you don't get annoyed.''

After all in a normal game it the DM would just be like ''and Zod Teleports!'' and then you as the player would be annoyed as Rule 12 said no teleports and you don't have the explanation.

In a normal game, there usually won't be such a Rule 12.

Supposing there is, for some reason, I would be rather surprised to see Zod teleporting; exactly how much surprise depends on a lot of things, but most notably just how ironclad Rule 12 was previously stated to be. And I can't say I wouldn't ask the DM, "wait, really? teleporting despite that rule? did you forget something, or is there something else going on here?" But if the DM said "yeah, something else is going on here", I'd give them the benefit of the doubt to save the big reveal for later.

If there was no big reveal at all, or if the reveal was stupid and lame, I'd be rather hesitant to extend that chance again. Because really, what's the point of having a rule if you can break it for no particular reason?

For that matter, if I'm playing a character that should be able to figure out why stuff like that happens (a loremaster or archivist type, for example, though not necessarily just Loremasters and Archivists), then I'd expect to have a fair shake at working it out, either coming up with a hypothesis after a bit of thought, or doing some steady research and synthesizing a new theory based on observation. If it's just "no, Zod teleported in a way you can't figure out no matter what, so stop asking", I'd again be rather dubious, although again I'd probably give the DM the benefit of the doubt to save the reason for later, and again if the revelation was lame I'd be annoyed.

However, if my character has no idea what's possible or why (for example, if I'm playing a stealthy hunter when this question of teleportation comes up) I won't expect any particular explanation at the time, because it would, after all, be so mysterious to that character as to likely be shrugged off.

TL/DR: Conservation of narrative detail (if it's in the story or game, it better be resolved eventually to the satisfaction of the audience) plus responsible use of DMing/world-building privilege (don't make exceptions to stated rules without good reason).

jedipotter
2013-11-03, 12:30 AM
In a normal game, there usually won't be such a Rule 12.

Supposing there is, for some reason, I would be rather surprised to see Zod teleporting; exactly how much surprise depends on a lot of things, but most notably just how ironclad Rule 12 was previously stated to be. And I can't say I wouldn't ask the DM, "wait, really? teleporting despite that rule? did you forget something, or is there something else going on here?" But if the DM said "yeah, something else is going on here", I'd give them the benefit of the doubt to save the big reveal for later.


Sure there would be, DM's make up crazy settings all the time. So DM Bob Make the Asomi setting: where all the old gods died in a huge battle 100 years ago and as result of the battle teleportation no longer works. And lets say that this is even a Player-DM type and he lets the other players vote and approve his setting.

TeddyKazooie
2013-11-03, 01:04 AM
I had some time to think about it at work and I can't help coming back to a particular point in my head. It sort of sounds like many of these cases are instances of dissatisfaction more than an issue with what it is they're no being allowed to do. I think, and this is conjecture, if you're enjoying your Light Wood Elf Archer you wont get hung up on not being able to use the Dark Wood Elf Arrows. Sure, you might be miffed about it for a bit, but hopefully the rest of the game has been entertaining enough to let the DM have some lousy arrows.

I think it's partly system dependent. Systems like 3.5 D&D spoil the players with an enormous range of Classes, Prestige Classes, Feats, and so on. So of course the PCs want to be able to do what the NPCs can. Why stop at being able to hurl lightening and shapeshift into a bear?

But I think the DM should be allowed to have his/her own toy box of nifty things they can use, but the players can't. As long as the DM isn't rubbing it in the PCs faces or making horribly balanced death traps why can't they have their fun? Making challenging encounters where the PCs can shine even if they can't use the extra Dark Wood Elf Arrows at the end of the encounter.

I'm currently in a D20 Modern game where one of the NPCs has telepathy, but none of the players have it. We don't even know if we'll ever be able to learn telepathy. The difference, though, is that the NPC is an alien with a human-ish shape. She's an alien whose genetics were altered through many generations.

Should I decry the GM for giving an NPC something the players may never have? Of course not. I'm not going to grab my toys and stomp home just because I can't play with peoples minds. I'm going to grab my vibrating sword and dash into melee range during gunfights! Because I'm having fun playing what I made and not worrying about why I can't bend spoons.

@Skyth: Sorry, not the most eloquent with words. I rephrased the paragraph mentioning class balance. I mainly meant that Classes are different to each other and that difference sets them apart. In the same way I think NPCs can be different compared to the PCs for good reason or for the sake of challenge.

If I'm fighting a single enemy along with my PC comrades I expect that enemy to be strong enough to stand a challenge. Maybe not kill the party or even a single PC, but enough that there is tension and a threat. If that means the enemy has more actions in a round (as lame as that sounds) then fine. So be it. At least for me.

TuggyNE
2013-11-03, 02:35 AM
Sure there would be, DM's make up crazy settings all the time. So DM Bob Make the Asomi setting: where all the old gods died in a huge battle 100 years ago and as result of the battle teleportation no longer works. And lets say that this is even a Player-DM type and he lets the other players vote and approve his setting.

I said usually. I can't believe the majority of normal games have teleportation completely non-functional. In fact, I'd consider a game in which teleportation just didn't work to probably not be normal, all things considered.

ReaderAt2046
2013-11-03, 03:37 PM
There's also the possibility of campaigns where a major plot arc revolves around the NPCs not following the same rules. For example, I had an idea for a campaign that revolved around this one religion whose followers gained access to psionics. This was the only way to get psionics, and the world was psi-mag opaque, so a huge part of the plot was trying to work out how the hell to deal with people who were breaking the rules of magic.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-03, 04:19 PM
There's also the possibility of campaigns where a major plot arc revolves around the NPCs not following the same rules. For example, I had an idea for a campaign that revolved around this one religion whose followers gained access to psionics. This was the only way to get psionics, and the world was psi-mag opaque, so a huge part of the plot was trying to work out how the hell to deal with people who were breaking the rules of magic.
I would only have a problem with that (see the teleport example above) if the reason's for making the church NPC-only were unreasonably arbitrary.

ryu
2013-11-03, 04:35 PM
I would only have a problem with that (see the teleport example above) if the reason's for making the church NPC-only were unreasonably arbitrary.

Or if the nature of how the church was doing it could never be revealed regardless of effort. Mysteries exist for the sole purpose of being solved. If the mystery is blatantly unsolvable by DM fiat the only reason it existed to begin with was as justification for the DM to be coy about the particulars of their setting without being accused of lazy writing/world building by the players. Naturally things like that are annoying, boring, and only serve to waste the time and mental space of the players. No ''mysteries'' just for the sake of having mysteries do not add some special mystique or or other inherently interesting quality to the world.

Jay R
2013-11-04, 12:46 AM
Complete non-sequitur. Arrows, generally speaking, are expected to be usable by anyone, because that's how arrows normally work.
<snip>
In other words, you're misidentifying where the arbitrariness is. It's not in "letting" players use the dark elf arrows; it's in saying that they can't for no particularly obvious reason.

Mind you, it may be possible to come up with an actually good reason for this, but the default is that there is no reason at all for dark elf arrows to be unusable by others, and it requires extra thought and effort both for the DM out of character and the dark elves in character to restrict it in this way.

The good reasons happen all the time. My archer can't use Melf's Magic Arrow because it disappears after use, he can't use the pixie's arrows because they are too short; he can't use the giant's arrows because they are too heavy. But somehow you've decided that there is no reason if the arrow of a dark elf.

I tend to trust my DMs, so I assume that there is a perfectly good reason, even if my character doesn't know what it is.

TuggyNE
2013-11-04, 01:03 AM
The good reasons happen all the time. My archer can't use Melf's Magic Arrow because it disappears after use, he can't use the pixie's arrows because they are too short; he can't use the giant's arrows because they are too heavy. But somehow you've decided that there is no reason if the arrow of a dark elf.

Well, what is that reason? Whatever it is, I'd expect it to react more or less normally to ways of dealing with magic restrictions, and have a cost to the original users proportionate to its usefulness (so no wish-protected +3 arrows, that would be silly).

For that matter, using giant arrows in a ballista should work fine.


I tend to trust my DMs, so I assume that there is a perfectly good reason, even if my character doesn't know what it is.

So do I, at least at first. But if they fritter away that trust on inexplicable and pointless rulings, I'm not going to just sit quietly and take it forever.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-04, 01:03 AM
The good reasons happen all the time. My archer can't use Melf's Magic Arrow because it disappears after use, he can't use the pixie's arrows because they are too short; he can't use the giant's arrows because they are too heavy. But somehow you've decided that there is no reason if the arrow of a dark elf.

I tend to trust my DMs, so I assume that there is a perfectly good reason, even if my character doesn't know what it is.
Your examples only prove the point. Unless Dark Elves are radically different creatures from what the name Elf describes in D&D, none of those reasons apply.

CombatOwl
2013-11-04, 06:33 AM
Depends on the system. In, say, D&D 3.X, it is trivially easy for a GM to build pretty damn challenging campaign using only the same resources as those available to players, especially if the GM is better at optimising than them.

Only if he brings a roughly equal number of units to the field. Otherwise his optimized NPC is going to get killed by action economy if they're even vaguely in the same level range. When the PCs get five actions to the DM's one or two, the DM is probably going to lose if the PCs regularly hit.


This is one of the few things d20 games are pretty near ideal for. Very few game systems actually follow PC - NPC symmetry, because it increases GM workload massively.

Umm, no? FATE lets you do major NPCs exactly like PCs, but the workload is not really that high (pick a few aspects relating to their role in the plot, put skills on pyramid, grab two or three stunts, done). Shadowrun does an even better job of this, since prime runners are literally just characters with an amount of karma indexed to the average party karma (and can take awhile until you get the hang of making characters). GURPS also does this--characters are built from points, even NPCs. That's just three common examples, and by no means an exhaustive list.

Morithias
2013-11-04, 06:55 AM
Only if he brings a roughly equal number of units to the field. Otherwise his optimized NPC is going to get killed by action economy if they're even vaguely in the same level range. When the PCs get five actions to the DM's one or two, the DM is probably going to lose if the PCs regularly hit.



That's kind of how encounters are suppose to go.

RochtheCrusher
2013-11-04, 07:17 AM
No, it's really not... the PCs are supposed to win, sure, but beating up on a single guy while stunning him to death because he only gets one turn is... well, it's less of a fight, and more target practice. It might be fun once or twice an adventure, but if you continually let players win like this they'll get bored.

PCs are supposed to win (usually), but at least every now and then they should be scared that they won't. Pull out all the stops, talk about how if that strategy hadn't worked they'd all be dead, etc.

Players can get clever, and DMs can miss details which trivialize encounters, but if the DM's Plan A is to have the opposition just get curb stomped? That is a fight that's not worth getting out the dice for. You have better things to do with your time.

If you need to stack the deck a bit to make that one character an actual challenge for the PCs (without just arbitrarily raising his level, which risks either having no effect or causing a curb stomp the other way), then have at it. Fun is more important than fair, provided you do not look blatantly unfair enough to ruin the fun.

Segev
2013-11-04, 10:25 AM
On the subject of "dark wood elf arrows," the objection arises because, with the pixie arrows, they are, in fact, too short; with the bear claws, the idea that wobbling the severed paws of the bear around would be effective compared to just swinging a sword or stabbing with a spear is a bit ludicrous. But the "dark wood elf arrows" are arrows in form and apparent function, except they do something spiffy on hit (else why are we worried about the Light Wood Elf PC wielding them?).

With each of the examples of other things PCs "can't use," the PC says "I use it," and the DM asks, "How?" The PC then generally is stuck describing something impractical to impossible that makes the use of it not workable.

With the "dark wood elf arrow," the PC says, "I use it," and the DM says, "You can't." The player than asks, quite reasonably: "What happens when I knock it to my bow, pull it back, and fire it?"

The DM might have a reason why that doesn't yield the result of an arrow with dark wood elf arrow properties flying off. But he should have that explanation, even if it's just a fig leaf ("You aren't trained in the dark wood elf secrets that activate its hidden powers," or "it is twisted oddly; you've no idea how the dark wood elves were firing these things straight in the first place").

