What is a 'serious gamer' and can a system encourage them? [Archive]

AKA_Bait

2008-06-22, 12:54 PM

This is a spin-off of the "I hate fun" thread, if you are curious as to why it came up.

It seems many of the issues in edition wars have involved one group of players (typically the older ones) accusing the other group of players (those who like the new system) of not being 'serious' or lacking commitment to the hobby. I'd like to explore a little bit about what is meant by this.

Hence the question: What is a serious gamer or hobbyist?

For me, the only measument about seriousness or commitment in a hobby, regardless of the hobby, is time given to the hobby. If I play chess every day, research lines of play, read Bobby Fisher's book (which sucks), then I am a serious chess player. Same goes for D&D, pool, yatzee, gutiar hero, or anything else.

This leads to the follow up question: Can, or how can, a game or hobby be designed to appeal to 'serious players'?

Since for me, the only measure is time given to the hobby, the only way that a system can promote seriousness is by having depth. By depth I don't mean some metaphysical or funky thing, I mean options for play. These options can either come from the intracy of the governing rules themselves or from simple governing rules but which allow many options during play within them.

For some examples of deep systems, the hobbyist who makes model airplanes is of the complex initial rules system with only limited freedom thereafter. The parts go to specific other parts and there isn't all that else much beyond how to paint it unless he wants to start designing his own. The chess player is of the second category. The rules of the game, what can go where, can be fit one or two pages but the possible permutations of play allow for tens of thousands of opening lines to say nothing of middle and end games. The chess player can also come up with his own variations on the game, like rounding the board and adding or subtracting peices. Both hobbies have depth, in that many stimulating hours can be devoted to either by players so inclined.

Truly shallow systems are harder to parse out since the human element of interaction can add signifigant depth to almost any system but a few examples can be found. The card game War, where essentialy it's flipping random cards which determine the winner, has very simple rules (higher card beats lower, etc.) and simple play under the rules (flip the card, see who won). Some childrens games, I'm tempted to say candyland but I haven't played it in a very long time, also fit into this category. I don't know any 'serious' War or candyland players.

Looking at those examples, a system that encourages 'serious players' is one that provides depth of initial rules, depth of during play options, or both. Since any combonation there of can keep someone so inclined engaged over a long period of time, it's hard, if not impossible, to say what ratio between the two and magnitide thereof, is more encouraging for 'seriousness'.

These are just my views, although I like to think they are well supported. What does everyone else think?

Innis Cabal

2008-06-22, 12:59 PM

AKA_Bait

2008-06-22, 01:07 PM

in this case, i would think a "Shallow" system" would be better and more geared to the serious table top RPG player. Who wants a game that makes you do x, y, ans z in the exact same way every time, regardless of what a character wants. I beleive that options should only be limited by what a player can think, and play. Sure there can be 200 splat books(Rifts comes to mind on the near endless supply of material), but in the end it should be hte players, not the rules that specify depth. I wouldnt call that shallow in the slightest, i would call that player-centric versus rules-centric.

You misunderstand me. That would not be a shallow system. That would be a deep system of the second kind, with simple governing rules that allow myriad during play options, like chess. Table top RPG's run the gamut of these options, although I'd say few if any are very shallow. Most either have very complicated initial rules and setup which thereafter limit 'at the table' play options (a charge which has been leveled against 3.x), or simpler basic rules which create more 'at the table' options (something 4e proponents claim). I'm not saying either assertion is true, but they are claims frequently made.

Truthfully, I think that most tabletop RPGs are quite deep, both in initial rules and in during play options, which is perhaps why this kind of game (regardless of edition) has become so popular with as many 'serious gamers' as there are.

With table top RPG's the waters can get ever murkier, since what the in play options are, are also subject to the playstyle of the group and the DM. A DM who railroads the heck out of their players is playing a game with more limited in play options than the written rules allow.

Indon

2008-06-22, 01:21 PM

I'd say the guy's just drawing a distinction between strongly immersive roleplaying and your standard "Beer and pretzels" game.

AKA_Bait

2008-06-22, 01:26 PM

I'd say the guy's just drawing a distinction between strongly immersive roleplaying and your standard "Beer and pretzels" game.

I disagree, but assuming you are referring to the author of the "I hate fun" article, that discussion really belongs over there. I started this thread with the express purpose of avoiding what that... person... was saying so that we playgrounders could try to get to the meat of the issue.

The question in here, is that is there a game mechanical element that separates the 'immersive roleplaying game' and the 'beer and pretzels' game that can be identified? Is a more immersive game deeper on the initial rules? Is it deeper on the in play options? Is it both? Is one more important than the other?

Wizzardman

2008-06-22, 01:28 PM

...But all this brings up an interesting question: Do options only count if they're well defined, or do they count if they're relatively undefined?

Compare GURPs and any White Wolf setting. GURPs provides a literal wealth of possible options for players to play around with, each of which can effect role-playing, combat, setting, fluff, character development (as these options change), you name it. In doing so, GURPs provides a humongous library of rules, which remain fairly set in stone.

White Wolf settings take the opposite method. In most White Wolf games, the players are given a list of potential roleplay related advantages and disadvantages, given a fairly vague and loose combat system (as well as an action point setup), and told to go at in. In White Wolf, its assumed that the GM and the PCs will make up for the missing details themselves--and this is encouraged by an in-game rule that says you may get extra dice if you roleplay your action.

Do these both provide "depth," despite their different setups?

AKA_Bait

2008-06-22, 01:42 PM

Do these both provide "depth," despite their different setups?

It would seem to me that they do. I'm not terribly familiar with the whitewolf game rules, so bear with me here if I'm totally wrong. It seems that GURPs creates 'in play' options that are defined by increasing the complexity of the initial rules. Whitewolf seems to be increasing the in game options by providing one, or perhaps two or three, larger governing rules under which those optons fall.

Also, as I said, in Tabletop this also becomes an issue based upon the style of the DM. If a DM is uncomfortable with things on the fly, then a Whitewolf type system seems like it would provide fewer options than one like GURPS. If the DM is cool with making things up as they go along, a whitewolf type system would potentially provide more, since folks will ime always think up something not specifically adjudicated by the rules.

UglyPanda

2008-06-22, 01:55 PM

It's just a nitpick, but time commitment does not necessarily mean you're deep into the game.

Take a fighting games for example. There are people who know what move links to what, the proper timing for guarding/blocking/teching, and the reasons for the tier list and why it works like that. Then there are people who keep pressing the same three buttons over and over again while occasionally pressing down and forward. Two people may be playing against each other on an entirely new game for the same period of time, but if one player is learning how to (play better/do cool moves) while the other is just pressing buttons randomly, then the first player is deeper into the game than the other player. He might not necessarily be a better player, but he has picked on more of the nuances of the game than the other player and at the end of the day might have more of an appreciation for it.

AKA_Bait

2008-06-22, 01:59 PM

It's just a nitpick, but time commitment does not necessarily mean you're deep into the game.

Take a fighting games for example. There are people who know what move links to what, the proper timing for guarding/blocking/teching, and the reasons for the tier list and why it works like that. Then there are people who keeping pressing the same three buttons over and over again while occasionally pressing down and forward. Two people may be playing against each other on an entirely new game for the same period of time, but if one player is learning how to (play better/do cool moves) while the other is just pressing buttons randomly, then the first player is deeper into the game than the other player. He might not necessarily be a better player, but he has picked on more of the nuances of the game than the other player and at the end of the day might have more of an appreciation for it.

Although I concide that there is an element of this that's involved, I cannot come up with any real way to quantify such a thing or in terms of system design, see anything beyond what I already mentioned that would cater to this distinction.

Yahzi

2008-06-22, 02:03 PM

It seems many of the issues in edition wars have involved one group of players (typically the older ones) accusing the other group of players (those who like the new system) of not being 'serious' or lacking commitment to the hobby. I'd like to explore a little bit about what is meant by this.
Literature is my bag, so I'll discuss it in those terms.

To be serious about literature is to tell the real story, regardless of how you wanted it to come out. If you read a book in which the hero constantly escapes any real consequences of his poor choices (like for instance is always being bailed out by a higher power - or perhaps the hero is always right and simply never makes mistakes), you will soon lose interest in the book because it's just self-indulgent tripe.

Same for the game: if the PCs get bailed out, no matter how stupid their actoins (they attack the King at a grand ball, and the DM has them "arrested and sentenced to perform adventures" instead of having them tortured to death), then you soon lose interest in the game because it's just self-indulgent tripe.

The Flame Princess was ranting about how 4e (and to some extent 3e) encourages tripe. I totally agree with him. Older editions of D&D didn't have the level-appropriate encounter system. There was no contract between the players and the DM that he would never put them in a position they couldn't handle.

Instead, the old versions had random encounter tables. Players chose what kind of areas to visit, and what kind of actions to take, based on their understanding of the random tables: if at first level you decided to drop down to the fifth level of the dungeon, you would expect to die. In that sense it was like a computer game; you knew what "areas" were within your power, and you stuck to those.

The advantage to this system is that the players get to decide their risk-vs-reward. Rather than run through a series encounters pre-scripted by the DM, all of which they are expected to win (or at least survive), each of which is crafted to their level and yields appropriate loot (right down to the BBEG at the end!), the players make their own encounters by interacting with the random tables.

This is being true to the game, and to the spirit of adventure. The players take huge risks and reap huge rewards, except for the times where they all die horribly. And nobody blames the DM for killing them because it was right there, in the rules (I roll all my dice in front of my players, and they love it. Even when it results in a string of criticals.)

Anyway, if you're reading a book and you get the sense that the hero will survive every encounter, you'll get bored (even though you already know he has to survive, since he's the hero - but you still don't want to think that while your reading!). I think the same applies to 4e: I would find it boring (in exactly the same sense I find modules to be mind-numbingly dull). As a player, if I found out my DM knew the next dozen encounters and how they would turn out, I'd be like, "Fine, let's just say it happened that way, and then move on to something fun."

So the serious gamer is the one who wants to be in control of his own fun; who wants to make decisions and accept the consequences. The not-serious gamer merely wants to be passively entertained; he might as well be watching a movie.

