PDA

View Full Version : The Decreasing Importance of XP



LibraryOgre
2008-11-05, 09:44 AM
This is something I've been turning in my head for a while, but I think that 3.x, and 4e especially, have decreased the importance of someone's actual XP number.

In 2e, the individual experience reward was important... just declaring "You all level up" strips the thief and bard of one of their prime advantages. By the time the wizard is 2nd, the thief was looking at 3rd... more if he's made use of his skills.

In 3e and 4e, everyone has the same XP table, and I've noticed a tendency to simply declare "Ok, you all go up a level", rather than to track precise XP gains. This has gotten especially prevalent with 4e, where XP no longer fuels things like spellcasting and magical item creation.

Proven_Paradox
2008-11-05, 09:51 AM
(I currently play exclusively 3.5; keep that in mind as I post.)

I absolutely do the "you all level up" thing when running a game where none of the players are crafting. *Shrug* I as a DM rarely feel like going through the trouble of actually calculating how much XP to distribute. The way it's calculated is complicated, and more often than not I'm really just eyeballing the challenge of an encounter rather than going by CR.

So, yeah; if you're using a system where everyone levels at the same XP values, I don't see much of a problem with this.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-05, 09:56 AM
Yes, that makes sense. It would seem that being not the exact same power level as everybody else in the party was declared Not Fun.

Optimystik
2008-11-05, 09:56 AM
One of the reasons I favor CD&D (like Neverwinter Nights etc.) is that it handles such pesky mathematics in the background seamlessly. :smallwink:

Piedmon_Sama
2008-11-05, 10:02 AM
Is there a reason you couldn't just wait until it 'feels right' to say "Steve the Thief levels up," then "now Joe the Wizard levels up" a bit later?

Knaight
2008-11-05, 10:10 AM
Were I to actually play 3.5 or 4e, I would use the you all level up method. As it is, I play a skill based system, and have a tally system for skills, which can result in some people cranking skills up way faster than others, but whatever.

Holocron Coder
2008-11-05, 10:21 AM
I always preferred making XP a level-only thing. To me, it's always been a way to get to the next level, not a quasi-currency that you can spend instead of gold (via crafting, etc)

Glyde
2008-11-05, 10:42 AM
In all the 3.5e games I play, only one does the "you all level up" thing.

The game I run is a bit more 'averaging' and it could be considered a fast leveling kind of thing. I dish out a lot of experience for completed main quests, and what could be considered a lot for side quests and roleplaying. Playing a special role in a battle (Taking all / most of the damage intentionally getting a creature away from your allies, dealing a ton of damage towards the end to finish it off, cool moves) will net them more experience as well. This means that people who get involved more will be getting more experience than the people who, well, don't get involved.

In the game that I play, my dad is the DM and he's going strictly by the book - maybe a little bit of a bonus in XP gain if you're behind on levels and about to level up. The only thing he needs to watch is how the adventures are written since he doesn't do his own. Cloudkill against a party with an average level of 6 isn't a good idea despite what the book may read.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-05, 10:49 AM
I always preferred making XP a level-only thing. To me, it's always been a way to get to the next level, not a quasi-currency that you can spend instead of gold (via crafting, etc)

Yes, I agree to that.

However, I also give people XP based on individual actions, so it remains possible that one character levels up sooner than another. Also, there's the local tradition that if you miss a session, your character doesn't get XP for that session. Fair's fair.

bosssmiley
2008-11-05, 10:55 AM
In 3e and 4e, everyone has the same XP table, and I've noticed a tendency to simply declare "Ok, you all go up a level", rather than to track precise XP gains. This has gotten especially prevalent with 4e, where XP no longer fuels things like spellcasting and magical item creation.

I suspect that Paizo may have been nuzzling slightly in the class specific XP progression direction with the 3 different XP tables (fast, medium and slow advancement) in the Pathfinder Beta. Thankfully for those frightened of change the unappeasable fanbase will ensure that the most conservative view of XP progression possible prevails ("One table for all is THE LAW of 3E!"). :smallamused:

I wouldn't actually mind the power disparity of the 3.X classes - the old 'tiers' gripe - if Pathfinder (or some other bright spark determined to do 3.X 'right') followed through with this variable progression speed. Top tier classes could progress slowly, whereas low power/non-caster classes rocket up the level charts. Look at starting ages; becoming a more powerful mage is supposed to take longer than becoming a better thief. Why not have game mechanics reflect that?

As for XP being used to fuel spells and item creation; it never did in 1-2E (they used aging effects IIRC). XP cost is an artefact of 3Es quixotic effort to interconnect character power, XP and wealth.

valadil
2008-11-05, 10:56 AM
I've always done the level up when I say so thing too. It's just easier that way.

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-05, 11:05 AM
I organize the encounters to be reasonable with the PC advancement, but don't use the XP system.

Even from magic items and spell, I developed the XP reagents sidebar rule from the DMG (it's fantastic for an adventure hook, for balance and for the world immersion).

phoenixcire
2008-11-05, 11:05 AM
We never did that with any of my groups. My gaming group were all calculus students, doing the math was never hard for us.

Charity
2008-11-05, 11:30 AM
I don't think anyone struggles with the adding...


I kind of liked the old xp tables, but how would it gel with multiclassing? I can see some clunky mechanics needed to bridge the gulf between tables.

Ethdred
2008-11-05, 12:36 PM
Possibly a slight side-track, but I've been thinking recently that I might run 3.5 games with the 2E XP system, for both rewards and levelling up. 3.x definitely levels you much more quickly, and I find that I'm reluctant to give my parties as many challenges as I'd like because they'd all level up on wandering monsters and such before they get to the main meat. What do people think the effects of this would be?

I've always given precise XP amounts, partly because I grew up on the earlier editions where this is essential, but also because I LIKE TO COUNT!!!!

Totally Guy
2008-11-05, 12:42 PM
I'm running 4th edition and my group opted for equally split XP, I obliged as the only trend I'd noticed in the past was that the better book-keepers level up faster.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 12:45 PM
Yes, that makes sense. It would seem that being not the exact same power level as everybody else in the party was declared Not Fun.

Isn't that obvious? If a certain character is much more experienced than the rest, it starts to steal the spotlight. If a certain character is less experienced than the others and cannot contribute significantly, it starts to fade into the background.

I personally think XP is more or less useless in games that already have levels - you give it to players as a way of increasing the feeling of accomplishment, but in the end you could just declare when characters go up a level, and things would end up to be the same. For obvious reasons, this doesn't translate to games like Exalted, Earthdawn or L5K.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-05, 01:09 PM
Yes, that makes sense. It would seem that being not the exact same power level as everybody else in the party was declared Not Fun.Because, in a cooperative game, it isn't?

Behold_the_Void
2008-11-05, 01:38 PM
Personally I think experience being there at all is really just a good means for DMs to set how fast they want the party's power level to progress. We're using much the same philosophy in our Shounen system, you CAN use EXP but it's just as easy not to. I don't particularly feel attached to EXP as a mechanic, it's handy if you want it but having the ability to not use it works just as well.

Matthew
2008-11-05, 02:05 PM
Because, in a cooperative game, it isn't?

Because in a cooperative game it is? :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, what's fun for one person may not be fun for another. I enjoy parties with a varied level of power as much as those with equivalent levels of power, but this is to misunderstand the AD&D non unified experience tables. They were "supposed" to be an additional mechanism for balancing the game, not a method of creating power diversity.

If we know, for instance, that "wizards are better than fighters" at levels 6+, then rather than correct the imbalance by changing the class, why not slow down Wizard advancement at that point? For every level a wizard gains, a fighter gains two, or something of that order.



I kind of liked the old xp tables, but how would it gel with multiclassing? I can see some clunky mechanics needed to bridge the gulf between tables.

Facilitating multi classing is indeed the primary reason to use a unified experience table.

Hzurr
2008-11-05, 02:13 PM
Yes, I agree to that.

However, I also give people XP based on individual actions, so it remains possible that one character levels up sooner than another. Also, there's the local tradition that if you miss a session, your character doesn't get XP for that session. Fair's fair.


I'm not sure how I feel about that last sentence, although I think it depends on what happens to that character. If someone else NPCs him/her, then the character should get XP.

If you start penalizing people for not being able to show up (especially if they have legit reasons for missing), then you end up with the same problem other people are mentioning where you have some characters that are higher levels than others, simply because their players have a more flexible schedule/are healthier/didn't have a family member die/didn't get married. Those are bad reasons for a level discrepency between characters.

JMobius
2008-11-05, 02:15 PM
As for XP being used to fuel spells and item creation; it never did in 1-2E (they used aging effects IIRC).

Wow, I like that.

Talya
2008-11-05, 02:31 PM
If you think about it, crafting really should cause you to gain experience, not lose it.

Doug Lampert
2008-11-05, 02:34 PM
Wow, I like that.And yet in practice it failed in SO many ways.

A dragon casts a massively unballanced spell that is "ballanced" by the aging cost a bunch of times. Wow, that really hurt it, it went up an age category and got stronger.

The system allowed massively unballanced spells (old haste aged you and effectively gave entire extra rounds) and then the longer lived races like elves could go to town and cast them all they wanted while a human was effectively forbidden to cast them at all.

The game had at LEAST as many magic items as a 3.x game if you played modules or used random treasure generation, but in theory every single non-consumable item created REQUIRED that a high level wizard had permanently lost at least one point of con (because in addition to aging they also used con loss as the "balance" mechanism for return from the dead or magic item creation, and low level wizards couldn't make items at all). But in either case that +1 sword took years off the life of a high level character to make, WTF made them all?

XP costs are MUCH, MUCH better. 4th ed, "it just costs money for the components" may well be better yet as long as the GM keeps in mind that money is worth having.

RandomNPC
2008-11-05, 02:54 PM
i prefer the go up a level as a group idea, sans item crafters.

i'm in a game, tonight actually, that has a worksheet on how much XP is given.

basically (theres more than i put here)

casters: 5 X spell levels cast during the game

non-casters: 10% bonus for not having spells to cast

all: 15 points per skill check, up to 5 uses of each skill
15 points for use of a charged or one shot magic item
50 points for a crit
1 point per hp lost or recovered, weither your on the giving or receiving end.



know how annoying it gets when someones a UMD rogue and your a bard?

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-05, 03:00 PM
In 3e and 4e, everyone has the same XP table, and I've noticed a tendency to simply declare "Ok, you all go up a level", rather than to track precise XP gains. This has gotten especially prevalent with 4e, where XP no longer fuels things like spellcasting and magical item creation.

I know, it's great isn't it?

TS

JMobius
2008-11-05, 03:03 PM
(snip)

XP costs are MUCH, MUCH better. 4th ed, "it just costs money for the components" may well be better yet as long as the GM keeps in mind that money is worth having.

I should clarify that I like it much better from a flavor POV. That it wouldn't work from a balance one seems pretty evident.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 04:08 PM
If we know, for instance, that "wizards are better than fighters" at levels 6+, then rather than correct the imbalance by changing the class, why not slow down Wizard advancement at that point? For every level a wizard gains, a fighter gains two, or something of that order.


If you ask me, it's better to fix this issue by balancing the classes.


If you think about it, crafting really should cause you to gain experience, not lose it.

I think crafting should neither cost nor give experience, just require cash and components you cannot just buy, but need to move your arse and find somewhere. Instant adventure plot hook!



A dragon casts a massively unballanced spell that is "ballanced" by the aging cost a bunch of times. Wow, that really hurt it, it went up an age category and got stronger.


This is a perfect example of going by RAW without thinking what you're doing - dragons with higher age categories aren't more powerful just because they're older, but because of the massive amount of knowledge, power and experience they accumulated during those years. It's the equivalent of a character leveling up after casting a spell that ages him, because he'd be at a higher level after a year.

Matthew
2008-11-05, 04:50 PM
And yet in practice it failed in SO many ways.

A dragon casts a massively unballanced spell that is "ballanced" by the aging cost a bunch of times. Wow, that really hurt it, it went up an age category and got stronger.

The system allowed massively unballanced spells (old haste aged you and effectively gave entire extra rounds) and then the longer lived races like elves could go to town and cast them all they wanted while a human was effectively forbidden to cast them at all.