But if it's just "you can't, because," that shatters verisimilitude. I know I, as a player, when I see the NPCs doing something I can't (as in, will never be able to do, no matter what I build), I get annoyed. It's mostly okay if it's just a matter of "not a playable race," but when it's "they know a secret/have a tool that you can never learn/can't ever use despite it being used by humanoids who are just more powerful than you," it gets irksome.

It feels like a cheat, a robbery, when I can't use something I manage to take with great effort from these foes who were so much more dangerous BECAUSE of the thing I can't have.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-04, 10:40 AM
This. I'll add that personally, I think that usually the question is less about whether PCs and NPCs actually work the same "under the hood," and more about whether their respective mechanics outwardly result in a comparable range of capabilities.
I like this way of putting it. Because there's a few games where PCs and NPCs are not equally simulated, generally because NPCs have fewer mechanics attached. This is to make the job easier for the GM who has to manage all of them.

Two examples of different types...

4th Edition: monsters have defining, unique powers. The game doesn't discuss which feats they took to gain those powers, it just says "they have this power".

Dungeon World: it goes even further with the asymmetry: players and NPCs don't have the same moves. Player moves are generally more explicit, and they're the only moves which dice are rolled for. NPC moves are also situational in use, and are generally added options to the GM's normal arsenal of moves.

This also, interestingly, means that any given PC has more options than any given NPC. This is fundamentally because the game sets up NPCs as offshoots of the world. (At least, that's the way it seems to me.)

Morithias
2013-11-04, 11:04 AM
No, it's really not... the PCs are supposed to win, sure, but beating up on a single guy while stunning him to death because he only gets one turn is... well, it's less of a fight, and more target practice. It might be fun once or twice an adventure, but if you continually let players win like this they'll get bored.

PCs are supposed to win (usually), but at least every now and then they should be scared that they won't. Pull out all the stops, talk about how if that strategy hadn't worked they'd all be dead, etc.

Players can get clever, and DMs can miss details which trivialize encounters, but if the DM's Plan A is to have the opposition just get curb stomped? That is a fight that's not worth getting out the dice for. You have better things to do with your time.

If you need to stack the deck a bit to make that one character an actual challenge for the PCs (without just arbitrarily raising his level, which risks either having no effect or causing a curb stomp the other way), then have at it. Fun is more important than fair, provided you do not look blatantly unfair enough to ruin the fun.

Sure that'll happen if you throw only one monster of a CR equal to the party at them, but here's the thing...that's doing it wrong.

Mooks, minions, etc, do I need to say more?

CR 5 monster versus Cr 5 monster + 4 CR 1/4 monsters are very different encounters if played tactically.

Jay R
2013-11-04, 11:22 AM
Well, what is that reason?

We don't know, of course. We don't even know what dark elf arrows do that's different from my arrows.


So do I, at least at first. But if they fritter away that trust on inexplicable and pointless rulings, I'm not going to just sit quietly and take it forever.

Agreed. But that is totally unrelated to the topic. If the fritter away that trust on inexplicable and pointless rulings when I can use the dark elf arrows, that is equally bad, so it has nothing to do with the topic.

Inexplicable rulings; can't use arrows. Bad.
Inexplicable rulings; can use arrows. Bad.
Competent rulings; can't use arrows. Good.
Competent rulings; can use arrows. Good.

The problem is inexplicable and pointless rulings, not whether there are some NPC abilities the players cannot have.

By the way, do the people who insist all abilities should be available to the PCs also demand that all weaknesses affect them as well? Wolvesbane, garlic, silver, sunshine, double damage from certain attacks, etc.?

Acatalepsy
2013-11-04, 12:34 PM
By the way, do the people who insist all abilities should be available to the PCs also demand that all weaknesses affect them as well? Wolvesbane, garlic, silver, sunshine, double damage from certain attacks, etc.?

Yep! Enemies that expect to fight small strike teams have 'in case of Adventurer' weapons and defenses that are designed to take advantage of PC weaknesses. Now introducing +2 PCbane weapons! Otherwise harmless substances (like something that smells really bad and triggers gag reflexes, or poisons that only affect PC races) for when you really need to put down an enemy.

In a more general sense, creatures that know they're going to be fighting PCs can and should take advantage of the PC's biology and weaknesses. Like needing to breathe, or being reliant on eyesight. Noxious stinking piles of filth or clouds of deadly chemicals everywhere (sucks to be a race that has a sense of smell, or needs to breathe). Use attacks on PC light sources to blind them. And so on.

Segev
2013-11-04, 12:39 PM
If I'm playing something with such a vulnerability, you can BET I expect it to come up. It's part of the fun of playing such things. Working around weird limitations is as interesting as having the cool powers.

Lorsa
2013-11-04, 03:19 PM
I usually don't let my players have characters that are gods, yet there are usually some deities in the game world. These gods have the power to shape the world and perform miracles that the player's characters will never have. I don't consider this a bad thing.

If a player came to me and said "I want to play a campaign where we are GODS!" I would say "I'm not sure how I could DM such a campaign". Knowing my limits is a good thing I would say.

OldTrees1
2013-11-04, 04:27 PM
Should everyone in the game follow the same rules?

No. There are several reasons to deviate from the PC rules when designing NPCs.
1) Balancing encounters:
Limited use abilities and At-Will abilities are valued differently if the NPC is expected to only see one encounter (compared to the multiple/day the PCs face). As such, at minimum the rules to measure the power of an NPC should differ from the rules to measure the power of the PCs.

2) Ease of creation:
Character creation takes time both thematically and mechanically. The DM has lots to create. Sometimes it is more valuable for the group if the DM uses a mechanically lighter means of character creation for less significant NPCs.

3) Outside cases:
There are prerequisites for a character to be a PC (Ex: Not having a non ability in any mental stat). However not all characters will meet these prerequisites. These prerequisites will change from campaign to campaign (sometimes "not being divine" is a prerequisite).

The DM should feel free to add abilities that are not provided in the books. However, unless the abilities are exempted by #3, those abilities should be available if the player builds their PC to qualify for that ability (with a different price see #1).
Ex: If Darkwood Elves have a secret racially imbued technique that causes trick shots, and Darkwood Elves meet the prerequisites for being a PC, then players should have the option to use the Darkwood trick shots if they qualify for the secret racially imbued technique.

urkthegurk
2013-11-04, 04:40 PM
The real problem is lack of communication, whether accidental or deliberate: If the DM hands me a button that says "Push button to receive candy!", and pushing the button actually disintegrates me, that's just being a sadistic jerk and any DM who does this too often will lose my trust. And when trust is gone the whole game disintegrates.

I mean, if the DM hands you an actual button that says 'push button to receive candy', and you push it without further investigation, and you disintegrate or summon Orcus or whatever, then I think you had it coming. If you get given abilities, say being able to cast invisibility, and that later turns out to summon Orcus, then you've the right to be mad, since its your character and you've got narrative rights to their development. But expecting an entire universe of properly labelled buttons is asking for a game that is boring. And that's not a game.

TuggyNE
2013-11-04, 04:52 PM
We don't know, of course. We don't even know what dark elf arrows do that's different from my arrows.

So it would seem this is a bad (or perhaps extremely good) example, since there's no particular reason you can think of, even arbitrarily and in a vacuum, to justify this.


By the way, do the people who insist all abilities should be available to the PCs also demand that all weaknesses affect them as well? Wolvesbane, garlic, silver, sunshine, double damage from certain attacks, etc.?

As Segev said, if there's a link between a special ability I'm using and a weakness, sure, go for it. But if my light elf PC with dark elf arrows gets hit by the smell of garlic and suddenly can't go forward, I wouldn't be happy.

Jay R
2013-11-04, 08:40 PM
So it would seem this is a bad (or perhaps extremely good) example, since there's no particular reason you can think of, even arbitrarily and in a vacuum, to justify this.

This is simply false. I can think of a great many reasons, depending on what the arrow does.

1. The arrow is made with three drops of the dark elf's blood, and the elf gets the hit points the victim loses.
2. The arrow is made of the tree the elf was born in, and will always return after firing.
3. The dark elves have an empathic relationship with trees, and can direct the arrow around corners and through gaps in armor mentally.
4. The dark elf was present when the arrow was made, and is attuned to its power.
5. The dark elves have a Feat for archery that nobody else knows.
6. The dark elf cast a limited time spell on the arrow, which is gone by the time the PC picked it up.
7. The PC doesn't know something yet that would explain it, and it would screw up the story to give away that plot point.
8. The effect came from the bow, not the arrow.
9. The PC is absolutely mistaken about the arrow, confusing it with some other effect that occurred the same time it hit, and it's really just an ordinary arrow. The DM has dropped three hints that the arrow never had that power, but the PC is too angry over alleged "inexplicable and pointless rulings" to notice them

Why make up the silly guess that " there's no particular reason you can think of", based on no evidence at all, when you knew I was reading the thread? That seems tactically unsound.

jedipotter
2013-11-04, 09:40 PM
This is simply false. I can think of a great many reasons, depending on what the arrow does.

Just to add the one I use all the time:

10.The arrows are magic items. If used by a non dark elf, they are just normal mundane arrows. Or maybe even just melt away into bits of shadow.

Morithias
2013-11-04, 09:46 PM
I found the extra credits episode that covered what I meant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toVNkuCELpU

OldTrees1
2013-11-04, 11:52 PM
This is simply false. I can think of a great many reasons, depending on what the arrow does.

1. The arrow is made with three drops of the dark elf's blood, and the elf gets the hit points the victim loses.
2. The arrow is made of the tree the elf was born in, and will always return after firing.
3. The dark elves have an empathic relationship with trees, and can direct the arrow around corners and through gaps in armor mentally.
4. The dark elf was present when the arrow was made, and is attuned to its power.
5. The dark elves have a Feat for archery that nobody else knows.
6. The dark elf cast a limited time spell on the arrow, which is gone by the time the PC picked it up.
7. The PC doesn't know something yet that would explain it, and it would screw up the story to give away that plot point.
8. The effect came from the bow, not the arrow.
9. The PC is absolutely mistaken about the arrow, confusing it with some other effect that occurred the same time it hit, and it's really just an ordinary arrow. The DM has dropped three hints that the arrow never had that power, but the PC is too angry over alleged "inexplicable and pointless rulings" to notice them

Why make up the silly guess that " there's no particular reason you can think of", based on no evidence at all, when you knew I was reading the thread? That seems tactically unsound.
1) Learning the crafting technique would allow the PCs to create replicas but would not be able to use the original
2) As #1 but only for treeborn PCs
3) Only Dark Elf PCs would be able to use it
4) As #1
5) The PC can use it but it requires learning of the feat and then taking the feat.
6) Learning the spell would allow a PC to accomplish the same.
7) Not an answer. It modifies one of the other answers.
8) The PC need to acquire the bow to access the ability.
9) Player has a problem between chair and dice.

Lots of nice ideas. Thanks for the brainstorm.

TuggyNE
2013-11-05, 03:29 AM
1. The arrow is made with three drops of the dark elf's blood, and the elf gets the hit points the victim loses.

Temporary HP? Instantaneous healing?

Either way, fair enough, the specific arrow would be difficult or impossible to reuse, though there is again no inherent reason to assume the ritual used is utterly beyond the grasp of a PC.

Not sure how you make an arrow with blood, but I suppose you could quench the head with it or put it in the fletching glue.


2. The arrow is made of the tree the elf was born in, and will always return after firing.
4. The dark elf was present when the arrow was made, and is attuned to its power.
5. The dark elves have a Feat for archery that nobody else knows.

More stuff that would have varying levels of difficulty to hijack, but is not inherently impossible. Also, selecting the feat is essentially the same issue, once it's identified.


6. The dark elf cast a limited time spell on the arrow, which is gone by the time the PC picked it up.

That just shifts it to spells, so this is mostly redundant. :smalltongue: (And, depending on the nature of the spell, might raise pointed questions about the timing involved.)


7. The PC doesn't know something yet that would explain it, and it would screw up the story to give away that plot point.