As for systems encouraging serious gaming, no system that says "The players can never die in one round, even if the battleship they are on is nuked into oblivion" (Space Opera, I'm looking at you!) can encourage serious gaming. 4e, with its carefully scripted string of bad guys designed to lose, doesn't sound like it's going to help much. On the other hand one could easily design random encounter tables for 4e, so its really less about the rules than about the gaming philosophy being encouraged.

Edit: it just occurred to me: the new 4e encounter system is also stolen from computer games, it's just stolen from modern computer games instead of old ones. The series of scripted encounters is the quest mechanic from WoW, EQ, etc. And the designers of those games noticed that players wanted more quests and less random encounter areas. But I think they got it wrong: players want quests because they're stories, not because they want to be told what to do. You don't need a series of quests in a D&D game; you have only one quest - the big one - and everything else is supposed to support that.

Raum

2008-06-22, 02:15 PM

Hence the question: What is a serious gamer or hobbyist?

For me, the only measument about seriousness or commitment in a hobby, regardless of the hobby, is time given to the hobby. If I play chess every day, research lines of play, read Bobby Fisher's book (which sucks), then I am a serious chess player. Same goes for D&D, pool, yatzee, gutiar hero, or anything else. Sounds like a reasonable measurement but it's still vague. Are we talking a significant percentage of a 24 hour day or a significant percentage of one's leisure time in said day? You'll also need to define terms and scope. I'd agree someone spending a lot of time with a single system is seriously devoted to the system - but are they a serious hobbyist? There are a large number of systems after all, and one system isn't a significant percentage. To extend your hobbyist modeler example, is a modeler who spends all his free time building models of Ford Mustangs dedicated to the modeling hobby or to Ford Mustangs?

This leads to the follow up question: Can, or how can, a game or hobby be designed to appeal to 'serious players'?I'm not sure the scope or terms have been defined well enough to answer - if time is the only measurement, the slowest, most time consuming game should be the "hobbyist's" game.

Since for me, the only measure is time given to the hobby, the only way that a system can promote seriousness is by having depth. By depth I don't mean some metaphysical or funky thing, I mean options for play. These options can either come from the intracy of the governing rules themselves or from simple governing rules but which allow many options during play within them.Options may also originate from multiple systems, easily extensible systems, or - most obviously - by dropping the system altogether. After all, a system of rules is a limitation by definition. Systemless games are only limited by imagination and conceptual choice. (**Note, I'm not trying to sell systemless gaming, just illustrating a point.)

<snip>
Looking at those examples, a system that encourages 'serious players' is one that provides depth of initial rules, depth of during play options, or both. Since any combonation there of can keep someone so inclined engaged over a long period of time, it's hard, if not impossible, to say what ratio between the two and magnitide thereof, is more encouraging for 'seriousness'.

These are just my views, although I like to think they are well supported. What does everyone else think?I don't agree with your conclusions regarding system attributes. But then I don't necessarily rely on a system to provide options. All too often, options provided for you in the form of a system are actually limitations under a thin disguise. Let's say system Z has a "Swing Attack" option which allows your character to swing from chandeliers and vines into an attack if he takes the power at creation or during advancement. The unstated corollary is the limitation - you can't swing into the attack without the power.

Extremely light games may be just as (or potentially more) engaging than extremely detailed games. Instead of comparing to War or Candyland, compare to childhood games closer to RPGs... How much time did you spend playing Cops & Robbers? Cowboys and Indians? Or whatever your preferred RP activity may have been. They took up more of my remembered playtime than Candyland and War combined.

-----

Rather than defining a hobbyist's system by options, I'd say a good hobbyist system is one where a new aspect, feature, or horizon is opened each time you've mastered the last. When pointing your finger and yelling bang is no longer enough you get a cap gun and cowboy hat or perhaps add a referee or research and recreate specific instances (I'm not just a cowboy, I'm Wyatt Earp!). When system A is no longer as satisfying as it used to be try system X or system D then to system E... Combine the aspects you like from all the systems for a hybrid AXED system!

The only limitations are those you place on yourself.

ghost_warlock

2008-06-22, 02:18 PM

Anyway, if you're reading a book and you get the sense that the hero will survive every encounter, you'll get bored (even though you already know he has to survive, since he's the hero - but you still don't want to think that while your reading!). I think the same applies to 4e: I would find it boring (in exactly the same sense I find modules to be mind-numbingly dull). As a player, if I found out my DM knew the next dozen encounters and how they would turn out, I'd be like, "Fine, let's just say it happened that way, and then move on to something fun."

Semi-tangential nitpick: sometimes the thrilling bit isn't whether a character will survive, but in discovering how the character will survive.

Case in point: my girlfriend and I spent part of the morning today watching MacGyver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGyver). At no point did either of us think the main character was going to die, or even be seriously injured, but we certainly did enjoy the sneaky problem solving the character did in order to cheat death! :smallbiggrin:

Antacid

2008-06-22, 02:23 PM

The advantage to this system is that the players get to decide their risk-vs-reward. Rather than run through a series encounters pre-scripted by the DM, all of which they are expected to win (or at least survive), each of which is crafted to their level and yields appropriate loot (right down to the BBEG at the end!), the players make their own encounters by interacting with the random tables.

You can, in fact, make random encounter tables for 4e more easily than for any previous version of D&D. There just aren't any pre-generated. If the sole point is to give the players control of the risk, they needn't even be random, you could just make a bunch of encounters appropriate to each dungeon level and have the players run into them in order on the level they ultimately choose to explore. I don't know if I'd regard that as a roleplaying game though; certainly not as literature.

This is being true to the game, and to the spirit of adventure. The players take huge risks and reap huge rewards, except for the times where they all die horribly. And nobody blames the DM for killing them because it was right there, in the rules (I roll all my dice in front of my players, and they love it. Even when it results in a string of criticals.)

You should play Nethack (http://www.nethack.org/). Seriously. It's a great game, and right up your alley. Not dying is never a problem.

Edit: it just occurred to me: the new 4e encounter system is also stolen from computer games, it's just stolen from modern computer games instead of old ones.
Not really. The concepts of modules and random encounters back date back to the early versions of D&D, and they were stolen by computer games from RPGs, not the other way round.

Thrud

2008-06-22, 02:33 PM

Hmm, pretty inciteful. Makes me think of the comparison of Morrowind vs oblivion. If you have never played the two games, then you won't get it, but the one thing that people complained about over and over was that oblivion had a leveled encounter system that really irritated a lot of people. It meant that you never encountered anything that was outside of your comfort level. Whereas in morrowind it was quite possible to be 5th or 6th level and wander into a dungeon with critters 20 levels above you. And somehow that was more fun.

I have to say that I keep my 3rd ed game the same way. My players know if they head to places that are too much for them, and they see a couple of monsters that they know are beyond their capabilities, then the should turn and head the other way quickly. Personally I have never had a problem with the CR system, because I juse use it as a guideline. And I think it is a great way to reward the players for roleplaying. If you set up a bunch of roleplaying guides in your notes when you are DM'ing, things like 'convincing the duke to let the players cross his land, CR 8' and so on, then you can have entire adventures where the players don't have to rely on just hacking and slashing to gain XP, or where you just have to arbitrarily pull an XP bonus for roleplaying out of the air.

So what does this boil down to? In order for people to feel like they have really earned something, there has to be risk vs reward. 3rd ed did a large amount to take away that risk, so it was up to the DM to put it back in again.

Sorry, I got a little off track there, but Yahzi's post made me think of it.

Matthew

2008-06-22, 03:02 PM

Lord Tataraus

2008-06-22, 03:11 PM

Interesting insight, this might be why I don't like 4e.

I do consider myself to be an RPG Hobbyist, I spend 98% of my free time creating characters, campaign settings and dreaming up scenarios, most of which never get put down. I have about 4 complete settings I have yet to put to any use and some of them may never be used. I've homebrewed many races, a few classes and monsters purely for fun. I enjoy RPGs mostly for the creation, I love spending hours creating a neat character idea, an off the wall monstrosity or an obscure and intense world of fantasy. The creation is the best part for me and then I share it with everyone in the form of social and interactive game - that is what an RPG is to me. I want to create and tell the story of it to others and have them be deeply involved as well as add to it with their own characters. 3.5 characters are wonderfully complex, I have so much to go off of, even in the core books, there are so many options and combinations and its fun to just create weird characters and NPC enemies for my friends to encounter, with 4e I can't do that.

JaxGaret

2008-06-22, 03:58 PM

As for systems encouraging serious gaming, no system that says "The players can never die in one round, even if the battleship they are on is nuked into oblivion" (Space Opera, I'm looking at you!) can encourage serious gaming. 4e, with its carefully scripted string of bad guys designed to lose, doesn't sound like it's going to help much.

This is absolutely one of those cases where if you haven't played the game, you won't know how it works. It sure seems as if 4e encounters shouldn't be deadly - but they are. I can attest to it, having killed several PCs already with encounters that weren't overpowered for their level.

This happens a lot with 4e. Before I had played it, I had read just about as much as I could on it, and I read the core books before I played - and I thought it was going to suck. Then I actually played it, and it really works quite well. There are flaws, of course, but I find that 3e's flaws dwarf 4e's flaws significantly.

On the other hand one could easily design random encounter tables for 4e, so its really less about the rules than about the gaming philosophy being encouraged.

Exactly. There is nothing in 4e that states that you can't run your campaign world with encounters ranging from well below level to well above level, they only suggest that you don't (since you'll avoid pointless fights and likely TPKs). That's a personal choice by the DM.

Edit: it just occurred to me: the new 4e encounter system is also stolen from computer games, it's just stolen from modern computer games instead of old ones. The series of scripted encounters is the quest mechanic from WoW, EQ, etc. And the designers of those games noticed that players wanted more quests and less random encounter areas. But I think they got it wrong: players want quests because they're stories, not because they want to be told what to do. You don't need a series of quests in a D&D game; you have only one quest - the big one - and everything else is supposed to support that.

What is this "new 4e encounter system" that you are talking about? How are scripted encounters any more the norm than in 3e? It's up to the DM how the campaign is run, not the system.

Artanis

2008-06-22, 04:00 PM

"More serious" is of course relative, and generally pretty easy to figure out. Person A is more serious about something than Person B. Person C is "pretty serious" about something. Person D is "not very serious". However, the line between "serious" and "not-serious", the point at which you can say "if you do this, you are serious, and if you do not do this, you are not serious" is fuzzy at best, and often non-existent. As such, it's very difficult for a system to deliberately encourage or discourage "serious" play.