Maybe, but then magical aging also requires a system shock roll, which is effectively save or die.



The game had at LEAST as many magic items as a 3.x game if you played modules or used random treasure generation, but in theory every single non-consumable item created REQUIRED that a high level wizard had permanently lost at least one point of con (because in addition to aging they also used con loss as the "balance" mechanism for return from the dead or magic item creation, and low level wizards couldn't make items at all). But in either case that +1 sword took years off the life of a high level character to make, WTF made them all?

I am afraid you have been misinformed. The use of a permanency spell in creating a magical item only has a 5% chance of causing a loss of one constitution point (1e DMG, p. 46). Besides, that was far from the only way to create a magical item.



XP costs are MUCH, MUCH better. 4th ed, "it just costs money for the components" may well be better yet as long as the GM keeps in mind that money is worth having.

I disagree, but these things are subjective.



If you ask me, it's better to fix this issue by balancing the classes.

I don't have to ask you, I already knew you'd say that. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, preferences differ.

Raum
2008-11-05, 06:04 PM
This is something I've been turning in my head for a while, but I think that 3.x, and 4e especially, have decreased the importance of someone's actual XP number. True20 defintely takes the number out of the equation, it uses the arbitrary 'level when GM says' by default. D&D 3.0+ seems more oriented towards minimizing the differences between players' XP. They still use a number but lower level character gain more than the average and higher levels' gain less which pushes everyone towards the same level over time.

Now if they'd just separate XP from combat...

Out of curiosity, do you see the trend as good, bad, or indifferent? I'm fairly indifferent to the numbers. It's tying XP to combat I dislike.



Yes, that makes sense. It would seem that being not the exact same power level as everybody else in the party was declared Not Fun.Isn't that obvious? If a certain character is much more experienced than the rest, it starts to steal the spotlight. If a certain character is less experienced than the others and cannot contribute significantly, it starts to fade into the background.AD&D generally had the casters and multi-classed characters leveling slower than fighters or thieves. I always viewed it as part of the balance of power between the classes. Would 3.x have quite the same vitriol around caster power if they leveled 30% slower?

Kurald Galain
2008-11-05, 07:16 PM
Because, in a cooperative game, it isn't?
Perhaps surprisingly, many RPGs other than D&D are quite okay with power differential between party members, as well as with the idea that certain members have strengths that are highly circumstantial (e.g. netrunners in cyberware, druids in forests, etc). Nevertheless, people have fun playing those.

I suppose it's a maturity issue, in that D&D appears to attract (and/or is marketed to) players that are younger, on average, than most other RPGs. And therefore it has the philosophy that everyone must in all cases make an equal contribution. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I'm just saying it's overly limiting to see that as the only Way To Have Fun.

LibraryOgre
2008-11-05, 07:57 PM
Out of curiosity, do you see the trend as good, bad, or indifferent? I'm fairly indifferent to the numbers. It's tying XP to combat I dislike.

It's none of the above, actually. It creates a very different play style and expectations from D&D.

As for not tying XP to combat, you may try looking at one of the Palladium games (Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, Beyond the Supernatural, Robotech), and substituting their XP system for 4e's. Combat still plays a part, but far more comes from using skills and coming up with ideas; I've head that some people combined it successfully with earlier editions.

Innis Cabal
2008-11-05, 07:59 PM
I for one don't see a point to XP on any sort of table...I also don't see a point for class's but thats not the point.

The less we get away from the importance of XP the better.

Heliomance
2008-11-05, 08:03 PM
Because, in a cooperative game, it isn't?

One of the games I'm in, we're all at sightly different levels, and yet the game remains fun. Why is this? Because we're not trying to do each other's jobs. We have a barbarian whose full attack is quite frankly terrifying. I'm a buffmonkey and diplomancer, and good at it. We've got a druid, who's fairly good at playing god, we've got a wizard who's good at blasting things, we've got a psion who is the first point of call if facing single enemies as opposed to mobs. We have fun, and none of us could be fairly called more powerful than the others, because we do different things. Yes, anyone going toe-to-toe with the barbarian would get put through a blender. Yes, taking on the psion is a good way to get your brain dribbling out of your ears. Taking me on, you might well win. But taking on one of the other party members after I've run through my buffing regime? You'll be lucky.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-05, 08:33 PM
Perhaps surprisingly, many RPGs other than D&D are quite okay with power differential between party members, as well as with the idea that certain members have strengths that are highly circumstantial (e.g. netrunners in cyberware, druids in forests, etc). Nevertheless, people have fun playing those.
You're confusing Usefulness with Combat Strength.


I suppose it's a maturity issue, in that D&D appears to attract (and/or is marketed to) players that are younger, on average, than most other RPGs. And therefore it has the philosophy that everyone must in all cases make an equal contribution. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I'm just saying it's overly limiting to see that as the only Way To Have Fun.
You're not saying it's bad, but you are linking it to a lack of maturity.

Skjaldbakka
2008-11-05, 09:15 PM
Isn't that obvious? If a certain character is much more experienced than the rest, it starts to steal the spotlight. If a certain character is less experienced than the others and cannot contribute significantly, it starts to fade into the background.

No, it isn't obvious, nor necessarily or universally true. On of my favorite characters was an item crafter, and a buff mage. I was consistently 1 or 2 levels lower than the party, and spent about half of my wealth making magic items for the other 2 PCs.

The most effective thing I did in combat was glitterdust and ray of enfeeblement. Which are both buffs, if you look at them sideways.
making your enemies weaker makes your allies stronger

That and buff spells, but those were often cast pre-combat.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 09:26 PM
Would 3.x have quite the same vitriol around caster power if they leveled 30% slower?

I'd say yes - slower leveling would make it very annoying to be a caster on lower levels, when they don't WTFBBQPWN everything yet, and at higher levels... a level 11 wizard is still more powerful than a level 14 fighter.


No, it isn't obvious, nor necessarily or universally true. On of my favorite characters was an item crafter, and a buff mage. I was consistently 1 or 2 levels lower than the party, and spent about half of my wealth making magic items for the other 2 PCs.

The most effective thing I did in combat was glitterdust and ray of enfeeblement. Which are both buffs, if you look at them sideways.
making your enemies weaker makes your allies stronger

That and buff spells, but those were often cast pre-combat.

Which part of "and cannot contribute significantly" did you not understand?

LibraryOgre
2008-11-05, 09:43 PM
Isn't that obvious? If a certain character is much more experienced than the rest, it starts to steal the spotlight. If a certain character is less experienced than the others and cannot contribute significantly, it starts to fade into the background.

The problem is that being more experienced or less experienced doesn't impact whether people can contribute in a game with unbalanced and diverse classes.

In 2nd edition, the thief would almost always be a level or two ahead of the wizard (until higher levels; it then got wonky, and I've some theories on it). Did that mean the wizard couldn't contribute? No, because the wizard was frequently capable of doing things that the thief could not... he contributed in different ways. While the wizard could choose to load up on knock and invisibility spells, thus supplanting the need for a thief, he would be useless for anything else, because the limited number of slots and the lower availability of magic items (especially things like scrolls or utility items) meant he couldn't just throw them on a scroll.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 09:49 PM
I believe that it's better to have situations where everyone can shine 80% of the time and situations where one party member can shine 20% of the time, rather than the opposite. Which means less "only the thief can open locks and only the warrior is good in fighting" and more "everyone is useful in combat, and everyone is useful outside of combat".

Skjaldbakka
2008-11-05, 10:36 PM
Which part of "and cannot contribute significantly" did you not understand?

The part where it is equates to being a couple levels lower. Mordreth rarely contributed significantly to a fight. He made a point not to, as he was really, really easy to kill. There were times when fly+glitterdust pwn'd entire armies, but that was only the case because of the archers in the group. Most of the time, his combat strategy was *i'm flying and invisible, go team!"

Raum
2008-11-05, 11:13 PM
It's none of the above, actually. It creates a very different play style and expectations from D&D.I can see that, probably mostly by switching from individual to team awards.


As for not tying XP to combat, you may try looking at one of the Palladium games (Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, Beyond the Supernatural, Robotech), and substituting their XP system for 4e's. Combat still plays a part, but far more comes from using skills and coming up with ideas; I've head that some people combined it successfully with earlier editions.Actually I haven't played D&D in a few months. It's been Savage Worlds and True20 recently. If a friend ever restarts the D&D campaign...meanwhile I stick to GMing systems easier on my schedule.


I believe that it's better to have situations where everyone can shine 80% of the time and situations where one party member can shine 20% of the time, rather than the opposite. Which means less "only the thief can open locks and only the warrior is good in fighting" and more "everyone is useful in combat, and everyone is useful outside of combat".To paraphrase an old saw, if everyone shines no one is shining. That's just semantics though, I think I understand what you're saying - you'd like a similar power level across the board. A power level where all character types contribute equally to success at least 80% of the time. Did I restate your stance correctly?

Tengu_temp
2008-11-05, 11:17 PM
The part where it is equates to being a couple levels lower.

But I never said that... I said "if a certain character is less experienced than the others and cannot contribute significantly". "And", not "and therefore".

Also, I know it's DND we're talking about here, and a caster can contribute even if he's 2 or so levels lower than the rest of the group. Try pulling it off with a fighter, without feeling overshadowed by other melee characters.



To paraphrase an old saw, if everyone shines no one is shining. That's just semantics though, I think I understand what you're saying - you'd like a similar power level across the board. A power level where all character types contribute equally to success at least 80% of the time. Did I restate your stance correctly?

I'm saying that it's better to have a game where most of the successes the party achieves are results of actions and contribution of all of them, not just the one who happened to have the abilities needed for this particular situation. So your interpretation is kinda correct, yeah.

Yahzi
2008-11-05, 11:24 PM
I guess I'm the odd man out.

I treat XP exactly like currency. One XP is worth the price listed in the DMG - 5 gp. My players can buy and sell it on the open market. When they kill monsters, they harvest XP by boiling the monster's brains. When peasants die, they yield up their XP to the local lord.

At first my players thought it was strange - but now they love it. They get to make the decisions: level up, or spend the money on followers and gear? Lately they've been spending all their money/XP on their followers, giving them levels. If I had done this by fiat - enforcing the rule that their followers get a 1/2 share of the XP - they would be leaving the followers behind, so they didn't leach XP. Instead they are voluntarily investing in them, appreciating the loyalty that comes with owning a "knight's fee."

A game is about interesting decisions - and deciding whether magic items, followers, mundane gear, or levels are the best use of your current resources - is an interesting decision.

FMArthur
2008-11-05, 11:38 PM
That does seem quite amusing and even a lot of fun, mechanics-wise... but thematically unworkable in most settings.

For those who just declare "you all level up", I'm assuming that you don't have to deal with item creation, deaths/resurrections, etc all that frequently, but when you encounter it, what do you do about it? Resume the normal rules? Disallow those options? Ignore them and keep going? Something else?

Starsinger
2008-11-05, 11:41 PM
That does seem quite amusing and even a lot of fun, mechanics-wise... but thematically unworkable in most settings.

For those who just declare "you all level up", I'm assuming that you don't have to deal with item creation, deaths/resurrections, etc all that frequently, but when you encounter it, what do you do about it? Resume the normal rules? Disallow those options? Ignore them and keep going? Something else?

I've never run across item creation from a player. As for the "you lose a level because you didn't win Rocket Launcher Tag" I don't make someone lose a level for resurrection. That just makes rolling a new character a much more attractive option.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-05, 11:46 PM
A game is about interesting decisions - and deciding whether magic items, followers, mundane gear, or levels are the best use of your current resources - is an interesting decision.

That seems pretty solid logic, actually. For that kinda game, I would go with it as written in that case.



I've never run across item creation from a player. As for the "you lose a level because you didn't win Rocket Launcher Tag" I don't make someone lose a level for resurrection. That just makes rolling a new character a much more attractive option.
Seconded. I mean, I run across Item Creation, but not in DnD. Too much time spent, IG, just for a +Stat boost.

Starsinger
2008-11-05, 11:51 PM
Seconded. I mean, I run across Item Creation, but not in DnD. Too much time spent, IG, just for a +Stat boost.

