PDA

View Full Version : Adventuring is not for wimps - Red Queen optimization



Maglubiyet
2015-05-21, 03:26 PM
In the earlier versions of D&D and similar games, character stats were all rolled with 3d6. As a consequence, you'd get some pretty interesting characters, some stats below 8 and some above 13. Adventuring was the province of the common man -- the weak, clumsy, infirm, dull, and socially-awkward were all regular participants.

In later editions they began to implement alternate options for generating stats -- point buys, re-rolls, 4d6, and even 5d6. The ranks of adventurers began to be filled only with the elite. Even later, with 3.5, class selection became part of this trend toward greater and greater maximization of character abilities.

What began as local villagers checking out the spooky ruins at the edge of town has progressed to Olympiad demi-gods systematically dismantling those same ruins to wring every possible gp and xp from them. Pound for pound, the modern adventurer has more abilities and lethality than in the old days. Yet the nature of adventures has remained pretty much the same. The threats have progressed at the same rate as the adventurers' capabilities.

In evolutionary biology this phenomenon is known as the Red Queen effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis). Predator and prey evolve in tandem; if one develops an improvement, it is quickly matched by the other so that neither gains an overall advantage. But the net total change from start finish can be very large.

So, with regards to RPG's, are things better today now that your average adventurer is an elite superman instead of Joe Schmoe? Eh, I don't know...I'm just ruminating.

Segev
2015-05-21, 03:38 PM
I think it's better, based on the kind of thing most people playing these games want. We (I am perhaps guilty of falliciously assuming I'm in the majority, here) want to be more than just ourselves. We want to be engaged in a power fantasy at least on some level. Therefore, we're having more fun when the threats are bigger to compensate for our better powers because it means we get to HAVE cool, better powers. It's the same reason taht, sure, you could watch Superman be just some guy who works out and wears tights fighting mundane bad guys, but people like watching him be a flying Man Of Steel who fights world-shaking threats single-handedly.

There are, of course, those who prefer Batman or even **** Tracey. There are those who prefer games where you're nothing special as a character and you're facing (more) mundane challenges or even are in over your head against the same awe-inspiring ones. It's a matter of taste.

But yes, I think most people feel that the empowerment fantasy of modern D&D is better than it used to be.

ComaVision
2015-05-21, 03:47 PM
I like 3.5 because of how vast and complicated it is. I enjoy the metagame as much (maybe more) as I do actually playing the game.

The Evil DM
2015-05-21, 03:52 PM
I prefer somewhere in the middle. Having fond memories of playing the 3d6 average character from the village who is poking around the ruins all the way to a Modern D&D game where a level 1 character is nearly a god compared to the commoners, I have reached the following conclusion.

The characters that would self-select for a dangerous task would likely be on the above average end of the capability scale. This gives some support to using an ability score generation method such as 4d6 - In general when I DM I use a system that averages around 12 for ability scores, and leaves some room for weaknesses.

On the other side of that, I think modern systems have gone too far in the level of power that a Level 1 character has versus the rest of the world. I tend to scale back level 1 to leave more room for growth down the line.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-21, 04:18 PM
I prefer somewhere in the middle. Having fond memories of playing the 3d6 average character from the village who is poking around the ruins all the way to a Modern D&D game where a level 1 character is nearly a god compared to the commoners, I have reached the following conclusion.

The characters that would self-select for a dangerous task would likely be on the above average end of the capability scale. This gives some support to using an ability score generation method such as 4d6 - In general when I DM I use a system that averages around 12 for ability scores, and leaves some room for weaknesses.

On the other side of that, I think modern systems have gone too far in the level of power that a Level 1 character has versus the rest of the world. I tend to scale back level 1 to leave more room for growth down the line.

I like your logic and feel pretty much the same way. I wonder if it's just because that's "how we were raised".

There was another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?411790-Implications-of-the-protaginist-role-in-games-and-culture) recently, started by Kol Korran, where he lamented how he never thought he could achieve the things he saw superheroes doing in fiction. This has bothered me since I read it. Growing up, nothing ever seemed impossible to me because I saw other people doing it, not in spite of it. If they could do it, why couldn't I?

As kids we acted out our fantasy RPG's by exploring every storm drain, abandoned building, and forest within walking distance. It was at times dangerous, but we learned a lot. Nowadays I worry that I never see any kids outside anymore. I wonder if the perception that it requires superhuman abilities and skills to do these types of things might in some way be a factor. Or, more likely, the real world is just too boring compared to videogames.