As for the term "serious gamer" itself:

"Serious gamer" in and of itself is a more or less harmless term. If a person thinks he's a serious gamer, then by all means, there's nothing wrong with him describing himself as one. Unfortunately, people who use the term as part of a debate/arguement/etc. almost invariably use it to belittle those that they feel are beneath - more "casual" - than them.

The VAST majority of the times I've seen somebody describe themselves as a "serious gamer" is as part of an attempt to assert that those who are not "serious gamers" are inferior and undeserving of any respect. This usually takes the form of something along the lines of, "only we serious gamers deserve to have content/rules/expansions/whatever made for us. Those 'casual' scrubs don't deserve anything."

It doesn't matter what the discussion is about, either. Like I mentioned in the "I hate fun" thread, you see this sort of thing a LOT on MMO boards. "Casual players don't deserve any new content, all that effort should go to making new raid dungeons". "Only us serious players deserve to see the top-end raids". And other bull like that. The article around which the "I hate fun" thread was started is another such example.

tl;dr version:

There is no real, objective line at which somebody crosses over into becoming a "serious gamer". As such, while it is possible for a system (of whatever genre) to encourage such play, it often can be very difficult to actually do so (and even harder to get it right). Unfortunately, those who describe themselves as "serious gamers" all too often decide not only that there is a line, but also that those below that line deserve nothing but contempt.

dyslexicfaser

2008-06-22, 05:54 PM

"Serious gamer" in and of itself is a more or less harmless term. If a person thinks he's a serious gamer, then by all means, there's nothing wrong with him describing himself as one. Unfortunately, people who use the term as part of a debate/arguement/etc. almost invariably use it to belittle those that they feel are beneath - more "casual" - than them.

It can also be used to belittle serious gamers themselves; something like "Games Are Serious Business" is intended to mock people who, in more casual gamers' opinions, take themselves and their hobbies a little too seriously.

But that's a little far afield of Bait's original topic.

Discussing depth of game rules is a little tricky: depth and variety in rules is a positive thing... until your game becomes bogged down by too many rules, and forces you to wade through the mire to get at the other aspects of the game. The trick, I think, is to try and find the line between complex (but still fun) and tedium, and stay on the right side of that line.

nagora

2008-06-22, 06:16 PM

Golthur

2008-06-22, 07:59 PM

Interesting discussion so far, with diverse answers, which makes me wonder whether the question needs further refining. One thing to consider is that there may be no absolute definable point at which a 'casual gamer' becomes a 'serious gamer', rather there is a scale, and you can draw the line anywhere along that scale with a reasonable amount of justification.

I am going to throw out a couple of ideas here for a 'serious D&D gamer' (by which I mean a follower of the brand).

1) Be familiar with previous and modern editions of the game, having at least read and understood the core rulebooks for each.
2) Have played and DM'd at least one game from each edition.
3) Reads both D&D and non D&D fantasy novels/short stories (both modern and traditional)
4) Reads D&D and none D&D articles about RPGs (both modern and traditional)
5) Has actually read and played something other than D&D
6) Invests time and effort in thinking about RPGs and preparing interesting and innovative settings/adventures for his friends
7) Writes

Sure, I'd say that fits the bill as "serious". I'd also say I qualify :smallamused:

I've been lurking on these various 4E sux/4E rox/"I Hate Fun" threads for a while, but have been reserving comment.

I'd say the biggest difference between "serious" and "casual", though, is as follows:

(Disclaimer: I am not saying that any of these is good or bad, merely stating it objectively as I see it. If you are offended, perhaps you need to take a closer look in the mirror :smallwink:)

The casual gamer wants fun - now. They're not very interested in involved character development, long-term consequences (good or bad), long-term plot development, or anything of that ilk. They're out for a fun night of monster-bashing with their buddies.

The serious gamer, on the other hand, is more interested in all of these long-term things. They want good and bad long-term consequences for their characters, they want character development, they want hardship. These are all things that can be overcome, over multiple sessions, and there is a great reward for doing so.

This is perhaps the biggest difference in 4E vs. older versions - the lack of long-term consequences and problems. For example, no more conserving spells to make it through a long dungeon crawl (you've got per encounter powers and healing surges!). No more monsters with permanent, debilitating abilities (or, if they do, they're very hard to make happen, and relatively easy to reverse - out of combat). No rust monsters that break your equipment forever :smallamused:.

This makes 4E more appealing to "casual" gamers, and less appealing to "serious" ones.

Tormsskull

2008-06-22, 09:20 PM

Hence the question: What is a serious gamer or hobbyist?

I think it depends based on what you are talking about. For example, I would consider someone who has purchased and played through all of the Final Fantasy games to be a "Final Fantasy hobbyist".

To be a table top hobbyist though, I think requires more in-depth involvement. I like Matthew's list, as it seems quite representative.

Swordguy

2008-06-22, 09:47 PM

dyslexicfaser

2008-06-22, 10:42 PM

Jesus, man. I wish you had posted this sooner. You really nailed it.

Now, granted, people are going to tell you that there can certainly be long-term consequences to their actions - that 4e doesn't impugn your ability to roleplay. What they'll be forgetting is that those long-term consequences aren't built into the ruleset like they were (to the degree that they were, at least) in older editions.

The most dire long-term consequence - character death - still remains, of course. But I do see where Swordguy and Golthur are going with this.

Golthur's definition of 'casual' and 'serious' gamers is roughly x100 (mathematically speaking) better said than the original article that launched the thread which inspired AKA's topic, wherein the author seemed mostly intent on proving that "fun is bad" and that people who like fun are idiots.

I'm undecided on whether this shift away from rust monsters and the like is a bad thing, but that's rather outside the purview of the discussion.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-06-22, 11:22 PM

I think it's important to note that "serious gamer" is not the opposite of "casual gamer". The way most people seem to use the latter phrase it seems to me that "frequent gamer" would be its opposite.

A serious roleplayer would probably be someone for whom character development is more important than development of the character in the sense of magic items, levels, skills, stat scores etc. Whether that is comparable with a "serious chess player" I don't know.

Yes, and for this type of player, the more streamlined, simpler system is superior. Games "flow" better, and there's no need to keep stopping the roleplay to consult charts, roll endlessly, look things up, and just generally do things I consider tedious.

You cannot even settle on a definition for a "serious" gamer until you decide which group, each laying claim to the title, has a right to it: those with deep knowledge of incredibly complex and often arbitrary systems or those with deep commitment to character and story development. Those committed to the former will not be satisfied with anything less than the likes of early D&D, Palladium or GURPS. Those committed to the latter might very well be happiest with a very streamlined rules system, or they might even toss the rules entirely and go free-form. That doesn't make them inherently any less serious; it just means they have an entirely different focus.

If you think both of these groups deserve to be called gamers at all, then I think you in fact have to allow that there is more than one type of "serious" gamer and that these differing types may not even be compatible with one another.

Once you come to that, I think the answer to the underlying question becomes actually somewhat simpler: systems that are complex and nuanced, requiring careful study and complex preparations and planning on the part of the players encourage the rules-heavy "serious gamers," while systems that are streamlined and/or primarily reward roleplay rather than careful study of the rules and intricate planning encourage roleplay-focused "serious gamers."

The latter type of system is, however, probably also more likely to attract casual gamers simply because it's more accessible. I submit that it does not follow that the only people who play a streamlined system are casual gamers or that you have to prefer overcomplicated systems to be a serious gamer.

Person_Man

2008-06-22, 11:26 PM

I think that there's a qualitative difference between serious Video Gamers and serious Tabletop Gamers. Video Gamers are a huge portion of the population. Tabletop Gamers are a very small portion of the population.

Video gamers are 1st level Nerds - a socially accepted hobby like fantasy sports. Tabletop Gamers are 20th level Nerds. A smaller, more dedicated, more intellectually dedicated group, tabletop gaming requires much more writing, math, acting, planning, and management - what the rest of the world calls "work." And Tabletop Gamers are generally not accepted outside of the Nerd population and its allies (Geeks, Dorks, Burnouts, Artists). The Venn Diagram of Video Gamers and Tabletop Gamers are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, I'd be willing to bet that 99% of tabletop gamers are also video gamers. But I'd be equally willing to bet that only 1-10% of video gamers are also tabletop gamers. And trying to expand the number of tabletop gamers by reaching into the video gamer population is a mistake.

It reminds me of the Death of Superman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Superman).

Millions of people who were aware of Superman went out and decided to buy the comic for a variety of reasons. Some bought them because they thought the death was "for real" and that Superman would be gone forever. Some bought into the massive deluge of marketing. Some thought the comic was an investment that would make money. Some liked the movies and the larger fad built up around the character. And some bought it for "legitimate" reasons - they had been buying Superman comics for years, so why wouldn't they buy this one?

The Death of Superman made DC a huge pile of money, and led to a massive expansion of the comic book industry. But when the "non-legitimate" fans moved on to something else, the industry crashed. Since then its been rebuilt around its core fans and serialized movies that attempt to reach into the mass markets. But large scale comic book sale stunts have been studiously avoided. When they "killed" Captain America, they let everyone know that it wasn't for "real" and that Cap would continue on. The marketing was limited to traditional comic fans and a few press releases. (For example, no one got Jay Leno to wear a black armband with a Captain America insignia, as he had for Superman).

4E is an attempt by WotC to reach the next generation of gamers, most of whom spend most of their leisure time playing WoW and its MMORPG cousins. But most of those people (though certainly not all) just aren't suited for tabletop gaming. It's a totally different experience. It always will be. It always should be.

Now, there are literally millions of teenagers who are suited for tabletop gaming. But trying to appeal to tens of millions of teenagers who aren't suited for tabletop gaming is self defeating. They are not "serious" tabletop gamers. They might pick up the 4E PHB. They might play a few games. But then they'll toss it in the pile and move on to some other game. Because tabletop gaming requires "work" that Video Gamers won't put up with. 4E D&D won't make the numbers Hasbro is looking for, and eventually, they'll ax it. Who knows what will happen then.

xirr2000

2008-06-22, 11:40 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2008-06-23, 01:11 AM

So, semi-tangent: the concept of Leetness.
People generally like to place themselves in hierarchies. Specifically, they like to place themselves above other people. In many hobbies, this can be done by asking how much time/money/effort you are putting into the hobby, making the simple argument that as you are more willing to devote resources to said hobby than others, you are superior.