Well yeah, in D&D. I mean, you try telling a TechnoWizard not to make something.

Matthew
2008-11-05, 11:57 PM
I've never run across item creation from a player. As for the "you lose a level because you didn't win Rocket Launcher Tag" I don't make someone lose a level for resurrection. That just makes rolling a new character a much more attractive option.

Not if the new character starts at level one. :smallbiggrin:

Part of the original purpose of Henchmen was to provide "back up characters" in case of unrecoverable death at mid to high levels.

LibraryOgre
2008-11-05, 11:57 PM
I've never run across item creation from a player. As for the "you lose a level because you didn't win Rocket Launcher Tag" I don't make someone lose a level for resurrection. That just makes rolling a new character a much more attractive option.

Then shouldn't making a new character be the unattractive option, in some way?

"If you come in as a new character, you have only half your XP at moment of death."

Starsinger
2008-11-05, 11:59 PM
Then shouldn't making a new character be the unattractive option, in some way?

"If you come in as a new character, you have only half your XP at moment of death."

Err.. so wait, that means I'd be approximately half level? How very punishing.

LibraryOgre
2008-11-06, 12:03 AM
Err.. so wait, that means I'd be approximately half level? How very punishing.

It ties in with part of my core beliefs: Stupidity and incompetence should be either painful or expensive, to discourage their propagation. ;-)

And besides, in AD&D, half XP usually only means a level or so of loss.

Starsinger
2008-11-06, 12:04 AM
It ties in with part of my core beliefs: Stupidity should be either painful or expensive, to discourage its propagation. ;-)

And when it's neither stupid nor particularly the player's fault? I mean D&D isn't Monopoly (Despite what people like EE say) why be unduly punished for rolling doubles?

RPGuru1331
2008-11-06, 12:04 AM
Err.. so wait, that means I'd be approximately half level? How very punishing.

You actually should be about 60ish% of your old level.

If I want to promote X, why make Y worse, rather then making X better?



It ties in with part of my core beliefs: Stupidity and incompetence should be either painful or expensive, to discourage their propagation. ;-)
You voluntarily play with stupid people?

Matthew
2008-11-06, 12:05 AM
Err.. so wait, that means I'd be approximately half level? How very punishing.

It works better when half experience = (generally) 1 level lower

It is not punishment, though, and it is funny how people think of it that way, it is just level loss, which is easily recoverable in D20/3e.

arguskos
2008-11-06, 12:07 AM
For those who just declare "you all level up", I'm assuming that you don't have to deal with item creation, deaths/resurrections, etc all that frequently, but when you encounter it, what do you do about it? Resume the normal rules? Disallow those options? Ignore them and keep going? Something else?
My players never bring up Item Creation, but if they did, I have a quest-based system in place to allow them to create custom items. Wands, Scrolls, and Potions are created by paying 3/4 of the list GP price and taking the relevant feat.

As for death/resurrection, I don't use normal resurrection rules, so it's not relevant. Basically, there is no resurrection in my worlds, and they all know that. A character death means the character is gone. They like it, so we use it.

-argus

Cybren
2008-11-06, 01:33 AM
There's always the hackmaster approach. Not only do all new characters start at level 1 (the GM is discouraged from saying "this is a new campaign starting at level 4", too), but if your character dies you are supposed to miss a gaming session to let the death "really sink in"

goram.browncoat
2008-11-06, 04:28 AM
I do the "everybody levels" approach (though i do keep track of xp, just not for everybody seperately). The reason for this is that i dont want people to level asynchronously, this slows down gameplay.

It wouldnt slow down gameplay if everybody came perfectly prepared with their next level or two written out on a seperate sheet, but that rarely if ever happens.

I dont know how ill handle crafting and xp requirement spells if it comes up (it hasnt yet, theyre low level). I think i might use a 5xp=1gp type deal (like vow of poverty does, but then for everybody).

I will also postpone levelling untill the end of a story part (f.e. gain enough xp somewhere in the middle of the pirate boat adventure, but only level after they kill the captain) so as to not break the immersion from the adventure.

Brock Samson
2008-11-06, 06:51 AM
Has anyone ever given a thought to giving XP to characters when in game their characters get some form of "practice" as to what their NEXT level will be? I.E. If there's a straight fighter, he gains XP through combat, through training, and through tactical experience (like say, Fighter Tactics 101, heh). Or a Wizard gains experience through studying new spells, going over his old spells and trying to improve them, reading ancient texts, or being tutored from someone more knowledgeable in the arcane arts. Sorcerors might gain it through just blasting the **** out of everything, and pushing their limits. Rogues from practicing rogue-y things, etc...

Obviously this would be extremely hard to control as a DM or a character, and XP assignment would be haphazard, but I am wondering if anyone's ever done anything like this?

Jayabalard
2008-11-06, 07:24 AM
Which part of "and cannot contribute significantly" did you not understand?Considering that you just pulled that portion out of nowhere, it's probably not a lack of understanding... it's more of a disagreement with your implication that less experienced = not able to contribute significantly.


You voluntarily play with stupid people?Even non-stupid people make stupid decisions from time to time.

Thane of Fife
2008-11-06, 07:55 AM
Has anyone ever given a thought to giving XP to characters when in game their characters get some form of "practice" as to what their NEXT level will be? I.E. If there's a straight fighter, he gains XP through combat, through training, and through tactical experience (like say, Fighter Tactics 101, heh). Or a Wizard gains experience through studying new spells, going over his old spells and trying to improve them, reading ancient texts, or being tutored from someone more knowledgeable in the arcane arts. Sorcerors might gain it through just blasting the **** out of everything, and pushing their limits. Rogues from practicing rogue-y things, etc...

Obviously this would be extremely hard to control as a DM or a character, and XP assignment would be haphazard, but I am wondering if anyone's ever done anything like this?

In the second edition DM's Guide, there's a system for giving experience by character class. I forget exactly how it works, as I don't have my DMG on me, but I believe the awards are given for more or less just what you say - Warriors get for killing monsters, Wizards for solving problems via magic, Rogues for getting gold, etc. I've never actually used it.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-06, 07:58 AM
Even non-stupid people make stupid decisions from time to time.

I am deeply confused. If these are not stupid people, why be so concerned with punishment? A non-stupid person will learn from their stupid decision on their own, without enforced retribution.

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 08:10 AM
I think crafting should neither cost nor give experience, just require cash and components you cannot just buy, but need to move your arse and find somewhere. Instant adventure plot hook!



This is the way 2nd ed handled things, I dont like XP costs for magic item crafting, and the lack of exotic materials make crafting to easy, I mean, there are waaaaaaaay to much magic items in the world, and things like shopping for magic items make no sense to me, specially with the XP cost, I mean, if a wizard pretends to run a magic shop at the cost of aactually becoming less powerfull then he should do some epic quests once in a while to keep his XP points high enough to keep crafting magic items (only adventurers can do this kind of things, wich actually prevents them from opening a magic shop), and besides, how many CL 20 wizards could exist in a setting to make buying CL 20 items something possible or normal?

elliott20
2008-11-06, 08:16 AM
The problem with 2e is that crafting also requires a point of your CON, which means that nobody in their right mind would ever make a +1 sword.

Starsinger
2008-11-06, 08:19 AM
The problem with 2e is that crafting also requires a point of your CON, which means that nobody in their right mind would ever make a +1 sword.

Yeah, I don't see there being a bulk of magical items that non-wizards (or were they still magic-users back then?) could use.

Jayabalard
2008-11-06, 08:26 AM
I am deeply confused. If these are not stupid people, why be so concerned with punishment?Who's concerned about punishment?


The problem with 2e is that crafting also requires a point of your CON, which means that nobody in their right mind would ever make a +1 sword.Not so; they just wouldn't be made in mass. Occasionally people would indeed make that kind of sacrifice for their art.

elliott20
2008-11-06, 08:29 AM
oh by 2e they were wizards.

another problem with 2e crafting system was that sometimes people do have a hard time coming up with cool ingredients you need to collect. So, while it made for a better story, often it could also be really difficult to standardize and measure.

Raum
2008-11-06, 08:55 AM
AD&D wasn't trying to standardize or measure ingredients though. The book even suggests having to make multiple attempts with different ingredients before eventually (maybe) getting it correct. Magic (in AD&D) wasn't meant to be scientific.

Coplantor
2008-11-06, 09:18 AM
and the ingredients sometimes were intangible, I remember one example that required a shield to be imbued with a noble knight's courage and braveness.

Matthew
2008-11-06, 09:44 AM
The problem with 2e is that crafting also requires a point of your CON, which means that nobody in their right mind would ever make a +1 sword.

No, again, there was only a 5% risk of that happening when using the spell to make magical items; it's in the spell description in AD&D 2e. This misconception is extremely widespread, but it is completely in error:



No magic placed on an item is permanent unless a permanency spell is used as a finishing touch. This always runs a 5% risk of draining 1 point of Constitution from the wizard casting the spell. Also, while it is possible to tell when the basic spell (enchant an item) succeeds, it is not possible to tell if successive castings actually work, for each must make the same sort of saving throw as the item itself made. Naturally, an item that is charged - a rod, staff, wand, javelin of lightning, ring of wishes, etc. - can never be made permanent. Magical devices cannot be used to enchant an item or cast magic upon an object so prepared, but scrolls can be used for this purpose.







Yeah, I don't see there being a bulk of magical items that non-wizards (or were they still magic-users back then?) could use.

oh by 2e they were wizards.

Only if fighters were "warriors". :smallwink:

The "magic user" became the "mage" in 2e. They were part of the "wizard" group, just as fighters were part of the "warrior" group.

Saph
2008-11-06, 09:49 AM
I've regularly played in games where everyone was different levels. As Matthew says, it didn't cause problems. In fact, for a good portion of those games I was lower level than anyone else, due to being the most recent person to join the campaign and thus joining one level behind average party level - so I'd be level 3 and other people would be level 5. I'd played less, so I had less XP, and I didn't see a problem with that. Due to the nature of 3.5 experience awards, it's self-correcting - lower-level characters will gain more XP from the same encounter, and given time will catch up to the others.

IMO, being a good RPer and getting on well with the other people in your groups involves (amongst other things) accepting that you are not always going to be the top dog. Sometimes you're the MVP; sometimes you're the mook. One of the signs I've learnt to look for in a good player is that they can accept being less powerful than others, either because they're team-oriented types, or because they're planning to stick around and work their way up.

Oh, and I always used to go in for item crafting in any 3.5 game where I had the feats and the time. Even if it causes you to be a level behind the rest of the party (which it usually won't) having a bunch of custom-tailored items is worth it.

- Saph

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 09:58 AM
IMO, being a good RPer and getting on well with the other people in your groups involves (amongst other things) accepting that you are not always going to be the top dog. Sometimes you're the MVP; sometimes you're the mook. One of the signs I've learnt to look for in a good player is that they can accept being less powerful than others, either because they're team-oriented types, or because they're planning to stick around and work their way up.


Then, by your definition, I'm not a good roleplayer, since I don't like being overshadowed by other PCs. And I guess my games cater to bad roleplayers too, since as a DM I consider it my duty to make all the players feel relevant and give them equal spotlight. I guess I can live with that stigma - I've yet to see anyone complaining because of that.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-06, 10:14 AM
IMO, being a good RPer and getting on well with the other people in your groups involves (amongst other things) accepting that you are not always going to be the top dog. Sometimes you're the MVP; sometimes you're the mook. One of the signs I've learnt to look for in a good player is that they can accept being less powerful than others, either because they're team-oriented types, or because they're planning to stick around and work their way up.


Work their way up? If I wanted that, I'd be Raiding. This is supposed to be fun from effectively the word go.

Winterwind
2008-11-06, 10:19 AM
Relevance and spotlight have nothing to do with equality in power. Otherwise, how could there be a Frodo in the Lord of the Rings if there also was an Aragorn?

Anyway, I find this thread fairly hilarious if applied to my own roleplaying experience, for in our group we have long ceased to play any games with such a thing as levels, and experience is all that remains. Quite the opposite direction.

