Do people really enjoy close battles?

[Blueiji]

Even years later, rather than telling stories about how they overcame impossible odds due to how awesome they are, they instead tell stories about how horribly they were screwed over and put into unfair situations.

My experience as a DM is very much the opposite of this. For my primary campaign, I run combat which is exclusively meant to be lethally challenging every time, but my players expect this and love it (and are very vocal about that love). The fact that my players so-often talk to me, each-other, and to people outside of our campaign about how difficult-yet-thrilling our campaign’s combats are is both humbling and flattering.

In that vein, I think its a mainly a player-thing. Some people feel empowered by over narrowly coming danger, others feel empowered by utterly trouncing any threats arrayed against them. A person who prefers one form of fantasy-empowerment isn’t necessarily going to enjoy the other, and if they’re not able to be mature about that, it could result in some unpleasant behavior.

Another important component is the player-GM compact. A GM who likes brutal, difficult combat is likely to have problems running encounters for a player that wants to effortlessly dominate their opposition. In this scenario neither party is really wrong, they’re just wrong for each other. Making one party can learn to appreciate the other style, or maybe a compromise can be reached, or maybe they just won’t work together.

The best advice I can give is to find out what your players really want, decide if you can deliver that while still having fun as the DM, and then decide what to do from there.

Also—I’d like to make it clear that I don’t believe everyone falls into one of two categories when it comes to this stuff. I’m just using extremes to illustrate a point. People can like multiple things, in multiple ways.

[Xervous]

Edit: You may hate the term, but "Mother May I" is accurate to describe a game where the player has no idea what his character can do unless the DM says he can. It is the DM's job to adjudicate situations and "make things up" when the rules don't explicitly cover them. The problem is where the line should be drawn between where the rules explicitly cover the situation and the DM takes it from there. It is the game designers' job to make those rules so the DM doesn't have to. That's why the game was bought.

What’s the DC to climb a tree?

[Cluedrew]

Anyway… I *think* (darn senility) that the points I was trying to make were… that I want intelligent action - whether "outside the box" or "choosing the right button to press / tool to use" - to be able to drastically change the outcome of a conflict far, *far* more than I want a conflict to feel tense/close, and that,

Oh yeah that.

As for "buttons" (still don't like that term), that is turning out to be a topic worthy of its own thread, but I have one last suggestion: Are you sure it actually has become more prevalent and not just you played with less other people in the early days?

The reason levels exist is to divide the playspace into parts, so that you can exclude things that don't fit with your vision of the game. It's not perfect,

I'd say the biggest problem with most level systems as a play-space divider is that they tend to force you to move from one play-space you enjoy to one you might not after a certain amount of time. Part of the reason I say "power level" and not just level.

You may hate the term, but "Mother May I" is accurate to describe a game where the player has no idea what his character can do unless the DM says he can.

What are you talking about? I have run a role-playing game for some of my cousins I never game with family and I certainly have never played a game GMed by my mother.

How about just "may I"?

[RandomPeasant]

I'd say the biggest problem with most level systems as a play-space divider is that they tend to force you to move from one play-space you enjoy to one you might not after a certain amount of time. Part of the reason I say "power level" and not just level.

That's a problem with per-encounter XP, not leveling. There's absolutely no reason that completing enough 7th level encounters (or adventures) should force you to start playing 8th level ones, and the fact that D&D has traditionally been set up that way is one of the great flaws of the game. Characters should progress at the pace that is appropriate to the story they are in. In some stories, that progression will be very fast (like Cradle, where the protagonist goes from a nobody by the standards of a backwater to a prodigy on the global scale over the course of a few books). In other stories, that progression will be essentially nonexistent (like Conan, who remains at pretty much the same level of barbarian adventurer in all the Conan stories).

[Vahnavoi]

I don't recognize the actual Mother May I game from the derogatory use of that phrase.

Let me elaborate:

In basic Mother May I, as in the actual children's game, you are trying to reach the "Mother" and take their place. You approach this task by suggesting an action, "Mother may I take five small steps?" and the Mother either approves of this ("Yes") or suggests an alternate action ("No, but you may take four steps"). If the Mother deems you to violate terms of the allowed action, you are send back to starting square.

