PDA

View Full Version : Power disparity in crunch - a tool for more in depth roleplaying



Spore
2019-02-14, 07:59 AM
Back in the old days, people liked to mix and match parties of different levels and power. Detached from any rules system this meant the experienced wizard and the kid that just picked up a sword and called himself fighter created a party. Of course for the DM, it gets more difficult to not kill the hopeless underpowered upstart.

Another tool to - intentionally - create a power disparity is by build optimization. I play a bard focussing on knowledge and skills and am absolutely worthless in combat. The others have some third party alternate magic system that lets them focus their ressources on a few things they can do really really well - including combat. This however leads to grievance when the intended character was to be 'competitive' for lack of a better word, but the actual result comes short. Examples would be our catfolk bounty huntress and our flame oracle, both of which couldn't even do what they were designed to do well without major help from the DM.

But I want to support the case of how power disparity can both enhance immersion (why should the young mage be just as powerful as the wizened priest just because they did two quests together?) and improve roleplaying opportunities (the war veteran shows the boy how to hold a gun or a sword properly, shows that pain cannot be avoided and thus shows how to deal with physical pain). It creates some kind of dependence between characters, another reason to stick together other than "this world ending evil is coming our way".

Take a classic example: Lord of the Rings. While one can argue Gandalf was a DM PC, the hobbits are not on the same level as Aragorn, who is not on the same level as the elves. Yes, the power distribution is pretty unfair. But would the hobbits even need Strider if Merry could just be a weird hobbit ranger to guide them through every obstacle? Sam would become a druid and then high magic hijinks would let them just punch their way to Mt. Doom. But no: the hobbit part of LotR is more "Metal Gear: Hobbit" and less "Hobbit of War". (It just occured to me that maybe Belkar himself is a spoof of that)

Another example from our own group. I played a pretty sheltered teenager in a post apocalypse. He started off with the same points as the 26 y/o scrapper girl, the 40 y/o war veteran, the 20 y/o biker gang member and the 25 y/o prostitute. Which is weird to me. The eldest guy should have a bonus to his points, and why the flip would my kid know how to understand computers. I basically had to make him a super genius to be able to dump my points into intelligence skills because there is no way a 15 y/o kid in a world where malnourishment is the status quo would have similar physical stats as a war veteran.

Of course I would then see to it that the low level guy gets a bit more experience, and the high level guy a bit less (or fixed side grades instead of XP for performing certain things, like protecting the innocent, or trying to learn new things himself)

What are your thoughts? How would you treat this disparity during char gen? How about during the campaign?

Pelle
2019-02-14, 08:22 AM
As long as the concepts are balanced, or the players are ok with them not being so, then the mechanical implementation doesn't really matter.

So before anyone start the whole character creation mini game, ask yourselves if you think a game with a knowleadgable bard worthless in combat and a hyperfocused mage can be fun. Usually everyone will be happy if their character has some room they can fill, either narratively or skillwise, and being able to meaningfully contribute. If the concepts corresponds mechanically best to a level 1 halfling and a level 10 wizard, that's not a problem if the players expect that this can become a fun experience.

Friv
2019-02-14, 07:20 PM
Another example from our own group. I played a pretty sheltered teenager in a post apocalypse. He started off with the same points as the 26 y/o scrapper girl, the 40 y/o war veteran, the 20 y/o biker gang member and the 25 y/o prostitute. Which is weird to me. The eldest guy should have a bonus to his points, and why the flip would my kid know how to understand computers. I basically had to make him a super genius to be able to dump my points into intelligence skills because there is no way a 15 y/o kid in a world where malnourishment is the status quo would have similar physical stats as a war veteran.

Of course I would then see to it that the low level guy gets a bit more experience, and the high level guy a bit less (or fixed side grades instead of XP for performing certain things, like protecting the innocent, or trying to learn new things himself)

What are your thoughts? How would you treat this disparity during char gen? How about during the campaign?

My thought is that how this works will vary pretty dramatically depending on your setting, and that not all settings and systems can handle all character concepts equally.

As a general rule, the difficulty of playing a "less experienced" character in a game that is devoted to direct skill as a measure of experience is that direct skill also tends to act as a measure of the challenges you can survive and the spotlight time that you have. In most D&D systems, having a Level 1 hobbit in a party with a trio of Level 8 adventurers means that a stray blow from monsters takes the hobbit out instantly, and anything that is an interesting challenge for the hobbit is trivial for the adventurers. It makes life more difficult for the GM, it dramatically increases the chance of a player dying by accident, it has a strong tendency to force the player into a background role whenever interesting things are happening, and generally it is a huge pain in the butt.

Now, a lot of systems have things you can buy that aren't just skill and technique. A kid might have bonus points to survival traits because kids tend to survive in apocalypse stories, or will have special abilities to let other party members defend them, or something similar. But I hate XP disparity more than almost any other thing that RPGs let happen.

Lord Raziere
2019-02-14, 07:39 PM
Unfortunately, any example from actual media doesn't work.

power disparity in a story with an author isn't a problem, because the author decides everything that happens. If the author decides that the level 1 warrior with a wooden sword defeats a level 99 god of darkness of striking a secret weakpoint that the level 80 wizard of awesome never reached because of pure luck, that is just what is going to happen no matter what and no dice, no player can do anything about it. whether thats bad writing or not is not the point: the point is that an author can arrange fate and luck to make sure the underdog always wins despite logic saying that they should not. its the equivalent of a GM giving the less powerful character more natural 20s than the more powerful one, it doesn't matter if the other guy is stronger if the GM arbitrarily decides the other guy has all the luck on their side. some authors are just better at making it look like fate/luck isn't whats allowing them to win.

however a real GM can't do that. therefore your not actually some underdog apprentice hero or whatever, because you don't have the plot armor. therefore any real underdog/hobbit/apprentice or whatever are in fact equal or even stronger than the supposed "more powerful" people, because they are gifted with plot armor that the other guy is not and thus succeed when the other guy doesn't.