Person_Man
2008-11-06, 10:25 AM
I've played every edition, and have tried many different styles of handing out XP. It's my experience that the tedious process of calculating and handing out XP really wasn't worth the hassle. For new and/or young players it encourages roleplaying and Skill use. But once a player has matured and fully understands the rules, they tend to play just for the enjoyment of playing, and rarely pick Skills or abilities simply because they know it will help them gain more XP. If anything, my players feel burdened if someone fails to pick a "required" ability (healing, trapfinding, Diplomacy, etc) but the DM at the time insists upon it. But in my campaigns there are always multiple solutions to each problem, so its not a big issue when I DM.

So now I just declare "you've all leveled up" when I feel its appropriate. Spells that require XP are generally banned (because they were broken anyway). Crafting feats basically just buy you a single magic item or save you money when buying a powerful magic item (I let them spend Skill points the same way on Craft).

Neon Knight
2008-11-06, 10:40 AM
I suppose it's a maturity issue, in that D&D appears to attract (and/or is marketed to) players that are younger, on average, than most other RPGs. And therefore it has the philosophy that everyone must in all cases make an equal contribution. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I'm just saying it's overly limiting to see that as the only Way To Have Fun.

I could quote XKDC, I could quote Lewis Carrol, (or is it C. S. Lewis? I can never remember which one said what) but I'll sum it up like this: Nuts to your maturity!


Then, by your definition, I'm not a good roleplayer, since I don't like being overshadowed by other PCs. And I guess my games cater to bad roleplayers too, since as a DM I consider it my duty to make all the players feel relevant and give them equal spotlight. I guess I can live with that stigma - I've yet to see anyone complaining because of that.

Oh, hey, me too! Maybe we can form a club. The Society of Bad Roleplayers According to Saph. Belldandy does not approve, but who cares? We're having fun! Wheee!

Kurald Galain
2008-11-06, 10:42 AM
No, again, there was only a 5% risk of that happening when using the spell to make magical items; it's in the spell description in AD&D 2e. This misconception is extremely widespread, but it is completely in error:

Precisely.

Furthermore, there was this spell called "Semi-permanency", which "only" lasted a decade or two, was lower level to cast, and had no adverse risks like con loss, but was quite feasible for enchantments.

Saph
2008-11-06, 10:53 AM
Then, by your definition, I'm not a good roleplayer, since I don't like being overshadowed by other PCs.

It's part of the nature of team games that you will always be overshadowed. Everyone in your party will have some area in which they overshadow you; you'll have some area in which you overshadow them.


Oh, hey, me too! Maybe we can form a club. The Society of Bad Roleplayers According to Saph. Belldandy does not approve, but who cares? We're having fun! Wheee!

*sigh*

If you read my post, you'll notice what I said was that one of the signs of a good player is that they can accept being less powerful than others. Not all the time; not in all respects.

Are you and Tengu really telling me that you can't accept that at all? That in your games you always have to be as powerful or more powerful than everyone around you, all the time, in every way?

- Saph

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 11:03 AM
It's part of the nature of team games that you will always be overshadowed. Everyone in your party will have some area in which they overshadow you; you'll have some area in which you overshadow them.


You have a weird definition of overshadowing. If I don't want my character to be good at sneaking, than a stealth-oriented party member being better at it than me is not overshadowing me. If I want to be a good fighter, but another character is much better at combat than I am, then I'm being overshadowed. And, most importantly, if there are encounters, combat or non-combat, where my contribution is so minimal that I could as well not be there, then I'm being overshadowed.

Charity
2008-11-06, 11:10 AM
Aw Saph, and I'd got the tar nice and hot and those chickens don't like plucking as much as you might have thought.



It is entirely possible to enjoy playing a game as the bumbling sidekick/ henchman/ greenhorn etc. It is also reasonable to expect to play the game on an equal footing to the rest of the players.

I think the part where the two camps here are diverging is that this is by player consent. Disparity is grand when you have chosen to be less effective than your fellows, it is not so good when it is thrust upon you when you have a different expectation or character concept.

Saph
2008-11-06, 11:12 AM
And, most importantly, if there are encounters, combat or non-combat, where my contribution is so minimal that I could as well not be there, then I'm being overshadowed.

And where did I say I was recommending that?

My post wasn't a personal attack on you; you overreacted. I don't play useless characters and I don't encourage players to play useless characters. When I'm DMing, which is often, I go out of my way to make sure everyone contributes. But I also know that neither players nor DMs are perfect, and there are going to be times where for an encounter or for a session one character contributes significantly more or less than everyone else. How a player reacts to this has a big effect on the atmosphere of the game.

- Saph

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 11:28 AM
Whether the player's reaction to such situation is justified or not depends on the circumstances that caused the reaction:
1. Player's stupidity - the player is the only one who's at fault.
2. Bad dice rolls - understandable irritation. It's no fun to be Lady Luck's butt monkey, no matter who you are.
3. Other players steal the spotlight on purpose - understandable anger. Why are they going out of their way to make the game less fun for you?
4. The DM has created a scenario where your character is useless - understandable anger. It's the DM's job to ensure everyone has fun.



I think the part where the two camps here are diverging is that this is by player consent. Disparity is grand when you have chosen to be less effective than your fellows, it is not so good when it is thrust upon you when you have a different expectation or character concept.

This. If I choose to play a weak, unimportant character, then it's fine for me to be one. If I want to be as important to the story as the other players and have equal share of Awesome, and something pushes me into a secondary role, I have all the rights not to be happy about that.

Winterwind
2008-11-06, 11:45 AM
You are saying this as if there was a connection between importance to the story/lack thereof and being powerful/weak. I think this is where communication breaks down here. A character's power has no relation with his impact upon the story.

potatocubed
2008-11-06, 11:48 AM
Something I haven't seen addressed yet is that one of the big differences between 2e and 3e was the steepness of the power curve. In 2e, a character 2-5 levels lower than another had a slim-but-sometimes-still-worth-gambling-on chance of survival.* In 3.0 and later, a 2-level difference is usually terminal and a 5-level difference is pretty much suicide.

While you might think that this makes XP more important, you'd be wrong: because the characters are forced to operate within a narrow power band, GMs are more likely to just say 'oh whatever, everyone level up'. Otherwise you run the risk of characters falling behind, which will ruin someone's game a lot faster than it did (could?) in 2e.

This also makes the three-tier 3.x XP table system... problematic. I think it could be worked out, but the amount of calculation involved probably isn't worth it.

*The critical level difference varies by class. Mages gained far more per level than fighters, for example.

Saph
2008-11-06, 11:54 AM
It is entirely possible to enjoy playing a game as the bumbling sidekick/ henchman/ greenhorn etc. It is also reasonable to expect to play the game on an equal footing to the rest of the players.

But it's a false dilemma; I haven't been talking about playing as the 'bumbling henchman' at any point. If you look at my initial post, the example I was using was starting one or two levels below everyone else. That's not remotely the same thing as being a 'bumbling sidekick'. As things turned out, I joined in, and after one session I was only one level behind the party average, and after three sessions I'd caught up. Until reading this thread, it had never occurred to me that anyone could consider that a big deal.

- Saph

Charity
2008-11-06, 12:04 PM
But it's a false dilemma; I haven't been talking about playing as the 'bumbling henchman' at any point. If you look at my initial post, the example I was using was starting one or two levels below everyone else. That's not remotely the same thing as being a 'bumbling sidekick'. As things turned out, I joined in, and after one session I was only one level behind the party average, and after three sessions I'd caught up. Until reading this thread, it had never occurred to me that anyone could consider that a big deal.

- Saph

I was extrapolating Saph, the principle remains. It is fine and dandy to have a power differential accross the party if those that are 'lacking' are both aware and party to the decision.
In fact in my games (due to the very high fatality rates) I changed from 1 level behind to equal with the lowest level for new characters, I did so because the players demanded a consequence for dying. As a DM I would much rather my party were all much of a muchness powerwise as it is a damn site easier to avoid killing them that way.

Anyhow these are muddy waters I'm wading through and they ain't getting any clearer.
I was trying to contruct a bridge between the two side, but it appears to have been made of straw...:smallwink:

LibraryOgre
2008-11-06, 12:06 PM
You voluntarily play with stupid people?


There's always a few stupid people in every group. I enjoy the game despite it.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-06, 12:20 PM
I was extrapolating Saph, the principle remains.

Actually, it doesn't. Any point becomes invalid when exaggerated too far, but that doesn't say anything about the original point.

Hzurr
2008-11-06, 12:22 PM
I think it's important to have a couple of stupid people in a group, as long as it's a minority of the group. Every so often, you need someone to say "I kick down the door!"

A group of all stupid people, you want to shoot yourself in the face

A group of all smart people can be really good, but can also end up really boring (depending on what kind of smart people there are).


But yeah, you have to have a bit of diversity to keep things interesting.

Knaight
2008-11-06, 12:25 PM
Coming back to overshadowing, I don't want to be overshadowed for some reason just because of the specifics of my character unless it is part of the character. My stealthy character shouldn't be overshadowed in stealth by a character who doesn't also have stealth as their shtick, my arrogant swordsman shouldn't be overshadowed in sword play. Or arrogance, but I can easily accomplish that bit. That said if I want to play a henchman, or an apprentice, or any number of characters that aren't going to be up to par, and they can be quite fun, then go ahead with the overshadowing. It should however, be a choice, and it shouldn't be a choice like "If you want to play a martial character, being overshadowed comes along for the ride". On Xp, I don't GM D&D, and have a replacement system for the game I do GM.

As for 2e magic taking a point of con, thats awesome. Swiped.

Totally Guy
2008-11-06, 12:27 PM
There's always a few stupid people in every group. I enjoy the game despite it.

Sometimes they let that person DM. My players seem to be having a fantastic time.:smallbiggrin:
Of course for RPGs I'm just book dumb. For plot/player fun/tension balances I'm on the ball.

Knaight
2008-11-06, 12:51 PM
Sometimes they are really irritating though. Ie I have a guy in one of my groups who never even listens to description and just wants to kill stuff. Last time he tried this this lead to a TPK, but he still hasn't caught on.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-06, 12:53 PM
I think it's important to have a couple of stupid people in a group, as long as it's a minority of the group. Every so often, you need someone to say "I kick down the door!"

A group of all stupid people, you want to shoot yourself in the face

A group of all smart people can be really good, but can also end up really boring (depending on what kind of smart people there are).


But yeah, you have to have a bit of diversity to keep things interesting.
I've never had a problem with smart folks making it boring. It's more then possible to come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to in fact kick down the door. I said smart, not overprepared munchkins.

Captain Six
2008-11-06, 01:55 PM
When I DM I tend to go for the whole "everyone levels" approach. It curves the desire to kill everything that moves. I remember the first campaign I joined that ignored experience, I was shocked when the cleric opened a door to a room with a giant snake, went "Huh." and promptly shut the door. Then I was shocked that such a realistic response surprised me. From then on I just gave experience after quest arcs regardless of what was killed.

As for crafting, I have a houserule for that. I've seen experience as less about knowledge and more about life force/essence/chi. It grows stronger when you survive trials and make accomplishments, the more you have the stronger you are, level drain from magic and resurrection make sense, and it suddenly reasonable why you have to give up some if you make a magic item. That being said it is houseruled that experience cost can be split when crafting a magic item. That way the wizard can sit down and make an item for every party member and every party member pays equal experience. On a related note spells can also be "shared" for the purpose of crafting as well, the same wizard could make the warlock an item that requires the crafter to have Eldritch Blast.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 02:00 PM
I've never had a problem with smart folks making it boring. It's more then possible to come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to in fact kick down the door. I said smart, not overprepared munchkins.

I'd guess some people just have bad experiences with Gygagian DMs, or mistake "smart" for "sniveling coward".


You are saying this as if there was a connection between importance to the story/lack thereof and being powerful/weak. I think this is where communication breaks down here. A character's power has no relation with his impact upon the story.

As long as your game has combat, there will be a lot of instances where weaker characters will feel outshined by stronger ones.

Saph
2008-11-06, 02:08 PM
As for crafting, I have a houserule for that. I've seen experience as less about knowledge and more about life force/essence/chi. It grows stronger when you survive trials and make accomplishments, the more you have the stronger you are, level drain from magic and resurrection make sense, and it suddenly reasonable why you have to give up some if you make a magic item. That being said it is houseruled that experience cost can be split when crafting a magic item. That way the wizard can sit down and make an item for every party member and every party member pays equal experience.