So, the man who has memorized every splatbook in 3e can argue that he takes his D&D more seriously than the one who has only memorized Core, or the man who models and paints all the figurines for his games is more "serious" about his D&D than the guy who just buys booster packs. You see how this goes.

For RPGs generally, you can argue that the harder it is to do something, then the more resources (time) you must spend to do it well, and therefore mastering the more difficult ruleset shows a superior dedication. This follows smoothly from the above, but it is just as false. Why? Because some things are difficult to use because they are badly made not because they are more sophisticated. Take the "random monster table" example above; does the fact that an unsophisticated party or an inexperienced DM can result in a TPK using this table mean that a system which uses a random table is more sophisticated than one which uses "level-appropriate-challenge" guidelines? I would argue no, since inceased randomness alone does not make a more sophisticated game.

The truth of the matter is that 1e & 2e D&D relied more on a wing-and-a-prayer to have a session turn out well. You needed to have a lot of experience figuring out exactly what kind of enemies a given party could reasonably fight without auto-dying. 3e took those years of experience, and built a series of guidelines so that the trial-and-error phase would be minimized. This is an example of improving the system of the game by reducing the "false starts" which, I'm fairly sure we can agree are not much fun. 4e, in this sense, builds on this acquired knowledge and has refined the Heroic Gaming experience from a world of NWP and Random Encounter Tables to a smoothly functioning skill system and encounter-building guidelines. That the system has improved, removing a lot of the stabbing in the dark, does not make the system "less sophisiticated;" it merely means that a starting DM in 4e is going to have a better chance of designing a fun campaign than a starting 1e DM.

This is not to say that 4e is the "superior" system or anything, but merely that a system that takes longer to use properly is not necessarily a more "sophisticated" one.

So, 'leetness essay take away: Just because it is harder to make a system work does not mean it is more sophisticated; it may just be of a poorer design.

That said, what is a "serious gamer?" I would argue that a "serious gamer" is someone who had really thought about what it is they want to get from a game. Why this metric? Because for many people, games are just games - you pick up any system and then try to make it work the way you want to.

(Continued)
The fact of the matter, however, is that not all systems are good at playing all kinds of games; if you are trying to play a "Tiny Gods" game with D&D instead of, say, Exalted, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Likewise, you should not be trying to play a hack 'n slash game with 1e Shadowrun. Every system is built to give a certain type of gameplay experience, and it can take a lot of time and effort to figure out a) what kind of game you want to play and b) which system is the best at delivering that experience.

If you are a "serious roleplayer" then I would say that D&D is not the system for you. Pick up one of the "storyteller" games, ranging from White Wolf to many of the "Indie RPGS" where your "character sheet" may be no larger than an index card. These games do not seek to limit you by your stats on a paper, but on your ability to collectively tell a story. If you truly care about that sort of flexibility above all else, then you should really look at the flexible and ingenious systems which are being published even today, rather than clinging to whatever you've been doing since the dawn of time. However, if you just want to be able to sit down with your friends and play a game you are all familiar with, then you should do that. In a way, it's that simple.

So, why would I call this a "serious gamer?" Because this is a gamer who has asked themselves why they play and how they can maximize that experience. Few hobbyists of any stripe would bother with that introspection because most hobbies are about the "good enough" - whatever it is that makes you happy.

But, do I believe there is such a thing as a "serious gamer?" Heavens no! "Serious" implies a sort of dedication and study which would elevate one sort of hobbiest over another. A "serious academic" is superior to a regular "academic" no? But the amount of time you devote to a hobby does not make you any better or worse than any other member of that hobby, provided said hobby does not have competitions where you can measure skill against skill. If you say otherwise, then what is your metric? Knowledge of the rules? Ability to smoothly run a game? The complexity of your plots?

(Continued)
No, there is no way to meaningfully compare the "skill" of gamers which has any correlation to the "serious" nature of their intent. This is true in the same way that "shallowness" or "depth" of the game is impossible to measure. The depth of what? The simulation of physics? The modeling of interpersonal relationships? The dimensions of the bucket of dice you need to play? A "deeper" game is merely one which allows the players to be immersed in whatever aspect of the game it is they enjoy playing.

For tactical combat, 4e D&D has one of the "deepest" systems there, for the interaction of powers and the battlefield is completely covered by rules. For "gritty" combat, I would argue a GURPS or a Shadowrun with their organ damage charts and so on is the "deepest" game. For character development? I played a wonderful little game called Bliss Stage where your relationships with other NPCs (and players!) was the be-all and end-all of the game. I have not played a "deeper" game on the axis of character development myself, but I don't doubt a superior system may exist.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the false dichotomies of "serious" and "casual" gamers and "deep" and "shallow" games exist only fuel discussion on internet message boards and to help people feel that they are superior to others. The question is not whether a game is "deep" or "shallow" but how and where it is deeper or shallower than other systems. And what would it mean to be a "serious gamer" if all it meant was that you spent more time playing games than others? The man who moves a pile of sand with tweasers is not more sophisticated than the one who uses a shovel. Think about what it is that the gamer is trying to accomplish, and see which one approaches the problem more intelligently if you must find the more "serious" one.

Talic

2008-06-23, 01:34 AM

You misunderstand the concept of leet. Leet doesn't refer to game sophistication. It refers to player sophistication. If a player takes a system, and devotes time to it, and garners a great level of familiarity for that system, then that players will consider himself better at that game than other players. Yes this is a social hierarchy, but it does not necessarily extend outside the framework of that game. Take the same two people, and when the leet player leaves, and the next day, at his job, asks someone if they'd like diet or regular coke with their cheese sticks, while the second guy, assesses cost analysis for NASA, well, there's arguments to be made there too.

Point: Elite (leet) status rarely extends outside the framework for where the individual displays his prowess. To suggest that because a player demonstrates sophistication by flawlessly playing Beethoven's 5th on a kazoo, well to suggest that the kazoo is sophisticated is an unsupported jump. It just shows that the player is superior, not the instrument. Such is the nature of the leet.

Systems, or instruments, are not leet. People are. The concept of leet does not extend to game systems, any more than it extends to toasters.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-06-23, 01:46 AM

So, semi-tangent: the concept of Leetness.
[spoiler]People generally like to place themselves in hierarchies. Specifically, they like to place themselves above other people.

... etc.

You know, I think this is the best take on the subject yet. Well done, if I may say so. :smallsmile:

Talic

2008-06-23, 01:48 AM

What? That the concept of "leet" is nothing more than a modified form of "Alpha Male" syndrome?

That needed to be pointed out?

Kiara LeSabre

2008-06-23, 04:59 AM

What? That the concept of "leet" is nothing more than a modified form of "Alpha Male" syndrome?

That needed to be pointed out?

If that's all you saw, I don't think we read the same forum post.

nagora

2008-06-23, 05:56 AM

The casual gamer wants fun - now. They're not very interested in involved character development, long-term consequences (good or bad), long-term plot development, or anything of that ilk. They're out for a fun night of monster-bashing with their buddies.

I think this is a key item. The casual gamer is not some sort of idiot, but they're not spending the time playing the game that the frequent gamer is and so, if the designer wants them to see the progression rewards - levelling up, new skills, powers etc - then the settings for these have to be put where the frequent gamer will run through them and "finish" the game in a very short period. Hence, for them the game feels "dumbed down": what previously took maybe years of play now needs perhaps six months or less to accomplish. And the increased pace of system/mechanical rewards tends to push out the roleplay rewards.

I played (weekly) at level 11 in 1ed for well over a year before gaining enough xp to level up to 12th. When it's that long between rules-based rewards there's plenty of time and incentive to find in-character rewards; in fact, you pretty well have to in order to keep the game moving for your character. If I had had to wait just 10 encounters I don't think that I would have developed the character anything like as much, and by the time I was in the so-called Epic portion of the game I doubt that I would have cared anymore and the game would literally have been over, start to end, in the time I took to go up one level.

The "serious gamer", though, I think is a separate issue from the casual and frequent gamers. I certainly don't see myself as a serious gamer by Matt's definition:

1) Be familiar with previous and modern editions of the game, having at least read and understood the core rulebooks for each.
2) Have played and DM'd at least one game from each edition.
3) Reads both D&D and non D&D fantasy novels/short stories (both modern and traditional)
4) Reads D&D and non-D&D articles about RPGs (both modern and traditional)
5) Has actually read and played something other than D&D
6) Invests time and effort in thinking about RPGs and preparing interesting and innovative settings/adventures for his friends
7) Writes
Although I game every week and have done for literally decades and do fulfil some of those requirements.

I suppose I would add one item to that list which to me is a characteristic of all "serious" gamers no matter what their game from Go to Chess to Diplomacy to D&D:

8) Organises convention games, clubs, or other events intended to draw in new players.

Which rules us chaotics out for a start :smallbiggrin:

Xuincherguixe

2008-06-23, 07:00 AM

It is possible to design a game for either or, but it's better to make one for both. It's not even that hard. The system just has to be adaptable. Which is a good thing to begin with.

Though now that I think about it, I think the main difference between a serious game and a not serious game is the GM. And mostly it's an issue of experience.

Because even if the setting isn't a terribly serious one, if it's well done, you'll get a weird situation where it's simultaneously both.

Tormsskull

2008-06-23, 07:13 AM

People generally like to place themselves in hierarchies. Specifically, they like to place themselves above other people.

Of course they do. And what is wrong with that? If I dedicate 40 hours a week to reading classic literature, does it mean I'm some kind of evil person to state that I know more about classic literature than the average person? That's the nice thing about there being SOOOOO many lines of work, hobbies, what have you. We all can find that one thing that we really want to excel at, and devote ourselves to it.

This is going to be a complete generalization, but I think that a lot of people, especially younger people, have been so bombarded through daily life with a politically correct message that demonizes people who try to be better at something than someone else.

Being better at something than most other people is the basis for a career. A lot of people make a lot of money off of the fact that they are better at that thing than most other people. Being good at things (and learning, bettering yourself, etc) should be encouraged, not frowned upon.