Thus the disparity of a story and the disparity of a roleplay are two completely different things. you cannot honestly compare them, because one happens because of the author and the other happens in spite of the GM's best efforts. because if a writer doesn't want a wizard interfering or a warrior to win when the wizard doesn't they'll just decide make it so.

GM on the other hand have to deal with dice, players and rules that have other plans.

Morty
2019-02-14, 07:50 PM
I'm not convinced mixed power levels were more common back in the "old days", whatever that means, than they are now.

Darth Ultron
2019-02-14, 08:41 PM
What are your thoughts? How would you treat this disparity during char gen? How about during the campaign?

Crunch is over rated.

In a general sense, during character generation a group should all agree to play at the same 'crunch power level'. If Fred wants to be a demi god and blow up moons, but Amy want to role play a funny gnome...well those two should not be in the same group.

During the Campaign it's all the DMs job. It's one of the BIG jobs of the DM.


I'm not convinced mixed power levels were more common back in the "old days", whatever that means, than they are now.

I'd say they were. Before 3E D&D did not have the huge overbearing focus on only pure rule mechanical combat.

In the Time Before Time of D&D the Focus was: Play a fun character you like and have a fun time in the fun game.

Somehow, modern D&D got to: Play a mechanically built character and directly compare it to each other mechanically built character to determine who has better D&D system mastery...oh, and, er, have fun doing it.

inuyasha
2019-02-15, 03:01 AM
I'm not convinced mixed power levels were more common back in the "old days", whatever that means, than they are now.

I'd say they were. 1st level Wizards were way worse than 1st level Fighting-Men, and every class had its own unique progression charts.

Thieves progressed the fastest, and had all kinds of fun scrabbling over any sheer surface and backstabbing anything that moved, while a magic-user had to wait their turn to get a spell better than once-a-day Magic Missile.

The attitudes about it were certainly different though, and I think everyone had more of a good time without making tiers and breakdowns.

Every class progressed the same, and there were a lot of effects to set you back or restart at level 1, but honestly, in the context of those old school games, it's really fun.

Glorthindel
2019-02-15, 05:15 AM
I think the situation is different in different systems or types of game. Current D&D is very focused on mechanical combat, so someone who is very clearly weaker in a straight up fight is likely to have it pushed in their face by the game mechanics regularly, and while in the right group they can still have fun with that, it is more likely to impact their fun. However, other systems that focus on combat in a lesser (or more abstract) way is less likely to make it so obvious how much weaker the character is.

For example, I am currently playing a face character in Call of Cthulu (All persuasion, fast talk, bargaining, and psychology), with virtually no combat skills whatsoever. I could play that kind of character in D&D, but I would be spending a lot of the play time hiding and being useless to my party. But in CoC (where combat invariably means you've screwed up massively already), I am probably one of the most valuable characters during investigations, and I actually look forward to rare combat segments, as it allows me to take a back seat and let the characters that focussed on combat to shine.

johnbragg
2019-02-15, 08:57 AM
What are your thoughts? How would you treat this disparity during char gen? How about during the campaign?

Short answer, by different levels. When I ran a homebrewed just-the-basics 3X campaign with my 8, 8, 10 year old kids (link in sig), and a DMPC/"character for mom when she got home", I just made the DMPC a couple of levels higher, and didn't worry about advancing him for most of the campaign. Storyline? DMPC hired the other party members, and (as long as he was a DMPC) was highly averse to risking his own skin (and rolled pretty terribly with his arrows). When mom got home and we rewrote the character, it still made sense that he (she? I forget) had a couple of levels on the rest of the party--mom has been playing RPGs for a long time.

It's one thing to say "this PC is inexperienced compared to that PC, and this other PC is very old and wise and powerful"--and start them at level 1, 3 and 7 and then the DM has to figure out how encounters and advancement are going to work.

It's terribad for the system to, on the character sheet, tell players they're all more-or-less equal "OK roll up a level 6 character" and then, in the game, some level 6 characters are WAY more equal than others.

johnbragg
2019-02-15, 09:17 AM
I'm not convinced mixed power levels were more common back in the "old days", whatever that means, than they are now.

It used to happen fairly often, just on the basis of the social contract of the time. New players and replacement PCs (you died, roll a new character) start a level lower than the rest of the party. It wasn't written in the books (I think), it was just the way it was, as accepted as 2-liters of soda and bags of chips at the table. Faster advancement at lower levels meant there was some amount of catch-up, but it was inconsistent.

Different XP charts meant you might argue over what level the rest of the party was. So you'd very likely have a party with a 4th level mage (18,000 XP), 5th level ranger (18,000), 5th level rogue (18,000) and a halfling cleric 4-thief 4 (9,000 because multiclass XP is halved). Does the new Paladin start at 3 or 4? And you'd argue it out.

I'm sure some groups played with wider level ranges--I know for a fact that Gygax's group did. For most groups, that meant new players got the stinky end of the stick and died and felt bad, and either stopped playing or stopped playing with "those jerks" and started a new group.

EDIT: Oh yeah, rambing old-man story time. My high school group, I soooo badly wanted to add a second PC, a ranger-thief because of the obvious synergies--I was imagining D&D Batman or Rohrshach. I rolled him up one level below the 8th level party, (7th/7th, probably, that fits the tables I found online) as was custom. But the DM put off introducing him, until finally he was a 7th/7th joining a 9th or 10th level party, facing way overpowered stuff (it was a cycle--DM gave huge treasure, had to up the monsters to match the party, which gave more cool magic treasure. We went from level 3 to 7 or so before he found the DMG rule that magic weapon pluses were supposed to cap at 5). So Dark Raven died a lot. which meant he had to be Raised, which reduced his Con. Which reduced his hit points. Which meant he died a lot. HE finally failed a system shock roll to be raised, and that was the end of Dark Raven.