The times I've played a crafter wizard, I dealt with the XP issue by just charging other PCs money for item commissions. My normal rate for party members was 75% of the item's market price. The gold I'd earn from that would be sunk back into my own equipment, thus making up for the XP loss. It works, assuming you have a lot of downtime.

Once I got to level 10+, I found that the time requirements for item creation were actually more serious than the XP ones. It takes ages to make the really powerful stuff.

- Saph

Grey Paladin
2008-11-06, 02:13 PM
Courage won't carry you past level 1 and foes which will continue to OHKO you for at least a couple more levels, 'cowardly' tactics and anal ('Runesque) planning will-and by the time this paranoia is no longer required (=you hardly face threats of your own level) it has been engraved into your playstyle.

Drascin
2008-11-06, 02:16 PM
I'd guess some people just have bad experiences with Gygagian DMs, or mistake "smart" for "sniveling coward".

A-yup. When you've had characters lose legs because there was a completely random guillotine on the door they kicked, repeteadly, you start feeling like bringing your metal detector to any door you find before kicking it :smallsigh:.

Or, preferably, nuke the door from a distance with a fireball, but you don't always have the open spellslots for that :smallbiggrin:

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 02:19 PM
Courage won't carry you past level 1 and foes which will continue to OHKO you for at least a couple more levels, 'cowardly' tactics and anal ('Runesque) planning will-and by the time this paranoia is no longer required (=you hardly face threats of your own level) it has been engraved into your playstyle.

Completely depends on the game and DM. Try playing this way in Exalted and everyone will laugh at you.

Grey Paladin
2008-11-06, 02:23 PM
Completely depends on the game and DM. Try playing this way in Exalted and everyone will laugh at you.

I was under the impression we were discussing D&D- in case this is not so, my statement hardly applies to more than a few outcasts.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 02:30 PM
Well, in 4e first level characters don't die from a mosquito farting at them or a vicious pinecone attack, either. And there's a lot of people who prefer to start 3.5 at level 3-5, or higher.

Grey Paladin
2008-11-06, 02:42 PM
It appears I somehow blanked out 4E from my consciousness.

As to 3.5, my Fighter slipped on a rock and died from a headwound because he didn't light a torch in a dark cave. The DM was too "hardcore", as he put it, even for my own taste (when you die horribly, you should at least die heroically) but it goes to show that this style of play can be preserved at any level.

LibraryOgre
2008-11-06, 02:46 PM
It appears I somehow blanked out 4E from my consciousness.

As to 3.5, my Fighter slipped on a rock and died from a headwound because he didn't light a torch in a dark cave. The DM was too "hardcore", as he put it, even for my own taste (when you die horribly, you should at least die heroically) but it goes to show that this style of play can be preserved at any level.

Wow, that's just stupid.

I'm all for killing characters, but "You didn't light a torch so you slipped and fell and died" is stupid.

He should've at least had you eaten by a grue.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 02:49 PM
As to 3.5, my Fighter slipped on a rock and died from a headwound because he didn't light a torch in a dark cave. The DM was too "hardcore", as he put it, even for my own taste (when you die horribly, you should at least die heroically) but it goes to show that this style of play can be preserved at any level.

Arbitrarily killing a character with something that's not always lethal even at first level? He says hardcore, I say Gygaxian. In the worst way possible.

Yeah, I know there are people who enjoy playing their RPGs this way. I don't.

Matthew
2008-11-06, 02:50 PM
I'd guess some people just have bad experiences with Gygagian DMs, or mistake "smart" for "sniveling coward".

I am going to assume that you meant "Gygaxian" here and further that you are equating "Gygaxian" with what you have heard of the Tomb of Horrors. If this is not the case, let me know.

The amount of experience gained for defeating monsters under the Gygaxian AD&D paradigm tends to be very small, the chief way of gaining experience is through acquiring treasure (preferably whilst not expending any resources). This leads to a more reasonable accusation of encouraging cupidity, rather than "hack and slash".



Arbitrarily killing a character with something that's not always lethal even at first level? He says hardcore, I say Gygaxian. In the worst way possible.

I say you are misusing (or perhaps just misunderstanding) that term in the worst way possible.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 02:54 PM
I am going to assume that you meant "Gygaxian" here and further that you are equating "Gygaxian" with what you have heard of the Tomb of Horrors. If this is not the case, let me know.


I mean, in general, treating RPGs like a board game with the DM instead of a board, with all the attachment to your character and storytelling that follows. Also considering your fellow players rivals more than anything, and the DM being more important as the one who makes stuff work against the players rather than focusing on creating a story together with them.



I say you are misusing (or perhaps just misunderstanding) that term in the worst way possible.

What does it mean, then? I haven't seen anyone using the term "Gygaxian" before, apart from people who use it the same way I do. Note that the definition is not "the way Gary Gygax plays his games".

Matthew
2008-11-06, 02:55 PM
I mean, in general, treating RPGs like a board game with the DM instead of a board, with all the attachment to your character and storytelling that follows. Also considering your fellow players rivals more than anything, and the DM being more important as the one who makes stuff work against the players rather than focusing on creating a story together with them.

Where are you getting this from?

Kurald Galain
2008-11-06, 02:56 PM
Where are you getting this from?

4th edition, presumably :smallbiggrin: . Apart from the "other players are rivals" bit, though.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 02:57 PM
Where are you getting this from?

Added an edit to my previous post.


4th edition, presumably :smallbiggrin: . Apart from the "other players are rivals" bit, though.

You forgot to add that 4e is like WoW.

Grey Paladin
2008-11-06, 02:59 PM
Nice rank.
GG ;

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 03:02 PM
Sorry sheriff, I'm faster on the draw.

Matthew
2008-11-06, 03:04 PM
What does it mean, then? I haven't seen anyone using the term "Gygaxian" before, apart from people who use it the same way I do. Note that the definition is not "the way Gary Gygax plays his games".

Why ascribe it the misnomer "Gygaxian", then? As far as I can tell it's supposed to describe "Gygaxian adventure design principals and methods of play", which in turn basically refers to the Tomb of Horrors, which was written to be a death trap. I see "Gygaxian" used frequently to more accurately describe actual "Gygaxian style adventures" or "Gygaxian prose" [i.e. things that actually are Gygaxian]; whenever it occurs in the context you appear to be using it, it is usually a constructed perjorative to denote "the other" and "bad", which is a misuse of the term, since it denotes only misinformed prejudice.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-06, 03:06 PM
You forgot to add that 4e is like WoW.

All your sarcasm and your needless insults aside, you seem to be forgetting that 4E is very much a board game (because, hello? the rules really don't support playing it without a board) with the DM the one who makes stuff work against the players (because of the heavy focus on combat, in which several of the DM-controlled monsters intend to kill the player characters).

Winterwind
2008-11-06, 03:10 PM
As long as your game has combat, there will be a lot of instances where weaker characters will feel outshined by stronger ones.True only under two assumptions: Firstly (which you pointed out yourself), that combat takes up enough of a session's time for this to become relevant, with sections where the "weaker" characters can shine just fine taking up less. And secondly, much more importantly, that when the stronger characters fight one foe, there is no other battle for the weaker characters to fight, on a lesser scale perhaps, more fitting to their capabilities, and/or quite possibly of a completely different nature, but just as important for the adventure's happy outcome nevertheless.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 03:15 PM
I'm afraid that yes, the term Gygaxian is fully pejorative, and describes games that concentrate purely on dungeon crawling, the party members backstabbing each other when they see the benefits, the DM giving a lot of arbitrary decisions and generally acting like an enemy of the players, the player who got most experience and treasure being the "winner", and such.


All your sarcasm and your needless insults aside, you seem to be forgetting that 4E is very much a board game (because, hello? the rules really don't support playing it without a board) with the DM the one who makes stuff work against the players (because of the heavy focus on combat, in which several of the DM-controlled monsters intend to kill the player characters).

First, remember that this board also has a rule against bashing systems and people who like them.
Second, you're interpreting my words literally, instead of going with their spirit. You know what I meant and you ignored it. Unless you seriously mean 4e is unsuitable for roleplaying or deeper stories.


True only under two assumptions: Firstly (which you pointed out yourself), that combat takes up enough of a session's time for this to become relevant, with sections where the "weaker" characters can shine just fine taking up less. And secondly, much more importantly, that when the stronger characters fight one foe, there is no other battle for the weaker characters to fight, on a lesser scale perhaps, more fitting to their capabilities, and/or quite possibly of a completely different nature, but just as important for the adventure's happy outcome nevertheless.

Truth to be told, I've never seen the second take in action - if there are weak and strong enemies and the party is imbalanced, than the strong characters wipe out the weak enemies first and proceed to fight the strong ones later, while the weak characters... generally don't do anything significant. Of course, I didn't play a lot of games where the difference in power between player characters was huge.

Heliomance
2008-11-06, 03:18 PM
It depends how the weak characters are focused. I have two characters who can do sod all in terms of real damage, and I don't feel left out. One of them is a buffmonkey. While he can't do much damage himself, he contributes by making sure everyone else does much more than they would otherwise. The other one has just learnt what fun tripping is.

Matthew
2008-11-06, 03:20 PM
I'm afraid that yes, the term Gygaxian is fully pejorative, and describes games that concentrate purely on dungeon crawling, the party members backstabbing each other when they see the benefits, the DM giving a lot of arbitrary decisions and generally acting like an enemy of the players, the player who got most experience and treasure being the "winner", and such.

I am afraid then, that it is also a complete misuse of the term. It is like calling a pig a ferret.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 03:27 PM
I am afraid then, that it is also a complete misuse of the term. It is like calling a pig a ferret.

Id enough people call pigs ferrets, pigs will start to get called ferrets. I've seen many other people use Gygaxian in the same meaning as I do, and since it doesn't have any other meaning in regards to playing style, I guess that this use will only get more common.

Matthew
2008-11-06, 03:31 PM
Id enough people call pigs ferrets, pigs will start to get called ferrets. I've seen many other people use Gygaxian in the same meaning as I do, and since it doesn't have any other meaning in regards to playing style, I guess that this use will only get more common.

I have seen many people describe Gygaxian playing style in substantially more accurate ways, even at such hives of scum and villainy as RPGNet and EnWorld... :smallbiggrin:

Point is, it's not about the number of people who say it, they're still wrong, and your misuse of the term is wrong. Just as if you were to call a pig a ferret I would be inclined to tell you that you are wrong and ask you to be more accurate in your terminology, so I am inclined here.

arguskos
2008-11-06, 03:33 PM
If using the term Gygaxian as a pejorative is incorrect Matthew, then what IS the correct usage? I've only ever seen it used in a negative light, and not for any other reason whatsoever. Just curious really.

Matthew
2008-11-06, 03:38 PM
If using the term Gygaxian as a pejorative is incorrect Matthew, then what IS the correct usage? I've only ever seen it used in a negative light, and not for any other reason whatsoever. Just curious really.

It has a wide usage, depends what exactly you are referring to. In terms of game mastering, it means many things. Complete impartiality, challenging adventures, sandbox gameplay; innovation, excitement, fun. :smallwink:

There was an interesting thread on RPGNet if you can be bothered to wade through it: Gygaxian Dungeons (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=361362).

The most recent (and probably last) "Gygaxian" adventure is the Upper Works. I know Merric Blackman is playing it using 4e and is keeping a blog somewhere; ah, here (http://merricb.livejournal.com/64501.html).

HidaTsuzua
2008-11-06, 03:43 PM
What does it mean, then? I haven't seen anyone using the term "Gygaxian" before, apart from people who use it the same way I do. Note that the definition is not "the way Gary Gygax plays his games".

I planned on using Gygaxian as part of a terminology for differently styles of inter and intra PC dynamics in RPG (relative power, decision making ability, importance, competition, backstabbing). I was going to compare it to Storyteller or WhiteWolvian style. Never got around to writing it though.