The truth of the matter is that 1e & 2e D&D relied more on a wing-and-a-prayer to have a session turn out well. You needed to have a lot of experience figuring out exactly what kind of enemies a given party could reasonably fight without auto-dying.

I'd disagree. The 2e was written with the understanding that a DM was interpretting the rules. Each group of PCs was different, with different classes, different skill levels of the players, etc. The 2e knew that it was impossible to make "balanced" encounters that fit every party, and therefore didn't really try. But it did go out of its way to tell you the DM had every right, and the responsibility to tweak things.

So, 'leetness essay take away: Just because it is harder to make a system work does not mean it is more sophisticated; it may just be of a poorer design.

Actually, one of the definitions for the word sophisticated is deceptive or misleading. I think you are saying sophisticated = good and I don't like that older system so it cannot be sophisticated.

Xuincherguixe

2008-06-23, 07:30 AM

nagora

2008-06-23, 07:44 AM

This is going to be a complete generalization, but I think that a lot of people, especially younger people, have been so bombarded through daily life with a politically correct message that demonizes people who try to be better at something than someone else.
This is especially true on the Internet, I notice. Being good at something or knowing a lot about it is regarded as arrogance pure and simple. Wikipedia is founded on the idea that knowledgeable people are the enemy we must all smash before they steal away our human right to easy answers.

The danger of this is that it blinds us to real hierarchies and leave them free from questioning. I've lost count of the number of {people from a certain country} who have told me that their country is a classless society and I think it's because they are raised from an early age with the belief that it is wrong to even acknowlege the existance of hierarchies. No country is classless and the solution to class difficulties is not to pretend they don't exist!

In gaming or any other field where humans take an interest there will be people who gain self-vindication from being better than others in some way. Many will simply pretend to be better, in fact I think most such people are frauds; people who really ARE good at things generally have worked hard enough at it that they don't need to crow about it.

Humans are social animals who have evolved a series of survival strategies based on groups and we carry around within our societies those who would use those group structures for self-aggrandisement - they're called "jerks" and we really can never be free of them in any field or activity, trivial or momentous.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-06-23, 08:11 AM

Of course they do. And what is wrong with that? If I dedicate 40 hours a week to reading classic literature, does it mean I'm some kind of evil person to state that I know more about classic literature than the average person? That's the nice thing about there being SOOOOO many lines of work, hobbies, what have you. We all can find that one thing that we really want to excel at, and devote ourselves to it.

Does it mean you're some kind of evil person? Probably not. Nor, however, are you necessarily *right* to say you know more about classic literature than the average person.

Just because you spend 40 hours a week doing something, that doesn't mean you do it *well* or that you have any actual *insight* into it, and going around shouting on the internet about how you *totally* know more than *everybody* about something because you do it for *forty hours a week* just make you sound insecure.

To put it another way: a great many people find that one thing they really want to excel at, devote themselves to it, and still suck at it.

This is going to be a complete generalization, but I think that a lot of people, especially younger people, have been so bombarded through daily life with a politically correct message that demonizes people who try to be better at something than someone else.

People who try to be better at things than other people *deserve* to be demonized, because if you're focusing on being "better than other people" you're never bothering to actually be any good. You wind up like the Competitive Dad on the Fast Show.

Being better at something than most other people is the basis for a career. A lot of people make a lot of money off of the fact that they are better at that thing than most other people. Being good at things (and learning, bettering yourself, etc) should be encouraged, not frowned upon.

Being good at things should be encouraged. Shouting about how you are so utterly awesome at things should be frowned upon, not least because it does not require you to be good at anything.

I don't mind people taking pride in their achievements, but in my experience the people who talk about how much they know about things are not the ones who *actually* know a lot.

Tormsskull

2008-06-23, 08:54 AM

Well, do you routinely insult people who aren't serious about classical literature? Or go and on about how it makes you a superior person? I'm going to assume not.

I think the fact that someone being good at something immediately causes people to assume that person lords it over others is again an example of how the PC message is very strong.

Keeping with my example, no, I wouldn't say knowing more about classic literature than the average person makes me a superior person, but it does mean that I know more about classic literature than the average person (yeah, redundant I know).

If I were to be discussing classic literature with other people who were not hobbyists, I would assume that my opinion on what does or does not constitute classic literature is more pertinent than the others, it holds more weight. And in the inverse, if I knew little to nothing about classic literature and a guy/gal sitting next to me knew a lot, I would defer to him/her.

Many will simply pretend to be better, in fact I think most such people are frauds; people who really ARE good at things generally have worked hard enough at it that they don't need to crow about it.

I do not think there is really any relation, to be honest. In general I think when we are young we are told that being prideful is the same thing as being conceited or arrogant. As such we tend to downplay our own accomplishments lest someone think we are being arrogant, and those that do not stick out like a sore thumb.

nagora

2008-06-23, 09:02 AM

People who try to be better at things than other people *deserve* to be demonized, because if you're focusing on being "better than other people" you're never bothering to actually be any good.
You're confusing "being better [at something] than other people" with "being seen to be better [at something] than other people [even when you're not]".

Wanting to be better at things than the previous generation is the foundation of the whole of human civilisation.

Prophaniti

2008-06-23, 09:03 AM

Does it mean you're some kind of evil person? Probably not. Nor, however, are you necessarily *right* to say you know more about classic literature than the average person.
If you spend that much time on one thing, there's no way (barring gross incompetence or a very poor memory) that you wouldn't know more than the average person. Of course, you still don't know as much as the guy who went to college and got a degree in it. IMO, the best way to keep your humility is to realize that no matter how much you know or how good you are, there's always someone who is better and knows more.

Just because you spend 40 hours a week doing something, that doesn't mean you do it *well* or that you have any actual *insight* into it, and going around shouting on the internet about how you *totally* know more than *everybody* about something because you do it for *forty hours a week* just make you sound insecure.
We're talking about knowledge, not competence. They're not the same thing. I could, for example, know a lot about basketball, but not be able to shoot at all. I would then become a coach.

People who try to be better at things than other people *deserve* to be demonized, because if you're focusing on being "better than other people" you're never bothering to actually be any good. You wind up like the Competitive Dad on the Fast Show.Have fun in your happy little world where everyone holds hands and dances in circles singing songs.(Sorry, overly snarky) In the real world, competition is one of the primary motivators of human progress, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. That's not to say it has to be 'only the strongest survive' or dirty, no holds barred scrabbling to get to the top, but competition itself is healthy and necessary. I suppose your one of those people who wants to ban 'tag' on the playground?

Being good at things should be encouraged. Shouting about how you are so utterly awesome at things should be frowned upon, not least because it does not require you to be good at anything.

I don't mind people taking pride in their achievements, but in my experience the people who talk about how much they know about things are not the ones who *actually* know a lot.Shouting about how good you are will undoubtedly require you to be good at it, at least eventually, as people get tired of hearing you and tell you to 'put up or shut up'. It is usually true that the most braggart are not the most skilled, but it is also usually true that those same braggarts do have at least a modicum of actual skill, else they would have been humbled long ago.

hamishspence

2008-06-23, 09:16 AM

What about braggarts who never, ever, "put up"?

Prophaniti

2008-06-23, 09:20 AM

Those are the real Jerks, and can be summarily ignored. Unless they happen to be your boss or relative (both true stories for me), then you just have to learn to live with them. One axiom I've found is that no matter where you go or what you do, you'll have to deal with jerks.

Xuincherguixe

2008-06-23, 09:31 AM

I think the fact that someone being good at something immediately causes people to assume that person lords it over others is again an example of how the PC message is very strong.

That was not what I was doing.

I've met people like this. They're annoying.

It doesn't even have anything to do with knowledge either. It can be nearly anything. In fact, it's basically the same thing as people who are proud of that they aren't knowledgeable.

Which, I suppose also relates to the issue.

There are people who seem to have contempt for knowledge. This has nothing to do with political correctness save for that people use it a weapon, and a target.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-06-23, 09:44 AM

You're confusing "being better [at something] than other people" with "being seen to be better [at something] than other people [even when you're not]".

I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that they are, by their nature, frequently the same thing.

The thing is that being "better" at something than somebody is very frequently subjective, so the distinction between being "better" and being "seen to be better" is often nonexistent. If your motivation for learning to do something is to be better at it than other people then it is *extremely* likely that you will attempt to achieve that by seeking out people who are less good than you and comparing yourself to them. If on the other hand your motivation is to be as good as you can possibly be, by your own standards, then you might actually improve.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-06-23, 10:03 AM

If you spend that much time on one thing, there's no way (barring gross incompetence or a very poor memory) that you wouldn't know more than the average person. Of course, you still don't know as much as the guy who went to college and got a degree in it. IMO, the best way to keep your humility is to realize that no matter how much you know or how good you are, there's always someone who is better and knows more.

I think we're using two different definitions of "knowledge" here. It's totally possible to spend forty hours a week doing something and never actually *think* about it.

Which is why the guy with the college degree will wind up knowing more than the guy with the forty-hour-a-week obsession. College guy is required not only to *read* the classic texts, but also to discuss them, comment on them and *understand* them.

And yes, technically we're talking about knowledge here, rather than understanding, but knowledge without understanding is meaningless.

We're talking about knowledge, not competence. They're not the same thing. I could, for example, know a lot about basketball, but not be able to shoot at all. I would then become a coach.

And whether you were any good as a coach would depend not only on how much you *knew* about Basketball, but also about how much you *understood* what you knew.

If one guy spends forty hours a week watching basketball on TV, and one guy spends five hours a week actually playing basketball, I'd expect the guy who actually *plays* the game to know more about it than the guy who just watches it.

Have fun in your happy little world where everyone holds hands and dances in circles singing songs.(Sorry, overly snarky) In the real world, competition is one of the primary motivators of human progress, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. That's not to say it has to be 'only the strongest survive' or dirty, no holds barred scrabbling to get to the top, but competition itself is healthy and necessary. I suppose your one of those people who wants to ban 'tag' on the playground?

I wouldn't want to ban "tag" in the playground, but I'd certainly look askance at an eighteen year old who was still playing tag with ten year olds.

Shouting about how good you are will undoubtedly require you to be good at it, at least eventually, as people get tired of hearing you and tell you to 'put up or shut up'. It is usually true that the most braggart are not the most skilled, but it is also usually true that those same braggarts do have at least a modicum of actual skill, else they would have been humbled long ago.