This isn't a separate entry, since it's just "IOU: One explanation", and I already said I can understand IOUs, as long as there's already an explanation waiting for the right time, which this isn't.


3. The dark elves have an empathic relationship with trees, and can direct the arrow around corners and through gaps in armor mentally.
8. The effect came from the bow, not the arrow.
9. The PC is absolutely mistaken about the arrow, confusing it with some other effect that occurred the same time it hit, and it's really just an ordinary arrow.

These are all mostly the same, in that there's an element of misdirection and misunderstanding involved, but for most effects it seems to me it should be fairly trivial to check for the source of the magic and see what the deal is. And once that's resolved, using the bow is no different from using the arrows, so that's basically redundant.

Going back through these, actually, all of them are just another way of saying, "they're using something you can't that you might not have thought of asking about or trying", and all but one or two of them are actually perfectly achievable in principle by any PC, just like shooting the arrows was in the first place. Which means that none of these is actually an airtight explanation; the rest are just a deferment of it to another level. If the PC is the sort to be born in trees, they could presumably use the same method to make returning arrows. And if only dark elves have the psionic-like ability mentioned, then the PC would have to be a dark elf, and generally speaking, there's no inherent reason for that to be unworkable. (For example: baby balrogs.)

Now, to be fair, there is one remaining possibility, and that is "plot", or in other words, "something the DM decided that's highly specific to a particular campaign and can't be changed by the players". I have mixed feelings about that one, but as long as it's clearly accepted, I suppose it works.


Why make up the silly guess that " there's no particular reason you can think of", based on no evidence at all, when you knew I was reading the thread? That seems tactically unsound.

Ah, sorry. But on previous occasions, no explanation had come up, even when it would have been rhetorically useful for you to give examples.


Just to add the one I use all the time:

10.The arrows are magic items. If used by a non dark elf, they are just normal mundane arrows. Or maybe even just melt away into bits of shadow.

I'm not sorry 3e gave up that particular bit of 2e design; it's essentially "these enemies are ridiculously paranoid about their stuff being reused, far beyond the actual value of such gear, and thus went to great lengths to magically block that". (Which I already alluded to earlier, actually.) And since it makes little or no sense to be so disproportionately paranoid, the only reason that remains in most cases is DM fiat.

Segev
2013-11-05, 10:45 AM
Note that each of those reasons why one cannot use the Dark Wood Elf Arrows is an actual reason - or at least a decent fig leaf - for why the PC can't just pick it up and use it.

It also opens up avenues of exploration to try to find ways to use them.

Nobody's really going to complain that they can't use the dragon's fiery breath after slaying it. They will be annoyed if the only explanation for why they can't use Dark Wood Elf Arrows is that they're PCs.

If the arrows disintegrate in sunlight, then the solution is never to expose them to it. If they can only be used by Dark Wood Elves, then UMD exists (in D&D, anyway) to empower you to fake it. If they require drops of the user's blood, the player can do the same thing (and, again, if that only works for Dark Wood Elves, he can fake it). If they require special training, he can take EWP: Dark Wood Elf Arrows. If it's the bow, not the arrows, then the PC simply claims the bow instead.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-05, 10:59 AM
I'm not sorry 3e gave up that particular bit of 2e design; it's essentially "these enemies are ridiculously paranoid about their stuff being reused, far beyond the actual value of such gear, and thus went to great lengths to magically block that". (Which I already alluded to earlier, actually.) And since it makes little or no sense to be so disproportionately paranoid, the only reason that remains in most cases is DM fiat.
I'll note here that any sentence starting with "essentially..." is an oversimplification that glosses over alternate interpretations. :smallwink:

For instance, the alternate interpretation that a magic arrow could derive its power in part from the nature of the Dark Elves. So while Dark Elves wield and use it, it works, because everything's attuned and good. But when anyone else tries to use it, because they're not a Dark Elf, they can't draw on that extra power imbued into the arrow.

Jay R
2013-11-05, 11:03 AM
This entire discussion is absurd. People are arguing against a staple of fantasy and adventure literature, and a staple of competitive games.

The hobbits can't use the Nazgul's morale-breaking power, or the Witch-King's invulnerability to the attacks of men.

Superman can't use Mxyzptlk's magic.

Batman can't survive in a freezer like Mr. Freeze, or have poison lips like Poison Ivy.

There's no reason to believe the Pevensies could have used the White Queen's wand to turn people into stone.

The musketeers can't use Richelieu's political powers.

Pinocchio can't swallow people whole like Monstro.

Prince Phillip can't turn into a dragon like Maleficent.

Aladdin can't hypnotize people like Jafar can.

Picard can't use powers like Q can.

Every race in Cosmic Encounter has its own special ability that nobody else can use.

There is nothing wrong, in any story-related or game-related way, with one side having powers the other side doesn't have.

Your characters can certainly attempt to duplicate what they've seen others do. It might work, but it might be no better than airstrips built by the Cargo Cult.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-05, 11:21 AM
I would go so far to add that I think a lot of problems in later D&D arose from attempts to fit all of those powers into a compatible framework, so that they could be acquired.

Ironically, this was also the same edition where fighters and wizards played by fundamentally different rules (save vs. effect as opposed to attack rolls).

Acatalepsy
2013-11-05, 11:28 AM
Your characters can certainly attempt to duplicate what they've seen others do. It might work, but it might be no better than airstrips built by the Cargo Cult.

The entire discussion of how 'fairness' means always having the ability to do everything the other side can do or the DM is a big meanie could appropriately be called Cargo Cult Gaming.

Elvenoutrider
2013-11-05, 01:11 PM
As a gm I like I build encounters rather than enemies. If my encounter requires a boss to die at a certain hp, I ignore the rules for his hd, I take liberties with spell lists to make challenging encounters. I mix and match class abilities frequently just to build bosses because in my mind if the ocs are examples of exceptional humanoids the bosses should be even more so to make encounters suitably epic. I also warn my players of this in advance. I cheat when I build encounters though over the course of my life as a gamer I have received few complaints.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-05, 01:15 PM
I don't think that's really cheating, so long as you stay consistent* with your own encounter guidelines.

*This is a great example of how asymmetric rules can still be consistent, and even fair.

Telok
2013-11-05, 02:55 PM
My opinion on the whole thing is "it depends."

In Call of Chtulhu I fully expect horrible alien entities to ear 1d4 characters per round without bothering to make attack rolls. On the other hand if the character learns a magic spell I expect it to work the same way that it did for the cultists that tried to kill me with it.

If I play Paranoia and an armored warbot bounces machine gun rounds off of it's face I don't expect to do the same unless I am also an armored warbot. But if an NPC has a mutant power and I aquire that same power then I expect it to work the same for me as it did for the NPC. Same thing for gear, I expect a grenade to work for me in the same manner that it works for others.

If I play a D&D game where my character is a skilled archer I expect to be able to do what other skilled archers do. If my character encounters a lower level, less skilled, bandit who can shoot four arrows at once while I can only shoot three arrows at once then I'd like to know why. If I capture the bandit and make him teach me how do do the four arrow trick then I expect to be able to do the trick in a similar manner as the bandit. I will easily accept that I have to spend skills, feats, a level, character points, or something else to learn the trick. But if a less competent NPC can learn an archery trick then I expect that my more skilled character can learn that trick. And if my character can learn the trick, but only at fifteenth level and once a day while the bandit was fifth level and could use it every other round, then I want to know why. The excuse "Because I said so" stopped working on me twenty five years ago, I want a reasonable and rational reason.

The excuse of "It would be unbalanced" won't fly either. There needs to be an explanation that is plausable and makes some sense within the context of the game. If a CoC character picks up a tommy gun he expects to be able to fire it full auto like the cultists did and gets upset when he is told he can only fire single shots "for balance". If a party interrupts an evil wizard casting a ritual from a book and gets the book then, providing that they fufill the requirements of the ritual in the game world, they should be able to use the ritual themselves. Saying that the ritual isn't in the book after the fact, or that characters can't use the ritual because they are PCs, without a reasonable or plausable explanation that makes sense in game is (in my opinion) either bad design or bad GMing. Especially if it breaks player expectations (you can call it verisimilitude or immersion if you want to).

ReaderAt2046
2013-11-05, 04:29 PM
I think the disconnect here is that one side keeps insisting that under identical circumstances, the PCs and NPCs should be able to do the same things, while the other side keeps insisting that the circumstances are not identical. Agree? Disagree?

Ravens_cry
2013-11-05, 04:38 PM
I think the disconnect here is that one side keeps insisting that under identical circumstances, the PCs and NPCs should be able to do the same things, while the other side keeps insisting that the circumstances are not identical. Agree? Disagree?
That might be true in some cases. In others, some people prefer an asymmetrical rules set. And that's fine, it's perfectly valid way to play and it certainly can be more narratively pleasing, but for some of us it can be irksome.

TuggyNE
2013-11-05, 05:47 PM
Note that each of those reasons why one cannot use the Dark Wood Elf Arrows is an actual reason - or at least a decent fig leaf - for why the PC can't just pick it up and use it.

It also opens up avenues of exploration to try to find ways to use them.

Nobody's really going to complain that they can't use the dragon's fiery breath after slaying it. They will be annoyed if the only explanation for why they can't use Dark Wood Elf Arrows is that they're PCs.

If the arrows disintegrate in sunlight, then the solution is never to expose them to it. If they can only be used by Dark Wood Elves, then UMD exists (in D&D, anyway) to empower you to fake it. If they require drops of the user's blood, the player can do the same thing (and, again, if that only works for Dark Wood Elves, he can fake it). If they require special training, he can take EWP: Dark Wood Elf Arrows. If it's the bow, not the arrows, then the PC simply claims the bow instead.

True enough; I guess what I was trying to say is that "requires some feat or spell or ritual you don't know about" is not, inherently, a reason you can't ever do that, and using it for that (to shut off any and all attempts at knowing about and mimicking the NPCs' abilities) is just as problematic in principle as simply saying "you're a PC, so you can't".


For instance, the alternate interpretation that a magic arrow could derive its power in part from the nature of the Dark Elves. So while Dark Elves wield and use it, it works, because everything's attuned and good. But when anyone else tries to use it, because they're not a Dark Elf, they can't draw on that extra power imbued into the arrow.

Hmm. Fair enough, I did neglect that possibility in that part of the post. But again, that only pushes back the problem to either a) fake the extra power a dark elf has or b) figure out a production method that draws extra power from reserves that your own race has.

I should probably also mention that many of these abilities might be disproportionately difficult for the PCs to acquire without breaking verisimilitude; I don't expect them to be optimal, only to make sense and be open to actual choices on the part of the PCs. Going to great lengths to get returning arrows, for example, is pretty silly, but it should not be arbitrarily barred on the grounds of "I know better than you."


The hobbits can't use the Nazgul's morale-breaking power, or the Witch-King's invulnerability to the attacks of men.

They didn't have the nine rings. If they had, and had been exposed to them long enough, who knows?


Superman can't use Mxyzptlk's magic.

Batman can't survive in a freezer like Mr. Freeze, or have poison lips like Poison Ivy.

Different superpowers. Those are not learned, but are a (sometimes externally acquired) inherent part of the character.


There's no reason to believe the Pevensies could have used the White Queen's wand to turn people into stone.

Because she was an ancient witch from another world with secrets in languages they didn't know gleaned from writings that were now vanished. (There's also, technically, no reason not to believe they could have, but whatever.)


The musketeers can't use Richelieu's political powers.

Had they been politically important, they could have, and acquiring great political power, while difficult indeed, is demonstrably not beyond ordinary human beings with sufficient talent and dedication (and perhaps a dash of plot-centric luck).


Pinocchio can't swallow people whole like Monstro.

Different scale, and the usual monstrous abilities.


Prince Phillip can't turn into a dragon like Maleficent.

Aladdin can't hypnotize people like Jafar can.

Presumably neither of them ever wanted to try, much less wished to go through the tedious process of learning, which might reasonably involve extremely shady teachers, dubious or outright evil rituals, or whatever else. However, "turn into a dragon" and "hypnotize people" are abilities that need a great deal of study/practice to perfect, and not necessarily anything else, as evidenced by the fact that a D&D wizard (whether PC or NPC) can do both, and a D&D barbarian (whether PC or NPC) can't do either.