I've seen the term before in Gygaxian Dungeon, Traps, and Items. Typically shown by the Tomb of Horrors and cursed items of "you die" that look just like another specific piece of magical loot (necklace of strangulation vs necklace of fireballs).

Winterwind
2008-11-06, 03:45 PM
Truth to be told, I've never seen the second take in action - if there are weak and strong enemies and the party is imbalanced, than the strong characters wipe out the weak enemies first and proceed to fight the strong ones later, while the weak characters... generally don't do anything significant. Of course, I didn't play a lot of games where the difference in power between player characters was huge.I, on the other hand, consider it standard. Which becomes more understandable once you consider that all roleplaying games I play do not have such a concept as levels (and it is perfectly common for characters with a wide experience disparity to play together, if these happen to be the characters the players want to play and for whom there waits a story to unfold), and with skills in place of classes (so, right next to powerful warriors, there may stand wizards with no magic powers however capable of harming foes and thieves who really are that - thieves, sneaking and stealing, and not a different brand of warrior. That's not a group of characters who, in any measurable quantity, are equally powerful; that's a group of people who, each for their own reasons, participate in this story, each with their very own talents (which may not even include combat, nor do I really see why combat prowess, of all things, should equate power - it's just one talent amongst many, after all). It seems clear to me that different challenges should await each of them, just as each of them gets their own part in the story.

Example: Take OotS. Vaarsuvius has been called the strongest member in the Order before. It seems quite possible that if V was fighting this Thieves' Guild, s/he would have much less trouble getting past them somehow than Haley. But that doesn't matter at all, because it is not V who is in this situation. It is not her/his part of the story. It's Haley's. How does it matter that V is more powerful than Haley, if this part of the story is nonetheless entirely in Haley's hands?

To be fair, in no system I play a bit of difference in experience will impact as heavily as it happens in D&D, if I am not mistaken.

As for the strong characters wiping out the weak opponents first, in particular? What if there is no time to do that, for the strong opponents are about to finish their ritual? Or they are at a different location entirely? Or the challenge for the weaker characters does not consist of a fight at all (yet is equally thrilling, important and takes up just as much time)? Or the strong characters just engage or challenge the strong characters first, not leaving them the opportunity to do as they desire (truth be told, I got the impression on these forums that combat in D&D more often than in other games I know resembles more a tactical challenge, where the characters cooly plan their positioning, carefully choose which spells and items would provide them with the best strategical advantage and pick their opponents at their leasure, often focusing on them or alike - and not struggling in a chaotic fight for their life, trying desperately to come up with a clever move to get rid of that one enemy that is wildly engaging them and hardly leaving them enough time to see what is happening to the rest of their comrades, much less to coordinate their strategies. Not that the former approach is worse, but it's hardly the only option)?

Eorran
2008-11-06, 03:59 PM
All your sarcasm and your needless insults aside, you seem to be forgetting that 4E is very much a board game (because, hello? the rules really don't support playing it without a board) with the DM the one who makes stuff work against the players (because of the heavy focus on combat, in which several of the DM-controlled monsters intend to kill the player characters).

I've actually found 4e to be a lot more fun without a board.

On topic, I usually don't count XP unless I'm trying to get a feel for the system's baseline. Ressurection doesn't cost a level, and I've never had a really craft-happy player or character.

However, I should point out that my players are usually content with following whatever plot I've laid out for them.

Knaight
2008-11-06, 04:08 PM
On strong characters wiping out the weaker ones first. If the people are fighting together this usually happens. While there are exceptions, such as a weak archer fighting flying enemies while a strong swordsman fights ground enemies, or even cases where one person can't hurt one enemy, but the other can, and one person cant hit an enemy, and another can, ie the players are fighting against two high speed, quick characters, and a big brute, and consist of a fairly quick character, and a big brute. The brutes can't hit or reach the quick character, the quick characters can't hurt the brutes. As for combat importance in characters overshadowing eachother, in systems where combat takes way longer than everything else, such as 3rd and 4th edition D&D this is inevitable. If combat was handled quickly, and there were extremely complicated stealth rules, then it would be about the different aspects of stealth, such as patrol prediction, blending in, staying in shadows, not creaking stairs, etc. If you have patrol prediction as your shtick the not creaking stairs guy shouldn't be better at it than you.

Neon Knight
2008-11-06, 05:00 PM
Are you and Tengu really telling me that you can't accept that at all? That in your games you always have to be as powerful or more powerful than everyone around you, all the time, in every way?

- Saph

Nope, but terms like "powerful" are horribly imprecise in these instances. When we talk about characters being "powerful" (the quality of having power) I think of overall ability to affect the story/plot and alter the game world. You seem to be using the term powerful in a different sense (i.e. proficiency in a task or area of expertise.)




Example: Take OotS. Vaarsuvius has been called the strongest member in the Order before. It seems quite possible that if V was fighting this Thieves' Guild, s/he would have much less trouble getting past them somehow than Haley. But that doesn't matter at all, because it is not V who is in this situation. It is not her/his part of the story. It's Haley's. How does it matter that V is more powerful than Haley, if this part of the story is nonetheless entirely in Haley's hands?



Fiction is in general a poor example for games. At the table, most groups would like to keep everyone engaged. Thus, splitting up and running multiple scenes is at best, strenuous on the DM and discouraged, and at worst doesn't work right and leaves some party member bored and with the short end of the stick. Roy's player would be bored to tears, for instance. When is the last time he did anything?

Also, counter example*: What was the best moment in Lethal Weapon? When Murtaugh and Riggs blew away Mr. Joshua together, at the same time, equally. As partners.

*This counter example is intended to be a bit facetious and not entirely serious.



As for the strong characters wiping out the weak opponents first, in particular? What if...

You can only do such things a couple of times before things start to feel contrived. Particularly against the style of BBEG that actively plots against the players, examines their weaknesses, and executes plans in order to wipe them off the face of the earth. This type of foe seems reasonably popular, wouldn't you say, to make this a not unlikely occurrence. Eventually, odds are, a weak character will end up in a spot where his weakness drops his effectiveness to 0, while the strong character shrugs and shoulders on.

Winterwind
2008-11-06, 05:34 PM
Fiction is in general a poor example for games. At the table, most groups would like to keep everyone engaged. Thus, splitting up and running multiple scenes is at best, strenuous on the DM and discouraged, and at worst doesn't work right and leaves some party member bored and with the short end of the stick. Roy's player would be bored to tears, for instance. When is the last time he did anything?Then I guess we must be playing it wrong, for I strongly suspect if I added up the time we spend split up, it would be a much higher number than if I did so for the time we spend together. And we wouldn't want it another way - what better way to insert personal plots and developments into the story than each player getting some time to play and shape his very own arc within the overall story? What better way to give the players an opportunity to show what the life of their character looks like when s/he is on her/his own, be it because the character has a sufficiently interesting private life to be shown, or because the character has some plans and schemes of their own s/he would like to pursue?

As for fiction being a poor example for roleplaying games, I disagree completely. OotS, for instance, could actually be considered a fairly good representation of what our sessions look like (aside the fact there is much, much more combat and less social interaction and intrigue in OotS than in our games typically). The only main difference would be Roy; if we happened to play in a game where there is such a thing as resurrection (which we typically do not), then there would be some proper story to be told in the afterlife, with actual adventure and impact upon the whole plot, so, no, he wouldn't get bored.


You can only do such things a couple of times before things start to feel contrived.This depends on how one sees battle. We envision it to be more often than not too chaotic for anything else to happen; besides, a non-combat character might be occupied throughout the whole combat with how s/he can survive, while the other characters fight - running away, throwing furniture into the opponent's way, climbing up to higher ground, hiding, or attempting some creative trick to knock the enemy out; either way, they will have just as much excitement as the warriors, if not more so. And it's not like they do not get to shine elsewhere.


Particularly against the style of BBEG that actively plots against the players, examines their weaknesses, and executes plans in order to wipe them off the face of the earth. This type of foe seems reasonably popular, wouldn't you say, to make this a not unlikely occurrence. Eventually, odds are, a weak character will end up in a spot where his weakness drops his effectiveness to 0, while the strong character shrugs and shoulders on.See above. Yes, it might happen once in a while, but this still doesn't make the character incapable of acting; the acts simply might change the focus from overcoming the challenge to surviving. They should get enough challenge-overcoming from all the points I outlined before (some of which do not require any kind of contrivance at all, and are fairly standard, if you ask me).

Saph
2008-11-06, 05:53 PM
Nope, but terms like "powerful" are horribly imprecise in these instances. When we talk about characters being "powerful" (the quality of having power) I think of overall ability to affect the story/plot and alter the game world. You seem to be using the term powerful in a different sense (i.e. proficiency in a task or area of expertise.)

Doesn't really make much difference. There are going to be times when your character isn't going to be able to significantly alter the game world, and there are going to be many more times where another character, through luck or skill or happenstance, is at this moment more important than you. How gracefully or obnoxiously a player deals with that is a big factor in how much fun they are to have at the table.

- Saph

Raum
2008-11-06, 07:54 PM
I'm afraid that yes, the term Gygaxian is fully pejorative, and describes games that concentrate purely on dungeon crawling, the party members backstabbing each other when they see the benefits, the DM giving a lot of arbitrary decisions and generally acting like an enemy of the players, the player who got most experience and treasure being the "winner", and such.

First, remember that this board also has a rule against bashing systems and people who like them.If you meant it as a pejorative, why use the term?


Truth to be told, I've never seen the second take in action - if there are weak and strong enemies and the party is imbalanced, than the strong characters wipe out the weak enemies first and proceed to fight the strong ones later, while the weak characters... generally don't do anything significant. Of course, I didn't play a lot of games where the difference in power between player characters was huge.So that was true in the one or two games you've played with a power imbalance?

---

A couple years ago an interesting survey was published on the WotC forums. The poster had polled the boards for opinions on 'most powerful' classes and 'most fun' classes. Predictably, the full caster classes topped the power list with the fighter near the bottom. What I found interesting was the fun list - bard and warlock were near the top and the fighter near the middle.

To me it simply pointed out that having fun playing didn't require a powerful class.

Jayabalard
2008-11-06, 08:39 PM
Actually, it doesn't. Any point becomes invalid when exaggerated too far, but that doesn't say anything about the original point.That depends entirely on the original point. If you're making an "X is always Y" or "X is never Y" claim, then an exaggerated position is a perfectly valid way to refute something.Quick example: If someone makes the claim "Using poison is always evil" then a valid way of arguing against that is to make exaggerated counter examples that people will agree are non-evil uses of poison.

In this particular case though, Saph is not making that sort of argument, so you are entirely correct: Charity's exaggerated principle does not hold.


Then, by your definition, I'm not a good roleplayer, since I don't like being overshadowed by other PCs. And I guess my games cater to bad roleplayers too, since as a DM I consider it my duty to make all the players feel relevant and give them equal spotlight. I guess I can live with that stigma - I've yet to see anyone complaining because of that.There's no shame in enjoying the game the way that you enjoy it. If you always have to be the most powerful at everything in order to have fun, and your group is ok with that, then more power to you.

Of course, you shouldn't expect everyone to be ok with that sort of play style; I personally expect that the people I game with are going to be ok with not always being the MVP.


Of course, I didn't play a lot of games where the difference in power between player characters was huge.In that case, your experiences are hardly relevant since many of the people who are disagreeing with you do regularily play in groups with a wide disparity in power.


He should've at least had you eaten by a grue./nod

Thane of Fife
2008-11-06, 08:49 PM
He should've at least had you eaten by a grue.

Death by falling due to darkness is perfectly acceptable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO4GnDRFVyE&feature=related).

Starbuck_II
2008-11-06, 09:05 PM
Example: Take OotS. Vaarsuvius has been called the strongest member in the Order before. It seems quite possible that if V was fighting this Thieves' Guild, s/he would have much less trouble getting past them somehow than Haley. But that doesn't matter at all, because it is not V who is in this situation. It is not her/his part of the story. It's Haley's. How does it matter that V is more powerful than Haley, if this part of the story is nonetheless entirely in Haley's hands?


Dude, she is a evocation specialist who bans Conjuration! She isn't the strongest member.
People assume wizard=strongest because we have seen strong wizards, but few (are there any?) of them Evocation specialist banning Conj.