Not on the internet. There's no way whatsoever that you can prove *anything* on the internet (hell, I could be three different guys all posting under the same name for all you know).

Oracle_Hunter

2008-06-23, 10:45 AM

Follow up:
1) On 'leetness:
as I clearly said in the essay, people like to place themselves in hierarchies, specifically at the top of them (that is, they are more elite = 'leet). As the OP noted, a common way for the designation of 'leetness is how much time/effort/money you spend on your hobby. Consequently, systems that require more time/effort (generally not money) to use properly are considered superior, and thus their users are more 'leet. This is a fallacy because many older systems are just more "buggy" and their updated versions have removed much of the buginess. Therefore, being hard to use is not always a virtue.

2) On bashing older systems:
I do not mean to say that older systems are inherently inferior to modern systems, but rather that it is more likely that an updated version of a system will have fewer errors than the original one. Particularly when it comes to Pen & Paper games, the most commonly updated part of a system is the mechanics themselves - you don't have to worry about character decay, cheap graphics or boring plots as you would in movies, video games, and the like. It is very easy to cry They Changed It Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks), but this claim is far less credible when you're dealing with raw mechanics then when you're dealing with fluff.

Some food for thought there.

3) On specific systems: The 2e comment is exactly what I'm talking about. 2e, if you actually read over the rules for the first time, has a simplistic gameplay mechanic wrapped in a sweeping Rule 0. It is very, very hard to figure out a reasonable mechanic for, say, chandelier swinging, when all you have at your disposals are Ability Checks, NWP, and THAC0. You either had a nonsensical result (why is a 20th level rogue as good at swinging on chandeliers as a 1st level wizard?) or an arbitrary DM decision.

Compare this, not to 4e, but a nice Indie RPG I played, The Mountain Witch (http://www.realms.org.uk/cms/articles/themountainwitch). Character "sheets" fit on a notecard, and every challenge is either automatically succeeded with one of the character's powers, or is a degree-of-success check against the DM, with the degree and direction of success determining how you can narrate the action. This system puts explicit control in the hands of the PCs as to what they want their characters to do (the narration system) and provides a clear and intelligible mechanic for resolving all situations (degree-of-success opposition checks). While this is not a "deep" combat simulator, it is deep "character development" and "story" system.

Does this mean Mountain Witch is a better "game" than 2e? Maybe, maybe not. All I can say is that when it comes to resolving a wide variety of actions, Mountain Witch provides a more satisfactory system than Ability Checks or DM fiat.

4) On spending time/effort/money not being good (Tormsskull):
See, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that when it is nigh impossible to determine a metric for what makes a "superior" gamer, looking to who has spent more time/effort/money instead is a bad decision. In any job or other competition, you can determine a winner and a loser. It is often (I would say usually) the case that spending more time on a project will make it better. The term paper written in an hour is unlikely to be superior to the one that took 40 hours of research and editing. But, do not mistake the time spent on the result. An idiot spending 1000 hours on a term paper is not going to write a better paper than the Pulitzer Prize winner who has spent 10. Yes, hard work and so forth is an important value for these sorts of competitions, and indeed is a good ethic to instill in the youth of today.

However, RPGs are not a competition. You cannot put two gamers on a pedestal and say "that one is a better gamer than this one." And if you were to pick a metric, it would not be tied directly to how much time they spend on the game. Bad RPers, Munchkins, Jerks, Daydreamers, Idiots - whatever characteristics you choose as being part of the "good" gamer or the "bad" gamer, they cannot be earned by sheer dint of effort.

The kid who can never see his character beyond a class/race combo? Perhaps he lacks the imagination, or does not want to write 40 pages of backstory. If you forced him to write 40 pages of backstory, he would not suddenly become a "better" gamer. The Jerk who is constantly trying to kill off his party members? No, spending more time justifying his character actions is not going to make him a "better" gamer either.

As I said before, it is terribly difficult to choose the "better" gamer (which, I believe, is what we're trying to find by differencing "serious" gamers from everyone else). Furthermore, time/effort/money is only a proxy for what makes something good or bad, not the measure of the thing itself.

Tormsskull

2008-06-23, 11:23 AM

My point is that when it is nigh impossible to determine a metric for what makes a "superior" gamer, looking to who has spent more time/effort/money instead is a bad decision.

The OP said "serious gamer". The term "serious gamer" is debateable, in fact, that is one of the contributing reasons that this thread was started I imagine. However, I think most people would draw a distinction between "serious gamer" and "superior gamer".

When I see the word superior, I immediately think of the words "better than". Serious gamer does not hold that same conotation for me.

Now in this excerpt:

In any job or other competition, you can determine a winner and a loser. It is often (I would say usually) the case that spending more time on a project will make it better. The term paper written in an hour is unlikely to be superior to the one that took 40 hours of research and editing. But, do not mistake the time spent on the result. An idiot spending 1000 hours on a term paper is not going to write a better paper than the Pulitzer Prize winner who has spent 10. Yes, hard work and so forth is an important value for these sorts of competitions, and indeed is a good ethic to instill in the youth of today.

However, RPGs are not a competition. You cannot put two gamers on a pedestal and say "that one is a better gamer than this one." And if you were to pick a metric, it would not be tied directly to how much time they spend on the game. Bad RPers, Munchkins, Jerks, Daydreamers, Idiots - whatever characteristics you choose as being part of the "good" gamer or the "bad" gamer, they cannot be earned by sheer dint of effort.

You seem to be running with the "superior gamer' label, but since I never used that label, I can't really argue that point (in essence, I think you accidently transfered your use of the words "superior gamer" to me, and are now trying to prove why calling someone a superior gamer is bad.)

As I said before, it is terribly difficult to choose the "better" gamer (which, I believe, is what we're trying to find by differencing "serious" gamers from everyone else). Furthermore, time/effort/money is only a proxy for what makes something good or bad, not the measure of the thing itself.

I would completely disagree when you try to make the comparison between serious gamer and better gamer. IMO, a serious gamer is more involved in the game, spends more time immersed in the hobby, spends more cash aquiring gaming-related materials, etc.

A better gamer is just a persons opinions on certain attributes that a gamer holds that makes that gamer more conducive to the playstyle that the person making the opinion prefers.

valadil

2008-06-23, 11:39 AM

Leet people do place themselves above everyone else, but they also justify their own addiction by pointing out a guildie or clanmate who is even mroe addicted.

I have a slightly different view on what makes a serious gamer. It's not just someone who spends a lot of time in the game, but someone who thinks about or plans for game outside of game time. I haven't played D&D in over a month, but I still make builds or read 4e on my lunch break. That qualifies me as a serious gamer.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-06-23, 11:49 AM

The OP said "serious gamer". The term "serious gamer" is debateable, in fact, that is one of the contributing reasons that this thread was started I imagine. However, I think most people would draw a distinction between "serious gamer" and "superior gamer".

Okay, fine. Here's the relevant quote from the OP

It seems many of the issues in edition wars have involved one group of players (typically the older ones) accusing the other group of players (those who like the new system) of not being 'serious' or lacking commitment to the hobby. I'd like to explore a little bit about what is meant by this.

Hence the question: What is a serious gamer or hobbyist?

As you can see here, the use of "serious" is one of superiority. Since this is the more interesting definition of serious, it is the one I addressed.

The other is discussed here:

For me, the only measument about seriousness or commitment in a hobby, regardless of the hobby, is time given to the hobby. If I play chess every day, research lines of play, read Bobby Fisher's book (which sucks), then I am a serious chess player. Same goes for D&D, pool, yatzee, gutiar hero, or anything else.

Why is this uninteresting? Because there is no inherent moral value in spending more time on a hobby than others. As I said before, if all you're measuring when you talk about "seriousness" is the time spent on something, then why measure it at all? I suppose then the Idiot spending 1000 hours on his essay is a more "serious" essayist than the Pulitzer winner who spends 10, but to what end? This is a trivial distinction, to which the only appropriate response is "good for you for spending so much time on this hobby. I'm gonna go play my way then."

However, if you are going to argue that there is some superiority in spending more time on a hobby, then we're back to definition one. I'll not let anyone dodge this distinction. And if you say that spending more time with a system does not cause one to be a better gamer, then I will heartily agree with you.

Tormsskull

2008-06-23, 12:45 PM

As you can see here, the use of "serious" is one of superiority. Since this is the more interesting definition of serious, it is the one I addressed.

No, I don't see that. And the fact that the OP specifically states "I'd like to explore a little bit about what is meant by this." tells me that he isn't 100% sure how the term is being used.

Why is this uninteresting? Because there is no inherent moral value in spending more time on a hobby than others. As I said before, if all you're measuring when you talk about "seriousness" is the time spent on something, then why measure it at all?

Inherent moral value? Could you first explain what inherent moral value is? I'm not sure what you are speaking of.

As for the question of why measure someone's seriousness, I would say it plays to their knowledge of the game. Time spent on a hobby results in having greater knowledge of the hobby than no time spent on the hobby.

However, if you are going to argue that there is some superiority in spending more time on a hobby, then we're back to definition one. I'll not let anyone dodge this distinction. And if you say that spending more time with a system does not cause one to be a better gamer, then I will heartily agree with you.

I think that someone who spends more time on a hobby is going to have more knowledge about that hobby. Is that what you mean by superiority?

Also, I don't understand the term "better gamer". Better at what?

Oracle_Hunter

2008-06-23, 12:55 PM

No, I don't see that. And the fact that the OP specifically states "I'd like to explore a little bit about what is meant by this." tells me that he isn't 100% sure how the term is being used.

So I proposed two definitions. Choose.

Inherent moral value? Could you first explain what inherent moral value is? I'm not sure what you are speaking of.

Inherent moral value allows you to declare your superiority to someone despite a lack of demonstrable superiority. It is commonly argued that giving to charity is better than spending on yourself because it is "good" to help the less fortunate. This is an example of the inherent moral value of charity.

Here, we are looking at the question of spending time/money/effort on something. Does spending more time matter, in and of itself? If you can show how, then it has demonstrable value. If not, then at best it has a moral value.

As for the question of why measure someone's seriousness, I would say it plays to their knowledge of the game. Time spent on a hobby results in having greater knowledge of the hobby than no time spent on the hobby.