In Maleficient's case it's not clear whether it was a learned ability or an inherent part of being a witch. (I.e., monstrous ability.)


Picard can't use powers like Q can.

Because Q's vastly alien like an extremely powerful monster, and such powers are an inherent part of such a fundamentally different creature.

Ravens_cry
2013-11-05, 06:03 PM
True enough; I guess what I was trying to say is that "requires some feat or spell or ritual you don't know about" is not, inherently, a reason you can't ever do that, and using it for that (to shut off any and all attempts at knowing about and mimicking the NPCs' abilities) is just as problematic in principle as simply saying "you're a PC, so you can't".

Hmm, I agree I don't like it as a shut-off, though it is legitimate reason I think they wouldn't have had the opportunity yet. After though, once they do know about it, with a little extra questing and/or research to get more details if the baddy didn't leave a spell book behind, I would say they could take it then.

Segev
2013-11-05, 06:06 PM
Please note that nobody is suggesting that your human PC should be able to use that dragon's breath weapon.

They are suggesting that, if your human PC cannot ever learn to take two actions in one round the way the human NPC did, it starts to rub them the wrong way.



Speaking more directly to the OP's topic, I actually am a strong advocate of symmetric design if you ever intend to have PvP happen, at all. This way, you don't wind up having to re-write your rules so that two PCs, designed to dish out damage to monsters with billions of hp while taking damage from monsters who deal hundreds of points of damage, don't turn on each other and do a few million hp when each has only hundreds of thousands of hp.

This is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. City of Heroes (and other MMOs, I'm given to understand) had a number of problems balancing PvP precisely because they had designed their PCs and their mobs to face off against each other, but with asymmetrical rules that didn't allow for good play when PCs faced PCs.

Designing PvP first, even in a game where one does not intend to have PvP be the primary thing, is good, because you can then balance PvE against that and on the same scale, and you never have to change the rules of the game to let it "work."

This is good in tabletop games, as well: not only will PCs often wind up having at least a little PvP happen (even if it's just in the social rules or the like, or in trying to hide from each other, or when the bad guy Dominates the fighter), but it means that the DM can design NPCs and monsters and even have them join the party and turn on them later without having to design them twice depending on whether they're facing PCs or NPCs.



But from a "player empowerment" standpoint, players usually don't mind NPCs doing things their PARTICULAR character cannot. However, they typically start getting annoyed when the only reason N. PerCy the Fighter can show up their high-level wizard while P. Celia the Fighter is struggling to keep up is because N PerCy is using rules that the players can't access.

We generally play tabletop rather than computer games when we want the freedom of creative choice and action that comes with an intelligent entity determining the consequences of actions that are not pre-programmed in. So if we see N. PerCy using awesome techniques, we feel cheated if our own characters can't ever hope to learn them no matter what we set out to do.

Nobody likes being given a tour of all the awesome stuff they're not allowed to have. Not in our escapism, anyway. (People may well like, say, "The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous," but they wouldn't want to play a character who is watching it; if they're playing a character because they like Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, they probably want to PLAY the Rich and Famous.)

OldTrees1
2013-11-05, 06:31 PM
I think the disconnect here is that one side keeps insisting that under identical circumstances, the PCs and NPCs should be able to do the same things, while the other side keeps insisting that the circumstances are not identical. Agree? Disagree?

I think I agree.
If the circumstances are the same, then PCs qualify for NPC abilities. However the circumstances are often not the same due to asymmetrical encounters or other campaign based restrictions on PCs. On the other hand, circumstances are sometimes the same.

Lorsa
2013-11-05, 06:45 PM
I think the disconnect here is that one side keeps insisting that under identical circumstances, the PCs and NPCs should be able to do the same things, while the other side keeps insisting that the circumstances are not identical. Agree? Disagree?

That seems to be the case.

Jay R
2013-11-05, 10:14 PM
I think the disconnect here is that one side keeps insisting that under identical circumstances, the PCs and NPCs should be able to do the same things, while the other side keeps insisting that the circumstances are not identical. Agree? Disagree?

I think that's over-simplifying it in a way that supports the idea that all rules should be available to everyone.

In fact, I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with having abilities not available to the other side.

In the 2E game I just started, I allowed each PC to choose one 3E Feat. These will be unique abilities, not available to their foes. And there is no in-game reason for it; I just think it would be fun to be unique. Similarly, some foes will have abilities not available to the PCs. And yes, I might wind up giving some of their enemies Feats that I specifically denied to the PCs.

I'm really, actually saying that unique abilities and asymmetric rules are fine.


They are suggesting that, if your human PC cannot ever learn to take two actions in one round the way the human NPC did, it starts to rub them the wrong way.

That's fine for the people who feel that way, but they shouldn't play in my game. There might be unique powers that I've decided are either fun to use once but quickly boring (in which case they will only be used by a one-shot NPC), or, far more likely, never explained to the players for reasons of plot.

Even if there is a good in-game reason why the PCs can't use them, the players may never know what it is.


Speaking more directly to the OP's topic, I actually am a strong advocate of symmetric design if you ever intend to have PvP happen, at all.

That may be part of the difference. I don't ever intend to have PvP. If a player doesn't intend to be a loyal member of the party, then he or she can find much better games to play in than mine.

Play your games the way you enjoy them. But remember that it's a personal preference, not a rule of how gaming "ought" to be.

Telok
2013-11-06, 02:17 AM
I don't ever intend to have PvP. If a player doesn't intend to be a loyal member of the party, then he or she can find much better games to play in than mine.

Some days you just have to beat down that mind controlled character even if he is your best buddy.

On a more helpful note it may be useful to determine what people mean by the phrase "follow the same rules." Some people the D&D 2e or 4e methods of writing up monsters my be 'not the same rules' because the monster don't use the same creation methods as the player characters. For others it may be something like giving the 4e marking mechanic to mook level guards in a 2e game and never allowing the PCs to use that mechanic because "I said so." Or something like giving a 2e vorpal sword to a 4e monster and turning it into a 4e magic sword when the players get it.

One thing that definitely crosses the line for me is when an NPC or monster changes sides and allied with the PCs and the stats just don't work or I have to redesign the NPC from the bottom up, out of the monster stats and into the PC style stats. Especially when the now allied NPC suddenly suffers major drops in effectiveness because his abilities aren't allowed to the PC side and must be reduced. Another is when abilities don't actually do what they say, if someone can turn into a kangaroo I expect them to be like a kangaroo. You know, better at jumping but not roaring and clawing people. If turning into a kangaroo lets you roar out sound type damage and claw people but not jump better than the dwarf wearing plate armor and a shield then something is wrong. One last one is when a less skilled NPC can do something that a skilled PC can't do and can never learn to do for no reason that makes sense within the game. Those sorts of things conflict with my understanding of how, even within the framework of the game, the world works. It disrupts my enjoyment of the game.

Lorsa
2013-11-06, 05:38 AM
I'm really, actually saying that unique abilities and asymmetric rules are fine.

I don't know a single game that has completely symmetric rules for all participants. Roleplaying games typically have a large difference in them.

But in a way I think ReaderAt2046 might be right. You are in a way saying that the circumstances are not identical because every character, monster or entity in the world is unique. The thing with uniqueness is that it isn't exactly the same and so will lead to different things being available.

Segev
2013-11-06, 08:54 AM
That may be part of the difference. I don't ever intend to have PvP. If a player doesn't intend to be a loyal member of the party, then he or she can find much better games to play in than mine.I'm not trying to besmirch your games in any way; preferences are preferences. But I have to ask: how far do you extend this?

Do you not allow one PC to hide anything from another? Can they throw surprise parties wherein they might have to bluff or make a hide check? I'm guessing you severely frown on having anybody have secrets IC, especially if they have a Nami-like side plot (from One Piece), and that you'd never blackmail PCs into working against the party even temporarily.

That seems to close off a lot of options for plot elements, but I can see why most of those would be things you don't want to bother with if you like a clear-cut IFF in your games. And the "throw a party" thing is obviously extremely corner case.

But part of my comment on symmetric design is for when PCs or NPCs use subversive tactics on the enemy. Do you never have the party come against (if D&D) a Mind Flayer, Aboleth, Beholder, Succubus, or Enchantment-focused spellcaster? Or, if they do, do they never get Charmed or Dominated or Enslaved into physically opposing the other PCs? Do you never allow the PCs to use various mind-control or influence techniques on the enemies?

Heck, do you never have NPCs who sometimes work with the party, and sometimes against them? (This can be done with clear-cut lines. It needn't be treachery, so much as common vs. opposed goals at various times.)

Without symmetric game design, these abilities are often disproportionately powerful (or possibly ludicrously useless), unless you have two stat blocks for every creature and character (PC or non-): one for when it's on the PC's side, and one for when it's opposing them.

The more symmetric the design, the less important this is.


Play your games the way you enjoy them. But remember that it's a personal preference, not a rule of how gaming "ought" to be.Never said otherwise. I simply stated my preferences and that I have generally found games that rely too heavily on "awesome NPCs" get frustrating because there's a lot of increasingly-obvious rail-roading or hand-waving to keep the power out of the hands of the PCs. Some games can get away with it, especially if the story is really cool or the gameplay is just that much fun. Most tabletop games, in my experience, become frustrating for the players if this is too prevalent. If yours is an exception, or you don't do it to an excessive degree, hey, great. Games are there to be enjoyed.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-06, 10:19 AM
Okay, so, maybe we need some more concrete examples here. When I think of asymmetric rules design, I have a couple of interrelated things in mind.

One is non-player characters that don't follow the same creation rules as player characters. Implicit in D&D's Monster Manual (since a good portion of NPC creation is "pick a monster"), especially in 4th Edition; also implicit in Burning Wheel (which has multiple ways to represent an NPC, one of which is "pick a handful of skills and rate them appropriately") and other systems.

I would even say that when a player tries to sneak past a guard and you assign a DC instead of statting up the guard on the spot, that's already introducing asymmetry between PCs and NPCs.

The other is a case where not all player roles (by "role" I mean GM versus PC in most games, though the differentiation is done differently in a few cases) use the same rules. Old School Hack (http://www.oldschoolhack.net/) lets the GM gain an ad-hoc advantage for a monster in exchange for giving the PCs Awesome Points. The players and the GM are playing fundamentally different games, and therefore don't need to use the same rules.

That's something important to recognize. Fictionally, the player characters and the GM are already not in the same position, so an RPG is generally asymmetrical by nature to begin with, especially if it's a traditional game. If a player character gains the ability to control the movements, reactions, and motivations of an entire world, that's incredibly rare, noteworthy, and probably seldom happens. It's considered normal for the GM to do that.

skyth
2013-11-06, 01:34 PM
I think a bit of it goes with the genre and feel of the game. I love both Champions and D&D. However, in Champions (A super-hero game), I'm fine with not being able to keep and use an enemy's gadget. It's written into the rules that you can't use stuff past the encounter you find it in unless you pay points for it (Or it's independent). Granted, this applies to NPC's as well :) However, this suits the genre of the game.

Any power that an NPC can have, a PC could theoretically have if they have the points with it, but I'm okay with PC's not being allowed to take 'stop' powers, which have the capability to be game-breaking.

However, in D&D, I'm not okay with this all that much (Other than if a PC is trying to get a power that could be game breaking, take the PC aside and say that is the reason why you'd prefer them not to try). Heck, I don't like monsters having more than average hit points, especially monsters given more than max hp.

D&D is much more free-form as far as gaining character abilities and I would expect an NPC wizard to operate under the same rules as a PC wizard as so far as how their stuff works. You have the obvious exceptions, like needing to run the wizard through adventures untill he gets enough XP to be the level he is (:) ) , but if the wizard casts a spell, I expect the PC's to have the ability to research that spell. If the Fighter has a feat that he uses against the PC's, I expect the PC's to have the ability to learn that feat.