Quertus
2019-02-15, 10:32 AM
So, I think I'll give my response as something of a rant: the modern focus on game balance is toxic.

Back in the day, Frodo was comforted by having Gandalf in the party, the level 1 Fighter was happy for the protection of the level 10 Wizard. Nowadays, the level 3 Wizard isn't happy for the protection of the level 10 Fighter, or even for the contribution of the level 3 übercharger - instead, they view the player as a cheating minmaxer. Instead of having fun, exploring the party dynamic, they accuse each other of BadWrongFun.

Part of where this all went wrong is that people assume that it's on the GM to create balanced encounters, rather than on the GM to create something rich, and on the players to find their fun.

So, let me give an example of a great encounter.

The Necromancer's army, hundreds of thousands strong, has laid siege to the castle. Undead dragons rain elemental death into the city, skeletal archers pepper the walls. Catapults hurl undead over the walls, and swarms of zombie rats + flocks zombie ravens bypass the walls and roam the streets. Once the defenders are sufficiently tied up, a tremendous giant - an undead god - lumbers towards the now seemingly puny main gate.

Every player has the agency to have their character engage with whatever they chose. Yes, you break one of the cardinal rules, and split the party. Maybe the party Wizard & Archer start working on the dragons. Maybe the übercharger rushes from catapult landing sight to landing sight, trying to keep the larger undead from getting a foothold / sabotaging the back lines... until someone points out the danger, and he one-shots the undead god. Maybe the 1st level Cleric rushes around, healing his allies, and has the best overall view of the battle. Maybe the more pragmatic rogue loots the town, "looking for tools to help the party win", protecting the occasional family from zombie rats along the way.

Or maybe the Wizard makes an illusion that the walls are higher and unmanned, causing the unintelligent undead to ignore the defenders, then sets to AoE winnowing down the undead army. Maybe the Archer decides to take out the undead manning the catapults, or even use flaming arrows to take out the catapults themselves. Maybe the 1st level Cleric protects families from the zombie rats. Maybe the Rogue sneaks out to "negotiate" with the Necromancer. Maybe the übercharger takes advantage of the Necromancer being distracted, quaffs a Potion of Invisibility, and tries to end him.

Or maybe the Wizard seeks to challenge the Necromancer. Maybe the Archer tries to direct the castle defenses. Maybe the Rogue decides to man a ballista against the zombie dragons. Maybe the übercharger catapults himself over the wall, and takes on the undead army. Maybe the 1st level Cleric just retreats into a church to pray, maybe receiving a helpful vision, or maybe just emerging in time to pray to the animated corpse of the old god, hoping to purify it. Cue 'I know your name'

Any of these individual actions could succeed or fail (highly likely to fail in the case of the Wizard trying to solo the Necromancer, unless his goal was less "defeat" and more "distract"), any individual character might die (highly likely in the case of the Cleric standing before a god), and the overall mission of defending the castle might succeed or fail. Different characters' total contribution to the war effort are going to be vastly different, yes, but any single one of those 15 stories has a chance to be the most epic of the lot, to be the one that the group talks about for years to come.

And - although I don't personally go this route - the GM could even abdicate responsibility for creating the specifics of the scenario. The GM could simply say, "Necromancer's army", and grant the players narrative authorial power to detail the threats ("catapults hurling undead into the city", "zombie ravens fly over the walls and harass those on the streets") and responses ("I shoot hollow arrows filled with Greek fire at the catapults, to put them out of commission", "I Animate a hoard of bird cages to go collect said ravens"), with the town guard left to handle any unattended challenge. A given challenge/response pair need not come from the same player.

If the party succeeded, they loot the bodies and bury their dead. If the city is lost, hopefully the Wizard survived to teleport the party out, where they plan their revenge / their next move.

This type of dynamic, where the players have the agency to create their own stories, is why I find RPGs to be better than war games. This is why I play. How about you?

Morty
2019-02-15, 10:33 AM
Is this going to be about one of those threads which don't say they're about D&D, but actually are? Because so far I mostly see talking about how older D&D editions were better than new ones.

Slipperychicken
2019-02-15, 10:39 AM
Is this going to be about one of those threads which don't say they're about D&D, but actually are?

You mean the entire board?

Quertus
2019-02-15, 10:59 AM
An expert talks about what they know.

A trained public speaker talks about what their audience knows & relates to.

This is the Playground. Here, those are generally both the same thing: D&D.

Anything else, and the poster is speaking in tongues. The reader can often only claim "it's Greek to me". Or, perhaps, "it's Geek to me". :smallwink:

D&D is the new Common.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-15, 11:19 AM
Unfortunately, any example from actual media doesn't work.

power disparity in a story with an author isn't a problem, because the author decides everything that happens. If the author decides that the level 1 warrior with a wooden sword defeats a level 99 god of darkness of striking a secret weakpoint that the level 80 wizard of awesome never reached because of pure luck, that is just what is going to happen no matter what and no dice, no player can do anything about it. whether thats bad writing or not is not the point: the point is that an author can arrange fate and luck to make sure the underdog always wins despite logic saying that they should not. its the equivalent of a GM giving the less powerful character more natural 20s than the more powerful one, it doesn't matter if the other guy is stronger if the GM arbitrarily decides the other guy has all the luck on their side. some authors are just better at making it look like fate/luck isn't whats allowing them to win.

however a real GM can't do that. therefore your not actually some underdog apprentice hero or whatever, because you don't have the plot armor. therefore any real underdog/hobbit/apprentice or whatever are in fact equal or even stronger than the supposed "more powerful" people, because they are gifted with plot armor that the other guy is not and thus succeed when the other guy doesn't.