No. You would want to measure someone's absolute knowledge of the subject, not the duration of time they were exposed to it.

Someone who has played 1e D&D for 30 years is not going to have a better knowledge of anything aside from 1e D&D. Conversely, someone who has spent a year playing 12 different RPG systems will have a better understanding of those 12 systems, but perhaps nothing else. This is why "seriousness" as a proxy for knowledge is worthless, though not as worthless as "seriousness" as a proxy for virtue.

Tormsskull

2008-06-23, 01:33 PM

So I proposed two definitions. Choose.

The first was serious = superior, and I don't agree with that. The second is, I think, serious = time/resource commitment? I'd agree with the second.

Inherent moral value allows you to declare your superiority to someone despite a lack of demonstrable superiority. It is commonly argued that giving to charity is better than spending on yourself because it is "good" to help the
less fortunate. This is an example of the inherent moral value of charity.

Here, we are looking at the question of spending time/money/effort on something. Does spending more time matter, in and of itself? If you can show how, then it has demonstrable value. If not, then at best it has a moral value.

Oh, ok, so we agree that being a serious gamer definitely doesn't help out the poor, or cure the sick, or right the wrongs of the world.

No. You would want to measure someone's absolute knowledge of the subject, not the duration of time they were exposed to it.

Sure, if that were possible. My contention is that serious gamer = serious time commitment. Serious time commitment = more experience. More experience = more knowledge (of gaming).

Someone who has played 1e D&D for 30 years is not going to have a better knowledge of anything aside from 1e D&D. Conversely, someone who has spent a year playing 12 different RPG systems will have a better understanding of those 12 systems, but perhaps nothing else.

Do you think that 2e (or 3e or 4e) D&D is so radically different from 1e D&D that some of the knowledge a person would have gained from playing 1e for 30 years is completely useless?

Oracle_Hunter

2008-06-23, 01:53 PM

Do you think that 2e (or 3e or 4e) D&D is so radically different from 1e D&D that some of the knowledge a person would have gained from playing 1e for 30 years is completely useless?

Yes.

(Continued)
Each of the four (or more) editions are radically different from the previous ones. Classes are added, subtracted, changed. Skills go from non-existent, to weakly existent, to highly granular to less. Playing 1e D&D will teach you nothing about 4e D&D, save for some familiarity with the TSR-school of Fantasy Gaming Fluff.

What it can do is make you familiar with basic RPG terminology, and perhaps "roleplaying" generally. But that does not necessarily follow. Time along does not give insight; you must be willing to examine, compare, and study your subject matter to gain understanding in it. Why, IMHO, playing a single system for 30 years may make you less able to understand other systems, rather than more - the ossification of knowledge, the "reflexes" based on a single ruleset, and so on.

That is why hearing people shout "I've been playing for 30 years, so how dare you discount my opinions" is so galling to me. This is not the same as being a cancer researcher who is perpetually reading up on the latest developments in the field; this is someone who has been crossbreeding peas for 30 years. It is possible (and indeed, perhaps likely) that someone who has been doing something for a long time may have more valuable insights, but that is something to be demonstrated not assumed.

Now, this is all a digression from the original question. I stand by my statement that the label of "serious gamer" is meaningless for any considerations, and that "depth" and "shallowness" are only meaningfully applied to discrete purposes of a system, and not to a system as a whole.

Matthew

2008-06-23, 02:03 PM

AD&D 1e and 2e are 99% compatable. There are differences, but they aren't radical. Most of the changes were apparently floated in Dragon Magazine before there was ever an edition change. You can pick up just about any module from 2e and run it with 1e and vice versa. Basic D&D is so similar to AD&D that many people weren't even aware that they were playing basic modules using AD&D rules. D20 is significantly different from AD&D and 4e is significantly different from 3e, but 2e is not a radical mechanical departure from 1e.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-06-23, 02:06 PM

Jayabalard

2008-06-23, 02:16 PM

Do you think that 2e (or 3e or 4e) D&D is so radically different from 1e D&D that some of the knowledge a person would have gained from playing 1e for 30 years is completely useless?
2e - time spent playing 1e is definitely not useless; 2e is pretty much completely backwards compatible with 1e AD&D. you can just use 1e monsters and characters with 2e rules and vice versa; I picked up the 2e monster compendiums even though I never switched to 2e for anything else.

3e - time spent playing 1e is not useless, but it's not as helpful than it was for 2e. The stuff you know from 1e certainly helps, especially since you get better at roleplaying the longer that you've done it, but 3e adds an additional layer of complexity to the game.

4e - time spent playing 1e is still not useless, but it's much less helpful than it was for 2e or 3e. Very little of the mechanical knowledge that you have from earlier editions is useful. Some of your tactical knowledge and Roleplaying knowledge will carry over, but about the same as you would get if you were switching to a completely new RPG system. The stuff that does carry over from 1e to 4e is (in my opinion) some of the hardest things to learn, so it's still a significant over someone who has never played an RPG before.

Kletian999

2008-06-23, 03:05 PM

This is perhaps the biggest difference in 4E vs. older versions - the lack of long-term consequences and problems. For example, no more conserving spells to make it through a long dungeon crawl (you've got per encounter powers and healing surges!). No more monsters with permanent, debilitating abilities (or, if they do, they're very hard to make happen, and relatively easy to reverse - out of combat). No rust monsters that break your equipment forever :smallamused:.

This makes 4E more appealing to "casual" gamers, and less appealing to "serious" ones.

This post both helps me understand the "pro serious" crowd a little better but also incites this counterpoint:

There's a difference between "bad things happening to characters" and suffering the consequences of "bad" actions.

If a Wizard spent all his spells early, he'd either demand a rest before proceeding or play like an archer using his dex score. The only case this punishes stupid behavior is if a situation that can only be solved by magic occurs before they can rest. Since 4e is more based on teamwork, this ends up punishing ALL players instead of just the wizard. Granted they could have warned him, or tried to take extra rests so the wizard wasn't tapped out before the right moment, but it really was an unfairness to the system here.

If a monster causes permenant negatives in the course of fighting it normally, it's just bad things happening. If you need to kill a beholder I imagine it's very impractical if not impossible to somehow never give it the chance to try to stone you, when the save roll occurs: it's not skill, just luck. What was the non-stupid action in this case, rig your die or always flee from "Save or permadamage" monsters? Same thing with Rust monsters: what skillful manuever separates those that lose gear from those that don't? 4e realized that random risk isn't real difficultly- it didn't measure your skill or devotion to the game at all.

There's nothing in 4e to say the DM can't punish errant exploration with overleveled monsters, bad interaction choices with a bad story end, etc-but the popular opinion is that allowing some mistakes without having to start everything over is more enjoyable. Groups of 3e fans can play 4e as hard as they desire.

Matthew

2008-06-23, 03:11 PM

If a monster causes permenant negatives in the course of fighting it normally, it's just bad things happening. If you need to kill a beholder I imagine it's very impractical if not impossible to somehow never give it the chance to try to stone you, when the save roll occurs: it's not skill, just luck. What was the non-stupid action in this case, rig your die or always flee from "Save or permadamage" monsters? Same thing with Rust monsters: what skillful manuever separates those that lose gear from those that don't? 4e realized that random risk isn't real difficultly- it didn't measure your skill or devotion to the game at all.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? How do you defeat a Beholder without being exposed to its powers? How do you prevent a Rust Monster from trashing all your best stuff and still defeat it? The problem with D20 is the perception that all dangers and their solutions are prescribed. Of course, this leads to the idea that if there isn't a prescribed solution, then there isn't a solution, and the monster needs to be altered.

That's not the case with previous editions (and it doesn't have to be the case in D20). Very few solutions are prescribed, they are left up to the imagination of the players and DM. How do you overcome the powers of the monster? Time to get thinking (usually outside the rule set)!

SolkaTruesilver

2008-06-23, 05:07 PM

Well, that's the question, isn't it? How do you defeat a Beholder without being exposed to its powers? How do you prevent a Rust Monster from trashing all your best stuff and still defeat it? The problem with D20 is the perception that all dangers and their solutions are prescribed. Of course, this leads to the idea that if there isn't a prescribed solution, then there isn't a solution, and the monster needs to be altered.

That's not the case with previous editions (and it doesn't have to be the case in D20). Very few solutions are prescribed, they are left up to the imagination of the players and DM. How do you overcome the powers of the monster? Time to get thinking (usually outside the rule set)!

Amen Brother. That's the main difference between a RPG and a video game. In Baldur's Gate (or NwN, or other video games) Beholders are pretty hard to fight against, because outside of a few spells, there isn't a lot of option. In a ROLE PLAYING GAME, your imagination is the limit. Elaborate the most complex idea you want, involving a shredded table, a pink dress wore by the half-orc and tabasco spice. WHAT YOU WANT. You can't do that in a video game.

I can garantee you that 4e is going to be converted perfectly well into Video Games. It's a rulesets that fits perfectly into the "walk into a room. Fight. Loot" mindset.

nagora

2008-06-23, 05:32 PM

If a monster causes permenant negatives in the course of fighting it normally, it's just bad things happening. If you need to kill a beholder I imagine it's very impractical if not impossible to somehow never give it the chance to try to stone you, when the save roll occurs: it's not skill, just luck.
As Sandy Lyle once said: that's right, and the more I practice, the luckier I get.

There are two things about your beholder example: firstly, you assume all risks are equal; they're not. The art of combat in real life and D&D is to minimise your risks and understand that they can't always be eliminated. If you only act when there is no luck you should never have signed up as an adventurer. You probably shouldn't have gotten out of bed, in fact.

Secondly: there are ways to attack a beholder without giving it the chance to stone you. You have to think of them, but it can be done if you have the luxury of planning ahead. If you don't, then see my first point.

Golthur

2008-06-23, 10:26 PM

Well, that's the question, isn't it? How do you defeat a Beholder without being exposed to its powers? How do you prevent a Rust Monster from trashing all your best stuff and still defeat it? The problem with D20 is the perception that all dangers and their solutions are prescribed. Of course, this leads to the idea that if there isn't a prescribed solution, then there isn't a solution, and the monster needs to be altered.

That's not the case with previous editions (and it doesn't have to be the case in D20). Very few solutions are prescribed, they are left up to the imagination of the players and DM. How do you overcome the powers of the monster? Time to get thinking (usually outside the rule set)!