Heck, I bet Haley could take V if she wanted (good touch AC, evasion, and good attack bonus).
V isn't a Conjurer: she can't Scry and die (can't teleport). She has few illusions cast (never see Displacement cast).
Has a Evocation based Evard's Black tentacles spell (good use of researching).

V is in fact a poor wizard. Being a wizard makes her powerful: lots of options, but still not a great one.

Durkon could if chose the right spells take down V easily.
Haley could as I mentioned.
Belkar could (if he wasn't sick).
Elan could even if he wanted.

A CW Samurai could kill her! Yes, I went there.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-06, 10:11 PM
On the power of OotS:
The whole Order is pretty underpowered, optimization-wise. Roy is a straight fighter at a level where he should have PrCed loooong ago. Haley is a bow-using rogue, which means she has much fewer opportunities for sneak attack than a TWF one. Belkar's build is a joke, it works only because of plot powers and/or stupidly high stats. Elan used to be useless, is much better now, but as almost everyone knows, just adding a stat to damage does not suddenly turn a weak build into a super-hot one. V is a blaster wizard, let's leave it at that. Durkon doesn't CoDzilla unless the situation goes dire - if you ask me, his player (if the OotS had players) is actually the most experienced when it comes to optimization, but decides not to steal the spotlight because everyone else is rather inexperienced in that regard.



In that case, your experiences are hardly relevant since many of the people who are disagreeing with you do regularily play in groups with a wide disparity in power.


1. As creatures that possess the ability of abstract thinking, humans are able to draw wisdom not only from their own experience, but also the stories of others and theory. Keep that in mind.
2. The quantity of experiences does not translate to quality. Those few sessions I played where group members varied significantly in power were enough for me to notice the flaws that don't make such games enjoyable for me.
3. Why aren't you saying the same thing to the other side of the argument, I wonder? I don't think if someone saying that sessions where everyone always has the same level have more appeal for less mature players actually took part in many such sessions.

Jayabalard
2008-11-06, 11:40 PM
1. As creatures that possess the ability of abstract thinking, humans are able to draw wisdom not only from their own experience, but also the stories of others and theory. Keep that in mind.They're also able to draw false conclusions from other people experiences. This doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that you're talking about a play style very little experience with, so any anecdotal evidence that you're going to bring forth is not as relevant as someone who is speaking from experience. Hence your experiences are hardly relevant to the argument.

2. The quantity of experiences does not translate to quality. Those few sessions I played where group members varied significantly in power were enough for me to notice the flaws that don't make such games enjoyable for me.I'm not sure what your point is here; the fact that you've made a snap judgment with very little experience is exactly why I said what I said.

3. Why aren't you saying the same thing to the other side of the argument, I wonder? Because what I said doesn't apply to them.

I don't think if someone saying that sessions where everyone always has the same level have more appeal for less mature players actually took part in many such sessions.That's not actually what's being argued by the other side; the argument is that people of low maturity levels prefer equal power games over non-equal power games. Your seem to be under the impression that they're arguing the converse, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Winterwind
2008-11-07, 05:21 AM
Dude, she is a evocation specialist who bans Conjuration! She isn't the strongest member.
People assume wizard=strongest because we have seen strong wizards, but few (are there any?) of them Evocation specialist banning Conj.You realize I was referencing a statement made in the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html) itself, right?

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 05:54 AM
Example: Take OotS. Vaarsuvius has been called the strongest member in the Order before. It seems quite possible that if V was fighting this Thieves' Guild, s/he would have much less trouble getting past them somehow than Haley. But that doesn't matter at all, because it is not V who is in this situation. It is not her/his part of the story. It's Haley's. How does it matter that V is more powerful than Haley, if this part of the story is nonetheless entirely in Haley's hands?
OotS is a hideous example of how to run a game; An extended party split is pretty much the worst thing you can do in an actual tabletop game. I would not reference "Well, X's power doesn't matter because of the party split" because the party split fundamentally hurts a game, on a level at least near that of an overshadowing character.


That's not actually what's being argued by the other side; the argument is that people of low maturity levels prefer equal power games over non-equal power games. Your seem to be under the impression that they're arguing the converse, which doesn't appear to be the case.

E-hem. That was in fact the case, based on Kurald's words. The post was sorta dripping with pretentiousness.


Doesn't really make much difference. There are going to be times when your character isn't going to be able to significantly alter the game world, and there are going to be many more times where another character, through luck or skill or happenstance, is at this moment more important than you. How gracefully or obnoxiously a player deals with that is a big factor in how much fun they are to have at the table.

Depends on the sort of skill. Luck or Happenstance most people will understand, as there's simply no sort of control for that. The skill, I've got an exalted game where most of the players are being overshadowed in awesome factor; But it's not because of the small amount of exp he's been given because of it (We vote on who gets bonus exp based on who we thought did best, and he rather consistently does so). We're overshadowed in coolness factor because this player is legitimately stunting better, and being more awesome, and we're pretty okay with that. Not because the ST is favoring him, or because he optimized better, or because our characters, mechanically, suck compared to his. If it's because "I know the system better then you so I can create a character that can run circles around yours mechanically", then I imagine We would Not Be Amused. You began discussing, predominantly, people being overshadowed by default, rather anything remotely similar to "The player is having better ideas", and have since taken the context to that to make those who disagree with you appear petty; I would appreciate that you acknowledge the original context you made your statement in, rather then shifting it to others to make us look bad.

Ethdred
2008-11-07, 06:44 AM
Id enough people call pigs ferrets, pigs will start to get called ferrets. I've seen many other people use Gygaxian in the same meaning as I do, and since it doesn't have any other meaning in regards to playing style, I guess that this use will only get more common.

Actually, Gygaxian is used by many other people, and I have never seen it used with the meaning you ascribe to it - it's used to refer to aspects of older editions of D&D which have now generally fallen out of favour with designers. So I reckon the chances of your meaning catching on are minimal. Besides, the style of playing you describe has nothing to do with Gygax himself, so I can't see why you've chosen to use this word. It's like describing the Sex Pistols as Mozartian.


1. As creatures that possess the ability of abstract thinking, humans are able to draw wisdom not only from their own experience, but also the stories of others and theory. Keep that in mind.

Very true, but since you refered only to your own experiences ("I've never seen" "I've only played") this point is irrelevant. It is quite possible to have a game (or even just a combat) with players of different levels where the lower levels are not overshadowed into insignificance. In fact, in the games I DM, any player trying to do it all him/herself would quickly get pounded.

Winterwind
2008-11-07, 06:45 AM
OotS is a hideous example of how to run a game; An extended party split is pretty much the worst thing you can do in an actual tabletop game. I would not reference "Well, X's power doesn't matter because of the party split" because the party split fundamentally hurts a game, on a level at least near that of an overshadowing character.As I said before, this is in complete disagreement with all of my roleplaying experience. We spend more time split up than not, and we do not find it hurts our game; contrariwise, it gives plenty of opportunity to do things and tell stories that would not be possible otherwise.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-07, 06:54 AM
From my experience, splitting the party works well in PbP, but slows the game down to a crawling pace in a normal game or PBCH. Unless you're a two-headed mutant who can talk to both groups simultaneously.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 07:03 AM
As I said before, this is in complete disagreement with all of my roleplaying experience. We spend more time split up than not, and we do not find it hurts our game; contrariwise, it gives plenty of opportunity to do things and tell stories that would not be possible otherwise.

Do you Play by Email, or by Post? Because at an actual tabletop.. well, let's just say folks are limited by their ability to not do 80 different things at once.

Winterwind
2008-11-07, 07:08 AM
From my experience, splitting the party works well in PbP, but slows the game down to a crawling pace in a normal game or PBCH. Unless you're a two-headed mutant who can talk to both groups simultaneously.
Do you Play by Email, or by Post? Because at an actual tabletop.. well, let's just say folks are limited by their ability to not do 80 different things at once.We never play PbP, PbE or PBCH (if my guess that this stands for Play By Chat is correct); it does not slow down the game too much though in my experience, maybe this would be different in a super-rules-heavy system with vastly more combat than in our games, I wouldn't know that. The only important thing to remember is to switch between players often enough. Nobody said anything about doing multiple things at once, nor is it required.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 07:38 AM
If you're playing DnD, I doubt I'm playing more rules-heavy or combat based games. That aside though, multi-session spanning party splits don'ts trike me as something that's going to be solved just by "switching often".

Notwithstanding that I'd see dissatisfaction anyway; There was something of a point in arranging our schedules so that we have congruent times, after all.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-07, 07:43 AM
We spend more time split up than not, and we do not find it hurts our game; contrariwise, it gives plenty of opportunity to do things and tell stories that would not be possible otherwise.

I completely agree to that. And no, I'm not talking about play-by-forum or e-mail either. I find this the best way to deal with a five- or six-player group. While the GM is talking to "split 1", the people in "split 2" (and "split 3", at times) discuss recent events or plans in character. And vice versa. All it takes is for the players to realize that they don't need the GM's attention in order to roleplay.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 07:53 AM
I completely agree to that. And no, I'm not talking about play-by-forum or e-mail either. I find this the best way to deal with a five- or six-player group. While the GM is talking to "split 1", the people in "split 2" (and "split 3", at times) discuss recent events or plans in character. And vice versa. All it takes is for the players to realize that they don't need the GM's attention in order to roleplay.

One may not need the GM's attention to roleplay, but one begins to question the purpose of coming in a group if only 2 of us are paying attention to particular events. There's not a lot to be done about the fact that attention is a limited resource.

Winterwind
2008-11-07, 07:56 AM
If you're playing DnD, I doubt I'm playing more rules-heavy or combat based games.No, we are not, and from what I hear D&D is far more rules- and combat-heavy than any game we played (I mean, I consider ShadowRun to be generally a bit too rules-heavy for my taste, and I have seen people use it as example for a rules-light system on these boards!).
Which is not to say I think it wouldn't work with D&D also.


That aside though, multi-session spanning party splits don'ts trike me as something that's going to be solved just by "switching often".

Notwithstanding that I'd see dissatisfaction anyway; There was something of a point in arranging our schedules so that we have congruent times, after all.First of all, I must protest to the usage of the term "solve", as if party splits were a problem somehow that required being solved (I do not particularly like the term "party" either, for it implies a relationship between the characters which may or may not be there at the time present; the characters might only be starting to trust each other, might not have met each other yet, or could, even, belong to completely different factions).

When you are all together, do you not make the declarations of your actions one by one anyway? I assume you are not forcing your DM to make out what each of you wants to do out of a noise of four people talking at the same time. In that case, what difference does it make if everyone gets ten seconds to declare what s/he does, and then the next player describes her/his actions, or if everyone gets five minutes in a row? The total time everyone spends playing is equal either way, except with the latter approach more complex and more personal stories can be told, and the players have far more freedom to do their own thing. And when they are together, of course, it's back to high frequency change.

And of course congruent times are important. After all, all the individual storylines intertwine, add up into one massive and complex story, and there are, of course, long periods of time when some or all players travel together, too.

Just for the record: I always ask the players for how we could improve the game after each session. The thing I hear the most often is that they would like more personal time, apart from the group, to follow through with their personal life and plans.

EDIT:

I completely agree to that. And no, I'm not talking about play-by-forum or e-mail either. I find this the best way to deal with a five- or six-player group. While the GM is talking to "split 1", the people in "split 2" (and "split 3", at times) discuss recent events or plans in character. And vice versa. All it takes is for the players to realize that they don't need the GM's attention in order to roleplay.Yes, that's what we do as well.

Saph
2008-11-07, 08:37 AM
You began discussing, predominantly, people being overshadowed by default, rather anything remotely similar to "The player is having better ideas"

My original context was - as I've said already - starting a level or two below everyone else, not being 'overshadowed by default'.

- Saph

Kurald Galain
2008-11-07, 08:43 AM
One may not need the GM's attention to roleplay, but one begins to question the purpose of coming in a group if only 2 of us are paying attention to particular events. There's not a lot to be done about the fact that attention is a limited resource.

Yes, you are obviously correct (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys) that Winterwind and I can't ever have been enjoying the game since we're not playing it in the One True Fashion. We will surely do our best to rectify this in the future.