Thus the disparity of a story and the disparity of a roleplay are two completely different things. you cannot honestly compare them, because one happens because of the author and the other happens in spite of the GM's best efforts. because if a writer doesn't want a wizard interfering or a warrior to win when the wizard doesn't they'll just decide make it so.

GM on the other hand have to deal with dice, players and rules that have other plans.


There are a lot of things that "work" in fiction because of authorial fiat, that are exposed as contrived when one tries to port them over to an RPG.

(And I write "work" that way because very often they don't.)

I'd be a bit less leery of "RPGs as storytelling" if the idea didn't fool so many gamers into thinking they can or should emulate the sorts of forced contrivances and galling tropes found in too much authorial fiction.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-15, 11:21 AM
Is this going to be about one of those threads which don't say they're about D&D, but actually are? Because so far I mostly see talking about how older D&D editions were better than new ones.


You mean the entire board?

Or one of those threads where even most of the posters who don't like D&D and/or favor some other very different system, assume that everyone else who doesn't agree with them on something must be a D&D advocate, or must be "making D&D assumptions", or whatever... even when from a broader perspective that other person clearly is not.

Darth Ultron
2019-02-15, 12:11 PM
Back in the day, Frodo was comforted by having Gandalf in the party, the level 1 Fighter was happy for the protection of the level 10 Wizard. Nowadays, the level 3 Wizard isn't happy for the protection of the level 10 Fighter, or even for the contribution of the level 3 übercharger - instead, they view the player as a cheating minmaxer. Instead of having fun, exploring the party dynamic, they accuse each other of BadWrongFun.

Agreed.



Part of where this all went wrong is that people assume that it's on the GM to create balanced encounters, rather than on the GM to create something rich, and on the players to find their fun.

Well, now to be fair the 3.5 D&D rules DO say it's all on the DM to create balanced encounters. I think you meant to say ''balanced game".



This type of dynamic, where the players have the agency to create their own stories, is why I find RPGs to be better than war games. This is why I play. How about you?

Where I see it all going wrong is the focus on only pure mechanical demi god power combat.

Too many players just count the damage done as a indicator of how ''cool'' or ''fun" the game is...for them.

For my example lets take a high level event: a massive army of evil about to invade the world.

Now the pure mechanical combat and power players, with wizard characters for example, will just go for the straightforward attack. And maybe for a whole half hour use all sorts of awesome magic to obliterate the army. And sure, this is fun for the players.

So now we have Other Group One, and they go for more the sneaky get behind enemy lines and slowly dismantle the army from with in. This will likely take a year or so of game sessions once a week as the characters do all sorts of things to defeat the army from within.

Or maybe more simply, for a mystery:

The wizard solves the mystery in one second. And then just sits back.

The other character takes six hours to solve the mystery.

So the wizard, well they can solve tons mysteries in a hour. Meanwhile the player in the other game takes a whole hour just to find a single clue and track down a single suspect. Both games are fun....but not to everyone.

johnbragg
2019-02-15, 12:19 PM
Is this going to be about one of those threads which don't say they're about D&D, but actually are? Because so far I mostly see talking about how older D&D editions were better than new ones.

Guilty.

Why? "Crunch" questions almost always mean D&D problems.

Quibble--I'm not saying that older editions were "better." We're big boys and girls, with big bulging shelves of RPG books, plus all the PDFs we could want. It's not an impossible task for DMs in modern editions (3, 5) to design encounters and adventures where both 1st level and 5th level PCs have goals that they can measurably succeed or fail at. (1st level: Survive the hazardous encounters and contribute. 5th level: Make sure your 1st level charges survive the encounter; Recover the MacGuffin.)

gkathellar
2019-02-15, 12:53 PM
What are your thoughts?

I think you're making assumptions about the word "power" that are harmful to your premise. You seem to be talking about combat effectiveness, which is not necessarily the same thing. Broadly speaking, power is the ability to bring about events (usually desired ones) through directed action. The range of things that count is typically a function of the game mechanics in use, adjusted for the norms of the table at which it is used. In D&D-alikes, where the vast majority of rules relate to combat and fights are lengthy and involved, power is frequently a function of combat strength. In games like Blades in the Dark, Wushu, and Nobilis, where roughly identical rules are used for punching a guy, having a debate, or sneaking around, power can be any or all of those things and much more. In Smallville, combat is around but most of your power comes from your ability to leverage character relationships. Play Golden Sky Stories, where combat is mostly unsupported and you lose even when you win, and you will find that combat effectiveness is completely irrelevant to power.

That having been said: power disparities will occur on a moment-to-moment basis in almost all games, because differing challenges will elicit variably effective responses. This in itself isn't a bad thing. Problems arise when activities where these power disparities occur are lengthy, because these lead to periods of non-participation from players who lack the ability to act meaningfully. Combat is typically where we see this become an issue - most games resolve fights at a snail's pace, and for the length of time that the fight is ongoing, players of non-combat characters get to sit around staring at the ceiling (the decking minigame from Shadowrun is another easy example, and social combat minigames frequently take diversions into this as well). If the game has a singular focus, or even just a central activity that takes up huge amounts of time, everyone should be able to participate meaningfully in that activity. All the stuff you're saying sounds good to me in theory, but it really depends on having a game system where your young mage and your wizened old priest both get to actually do things.

tl;dr Disparity in combat effectiveness is fine, inability to participate sucks.


How would you treat this disparity during char gen?

That would depend entirely on the game, since many games avoid these issues on a structural level. If I were playing a combat-centric game, I would attempt to make sure that all of the players were able to contribute equally to combat. If we're playing Diablo, and you decide to be Deckard Cain, well that's cute and all but I have some concerns. On the other hand, if we're playing Nobilis and you want to be the Power of Sandwiches in a part with the Power of Explosions, the Power of Knives, and the Power of Kung Fu, I think the other three players are going to be in for a good time when they realize (a) all of the things that can be construed as sandwich-like (b) all of the non-combat applications of being the master of the concept of knives.