Telok
2013-11-06, 06:06 PM
I think a bit of it goes with the genre and feel of the game. I love both Champions and D&D. However, in Champions (A super-hero game), I'm fine with not being able to keep and use an enemy's gadget. It's written into the rules that you can't use stuff past the encounter you find it in unless you pay points for it (Or it's independent). Granted, this applies to NPC's as well :)

Your character and the NPC are both following the same rule here.

Now if the PC had an OIF magic sword that was of fire and an NPC got hold of it and used it to shoot flame blasts "because fire swords work differently for NPCs and it wolnd be unbalanced for PCs." That's PC and NPC following different rules.

MickJay
2013-11-06, 09:20 PM
Just to throw this in, White Wolf games tend to work in a way that allows much symmetry. Aside from the 'extras' (whose special rules are very simple), nearly all NPCs can be modeled using stats and powers that may be used by players - although not necessarily in the same game. A group of vampires might face a werewolf, and won't ever be able to use the werewolf powers, but only because they are vampires (and have access to vampiric powers that the werewolf can't access). Nearly every officially statted NPC is possible to 'build' using rules for PCs, given a large enough XP pool. Here and there, one will find 'illegal' characters (NPC 'example' characters not fitting the rules - either because they're too powerful for who they are supposed to be, or too weak to do what they are supposed to do), but those are commonly found in other systems (including D&D) as well. Situations where NPCs have truly unique powers occur, but they tend to be clearly identifiable as such.

RandomNPC
2013-11-06, 10:02 PM
I've had players call me on where an attack bonus comes from, and have always been able to show them how they could build it themselves. That being said, when I limit books available, I always get at least two people who build something and come to me with "... and I took this one thing from this other book I hope that's okay." and I just let them know that because of person A the DM now has access to that book, so when they level they can look it over themselves.

On the other hand, there are so many abilities, there's no reason the party should have them all. Such as Augmented Critical from 3.X. It's the writers way of saying "This construct was made for the sole purpose of stabbing, so it crits on a 12+ with it's built in rapiers. They are not keen or even magic at all, and are useless when removed. rar." Worst ability ever, just because there's no good reason for it to exist, and if given a wish spell, DM would have no good reason not to grant it to a PC.

skyth
2013-11-07, 04:57 AM
Your character and the NPC are both following the same rule here.

Now if the PC had an OIF magic sword that was of fire and an NPC got hold of it and used it to shoot flame blasts "because fire swords work differently for NPCs and it wolnd be unbalanced for PCs." That's PC and NPC following different rules.

I'm also fine with NPC's able to have clairsentience and PC's not being able to...Same with Desolidification or being able to planar travel. (all stop powers).

Also, NPC's could theoretically keep and use PC equipment as the GM can just bump their point total. PC's would have trouble doing that...(Not impossible, but requires GM fiat to just give PC's points).

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-07, 08:18 AM
On the other hand, there are so many abilities, there's no reason the party should have them all. Such as Augmented Critical from 3.X. It's the writers way of saying "This construct was made for the sole purpose of stabbing, so it crits on a 12+ with it's built in rapiers. They are not keen or even magic at all, and are useless when removed. rar." Worst ability ever, just because there's no good reason for it to exist, and if given a wish spell, DM would have no good reason not to grant it to a PC.
See, in this case, I would just say (were I designing the game) "this monster crits on a 12+". It doesn't matter to me that the PCs have no way to obtain this ability.

Jay R
2013-11-07, 03:31 PM
I'm not trying to besmirch your games in any way; preferences are preferences. But I have to ask: how far do you extend this?

Rivals are fine; enemies are not. All your guesses about extending my aversion for PvP into things that are not PvP are incorrect.


Without symmetric game design, these abilities are often disproportionately powerful (or possibly ludicrously useless), unless you have two stat blocks for every creature and character (PC or non-): one for when it's on the PC's side, and one for when it's opposing them.

No, I don't have two stat blocks for every character, and I do not see what that would have to do with the fact that there are some feats and abilities the players don't have.

The problem with an asymmetric, disproportionately powerful ability isn't that it's asymmetric. It's that it's disproportionately powerful. I avoid disproportionately powerful abilities, and I don't need symmetry to do it.

Asymmetry is not the problem, and symmetry is not the solution.


The more symmetric the design, the less important this is.

Nonsense. If one side has a power that can destroy the continent, it's a problem. If both sides have a power that can destroy the continent, it's just as much a problem.


I simply stated my preferences and that I have generally found games that rely too heavily on "awesome NPCs" get frustrating because there's a lot of increasingly-obvious rail-roading or hand-waving to keep the power out of the hands of the PCs.

Agreed. But the problem isn't asymmetry, and there is no problem keeping human PCs from using the racial characteristics of dark elves. You seem to believe that an ability that one side has and the other doesn't inherently involve "awesome NPCs" with "disproportionately powerful" abilities. I agree that disproportionately powerful abilities are a problem.

But we aren't talking about disproportionately powerful abilities; we're talking about each side having powers the other doesn't.

skyth
2013-11-07, 04:15 PM
But we aren't talking about disproportionately powerful abilities; we're talking about each side having powers the other doesn't.

No, one side has all the powers of the other side and then some whereas the other side only has a limited selection of powers. NPC's have access to anything that a player can do (Any skill, class, item, or feat). The problem arises when something that an NPC has that a PC should logically be able to use they can't use or learn.

I'm not talking about dragon breath for a human as logically, a human can't do that. However, a feat should be replicatable. Same with an item.

jindra34
2013-11-07, 04:39 PM
I'm not talking about dragon breath for a human as logically, a human can't do that. However, a feat should be replicatable. Same with an item.

For some/most of what your complaining about, how often will your players want,or be willing to, devote significant in game months/years to studying, and gather supplies to test it. With potential wasted effort on a bad roll?

skyth
2013-11-07, 05:14 PM
Depends on the campaign. Some campaigns have down time and others do not.

Also, if it's a feat, you should be able to pick it up if you have the prereqs whenever you get your next feat as you've seen it used. Similar to how Artemis duplicated a move Drizz't used against him almost immediately after it was used on him. Shouldn't take any more effort than it takes to learn Cleave when you already have Power Attack.

Spells, there are rules for researching spells. Same with creating items.


But the issue arises because the PC's are just told no when they try to get something they should logically be able to have that an NPC has. They aren't even given the chance to spend the effort.

jindra34
2013-11-07, 05:52 PM
Depends on the campaign. Some campaigns have down time and others do not.

Also, if it's a feat, you should be able to pick it up if you have the prereqs whenever you get your next feat as you've seen it used. Similar to how Artemis duplicated a move Drizz't used against him almost immediately after it was used on him. Shouldn't take any more effort than it takes to learn Cleave when you already have Power Attack.

Spells, there are rules for researching spells. Same with creating items.


But the issue arises because the PC's are just told no when they try to get something they should logically be able to have that an NPC has. They aren't even given the chance to spend the effort.

There is a big difference between knowing that something can be done, and knowing HOW something is done. I'd say for most things the second is more important wouldn't you?

ryu
2013-11-07, 06:01 PM
There is a big difference between knowing that something can be done, and knowing HOW something is done. I'd say for most things the second is more important wouldn't you?

In a game with divination magic to interrogate gods and entire planes of existence this argument really just doesn't matter all that much. Plus there are a few general methods of replicating that just generally work for most things. Race specific magic item? UMD check to compensate. Feat with odd prereqs? Still has prereqs to obtain. Weird freaking spell that has no precedent? We have spell research rules that specifically allow the creation of entirely new effects. Replicating one seen isn't a stretch by any means.

skyth
2013-11-07, 06:32 PM
There is a big difference between knowing that something can be done, and knowing HOW something is done. I'd say for most things the second is more important wouldn't you?

Being a highly skilled expert in their field (Basically any PC past 3rd/4th level...Which is about Olympic level.) they should be able to deduce the how easily enough. Plus, taking the feat means that you spent effort and figured out the how. The effort to do that could be assumed to have taken place during down time...Just like you assume the PC's eat/drink every day.

Heck, in 2nd edition, there were even rules for that in an article from Dragon. (Dealing with secret moves used by swordmaster schools). This is really a trope in fiction.

And knowing that something can be done is actually more important than the how. It's easier to figure out how to do something if you know it's possible. If you don't know it's possible, you have no idea to even try something.

Think of it this way. Assume you don't know anything about how to start a fire. You see someone using flint and steel to start a fire with the sparks it generates. Knowing that a fire can be started with flint and steel keeps you from having to try an near infinite combinations of things until you get one that works. Before that, you didn't even know that flint could be used to create a spark.

Segev
2013-11-07, 06:35 PM
No, I don't have two stat blocks for every character, and I do not see what that would have to do with the fact that there are some feats and abilities the players don't have.

The problem with an asymmetric, disproportionately powerful ability isn't that it's asymmetric. It's that it's disproportionately powerful. I avoid disproportionately powerful abilities, and I don't need symmetry to do it.

Asymmetry is not the problem, and symmetry is not the solution.

Nonsense. If one side has a power that can destroy the continent, it's a problem. If both sides have a power that can destroy the continent, it's just as much a problem.

Agreed. But the problem isn't asymmetry, and there is no problem keeping human PCs from using the racial characteristics of dark elves. You seem to believe that an ability that one side has and the other doesn't inherently involve "awesome NPCs" with "disproportionately powerful" abilities. I agree that disproportionately powerful abilities are a problem.

But we aren't talking about disproportionately powerful abilities; we're talking about each side having powers the other doesn't.I think you're missing my point.

What you're describing isn't asymmetry. You're describing a symmetrical system wherein your NPCs have special privileges. Or, possibly, wherein your NPCs simply made different build choices than the PCs.

Asymmetry is when you get something like Final Fantasy, where monsters have millions of hp but PCs have only thousands, and PCs do damage in the hundreds of thousands while monsters do damage in the hundreds.

This is a form of asymetry that is nonetheless balanced, because "number of hits to K.O." remains roughly even. But it makes other aspects of design very hard if you EVER break the asymmetry by having two that are supposed to be on the same side compete.

Two monsters, each with millions of hp and doing hundreds of damage, would be unable to hurt each other significantly. Two PCs, each with thousands of hp and doing hundreds of thousands of damage, would have whoever struck first K.O. the other instantly.

jindra34
2013-11-07, 07:28 PM
In a game with divination magic to interrogate gods and entire planes of existence this argument really just doesn't matter all that much. Plus there are a few general methods of replicating that just generally work for most things. Race specific magic item? UMD check to compensate. Feat with odd prereqs? Still has prereqs to obtain. Weird freaking spell that has no precedent? We have spell research rules that specifically allow the creation of entirely new effects. Replicating one seen isn't a stretch by any means.
Right. Look at the section title. Its general RPG, not Dnd 3.x or whatever. Therefore while Dnd might be a good place for general terminology, its a bad idea to use as a basis for difficulty of some tasks. And even what your describing requires some degree of interpolation, after all feats and HD and all don't exist IN UNIVERSE.

Think of it this way. Assume you don't know anything about how to start a fire. You see someone using flint and steel to start a fire with the sparks it generates. Knowing that a fire can be started with flint and steel keeps you from having to try an near infinite combinations of things until you get one that works. Before that, you didn't even know that flint could be used to create a spark.

And thats a simple task. Now another method of starting fires, the two sticks method, is hard to reproduce even if you know the theory behind it. And we aren't talking about basic everyday tricks, we are talking about things that make a difference in actual gameplay on a significant level.

Necroticplague
2013-11-07, 07:40 PM
I like for systems to be relatively symmetrical for purposes of adapting. If one of my players sees an enemy do something the think is a good idea, they may want to try something similar.And reversely, if the players do something interesting, I may want to have an enemy perform a similar trick against them. If the mechanics for both sides are the same, or at least the similar, it makes it easier.

kyoryu
2013-11-07, 07:45 PM
I think it's too broad to say one way or the other.

Attack rolls, damage rolls, and the like? Yup. Same rules.

Having the same abilities? Depends on the system. PC abilities can be more complex since each player deals with one, as opposed to the GM dealing with many.