Ethdred
2008-11-07, 10:03 AM
Yes, you are obviously correct (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys) that Winterwind and I can't ever have been enjoying the game since we're not playing it in the One True Fashion. We will surely do our best to rectify this in the future.

A bit of a snarky comeback. Has it not occured to you two that you are doing it very differently from how most people do? And that coming into conversations on this forum is a bit like over-hearing the synchronised swimming team discussing their problems and trying to offer them help based on the experiences of your hand-gliding group. I'm not saying either way is better (in fact your way sounds like it would be great fun with the right people) but you've got to expect a great degree of mis-understanding and non-comprehension unless you are very clear where you're coming from right from the get go.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-07, 10:07 AM
Has it not occured to you two that you are doing it very differently from how most people do?
Do you have any statistics to back that claim up with?


And that coming into conversations on this forum is a bit like over-hearing the synchronised swimming team discussing their problems and trying to offer them help based on the experiences of your hand-gliding group.
Considering that you're coming into this conversation now, that's quite ironic for you to point out :smallbiggrin:

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 10:20 AM
Yes, you are obviously correct (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys) that Winterwind and I can't ever have been enjoying the game since we're not playing it in the One True Fashion. We will surely do our best to rectify this in the future.

Wow. You're the one with the pretentious posts and I'm the Stop Having Fun Guy. Have you ever noticed that your posts carry a condescending tone? You behaved as though I couldn't possibly have fun without the GM's attention; You've stated that people who care about being overshadowed are immature. Are you going to stop behaving like everyone who disagrees with you is a /complete/ idiot? I've at least extended the courtesy of assuming that I am, in fact, not more intellectually developed then those I'm disagreeing with.

Raum
2008-11-07, 10:40 AM
The discussion is interesting - when it stays on subject. :)


Has it not occured to you two that you are doing it very differently from how most people do? Outside of the D&D world, I'm not sure they are the exception. If you limit your sampling to D&D players you're probably correct.


And that coming into conversations on this forum is a bit like over-hearing the synchronised swimming team discussing their problems and trying to offer them help based on the experiences of your hand-gliding group. I'm not saying either way is better (in fact your way sounds like it would be great fun with the right people) but you've got to expect a great degree of mis-understanding and non-comprehension unless you are very clear where you're coming from right from the get go.Is it really that foreign? To me it's just experience from playing different RPGs and different styles of play. But they're all RPGs in the end. Over the Edge is very different from D&D when you look at the crunch - but both are RPGs in the end.

---
I have a fairly large collection (having to downsize it due to space issues now :smallannoyed:) of RPGs I've never played and probably never will play. I simply mine them for ideas to use in the three or four systems I do play. Every now and then someone's glowing praise of a system gets me to go buy another. But even when I'm not purchasing the systems I use forums to pull ideas from.

Frankly, I want the ideas and opinions to differ from my own. It'd be a boring discussion if we all agreed! :smallwink:

Fax Celestis
2008-11-07, 10:49 AM
Jesus, you're still at this? Give it a rest! You guys obviously enjoy the game in different fashions than each other--this isn't a bad thing, it just means that, in the unlikely event you ever show up around each other, you probably shouldn't game together.

Ethdred
2008-11-07, 11:06 AM
The discussion is interesting - when it stays on subject. :)

Outside of the D&D world, I'm not sure they are the exception. If you limit your sampling to D&D players you're probably correct.

I was actually talking about the people posting here, where it's fairly obvious that most people are playing and talking about D&D. But I should have made that clear, my apologies.


Is it really that foreign? To me it's just experience from playing different RPGs and different styles of play. But they're all RPGs in the end. Over the Edge is very different from D&D when you look at the crunch - but both are RPGs in the end.

Yes they are that foreign, in the sense I meant it. After all, swimming and hand-gliding are both sports, so the two groups could have fairly helpful discussions about how to get members to pay their subs, or where's a good place to hold a committee meeting, but they wouldn't be much good trying to give advice on the finer points of technique. Equally, these people could probably have interesting and amicable conversations about role-playing, but only if they acknowledge that they do it differently.


I have a fairly large collection (having to downsize it due to space issues now :smallannoyed:) of RPGs I've never played and probably never will play. I simply mine them for ideas to use in the three or four systems I do play. Every now and then someone's glowing praise of a system gets me to go buy another. But even when I'm not purchasing the systems I use forums to pull ideas from.

Frankly, I want the ideas and opinions to differ from my own. It'd be a boring discussion if we all agreed! :smallwink:

Oh yeah, absolutely no problem with different ideas and opinions - I was finding this whole thread very interesting, because of the different ways people do things. But if people don't realise that they're doing things differently then they start to get annoyed about the idiocy of the other side, which is what I thought I saw starting to happen here.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-07, 11:13 AM
A thousand pardons, I somehow missed this post.


First of all, I must protest to the usage of the term "solve", as if party splits were a problem somehow that required being solved (I do not particularly like the term "party" either, for it implies a relationship between the characters which may or may not be there at the time present; the characters might only be starting to trust each other, might not have met each other yet, or could, even, belong to completely different factions).
Party just means "Everyone there", as far as I'm concerned. I do assume some level of cohesion, but only because I simply don't run into characters working against the others interests who aren't doing so for thoroughly game-related reasons. What I meant by "Solve" wasn't so much the party split itself, but the fact that a GM only has 1 head, 2 hands, and so much thinking capacity to split between tasks.


When you are all together, do you not make the declarations of your actions one by one anyway? I assume you are not forcing your DM to make out what each of you wants to do out of a noise of four people talking at the same time. In that case, what difference does it make if everyone gets ten seconds to declare what s/he does, and then the next player describes her/his actions, or if everyone gets five minutes in a row? The total time everyone spends playing is equal either way, except with the latter approach more complex and more personal stories can be told, and the players have far more freedom to do their own thing. And when they are together, of course, it's back to high frequency change.
Eh heh. Maybe it's just me, but keeping track of 2 or 3 sets of /everything/ (NPCs, stages, plotlines) is difficult when done at the speed of speech, and not merely the GM's 'burden', but something the whole group would need to be doing. It'd be easy if we did it in the 'sitcom' sense (That is, utter focus on one, then the next, then the next), but that comes back to boredom and time issues (Less would get done)


And of course congruent times are important. After all, all the individual storylines intertwine, add up into one massive and complex story, and there are, of course, long periods of time when some or all players travel together, too.
I'm not convinced, really. I've got a good bunch of folks to play with, but I still doubt it'd go over well. I know I'd be a bit miffed at setting aside time then getting less to do.


Just for the record: I always ask the players for how we could improve the game after each session. The thing I hear the most often is that they would like more personal time, apart from the group, to follow through with their personal life and plans.
I can legitimately say I've never heard that request. Time alone is generally time for an interlude, which we may watch, or may not, but isn't done during session time.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-07, 11:28 AM
Yes, you are obviously correct (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys) that Winterwind and I can't ever have been enjoying the game since we're not playing it in the One True Fashion. We will surely do our best to rectify this in the future.

I must say, these words are truly delicious, coming from someone who said that playing the game the way he doesn't is immature.

But yeah, I'll listen to Fax and give this a break for now. I said everything I wanted in this thread.

Raum
2008-11-07, 11:37 AM
I was actually talking about the people posting here, where it's fairly obvious that most people are playing and talking about D&D. But I should have made that clear, my apologies. There's been at least one statement in this thread that the poster wasn't playing D&D. There have also been several comparisons to skill based systems and how the importance of XP differs when levels aren't involved. I'll add that I haven't played D&D since January. Mind, that was less an intentional decision and more the way things worked out.


Yes they are that foreign, in the sense I meant it. After all, swimming and hand-gliding are both sports, so the two groups could have fairly helpful discussions about how to get members to pay their subs, or where's a good place to hold a committee meeting, but they wouldn't be much good trying to give advice on the finer points of technique. Equally, these people could probably have interesting and amicable conversations about role-playing, but only if they acknowledge that they do it differently.They're different, yes. I guess I view more like American Football vs Rugby. While there are differences (many) - players and audiences can enjoy both once they account for the different rules and styles of play.

Neon Knight
2008-11-07, 12:00 PM
Earlier, more verbose post got eaten. Short summary:

Winterwind/Kurald Galain's way different, but not wrong or Not Fun. Firmly believe that most DnD groups (and most RPGs like DnD) do things differently, however.

Hzurr
2008-11-07, 03:08 PM
From my experience, splitting the party works well in PbP, but slows the game down to a crawling pace in a normal game or PBCH. Unless you're a two-headed mutant who can talk to both groups simultaneously.

Or if you're Wolverine, and are simultaniously in all groups at once, spread out across 3 books, plus your own solo book.

Winterwind
2008-11-07, 04:21 PM
A bit of a snarky comeback. Has it not occured to you two that you are doing it very differently from how most people do? And that coming into conversations on this forum is a bit like over-hearing the synchronised swimming team discussing their problems and trying to offer them help based on the experiences of your hand-gliding group. I'm not saying either way is better (in fact your way sounds like it would be great fun with the right people) but you've got to expect a great degree of mis-understanding and non-comprehension unless you are very clear where you're coming from right from the get go.I am not sure if it's different than what most people do - I have played with quite a few gamemasters, and I would have yet to find a group which did it different from ours - including the gamemasters I played with only at conventions, and amongst those even including the solitary D&D DM (D&D is somewhat less popular over here). Still, quite possible you are right.
Either way, I fully agree with you, Fax and whoever else has spoken in this fashion that this is not a matter of quality, but a matter of preference and style. However, for me, this does not mean the discussion is worthless and should be abandoned at all! To abuse your metaphor, while the different swimmers may not be able to apply the tips the other group might offer them, they can still be interested in hearing what the differences are, in what other ways it can be done, and maybe gain some insightful knowledge that can be used when people discuss swimming again the next time.
Or, in short, I do not intend to convince people of the superiority of my approach (even though I do think that pointing out it can be done in a different fashion, and it can work, could be useful to some), my actual goal is about the same as it is for every discussion - gain some insight into the preferences of others, as it is both interesting in its own right and can help shorten future debates, and might give me some inspiration for how to improve our own games (essentially, by increasing my Sense Motive rank through sufficient training, so that I can apply it to my own players :smallwink:).


Eh heh. Maybe it's just me, but keeping track of 2 or 3 sets of /everything/ (NPCs, stages, plotlines) is difficult when done at the speed of speech, and not merely the GM's 'burden', but something the whole group would need to be doing. It'd be easy if we did it in the 'sitcom' sense (That is, utter focus on one, then the next, then the next), but that comes back to boredom and time issues (Less would get done)I am not sure if I understand this. Why would less get done? And what would the whole group need to be doing?
Yes, in our approach, there are several sets of NPCs, stages and plotlines the gamemaster has to keep in his head at the same time. The gamemaster first speaks to the first player (or players, if some are together), describes the location, and has the players act in that scene for a while (not just a single action, but several minutes of playtime). Then, usually when the scene has reached a logical point to do so (either some important conclusion or an appropriate cliffhanger), the gamemaster switches to the next player(s) and interacts with them, again for several minutes at once, and in such a fashion that all players get roughly the same amount of time. I have never felt this was in any way more difficult for the gamemaster than any other switch from one scene to the next one. The time a player spends not doing anything is somewhat longer than if the whole group is together, but the time the player spends doing things completely on her/his own, with the full spotlight, is equally long; overall, each player has the same amount of playtime as s/he would if the group was together. One covers less in-game time, of course, but in-game time is an abstract thing that slows down and accelerates at the demands of plot anyway, and this allows to cover plot at more locations at once, with several interweaving plotlines.


I'm not convinced, really. I've got a good bunch of folks to play with, but I still doubt it'd go over well. I know I'd be a bit miffed at setting aside time then getting less to do.As said above, would you please elaborate on this? How would you get less to do?


I can legitimately say I've never heard that request. Time alone is generally time for an interlude, which we may watch, or may not, but isn't done during session time.From our perspective, everything that is roleplaying belongs into the session. The personal life can contain some of the most intensive roleplaying of all, not to mention it may open up plotlines that impact the overall plot.