How about during the campaign?

Do what you can to give everyone opportunities to participate meaningfully. Allow for rebuilding if a player feels genuinely left-out.

One final thing.


Take a classic example: Lord of the Rings.

Lord of the Rings is a series of novels, not a campaign journal.

The original Dragonlance books? Record of Lodoss War? Tales of the Wyre? Those are campaign journals (several of them include significant power disparities, incidentally).

Mordar
2019-02-15, 01:57 PM
I'm not convinced mixed power levels were more common back in the "old days", whatever that means, than they are now.

As has already been touched upon, if your "old days" were 1980-1990, yup, it happened a lot. By design, by rules, by accident. One-offs (module play) didn't see it much, if at all, but rolling campaigns certainly did. If your "old days" were 1995+...go wash my car, kid. :smallbiggrin:


Is this going to be about one of those threads which don't say they're about D&D, but actually are? Because so far I mostly see talking about how older D&D editions were better than new ones.

Default assumptions are default. That being said, I only see one post like that, and it speaks as much to the mindset of players and that particular poster as to the editions, I think.

But it is a great point. In my "old days" we played AD&D and a *ton* of other games. The only other level-based game we played was Rolemaster...and when new characters coming into RM were generally made in line with party average. Because level based games tend to have the "stray blow from the monster kills the hobbit even though the rest of the party laughed when the minotaur charged them" factor.

In those other non-level based games, though - say Call of C'thulhu, Chill (or other PaceSetter games) and the like, new characters were new characters, fresh off the book. And it worked fine. The only time it was an issue was if a player decided on a thematic carbon copy of an existing character and then they were by definition less useful. You know, the first year college grad with German and Latin languages and primary interest in occult would surely want to work with the distinguished professor of Germano-Latin Occultism, but is unlikely to add much value (unless the college grad also had, for instance, a high society upbringing and was a great socializer).

So, I think non-level-based games work much better for the fledgling adventurer traveling with the old salt and ancient sage.

- M

1of3
2019-02-15, 02:37 PM
What are your thoughts? How would you treat this disparity during char gen? How about during the campaign?

Use a system that does not care about the skill or power of a character. Like The Pool or Primetime Adventures. Fate Accelerated might work. For LotR style, there, of course, is Fellowship from the PbtA department.

Lord Raziere
2019-02-15, 07:04 PM
There are a lot of things that "work" in fiction because of authorial fiat, that are exposed as contrived when one tries to port them over to an RPG.

(And I write "work" that way because very often they don't.)

I'd be a bit less leery of "RPGs as storytelling" if the idea didn't fool so many gamers into thinking they can or should emulate the sorts of forced contrivances and galling tropes found in too much authorial fiction.

pretty much.

luck should be used as sparingly as possible when writing something. and even then, bad luck should be more prevalent than good luck. because bad luck at least puts people into interesting situations that they can solve with their skills, wits and abilities and thus demonstrate their competence.

Quertus
2019-02-15, 09:00 PM
(the decking minigame from Shadowrun is another easy example,

tl;dr Disparity in combat effectiveness is fine, inability to participate sucks.

Do what you can to give everyone opportunities to participate meaningfully. Allow for rebuilding if a player feels genuinely left-out.

And ShadowRun astral combat, and ShadowRun... Yeah, ShadowRun is kinda the ultimate in spotlight sharing through "you can't participate in my minigame".

But even ShadowRun technically let everyone participate in combat. Technically. Although, you know, getting to go 3-4 times before anyone else gets to go made it obvious that combat was the Street Samurai's turn to shine.

And strongly agree on allowing people to rebuild.

Quertus
2019-02-16, 06:17 PM
improve roleplaying opportunities

So, I don't think I got across everything i intended to in my first post. Let me try again.

There are some movies (Magnolia is the only one to come to mind offhand) where you are watching several different stories, that are actually characters living through the same story archetype, but at different chapters of the story.

Part of what I was trying (and, IMO, failing) to get across is that the story being told in an RPG is richer if, rather than X characters living through the same story, they are living through X distinct stories. The story of what a 1st level Cleric can do in an epic fight is different than the story of what an übercharger can do in the same fight. I think that the LotR movies did a great job with that, throughout the trilogy.


What are your thoughts? How would you treat this disparity during char gen? How about during the campaign?

Oldschool D&D "all new characters start at level 1" has you covered.

The trick, as I said, is to create rich content for the party to engage with as they will.

Spore
2019-02-18, 09:30 AM
Oldschool D&D "all new characters start at level 1" has you covered.

The trick, as I said, is to create rich content for the party to engage with as they will.

I mean yes, but as far as I am concerned, most of my DMs had good game balance (and the occasional fudge I assume) preventing deaths.

It also helps pronounce the heroic qualities of actual high level heroes. A fellow player played an absolute dumpster fire of a build that paled in comparison to the other group members. But compared to a 1st level newcomer, even he would really shine. A high level adventurer is nothing mundane anymore, he is a hero. But sometimes that quality is not seen as such because EVERYONE at the table is high level.

So even if you play a Rogue 5/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster 2 with a short bow, you are leaps and bounds ahead of the first level sorcerer.

RazorChain
2019-02-18, 07:45 PM
A lot of games have power disparity to start with

In point buy character A can focus on social skills but couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag and character B can be a combat machine but sucks at talking to people . The power disparity comes from their field of expertise.

The problem arises when the game is only about social encounters or combat and the players feel that their character choices are invalidated.

There is nothing wrong with power disparity if the players are fine with it.

Grek
2019-02-18, 11:10 PM
That's a trope that only works in single author fiction.

JoeJ
2019-02-18, 11:16 PM
The way character creation works in Traveller, it's almost impossible not to have a disparity of skills, abilities, possessions, etc.

Mechalich
2019-02-19, 12:20 AM
There is nothing wrong with power disparity if the players are fine with it.