I was going to respond, but Matthew has summarized what I would have said most excellently here.

Basically, that's exactly it - you're put in a difficult (if not nigh impossible) position. By all rights, going up against a beholder, you should die. So, how do you survive instead and become the stuff that legends are made of?

Surviving this sort of fight through nothing but cleverness grants a sense of accomplishment (even if they are fictional accomplishments of an imaginary person :smallwink:) that isn't really available when there is no serious, permanent danger.

Kletian999

2008-06-23, 11:07 PM

I was going to respond, but Matthew has summarized what I would have said most excellently here.

Basically, that's exactly it - you're put in a difficult (if not nigh impossible) position. By all rights, going up against a beholder, you should die. So, how do you survive instead and become the stuff that legends are made of?

Surviving this sort of fight through nothing but cleverness grants a sense of accomplishment (even if they are fictional accomplishments of an imaginary person :smallwink:) that isn't really available when there is no serious, permanent danger.

Well yeah, with a nice DM and the right setting you can imagine some MacGuyver situation where you lure the punishing mob into traps or perhaps spam ranged attacks and hide behind corners. At that point though the mob is less a monster to compare to your character's power and more a puzzle. Not that it's a bad thing to have puzzle encounters but they aren't everyone's style, not every character could pull it off, etc. There's nothing to say a Beholder can't be life threatening without cheesey instant kill moves which is what 4e has done with all it's monsters- they are stronger and use intelligent tactics now.

Oracle_Hunter

2008-06-23, 11:37 PM

On Puzzle Encounters:

So, back in 1e and 2e these were the mainstay of non-combat scenarios.

(I add "out-maneuvering the Beholder" as a non-combat scenario, BTW, because it is designated as something you're not supposed to fight, like Rust Monsters.)

The reason why is that 1e/2e did not even pretend to simulate the mind of your PC. Your PC knew only what you did, with perhaps the DM giving you some extra knowledge if he felt like it. As such, any sort of "skill challenge" had to really be a player challenge, and since the combat system was fairly simplistic, you had to be really creative to make interesting challenges.

As I've said before, these sorts of challenges had high "WTF" rates. Maybe the party wouldn't figure out that "Mellon" was the password (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680) and you'd have to give them increasingly obvious clues until they did... or became terminally bored. Or you present a "Cake or Death" challenge in which a failure to recognize the solution would result in death or extreme discomfort (Rust Monsters).

With the introduction of skills and feats in 3e, suddenly the characters could try to solve problems themselves. Maybe they could use a Knowledge check to connect a riddle written on a door with the god whose idol they passed a few rooms back. Or maybe they could use special combat tactics, already described before them, to overcome the latest "Cake or Death" challenge. At least now both the PCs and the DM were speaking the same language, rather than taking stabs in the dark.

Can this go too far? Sure, we don't want players to turn off their brains while gaming, but we also don't want to let the game become "Guess what the DM is thinking" either.

Personally, I like the fact that my PCs can look at their skill list and think "now, how can I use what my character knows to solve this problem" rather than them trying to figure out what riddles I've read lately when guessing the password for the magical locked door. Plus, sometimes it's 10 PM and everyone's tired and someone just wants to say "I roll Dungeoneering - anything useful?"

nagora

2008-06-24, 05:11 AM

On Puzzle Encounters:

So, back in 1e and 2e these were the mainstay of non-combat scenarios.
Not for me they weren't. Puzzles are rare in any game where people are trying to roleplay, I find.

(I add "out-maneuvering the Beholder" as a non-combat scenario, BTW, because it is designated as something you're not supposed to fight, like Rust Monsters.)
Designated by who? Beholders are the ultimate watchdog (except that one in Futurama), they tend to be placed by their masters in places where they form choke-points. Now, they can be dealt with without combat, but combat is a pretty likely outcome of the party encountering one.

The reason why is that 1e/2e did not even pretend to simulate the mind of your PC. Your PC knew only what you did, with perhaps the DM giving you some extra knowledge if he felt like it. As such, any sort of "skill challenge" had to really be a player challenge, and since the combat system was fairly simplistic, you had to be really creative to make interesting challenges.
The players play the roles of their characters: they know what the character knows (which may indeed involve help from the DM). Anyone at our table that used player knowledge would be lampooned and probably have nerf balls fired at them.

As I've said before, these sorts of challenges had high "WTF" rates. Maybe the party wouldn't figure out that "Mellon" was the password (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680) and you'd have to give them increasingly obvious clues until they did... or became terminally bored.
Or you design the scenario better, or get a group of players who are capable of realising when they've screwed up. It's surprising just how often people here complain about scenarios and encounters because they haven't realised that PCs can go away and come back later. It's not a game where you have to visit each area once. Of course, if you go away and come back, things may have reacted to what you did, but retiring and regrouping are perfectly sensible tactics. Go and consult a sage if you can't work out the password or solve the riddle.

Or you present a "Cake or Death" challenge in which a failure to recognize the solution would result in death or extreme discomfort (Rust Monsters).
I never realised Rust Monsters were held in such dread! They're not really any different from any other monster apart from looking particularly goofy. Or is it that there is a belief that any challenge which causes permanent damage is inherently bad? Nevertheless, I'm not a huge fan of the RM.

With the introduction of skills and feats in 3e, suddenly the characters could try to solve problems themselves.
No. With the introduction of skills in 1e OA and then generally in 2e, the player's options were limited to things they could find a mechanical justification for on their spreadcharacter sheet. That's when the rot set in on characterisation.

Maybe they could use a Knowledge check to connect a riddle written on a door with the god whose idol they passed a few rooms back.
See above. If there was a cleric of the god in the party (PC or NPC), of course, the DM would simply pass them a note (well, maybe not the NPC unless there's more than one DM). If the players were just being dim (it happens) then an Int-check on whoever is most likely to know it might be a reasonable solution. But by and large, the point is to play the characters not the dice.

Or maybe they could use special combat tactics, already described before them, to overcome the latest "Cake or Death" challenge. At least now both the PCs and the DM were speaking the same language, rather than taking stabs in the dark.
Special combat tactics is exactly what you need to overcome a beholder. Using a feat which just happens to solve the problem in front of the character is not tactics, it's "smart-bombing". I can't tell you how limited 3e characters are in combat simply because they have all those feats. A 1e fighter can try almost any tactic the player comes up with - chandeliers, blankets, mirrors, throwing, catching, ducking, jumping, sneaking, distractions, impersonations, poison, fake-poison, singing, dancing, rolling, grappling, fire, water, ash, sand, incoherence, poetry, costumes, make-up, bluffing and feints, hiding behind things, dogs, cats, piglets, and ancient languages are all things I've seen 1e fighters use in combat to try to gain an advantage, even for a moment. Why would anyone want to limit themselves to the lock-step, grid-based, mathematical, min/maxed brain-dead combat of 3ed?

Can this go too far? Sure, we don't want players to turn off their brains while gaming, but we also don't want to let the game become "Guess what the DM is thinking" either.
That's a DM issue, not a system one.

Personally, I like the fact that my PCs can look at their skill list and think "now, how can I use what my character knows to solve this problem" rather than them trying to figure out what riddles I've read lately when guessing the password for the magical locked door. Plus, sometimes it's 10 PM and everyone's tired and someone just wants to say "I roll Dungeoneering - anything useful?"
The answer to that question is "Yes, lets have a game of Munchkin instead". Don't play when you're not engaged.

Skills and feats limit your thinking. The players should, IMO, always be thinking as their characters: "what can I do? What do I know?", once you have stepped out to look at your character as a set of numbers (even hit points or levels) you're losing something of the flavour of a good session. Generally, as a GM, I find that the more numbers there are on a character sheet the more limited and predictable the players' actions become. To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Matthew

2008-06-24, 06:12 AM

Well yeah, with a nice DM and the right setting you can imagine some MacGuyver situation where you lure the punishing mob into traps or perhaps spam ranged attacks and hide behind corners. At that point though the mob is less a monster to compare to your character's power and more a puzzle. Not that it's a bad thing to have puzzle encounters but they aren't everyone's style, not every character could pull it off, etc. There's nothing to say a Beholder can't be life threatening without cheesey instant kill moves which is what 4e has done with all it's monsters- they are stronger and use intelligent tactics now.

It is a puzzle, yes, with multiple answers. It doesn't rely on a nice DM (though if you have a jerk for a DM, then you are screwed anyway) or being able to "MacGuyver" the situation (in the sense of doing crazy stuff that would never work). It's about intelligent use of the tactical environment. At some point D&D seems to have moved away from an abstract thinking game that challenges the players to think about the fantasy, and became a game where you only think about the rule set, making monsters a challenge for how you use your character's abilities.

There's nothing about the 4e version that strikes me as portraying a Beholder as stronger (surely a relative matter?) and able to use more intelligent tactics (unless you mean the game rules allow the Beholder more options, in which case you are talking about game tactics within the confines of a prescribed rule set).

hamlet

2008-06-24, 08:52 AM

Well yeah, with a nice DM and the right setting you can imagine some MacGuyver situation where you lure the punishing mob into traps or perhaps spam ranged attacks and hide behind corners. At that point though the mob is less a monster to compare to your character's power and more a puzzle. Not that it's a bad thing to have puzzle encounters but they aren't everyone's style, not every character could pull it off, etc. There's nothing to say a Beholder can't be life threatening without cheesey instant kill moves which is what 4e has done with all it's monsters- they are stronger and use intelligent tactics now.

Yeah, but that's kind of the point. The beholder's powers aren't "cheesy" because they involve save or die effects. They are cheesy because, well, come on it's a ball with 11 eyes on it, seriously now. (and let's get one thing clear, the beholder still has to actually hit you with his eye beams to get you, so you actually get two chances to avoid it)

The point is that there's no differentiation between "puzzle encoutners" and combat encounters in AD&D. If you can use your brain and come up with a clever way to defeat the monster and minimize or even eliminate your risks, then kudos to you man. That's what you're supposed to do.

For the record, I've found that one of the best ways to defeat a beholder involves a really big spear. Send somebody in from the side with the spear, punch through the thing's armor, and pin it to the nearest wall with its anti-magic eye facing towards the rest of the party (where it's eyes are also useless). Then, have fun hacking it to pieces like a beach ball.