Character build? Probably not necessary, as some constraints on player builds aren't really necessary for NPC building.

If I'm running GURPS, for instance, my NPCs will follow the same 'runtime' rules as PCs. But I probably won't build them with points.

Jay R
2013-11-07, 09:58 PM
I think you're missing my point.

What you're describing isn't asymmetry. You're describing a symmetrical system wherein your NPCs have special privileges. Or, possibly, wherein your NPCs simply made different build choices than the PCs.

You're trying to re-define the English language to make a point that is false in English. If the two sides don't have the same options, then it's asymmetric. You have no authority to change that meaning.

If you are trying to say that you are only concerned with one kind of asymmetry and not with others, then I'm not missing your point, you're trying to use false linguistics to miss mine.

I agree that some game designs are wrong. In your example, asymmetry is not the problem.


Asymmetry is when you get something like Final Fantasy, where monsters have millions of hp but PCs have only thousands, and PCs do damage in the hundreds of thousands while monsters do damage in the hundreds.

This is a form of asymetry that is nonetheless balanced, because "number of hits to K.O." remains roughly even. But it makes other aspects of design very hard if you EVER break the asymmetry by having two that are supposed to be on the same side compete.

Two monsters, each with millions of hp and doing hundreds of damage, would be unable to hurt each other significantly. Two PCs, each with thousands of hp and doing hundreds of thousands of damage, would have whoever struck first K.O. the other instantly.

The problem isn't asymmetry. This is made clear when you realize that a monster and a PC, each with thousands of hp and doing hundreds of thousands of damage, would have exactly the same problem. If the same problem can exist in a symmetric system, then asymmetry isn't what's causing it.

The problem is having attacks far stronger than defenses. Asymmetry makes no difference. In fact, in the case you're talking about, the asymmetry in the system is the solution to the problem. Only if you make it symmetric does the problem arise.

ryu
2013-11-07, 10:42 PM
Right. Look at the section title. Its general RPG, not Dnd 3.x or whatever. Therefore while Dnd might be a good place for general terminology, its a bad idea to use as a basis for difficulty of some tasks. And even what your describing requires some degree of interpolation, after all feats and HD and all don't exist IN UNIVERSE.


And thats a simple task. Now another method of starting fires, the two sticks method, is hard to reproduce even if you know the theory behind it. And we aren't talking about basic everyday tricks, we are talking about things that make a difference in actual gameplay on a significant level.

Sure they do. Notice how they're a large part of the basis of what people can do. People don't call them out by name, but they do exist in a hilariously concrete manner. As a matter of fact the way some spells define their parameters it's NECESSARY for HD to be a thing the spellcaster is actively aware of. Don't even get me started on the fact that character growth at early levels is a pretty blatantly obvious phenomenon with how quickly it occurs. Ask the town wizard how many kobolds he had to murder before instantly knowing how to cast second level spells.

Lorsa
2013-11-10, 10:50 AM
No, one side has all the powers of the other side and then some whereas the other side only has a limited selection of powers. NPC's have access to anything that a player can do (Any skill, class, item, or feat). The problem arises when something that an NPC has that a PC should logically be able to use they can't use or learn.

I'm not talking about dragon breath for a human as logically, a human can't do that. However, a feat should be replicatable. Same with an item.

Why are we talking about one side having all the powers of the other side and then some more? I thought we were talking about if:

1) Every entity in the game should have access to the same abilities

or

2) If every player at the game table should follow the same rules

or possibly

3) If there should always be a known and accepted reason for why a power would not be availible

With that in mind I would say that:

1) That would be exceedingly boring. I like my games to distinguish between elves and dragons; they should not work the same.

2) This is impossible in a roleplaying game that has a Game/Dungeon Master.

3) This only works if you are very good at distringuishing OOC knowledge from IC knowledge. There's plenty of reason why the characters should not know why something doesn't work so if that means it should also be hidden from the players is a matter of taste.

Basically, I think you have to accept that rules are not symmetrical, that the GM follows completely different rules and that your character may have access to things other people do not and vice versa. If a GM does too many weird/strange/arbitrary rulings as to why something isn't useable by you when you feel it logically should then that is a problem with GM vs. player expectations not with the presence of asymmetry as such.

skyth
2013-11-11, 10:15 AM
Why are we talking about one side having all the powers of the other side and then some more?

I was responding to someone else.


I like my games to distinguish between elves and dragons; they should not work the same.

Strawman. No one is arguing for that. What we are arguing for is that if the Elf takes power attack, it should work the same as if the Dragon takes power attack. Also, an Elf PC should have theoretical access to anything an Elf NPC has access to.

Jay R
2013-11-11, 10:59 AM
I was responding to someone else.

Strawman. No one is arguing for that. What we are arguing for is that if the Elf takes power attack, it should work the same as if the Dragon takes power attack. Also, an Elf PC should have theoretical access to anything an Elf NPC has access to.

Why? My professional laptop won't work for anybody who doesn't have the password, and the training, and the abilities I have. My car won't work for anyone who doesn't have the key, and hasn't been trained to drive. My rapier much more awkwardly for people who've spent less than forty years using one.

Picking up somebody else's unique weapon and trying to learn to use it will, in some instances, will be like trying to use a burnt-out match, or a discarded gun when you have no knowledge of, or access to, a supply of bullets.

You use the word "should" twice. Is there a moral principle involved, or a gaming principle, that says that it's immoral for each side to have unique abilities, or that games cannot work in those conditions? If so, the principle is wrong - lots of fun games have specific rules for each side.

More importantly, what story or game purpose does it serve? I can see introducing a power which, used for the purposes of this a particular villain, would add drama and tension, but used generally by the PCs, would quickly become over-powered or boring.

Imagine if Batman used insanity, cats, riddles, freeze rays, plant-based poisons, Clayface's shapeshifting, Blockbuster's strength, etc., in addition to all his current abilities. The character conception would quickly become watered down, generic, and boring.

If you like your character concept, then play that concept. It'll be fun. You will face many other concepts that will also be fun to see.

Morithias
2013-11-11, 11:56 AM
Imagine if Batman used insanity, cats, riddles, freeze rays, plant-based poisons, Clayface's shapeshifting, Blockbuster's strength, etc., in addition to all his current abilities. The character conception would quickly become watered down, generic, and boring.

You weren't around during the Silver Age were you?

Telok
2013-11-11, 03:27 PM
Some clarification is needed here.

Why? My professional laptop won't work for anybody who doesn't have the password, and the training, and the abilities I have. My car won't work for anyone who doesn't have the key, and hasn't been trained to drive. My rapier much more awkwardly for people who've spent less than forty years using...

Your laptop will work for anyone who can crack the password unless you have an active security program constantly requesting that you verify your identity. An unskilled user might not be as effective as you are, untill their skills improved of course, but the laptop will function for anyone with the password.

It is a similar issue with the car, once they have the key the car is perfectly functional. Even worse the person who takes your car away from you may be a better driver than you are. Same thing with the rapier, the skills of the individual determine the utility of the tool not the other way around.

What many people here object to is game design that leads to having two characters with the same skills and equipment use different rules. This is an issue for myself and others with the D&D 4e game, we get three different sets of rules to model "some guy with a sword who hits things", one set for players, another for enemies, and a third set for non-player allies. You end up with systems where one warrior has fifty hit points and does 4d10 damage while his opponent has two hundred hit points but only does 3d4 damage. If someone changes sides in the middle of a fight for a good sold rp reason do you stop the game to recast that character as the type whose side he changed to, or do you accept that the traitor's abilities are completely inappropriate? For some of us these sorts of things are a real impediment to the types of games that we want to run.

skyth
2013-11-11, 03:59 PM
You use the word "should" twice. Is there a moral principle involved, or a gaming principle, that says that it's immoral for each side to have unique abilities, or that games cannot work in those conditions? If so, the principle is wrong - lots of fun games have specific rules for each side.

Should as in it should logically work. It involves having the game be believable. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far. The whole thing is about logical consistency and expectations.


Imagine if Batman used insanity, cats, riddles, freeze rays, plant-based poisons, Clayface's shapeshifting, Blockbuster's strength, etc., in addition to all his current abilities. The character conception would quickly become watered down, generic, and boring.

Different Genre. Superhero 'verses have a logic of their own. However, in your examples, Batman theoretically has access to ALL of those things. He chooses not to use them for one reason or another (A lot of them have down-sides as well). However, if Batman saw a fighting move that he thought would be useful, he would incorporate that into his abilities.



If you like your character concept, then play that concept. It'll be fun. You will face many other concepts that will also be fun to see.

Character concepts are not straight jackets. They adapt and change as the game goes on. Not everyone will grab anything that they can use due to character concepts. Some new abilities will work with a character concept or cause a mutation of a concept to something else.

Jay R
2013-11-11, 09:33 PM
You weren't around during the Silver Age were you?

Yes, I was, and Batman didn't collect and use his enemy's weapons. He collected them and put them in the Bat-cave, with the dinosaur and the giant penny. There were also lots of silly stories in which he had some strange power or attribute, but it was always gone by the next issue.

TuggyNE
2013-11-11, 10:16 PM
Why? My professional laptop won't work for anybody who doesn't have the password, and the training, and the abilities I have. My car won't work for anyone who doesn't have the key, and hasn't been trained to drive. My rapier much more awkwardly for people who've spent less than forty years using one.

Good analogy. You know how much effort it takes to make a system capable of requiring strong passwords? How about reliable locks that can't be trivially bypassed by skeleton keys? Those are not developments that have been around for terribly long. What's more, such protection costs something, and the cost is roughly proportional to the protection granted and inversely proportional to the sophistication of technology in general, which means that putting the equivalent of password protection on magical arrows requires either enormous general magical competence, or an extremely valuable magical asset being protected; in either case, no system is impenetrable, and PCs are precisely those most likely to be able to bypass protections.

And all of those examples fail to consider the case of someone who does have the training and abilities, which is by no means inaccessible, or even uncommon; very nearly anyone can learn to drive, learn basic competence with a rapier (though not perhaps be as good at fighting; after all, that's what BAB/THAC0 and Str/Dex are for), or learn to use a computer within a few months of effort, or perhaps a year at most.

Jay R
2013-11-11, 11:25 PM
Your laptop will work for anyone who can crack the password unless you have an active security program constantly requesting that you verify your identity. An unskilled user might not be as effective as you are, untill their skills improved of course, but the laptop will function for anyone with the password.

I specified my professional laptop. People without years of training in game theory, operations research and telecommunications simply cannot use many of the programs on it.

When I was doing some large calculations for my dissertation in Excel, my wife suggested I needed better security. I replied, "Why? Less than one hundred people in the world know about the problem I'm trying to solve, and they couldn't learn how to operate my programs without my help. I offered to show my advisor how I was doing it, and he said (correctly) that it wouldn't be worth the time it would take.

Similarly, I have no problem believing that only the Dark elves can use something that was made for dark elves by dark elves to run off dark elf magic.


What many people here object to is game design that leads to having two characters with the same skills and equipment use different rules. This is an issue for myself and others with the D&D 4e game, we get three different sets of rules to model "some guy with a sword who hits things", one set for players, another for enemies, and a third set for non-player allies. You end up with systems where one warrior has fifty hit points and does 4d10 damage while his opponent has two hundred hit points but only does 3d4 damage. If someone changes sides in the middle of a fight for a good sold rp reason do you stop the game to recast that character as the type whose side he changed to, or do you accept that the traitor's abilities are completely inappropriate? For some of us these sorts of things are a real impediment to the types of games that we want to run.

I agree that stupid design is stupid. And you don't have to convince me about that the 4E rules cause impediments to games the way I want to run them. That's why I have no interest in the game. But it has nothing to do with asymmetry, and everything to do with bad design.

Proof that the problem isn't asymmetry: as you pointed out, as long as the game remains asymmetric, there is no problem. The problem comes specifically when you suggest putting similar people on both sides.

The problem is any systems where warriors have fifty hit points and do 4d10 damage. It doesn't show up as a problem until the system is symmetric.