'If the players are fine with it' can be used as a solution to almost any design problem, in the same way that 'the GM can work around it' can be deployed as a solution. It's certainly true that this can be done, and it is inevitable that such workarounds will be deployed to some extent, but the rules exist as a gaming aide. They are supposed to optimize the play experience, and the more you have to adjust the rules the less helpful they are in this regard and at some point if you have to constantly change the rules enough you reach the point where you'd be better off without them. Which is a thing that happens at tables, when people suggest that Setting X should be run using a different system than the one it came packaged with (GURPS made a habit of producing sourcebooks to make this particular claim).

So the question with regards to an issue like in-game power disparity between characters has to be examined from the perspective of whether it promotes functional gameplay or not. The OP claims that power disparity is a useful tool for roleplaying purposes. This is true, inequality in capabilities between characters can be a source of drama, particularly if you're interested in projecting angst or pathos at the gaming table though experience suggests that a very low percentage of players are interested in this particular outcome. At the same time, power disparity tends to be a very strong source of out-of-game disruption at the table because it often leaves players with nothing functional to do for very long stretches of actual play.

The OP mentioned LotR as an example, but it's actual a very good example of how this sort of disruption takes place. If you imagine it as a campaign you have to recognize that the players of Merry and Pippin would be having a miserable time. They have almost nothing to do for the entire first book - they get to ineffectually make attack roles in large group combats where their overall contribution is negligible and Pippin imperils the entire party in Moria because his player got bored and had the character start poking things. Then at the end of the book they helplessly get captured and another player - Boromir's - has to sacrifice his character in a futile attempt to save them (and subsequently justifiably rage-quits). They they spend the second book either captured or making a handful of diplomacy checks trying to influence a much more powerful NPC, and by the end Pippin's player get bored and endangers the whole party yet again. And of course, after the real campaign has ended and the players of Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn (and Boromir's player who came back to play his brother Faramir) have gone home, the GM has to through a pity-party mini-campaign so that the players of Sam, Merry, and Pippin get to feel important.

And these are just a few examples. If you imagine almost any single-author work of fiction as a campaign journal played by actual gamers (not by professional authors moonlighting as gamers like the Dragonlance chronicles) if resembles a horror show.

In looking for inspiration for gameplay instead, it makes more sense to look at something like live-action ensemble show. The best example might actually be the long-running Super Sentai (Power Rangers) series. In those shows, while there will inevitably be a leader type who get the most face-time, the incentive from management to sell all the toys means everyone has to get screentime and storylines in order to balance things out and everyone has to be able to contribute effectively in ensemble shots and moments. It's also a useful comparison because management has to, like a GM, consider the needs of the actors in addition to the needs of the characters.

Lord Raziere
2019-02-19, 03:30 AM
And these are just a few examples. If you imagine almost any single-author work of fiction as a campaign journal played by actual gamers (not by professional authors moonlighting as gamers like the Dragonlance chronicles) if resembles a horror show.


like say....Dragon Ball Z

-Goku is the hyper-optimized munchkin who cares for nothing but fighting and thus always wins
-Yamcha is that casual guy with a badly made character who just kind of showed up until he lost so badly he decided to stop. Tien Shinhan is his friend who keeps trying and fails.
-Krillin is that guy who is always there and is able to keep his character alive most of the time, but can't stand up to the GM constantly throwing broken BBEGs and Mini-Bosses at him
-Gohan is a guy thats great at roleplaying intelligent smart people who don't like hurting others and rpefer to talk things out whenever possible in a campaign that has nothing for him to do. half because an older person is playing Bulma and taking all the stuff he'd be doing.
-Piccolo is the GM through previous campaigns former BBEG trying to make Gohan get with the program but realizes his screw up and kills him off to give Gohan a roleplaying moment
-Vegeta is that guy who likes playing edgelords who came in after saiyan saga and mistook one of the GM's antagonist sheets for a character sheet but played the role so well that the GM just decided to roll with it.
-Future Trunks is yet another player introduced, is a good roleplayer, the player likes terminator and thus made the new arc about him, but the campaign quickly got sidetracked when he kept only occasionally showing up to sessions then just left when he couldn't do anything against the current BBEG.

and all the BBEGs are the GM trying to make a terrifying campaign villain for them to face, but never makes enough minions to the players to face instead to build up to him and get stronger, so they end up being way overstatted.....yet always loses to the munchkin winning again, and so he makes yet another villain far stronger to make sure the the munchkin can't win on his own again, thinking that if he just makes it strong enough, all the other players will be forced to team up to defeat him,but instead they keep hiding behind the munchkin...

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-19, 10:27 AM
And these are just a few examples. If you imagine almost any single-author work of fiction as a campaign journal played by actual gamers (not by professional authors moonlighting as gamers like the Dragonlance chronicles) if resembles a horror show.


There are a lot of common story elements that are garbage fires waiting to happen when transplanted to an RPG campaign, unless you have enthusiastic buy-in from the players. Power disparity is one of them.

Quertus
2019-02-19, 11:17 AM
'If the players are fine with it' can be used as a solution to almost any design problem, in the same way that 'the GM can work around it' can be deployed as a solution. It's certainly true that this can be done, and it is inevitable that such workarounds will be deployed to some extent, but the rules exist as a gaming aide. They are supposed to optimize the play experience, and the more you have to adjust the rules the less helpful they are in this regard and at some point if you have to constantly change the rules enough you reach the point where you'd be better off without them.

I feel like you're missing the point. "This menu has so much useless stuff on it - it would be better if it just had a vegan tofu burger that everyone could eat".

People aren't saying that that it's a problem to work around, they're saying that, like having options on a menu, it has benefits. They aren't saying that you have to change the rules.


like say....Dragon Ball Z

lol. I barely know the show, and I'm loving this description.

Have you considered doing a series of SAF-to-game comparisons?