Cealocanth
2015-05-21, 04:33 PM
Call it the Red Queen Effect or call it Power Creep, I personally find that this advancement of power, while still maintaining the possibility of dialing it back, is advantageous. It means that if a GM wants,he can play the biggest, most extravagant and world-changing campaign sessions and the players will be able to face that, or those that want smaller adventures can do so as well by dialing back the players and the monsters. To use your Red Queen Effect terminology, it has led to a greater biodiversity of types of game all operating within the same system, which is usually indicative of a flourishing system reaping the benefits of its foundations.

However, I have witnessed what can occur with Power Creep run amok. If the threat keeps growing, the players keep growing in power too. If the players keep growing in power, eventually they will get to a stage where all characters have to be gods among men and fight other gods only. The little characters, the player who wants to play the small-gain theif or the noble-yet-inexperienced fighter, are lost and useless. This is why we have to make sure that we maintain the possibility to dial it all back, to place GM restrictions on power level and make the lower powered stuff viable. The easiest way to do this is the leveling system, where first level characters fight kobolds and thirtieth level characters fight world-eating gods. Usually the lack of power restriction comes in the freeform-type games where a player is allowed to make any character at all and the GM is allowed to do anything, though, so rules-heavy systems like D&D are safer.

The Evil DM
2015-05-21, 05:12 PM
I like your logic and feel pretty much the same way. I wonder if it's just because that's "how we were raised".

It is possible it was "how we were raised" and it reflects some in my own two high school sons. They have gone to play role playing games with other DM's and friends after having been raised in my games since they could manage to roll dice. After their first attempt at this they had some question why their friends played D&D and all the characters started with 6 18's in ability scores. Mine have been raised under a different paradigm.


There was another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?411790-Implications-of-the-protaginist-role-in-games-and-culture) recently, started by Kol Korran, where he lamented how he never thought he could achieve the things he saw superheroes doing in fiction. This has bothered me since I read it. Growing up, nothing ever seemed impossible to me because I saw other people doing it, not in spite of it. If they could do it, why couldn't I?

I saw that thread and I can see where Kol Korran was coming from. I also had a few private conversations with him. There is definitely some difference in perspective due to the fact that we are Americans and his perspective is from Israel.


As kids we acted out our fantasy RPG's by exploring every storm drain, abandoned building, and forest within walking distance. It was at times dangerous, but we learned a lot. Nowadays I worry that I never see any kids outside anymore. I wonder if the perception that it requires superhuman abilities and skills to do these types of things might in some way be a factor. Or, more likely, the real world is just too boring compared to videogames.

At age 12 my friends and I had a game we played that might get kids shot or arrested these days. There were four of us in the group, and we would start at one of our houses and make a circuit each of the others house as a group. But the rule was we couldn't use the main streets and we couldn't be spotted. We actually trespassed in back yards, climbed fences, took short cuts across business property or fields. At times we were cutting through property while people were awake. So I think not only are we raised differently but our society has become much less flexible with regard to youth run amok.

On that end I do have some concerns as well. I am a parent that has forced my kids to do some outdoors things. Going as far as "Here is a 100 ft rope, over there is a 75' cliff. Use the rope to get from the top to the bottom" Crash course introduction to rappelling. There was some fear, a little crying but at the end confidence.

They also cannot access some of the more dangerous materials that children of the 1960s and 1970s could get a hold of. I lived in a fairly rural area and as a 12 year old I could purchase 5 lbs of black powder no questions asked. There are some risks I took as a teenager that I look back on and realize I am lucky to have all my limbs and fingers. But to teach my kids some of what I learned I have given my kids access to some very dangerous things just to teach them to respect the power of chemicals.

What I think videogames do is provide instant gratification. Sure you might have to spend a few hours mastering a controller move and you might have to grind out the essentially same monster hunt over and over, but overall the videogame provides immediate feedback of success. Success is euphoric and addictive. The more you play the more you succeed. Now the younger generation of Pen and Paper gamers wants that immediate feedback. It is hard for a pen and paper game to provide that immediate feedback.

Cealocanth said "However, I have witnessed what can occur with Power Creep run amok". I would add to that. I have also seen what happens when a role-playing character becomes the singular source of an individual's self-esteem. When a player of a game has or feels no value in real life, and needs the role playing to provide a source of false fulfillment problems can really occur and that individual needs help. In the video game world of instant gratification, those who use the game for self-esteem can have significant problems.