Sometimes you will face vampires. They have shapechange you don't have, dominate you don't have, CON drain you don't have, and also weaknesses you don't have. That's fine. Accept the asymmetry and play the game.

Some enemies' weapons you can pick up and use. Some you can't. That's fine too.

If the game introduces a mechanic that doesn't work in a symmetric situation, don't blame asymmetry; blame bad design.

ryu
2013-11-11, 11:42 PM
They could however still put in the effort to learn the system if they cared. Well that or simply do what a normal cracker would do after getting past security and using your machine for his own purposes after getting past security. This could be through any number of viruses, spreading of the code, access of any personal information you stored in there, simple proxy manipulation as one of many hacked computers for Denial of service attacks on websites, and need I really go on? Most hackers DON'T CARE what's on your computer save for a select few hoping to dig around for your personal info.

Telok
2013-11-12, 02:16 AM
I offered to show my advisor how I was doing it, and he said (correctly) that it wouldn't be worth the time it would take.

Similarly, I have no problem believing that only the Dark elves can use something that was made for dark elves by dark elves to run off dark elf magic.

Ok, this is the problem:
You seem to be saying that training is something that can't be done in a game. You support the phrase "Bob McUber-Archer can't learn to shoot type-x arrows because he is a player character." or "Joe McUber-Swordsman can't learn to throw his sword because that's a monster power."

I'm saying that those sorts of statements bother me and that I think they are indicative of either weak game design or a type of game that I probably won't like. In my experience those sorts of games are designed to limit player options and abilities in order to serve some other purpose. Unless that purpose is stated up front and in a convincing manner I'm probably not going to enjoy the game.

Let's take an example: I love Call of Cthulhu (Chaosium not d20).
Is this a "same rules" or "different rules" game? I think it's a "same rules" game. My mortal human character can try to do anything else the other mortal human characters can do, with more of less skill. My character does not have the magic powers of the Great Old Ones because I am not playing a Great Old One, I am playing a mortal human. If Cthulhu eats 1d4 investigators a round I don't expect my character to be able to do that because my character is not a hundred foot tall cosmic horror from another dimension. However if a normal human cultist shoots a gun, I expect that if I get the gun and figure out how to shoot it, it will work normally. My character and other characters like him are playing by the same set of rules. The Great Old Ones don't play by some of those rules because they are cosmic horrors from other galaxies or dimensions.


Sometimes you will face vampires. They have shapechange you don't have, dominate you don't have, CON drain you don't have, and also weaknesses you don't have. That's fine. Accept the asymmetry and play the game.

Some enemies' weapons you can pick up and use. Some you can't. That's fine too.

This isn't a mortal human vs. vampire issue, at least I don't think it is. It's a vampire vs. vampire issue. If I play a vampire (via whatever method or rule) I expect it to have the vampire powers that all the other vampires have or, if I don't have those powers, I would appreciate a compelling in-game reason as to why not. If the NPC vampires can shapechange into a rat, a bat, or a wolf at will but the PC vampires get to shapechange into a cat once a fight, I get annoyed. It's worse with equipment, if there's some magical curse that a sword only works for a race-Z so it won't work for a race-Y that's fine (but I expect a player character of race-Z to be able to use that sword). I can grok a magical race specific IFF spell. If a sword only works for team Monster and not for team Hero for no in-game reason, that annoys me. It breaks my suspension of disbelief and makes me enjoy the game less.

It really, really is not a "vampires have powers human don't" issue. If the vampires only had human abilities then they wouldn't be vampires and the world would be a bit more boring. The issue is when PC vampires have human type abilities while NPC vampires have all the vampire powers and there is neither a reason given* nor any way for the PC vampire to ever have the vampire powers.

* "Balance" is no longer a reason that I can accept without a strict definition and some logical proofs, at least not in game design. People use the word balance to mean so many different things that I've been forced to stop considering it anything but a statement of personal preference. Even what that personal preference is about changes from person to person.

jedipotter
2013-11-12, 05:13 AM
Ok, this is the problem:
You seem to be saying that training is something that can't be done in a game. You support the phrase "Bob McUber-Archer can't learn to shoot type-x arrows because he is a player character." or "Joe McUber-Swordsman can't learn to throw his sword because that's a monster power."

I'm saying that those sorts of statements bother me and that I think they are indicative of either weak game design or a type of game that I probably won't like. In my experience those sorts of games are designed to limit player options and abilities in order to serve some other purpose. Unless that purpose is stated up front and in a convincing manner I'm probably not going to enjoy the game.

It's odd how you say you'd want your game character to be able to use or do anything, except when you agree to decide that they can't. And that is what I see as the problem. You don't want to be a player in a game, you want to be a co-dm.

And that is fine. There are DM less games. And lots of DM's are pushovers, or Player-DM types, so you should have no problem finding a game that you can back table co-dm.


Evil powers, items and such are a good example. No player in my game can use them. Ever. My player characters must be good. I don't run evil games. So if your playing in my game, no evil stuff for you.

Would you accept that? And if you did, would you accept other things ''not for players''?

Lorsa
2013-11-12, 05:18 AM
I was responding to someone else.

I'm sorry. My mistake then.


Strawman. No one is arguing for that.

That was an argument against statement 1) of my statements. It's possible that I may be wrong but it seemed like there were 3 possible discussions that could be going on.



1) Every entity in the game should have access to the same abilities

With that in mind I would say that:

1) That would be exceedingly boring. I like my games to distinguish between elves and dragons; they should not work the same.

So as you can see I never said that anyone has ever said that elves and dragons should be the same. It's my argument against a position that after reading this thread I got the impression that people could have. I didn't say they do have or that anyone in specific has that position. You are free to simply say "No, I don't believe every entity in the game should have access to the same abilities." and then we don't have to argue that!

So who is strawmanning who?


What we are arguing for is that if the Elf takes power attack, it should work the same as if the Dragon takes power attack. Also, an Elf PC should have theoretical access to anything an Elf NPC has access to.

So we're arguing specifics and not generals? That's certainly possible but not very useful. Also it is a matter of taste; as in you can prefer that things work a certain way while Jay R prefers things another and as long as you never play together there isn't a problem.

Saying that things should work a certain way in these situations is a dangerously objective statement about something that is mostly a personal preference. It's better to say "I like it this way". Of course, that's perhaps not very fun for discussion purposes?

Lorsa
2013-11-12, 05:27 AM
It really, really is not a "vampires have powers human don't" issue. If the vampires only had human abilities then they wouldn't be vampires and the world would be a bit more boring. The issue is when PC vampires have human type abilities while NPC vampires have all the vampire powers and there is neither a reason given* nor any way for the PC vampire to ever have the vampire powers.

I am going to quote myself:


If a GM does too many weird/strange/arbitrary rulings as to why something isn't useable by you when you feel it logically should then that is a problem with GM vs. player expectations

Jay R
2013-11-12, 12:13 PM
Ok, this is the problem:
You seem to be saying that training is something that can't be done in a game. You support the phrase "Bob McUber-Archer can't learn to shoot type-x arrows because he is a player character." or "Joe McUber-Swordsman can't learn to throw his sword because that's a monster power."

No I don't. I do not support the stupid sentences you put in quotes and accused me of supporting.

I "seem" to be saying the actual words I wrote, not some other words that you made up yourself - even if you put them in quotation marks.

In any case, I have never said, implied, or believed that "because he is a player character" is a valid reason. You had to make up a quote precisely because you cannot find it in my writings.

"ecause that's a monster power" [B]can be a valid reason, as you documented in your Cthulhu example.

I promise that if I ever put something in quotes and ascribe it to you, the words in the quote marks will be words that you wrote, not words I made up.

There are some forms of training that some others cannot duplicate. There are some forms of training that you can duplicate, but only by forfeiting an adventuring career for decades. And there are some natural abilities that cannot be learned. If, for instance, the dark elf arrows that started this discussion are attuned to the mind of their maker who can direct them telekinetically, then nobody else can use them.

Over and over again I have said that some abilities cannot be used by everybody.


I'm saying that those sorts of statements bother me and that I think they are indicative of either weak game design or a type of game that I probably won't like. In my experience those sorts of games are designed to limit player options and abilities in order to serve some other purpose. Unless that purpose is stated up front and in a convincing manner I'm probably not going to enjoy the game.

"to limit player options and abilities in order to serve some other purpose"*. This is such a generic phrase that it can apply to any statement or decision a DM says. Pretty much all DM decisions, and all attack or skill rolls, are intended to determine the limits on player options.

If you intend to say anything with this paragraph, you need to stop using generic phrases like "in order to serve some other purpose"* and actually tell us what you're talking about.

You then gave a long description of Call of Cthulhu which pretty much agreed with everything I said, to try to prove me wrong.

I've been saying from the start that there are some powers and abilities your enemies will use that you can't, and that this is not bad design. In my games, there is always a reason for it, but it is not true that the characters always know those reasons. You explained that the powers and abilities that you can't use don't bother you if there's a good reason for it.

That doesn't disagree with anything I've said.

I'm not sure you and I disagree on anything. The only likely areas of disagreement I can see is whether the DM always has to give you the explanation, and whether the DM and players should live up to a social convention of mutual trust.

I don't assume that characters will always know the reason, and if they don't, the players won't know the reason. If an untrained character picks up a gun which is out of bullets, he won't know why it isn't working for him. If another character tries to start a fire, she might not know why the match isn't working for her; she saw somebody else start a fire with it just a minute ago. When you pick up an arrow, you might not know that the magic was in the bow, or in the bowman, or it might be a one-time use arrow. You may not know the word of command, the trigger, or even the safety catch. And it might not work for your Lawful Good human Fighter because maybe it doesn't work for Good characters, or humans, or Fighters.

But unless your character has a relevant skill, the DM should not explain why it isn't working.

MagnusExultatio
2013-11-12, 03:23 PM
I have absolutely no problem with NPCs and PCs using different rules. And as long as it fits, I don't use PC rules for NPCs when I run games, whatever works, works.

Knaight
2013-11-12, 04:28 PM
I'm going to go with it depending on the game. To use an example of mine, I have a minimalist game by the name of Titled that is mostly intended for people who just don't like dealing with rules. It's as asymmetric as it gets, as only the player characters even have stats, all interactions with the world, including other entities in it are difficulty based. Similarly, there are a number of reasons for skills to be possessed by NPCs only, and as long as there is a valid reason I don't have a problem with it. Maybe the PCs are travelers and magic use varies highly by location, so of course those entrenched somewhere will be vastly better at it. Maybe someone simply has training that isn't available to most people, and that the PCs will never get. So on and so forth.

That said, there are also stupid reasons for asymmetry. A normal human character just happening to get more actions in a system that doesn't generally allow for that because they have some sort of metagame 'elite' or 'boss' designation is jarring. That same enemy getting twice the actions because they've been injected with some sort of dubious magically synthesized stuff is completely fine, though the PCs should probably be able to use the same stuff if their biologies are similar - even if the side effects look really bad from their perspective, and supply is questionable.

Raimun
2013-11-12, 11:46 PM
Everyone should follow the same rules.

Consider 3.5 D&D:

It's okay if my level 20 Fighter character can't fly 200 ft./round and breathe fire at will just like all of the Adult Red Dragon NPCs. I'm simply not playing a dragon. Yet the rules are still the same for everyone.

It's not okay if my Adult Red Dragon character couldn't fly 200 ft./round and breathe fire at will just like all of the Adult Red Dragon NPCs. Instead, PC-dragons could only fly 60 ft./round and breathe fire twice per day. The rules are not the same for everyone and it doesn't make any sense. Why am I so different from other dragons? If you could play a dragon in 4e, this is pretty much how it would go.

Requirements and limitations to abilities should have an in-universe explanation.

For example, "Good Outsiders only.", "Need to know 3rd level spontaneous Arcane spells.", "Minimum Strength of 13." and "Epic Level characters only." All of the above make perfect sense in a context, ie. "You don't have the physique of an angel." or "You're not quite there yet. You need more practice."