Spore
2019-02-19, 07:50 PM
In looking for inspiration for gameplay instead, it makes more sense to look at something like live-action ensemble show. The best example might actually be the long-running Super Sentai (Power Rangers) series. In those shows, while there will inevitably be a leader type who get the most face-time, the incentive from management to sell all the toys means everyone has to get screentime and storylines in order to balance things out and everyone has to be able to contribute effectively in ensemble shots and moments. It's also a useful comparison because management has to, like a GM, consider the needs of the actors in addition to the needs of the characters.

Did....did you SERIOUSLY tell me to follow Power Rangers for good storytelling and RP? Don't get me wrong, it is FUN but not exactly what I would consider good character arcs. The bazillion different stories certainly have their moments here and there, but overall they are reestablishing the status quo unless they want to sell new toys.

It is literally the very thing I try to get away from: Every PC having the same impact on story and combat. Some players LIVE for combat. They sit by and enjoy RP segments, even longer ones, but they fire up for combat, so if they can shine there, so be it. Others love the RP, be it social, wilderness challenges, or simply intelligence checks (lore can be a very interesting thing). I understand that you need some sort of normalizing factor in order to bundle a few single player stories together to a multiplayer experience where everyone can contribute to combat or RP. But forcing every player into a mold is just bad RP imho.

Going back to your Power Rangers example, there are quite a few episodes in each season of it, where one memeber decides to do things alone, or to not wanting to be outshined by others and leaves the team in various ways. Instead of the others accepting this soul searching and potentially character growing moment, they have to force the member back in line because they need him to command whatever part of the big robot he controlled.

What I propose is not a party made of Alpha 5, Zordon and two rangers because one is a maintenance robot and the other is literally bound to a giant jar of glass. What I would propose is one player going for being one of the sensible adults of the town that gets attacked by aliens literally every week (maybe a teacher and martial artist), two players going to be rangers and the last one maybe being a mystical space sensei (dont ask!).

The adult could do the social stuff on earth, give the kids access to otherwise restricted areas, while the alien sensei would provide new technologies. And still all four could contribute in combat even though the two rangers would be outfitted best for that.

Mechalich
2019-02-19, 08:16 PM
I feel like you're missing the point. "This menu has so much useless stuff on it - it would be better if it just had a vegan tofu burger that everyone could eat".

People aren't saying that that it's a problem to work around, they're saying that, like having options on a menu, it has benefits. They aren't saying that you have to change the rules.

There is no restaurant in the world whose menu includes 'every meal option known to man.' Most are tightly restrained by a specific cuisine type, and they further divide options up into different meal types that don't get served at the same time, which, extending the analogy, would mean in the same campaign. In fact, to extend the analogy further, most restaurants will try to keep all menu options of the same type like appetizers or entrees, within a reasonably tight caloric range, which is comparable to keeping the power levels close together.


Did....did you SERIOUSLY tell me to follow Power Rangers for good storytelling and RP? Don't get me wrong, it is FUN but not exactly what I would consider good character arcs. The bazillion different stories certainly have their moments here and there, but overall they are reestablishing the status quo unless they want to sell new toys.

No, I seriously suggested following Power Rangers for structural management. Obviously you wouldn't model storytelling on the everyplot structure of the show unless you were doing a series of one-shots. In general, TV shows are a better model for the structure of an RPG campaign than novels, ensemble shows in particular. Modern games, in particular, tend to work very well when following the outline of a traditional procedural.


Going back to your Power Rangers example, there are quite a few episodes in each season of it, where one memeber decides to do things alone, or to not wanting to be outshined by others and leaves the team in various ways. Instead of the others accepting this soul searching and potentially character growing moment, they have to force the member back in line because they need him to command whatever part of the big robot he controlled.

Yes, and this is a thing you have to do at a table. You can't have one player take their character off on a solo adventure for multiple sessions, even if it would make sense in the story to do so. In a novel you can split the party all the time, in fact you might spend most of an epic series with the principles scattered to the winds. LotR breaks the Fellowship at the end of book one and they don't reunite until after the final victory, and many other fantasy epics are similar in this respect, but in tabletop gaming you can't do this, the party has to stick together as much as possible or the players will get bored.

In tabletop gaming the principle concern is to make sure everyone in the group is having a good time. Storytelling is secondary to this, or even tertiary in some groups where the players just want to kill things. Strategies related to group management trump storytelling concerns. That's just the nature of the beast.

RifleAvenger
2019-02-19, 09:27 PM
Anecdote 1: The last time I had a player's personal arc strongly conflict with the party (and I was encouraging this), it ultimately resulted in them fighting the party, escaping, and being retired as a PC. Except that the player blamed the other players for not valuing his right to play a flawed character with negative character growth, and left the group entirely. I then ran a mini-side game where he could determine the broad strokes of his character's actions, with the acknowledgement he was essentially an NPC opposed to the party at this point.

However, getting the OOC bridge mended required getting his PC to rejoin the party, which required the story to be tortured and many things he did against the PC's faction to be downplayed or ignored. It reset his own development since leaving. It felt nauseous as a storyteller, and even then this player never fully reengaged with the game.

Ultimately, it was a BAD IDEA, not because it couldn't make a good story, but because it was a deeply flawed approach for the medium it was set in. In many ways, this reflected the entire campaign, which evoked the mood and feel of its source material (Shin Megami Tensei) very well I'm told, but in a way that left the players truly paranoid and rendered the game too stressful for them and frustrating to me (because they experienced decision paralysis constantly, and got upset if I tried to have NPC's or events force a decision that was taking too long to make).

Anecdote 2: I've got a Mage game planned where some players volunteered to play Sleepwalkers, as a way of literally examining power disparity in that setting. But if I, for a moment, pick up a whiff of OOC dissatisfaction from the people who aren't playing reality-warpers, I'm going to have those PC's Awaken and find some other way to explore the theme.