3.5 D&D is an excellent example of a game where the rules are the same for everyone. If I'm playing a vampire, I will have the same creature template as the Evil NPC-villain who is also a vampire. If both of us were also Sorcerers of 15th level, we might have by chance exactly the same spell selection. If we were of the same Race our potential maximum Charisma is also the same.

4e D&D is a game where there are different rules for PCs and NPCs. If I'm playing a Wizard there, there is no chance that any NPC-Wizard ever is going to have any of the same spells I have. However, another PC-Wizard could have exactly the same spells I have.

Limits like PC-only or NPC-only are just lame and make no sense. If PC/NPC-thing is legitimate limitation of what I can or can't learn, shouldn't I be able to introduce myself in character as "Aragorn, son of Arathorn, a ranger of the north, chieftain of the Dúnedain, rightful heir to the throne of Gondor and a player character"? :smalltongue:

Telok
2013-11-13, 02:22 AM
Ok, I'm being mis-understood, mis-quoted, and stuff is getting twisted. I'll try one more time.

On human vs. vampire or investigator vs. Cthulhu: A human is not a vampire, they have different abilities and weaknesses because one is a living person and the other is an unliving blood drinker. That's why they have different abilities, it makes sense within the framework of the game world. A CoC human does not have Cthulhu powers, not because it's a "monster power" and therefore off limits to PCs, but because the PC isn't an abomination from beyond time and space. If your PC is an abomination from beyond time and space then it should have the appropriate abilities for whatever specific type of horror that it is. It makes sense within the game that humans can't make giant tentacle attacks because the humans don't have tentacles.

What I do expect is that if a character is a human that they get the abilities common to all humans, if a character is a vampire that they get the abilities common to all vampires, if a character is a <whatever> that they get the abilities common to all <whatever>. When this expectation isn't met I would like an explanation as to why things are that way. If that explanation is "because the powers of a <whatever> aren't suitable for PCs to have" than my absolute first question is "Then why do you want people to play a <whatever>?"

On the PC fighter vs. NPC fighter: "You can't learn each other's sword moves because <excuse>" is what I keep hearing. There is no good, convincing, reason that two equal and skilled warriors with the time and drive cannot teach one another sword tricks. At least no good reason I have yet to hear. Saying that PC tricks can't be taught to NPCs and NPC tricks can't be taught to PCs only because they are PCs and NPCs rankles me.

I have generally found that games where (for example) a PC 5th level human fighter, an NPC 5th level human fighter, and a monster 5th level human fighter are all different things and can't use each other's equipment or have the same abilities are games where I'm going to encounter game design decisions that make me enjoy the game less. The more I encounter those design elements that break immersion for me or just don't make sense and aren't adequately explained the less I want to play that game.


I don't assume that characters will always know the reason, and if they don't, the players won't know the reason. If an untrained character picks up a gun which is out of bullets, he won't know why it isn't working for him. If another character tries to start a fire, she might not know why the match isn't working for her; she saw somebody else start a fire with it just a minute ago. When you pick up an arrow, you might not know that the magic was in the bow, or in the bowman, or it might be a one-time use arrow. You may not know the word of command, the trigger, or even the safety catch. And it might not work for your Lawful Good human Fighter because maybe it doesn't work for Good characters, or humans, or Fighters.
(I do hope that you tell the player that the character isn't skilled enough, or magically sensitive enough, or something, to figure out why something isn't working instead of just saying "Because I said so." I find that a lack of effective feedback is a hinderance to fun at the game table, both as a player and as a DM.)

We may be on a similar track and just slightly miscommunicating here. I'm generally good with these sorts of things as long as there's a decent in-game reason for things. Safeties of various mundane and magical sorts or the lack of skills to actually use equipment is a good enough reason, while "because say so" isn't a good enough reason for me.

So, if I understand you correctly, you[I] don't agree with "Bob McUber-Archer can't learn to shoot type-x arrows because he is a player character." or "Joe McUber-Swordsman can't learn to throw his sword because that's a monster power." Some earlier posts did seem to indicate that to me, but I was in error.

Jay R
2013-11-13, 01:07 PM
Ok, I'm being mis-understood, mis-quoted, and stuff is getting twisted. I'll try one more time.

Mis-quoted? Please identify the quotation that I got wrong and I will apologize and correct it.

(Misunderstood I believe. Our discussion over the last little while has been primarily a process of getting past each other's misunderstandings. But I don't believe I've misquoted you.)


On human vs. vampire or investigator vs. Cthulhu: A human is not a vampire, they have different abilities and weaknesses ...

Yes, and an human is not an elf, and a dark elf is not a wood elf, and a fighter is not a wizard, and a city-bred politician is not a country-bred hunter, and a large person is not a small person, and ...

No two people are the same.


because one is a living person and the other is an unliving blood drinker. That's why they have different abilities, it makes sense within the framework of the game world. A CoC human does not have Cthulhu powers, not because it's a "monster power" and therefore off limits to PCs, but because the PC isn't an abomination from beyond time and space.

Oh. OK, then I shouldn't say that sometimes a player can't have it because it's a monster power, a phrase you're using to mean something I've never played with. Instead, I should say that it doesn't work in the present environment with your PC's particular race/class/skill-set/knowledge-base/body-type combination.

No problem.


What I do expect is that if a character is a human that they get the abilities common to all humans, if a character is a vampire that they get the abilities common to all vampires, if a character is a <whatever> that they get the abilities common to all <whatever>.

Where we part company has nothing to do with rules, and everything to do with our understanding of life.

Beyond basic biological functions, there are no abilities common to all humans. Only some people can speak a certain language. Only some people can cast spells. Only some people can read. There is no such thing as an ability common to all humans.


When this expectation isn't met I would like an explanation as to why things are that way. If that explanation is "because the powers of a <whatever> aren't suitable for PCs to have" than my absolute first question is "Then why do you want people to play a <whatever>?"

On the PC fighter vs. NPC fighter: "You can't learn each other's sword moves because <excuse>" is what I keep hearing. There is no good, convincing, reason that two equal and skilled warriors with the time and drive cannot teach one another sword tricks. At least no good reason I have yet to hear. Saying that PC tricks can't be taught to NPCs and NPC tricks can't be taught to PCs only because they are PCs and NPCs rankles me.

I understand. Giving stupid reasons would rankle me, too. But why are you arguing with me about something I've never supported?

I teach SCA combat. I have often said versions of
"You can't learn to use his move because he's 6'3" and you're 5'7"."
"You can't do that; he has reach on you. You have to do this instead."
"Don't copy that move; it takes more speed than you have."
"It took him six years to learn to make that work. You can't learn it in a week."
"That works for him because he's a lefty."
"That sword is too heavy for you. You'll do better with this one."
"When you get your own armor instead of borrowing stuff that doesn't really fit, you'll be able to move much better."
"That shield isn't working for you because it's a round shield and you're using it like it's a heater."

So it's really easy for me to believe that one person can't automatically use the moves or equipment of another. I see it at every practice and tourney.


I have generally found that games where (for example) a PC 5th level human fighter, an NPC 5th level human fighter, and a monster 5th level human fighter are all different things and can't use each other's equipment or have the same abilities are games where I'm going to encounter game design decisions that make me enjoy the game less. The more I encounter those design elements that break immersion for me or just don't make sense and aren't adequately explained the less I want to play that game.

I agree that being a PC, NPC, or monster shouldn't be the reason, but a game in which all 5th level fighters can do the same things with the same equipment strikes me as inaccurate.


(I do hope that you tell the player that the character isn't skilled enough, or magically sensitive enough, or something, to figure out why something isn't working instead of just saying "Because I said so." I find that a lack of effective feedback is a hinderance to fun at the game table, both as a player and as a DM.)

I avoid giving information that the characters don't have, but I don't give stupid reasons, either.

Player: I attempt to use his sword to cast a fireball like he did.
DM: It doesn't work for you.
Player: Why not?
DM: Good question. How are you going to try to find out?

If it's too heavy, that's obvious. If the last charge is gone, that isn't. If it was a specific Feat, that might or might not be.


We may be on a similar track and just slightly miscommunicating here. I'm generally good with these sorts of things as long as there's a decent in-game reason for things. Safeties of various mundane and magical sorts or the lack of skills to actually use equipment is a good enough reason, while "because say so" isn't a good enough reason for me.

Agreed. I suspect our real disagreement is that your default assumption is that it works unless there's a reason why not, and I don't have a default assumption; I'll find out if it works or not.

You also seem to believe that the player should get to find out what the reason is.

I might share that outlook if I had ever played with DMs (or rule sets) that make unfair or meaningless decisions.


So, if I understand you correctly, you[I] don't agree with "Bob McUber-Archer can't learn to shoot type-x arrows because he is a player character." or "Joe McUber-Swordsman can't learn to throw his sword because that's a monster power." Some earlier posts did seem to indicate that to me, but I was in error.

No, of course not. I think that if the equipment or move can't be used by the PC, there should be real reasons. But I don't assume that the player gets to know what the reason is, unless there is a way for the character to know. And if (very rarely) I want to give an NPC a power that would be fun and challenging to face, but would be too powerful coupled with the party's other powers, I will make sure that they cannot use it - by making it something with a limited number of charges, or some such. (An NPC who dies without using his biggest attack weapon is a fool.)

For example, in the 2E game I'm running now, a group of 2nd and 3rd levels will face somebody with a Wand of Conjuration. This will be used to send a variety of monsters at the party. But it has only twelve charges now, and unless they can defeat the wizard (whose presence they will not yet suspect) on the first encounter, it will be empty by the time they get it. The wizard will use six charges, then send the monsters to attack the party while she hides invisibly. On the second encounter, she will drain it of the last six encounters. It's too powerful in the long term for me to give to the party, but it will provide a great encounter of several different kinds of monsters set on them at the same time. If they defeat her, they will get her boots of flight, bag of tricks, and spell books. If, as I suspect, they also capture an uncharged wand, when they cast Detect Magic they will discover that it isn't.

By the way, we seem to actually be working our way slowly to mutual understanding. Thank you for your patience and willingness to get there.

OldTrees1
2013-11-13, 03:56 PM
Forgive me for the interruption, but what are Jay R and Telok disagreeing about?

Each has said that:
It is valid for one individual to not be able to learn the abilities of another individual if and only if the ability depends on a characteristic that is not shared between the two individuals.

Telok
2013-11-13, 04:00 PM
yeah, I think that we're actually mostly on the same page.



Beyond basic biological functions, there are no abilities common to all humans. Only some people can speak a certain language. Only some people can cast spells. Only some people can read. There is no such thing as an ability common to all humans.
In real life this is true, in a game it may or may not be true but that will depend on the game. In most games there is a common base line of what humans can and can't do.



I agree that being a PC, NPC, or monster shouldn't be the reason, but a game in which all 5th level fighters can do the same things with the same equipment strikes me as inaccurate.
Yes and no. I don't think of it as having all the fighters being the same, I think of it as having the fighters being able to learn the same things if they have the capability to do so and the time or resources to commit to learning.

I think that one point of misunderstanding was what we considered rules. I was referring to the rules as the interactions within the game, like the rules for character creation, the rules for skill advancement, the rules for combat, the rules for magic, or the rules for NPC/PC diplomacy. My take on humans vs. elves vs. fighters vs. wizards is that those are options within the rules where the interactions begin. I don't consider fighters and wizards as using different rules, I consider them two different options within the rules. When the wizard fights he uses the same combat rules as the fighter and when the fighter casts spells he uses the same magic rules as the wizard. Under this I can't compare the rules governing what it means to be a human to the rules governing what it means to be a wizard because the rules on humans are the character creation rules while the rules on wizards are the magic system rules.

Your consideration of the rules seems to be more global in scope. It looked like you were saying that because a human and an elf were different that they were using different rules, rather than just being defined as different options within the rules.

I like games where a human fighting a dragon is effectively a scene with two characters using the same combat rules. The characters are different, but the rules governing their interactions are the same. I dislike games where two humans fighting is a scene with one character using PC combat rules is interacting with a token that has defenses and abilities that make it use a different set of combat rules. I find that those sorts of games tend to have rules (or holes in the rules) that I don't enjoy.