Adapt to medium or die, and adapt to group or die. If you have the rare group where someone can play a pathetic character and still have fun (without the group having to constantly hamstring the powerful PC's or have them hold the idiot ball), go for it. For everyone else, the power disparity needs to be narrowed until everyone can obtain rough equity in narrative importance.


Yes, and this is a thing you have to do at a table. You can't have one player take their character off on a solo adventure for multiple sessions, even if it would make sense in the story to do so. In a novel you can split the party all the time, in fact you might spend most of an epic series with the principles scattered to the winds. LotR breaks the Fellowship at the end of book one and they don't reunite until after the final victory, and many other fantasy epics are similar in this respect, but in tabletop gaming you can't do this, the party has to stick together as much as possible or the players will get bored.The closest I've seen to making split stories work is a superhero game where the group would split into 2-3 teams. Even then, it only worked because the players chose to sit in on the other characters' missions, and were HEAVILY invested in watching how the other PC's plots turned out. That's not an average group imo. I count myself lucky to have players who care about storytelling as deeply as they do, and even they couldn't handle a game with that structure.

Oh, and that superhero game in question? The GM based his storytelling, pacing, and mechanics on TV serials, for precisely the reasons you've mentioned.

Spore
2019-02-20, 08:02 AM
Anecdote 1: The last time I had a player's personal arc strongly conflict with the party (and I was encouraging this), it ultimately resulted in them fighting the party, escaping, and being retired as a PC. Except that the player blamed the other players for not valuing his right to play a flawed character with negative character growth, and left the group entirely. I then ran a mini-side game where he could determine the broad strokes of his character's actions, with the acknowledgement he was essentially an NPC opposed to the party at this point.

However, getting the OOC bridge mended required getting his PC to rejoin the party, which required the story to be tortured and many things he did against the PC's faction to be downplayed or ignored. It reset his own development since leaving. It felt nauseous as a storyteller, and even then this player never fully reengaged with the game.

Ultimately, it was a BAD IDEA, not because it couldn't make a good story, but because it was a deeply flawed approach for the medium it was set in. In many ways, this reflected the entire campaign, which evoked the mood and feel of its source material (Shin Megami Tensei) very well I'm told, but in a way that left the players truly paranoid and rendered the game too stressful for them and frustrating to me (because they experienced decision paralysis constantly, and got upset if I tried to have NPC's or events force a decision that was taking too long to make).

I think we all have tried this in one way or another. And through that example I learned today that I may have been the reason why two of my campaigns ended. Of course it is sad when original party members leave because they do not fit the party anymore. But we much rather have a fun at the table and a coherent group than catering to selfish PC #3 all the time.


Anecdote 2: I've got a Mage game planned where some players volunteered to play Sleepwalkers, as a way of literally examining power disparity in that setting. But if I, for a moment, pick up a whiff of OOC dissatisfaction from the people who aren't playing reality-warpers, I'm going to have those PC's Awaken and find some other way to explore the theme.

If they are truly fine with that, they can stay mortal for all I care. But in all honesty, people often claim they are 'okay' with much more than they can actually accept. I am okay with being the bookish guy that hurls out the odd buff spell and shoot a few minions during combat. But I would not be okay cowering in fetal position in the darkest corner during battle, running away at the slightest danger and shouting for mother.


Adapt to medium or die, and adapt to group or die. If you have the rare group where someone can play a pathetic character and still have fun (without the group having to constantly hamstring the powerful PC's or have them hold the idiot ball), go for it. For everyone else, the power disparity needs to be narrowed until everyone can obtain rough equity in narrative importance.

I have experienced that systems that do NOT push you to play heroic super-humans work much much better than that. There one can be a battle hardened veteran with illegal weapons and military gear from the black market and his cohort can still be that conspiracy nut that has connections.

The soldier can carry combat almost on his own (though a few capable hands shooting would still be welcome) while the 'nerd' can try to pose with his katana for a few rounds before being wounded. Ironically the World of Darkness is a good system for that because it has several "tiers" of mythical creatures and also just normal people. Of course a DM is not advised to put a mage, demon and vampire into the same party but he can. Encounter design will be ... odd but it can work if the mage doesn't mind being inches away from being splattered across the walls.


The closest I've seen to making split stories work is a superhero game where the group would split into 2-3 teams. Even then, it only worked because the players chose to sit in on the other characters' missions, and were HEAVILY invested in watching how the other PC's plots turned out. That's not an average group imo. I count myself lucky to have players who care about storytelling as deeply as they do, and even they couldn't handle a game with that structure.

Oh, and that superhero game in question? The GM based his storytelling, pacing, and mechanics on TV serials, for precisely the reasons you've mentioned.

I've had a Pathfinder DM like this. While the world evolved around us, and he even threw us a few problems we could not solve immediately (congratz on being Lv 8, now here is this immortal necromancer that kills your mount just to mock you) he basically took his pacing from Final Fantasy games as after epic and emotional cut scenes, the game relinquishes control back to the players. Though sometimes you build characters for a flashback scenes (we played two different groups of mercenaries and drow, all of which was connected to the main plot), we always had agenda.

I love every second of it. The game was rare but almost every session had one or two memorable points. As a counterpoint to my own arguments, this group was on a high power level which almost every character had (short of the ranger but she was heavily buffed through the drop of TWO sun blades). A thing which makes me realize combat is only fun if there is an actual danger. If the DM has to keep in mind not to touch the small boy hiding in the corner, and scales it down for the weak member, combat is not as enticing as it could be for the others.

So yes, I very much see where you (that means all of you) are coming from. Some systems - even the 'new' D&D 5e which I love - normalize character power. But I feel a group where everyone plays optimized murderhobos has other qualities than a group where Sir Edge of Lord the Sorcadin plays with Sprinkles, the gnome warlock that only took RP cantrips. And both can be fun. Both can be dreadful.