The point is to get one over the Mother, either with careful wording of your suggestions or clever interpretations of the Mother's suggestions.

If you think about this for longer than one second, it's basic information transfer protocol. You can use it to play any game with a role analogous to the Mother, which includes all tabletop roleplaying games with a game master. In fact it's the common sense way to play such game if you don't know the rules. Whether the game has rules you could know is irrelevant. You can play entirely functional games of D&D, for one example, in this format, without ever looking at your own character sheet.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why is referrencing to a somewhat popular children's game a bad thing?

Tone used when invoking that style.

But I don't want to encourage players to go outside the rules. I want versimilitude and will always judge (outside of rule) situations as fairly and seemingly realistically as i can. Also combat using weapons specifically make to harm enemies to the best the technology allows used by people trained in using them is really hard to beat with improvised alternatives. If it wasn't, armies would have switched to the alternatives long ago.

True enough.

That's why the game was bought.

The people who invented RPGs do not agree with that statement. The game not being limited by its rule set was one of the great innovations that RPGs brought to gaming when they first showed up.

[Pex]

The people who invented RPGs do not agree with that statement. The game not being limited by its rule set was one of the great innovations that RPGs brought to gaming when they first showed up.

If you never use the rules that exist there's no point to getting the game. The point remains. You play with the published rules. Adjudicate what the rules don't cover. The issue is what things the rules cover and what things they don't.

[Calthropstu]

If you never use the rules that exist there's no point to getting the game. The point remains. You play with the published rules. Adjudicate what the rules don't cover. The issue is what things the rules cover and what things they don't.

Ok everyone. We're playing boffering heroes. It's using the (game) rulset but instead of rolling (dige) we're rolling ( other dice) and all damage dealt by (characters) is now using non-lethal because heroes don't kill. In addition, all immunities are hereby cancelled. No one normal is immune to (damage types) because it nerfs lots of character builds. Also, stats will no longer be targettable. And there are no deaths for players. You simply pass out.

Any questions?

Yeah, people do stuff like that all the time.

[Pex]

Ok everyone. We're playing boffering heroes. It's using the (game) rulset but instead of rolling (dige) we're rolling ( other dice) and all damage dealt by (characters) is now using non-lethal because heroes don't kill. In addition, all immunities are hereby cancelled. No one normal is immune to (damage types) because it nerfs lots of character builds. Also, stats will no longer be targettable. And there are no deaths for players. You simply pass out.

Any questions?

Yeah, people do stuff like that all the time.

I have a question. I thought we were playing Boffering Heroes. Why aren't we?

[KorvinStarmast]

If you never use the rules

That is not what I wrote. Not limited by the rules does not mean "never use the rules." Please don't misrepresent what I wrote up there by doing what you just did.

[Witty Username]

My people tend to enjoy dramatic battles.
Closeness isn't really what gets em so much as highlight moments. One fight, Paladin takes of the opponents hand at the wrist, with a hammer. Cool. Other fight the warlock takes almost double his HP in damage a barely clings to life long enough to be healed. Player was excited. Entire party turns into T-rexes and bumb rushes the next room blind, priceless.

Close battles do tend to have more highlight moments but the moments are the draw. I like throwing the absurd at my party and seeing them win. Are the battles close, sometimes, it depends on the dice.

[Pex]

That is not what I wrote. Not limited by the rules does not mean "never use the rules." Please don't misrepresent what I wrote up there by doing what you just did.

Fair enough, but your point takes nothing from my point. You buy the game to use those rules. Not being limited is the adjudication I was talking about. I admit that exists and never denied that. My point was the issue is about where the line is drawn to what the rules cover and what the DM needs to make up. At some point what the DM needs to make up is large enough for a person to criticize the game or a specific part of the game as "Mother May I".

[KorvinStarmast]

. My point was the issue is about where the line is drawn

Indeed, that's one of those table by table things where people have to establish a trust relationship. We can't all rely on having a genius for a DM. As you and I have both learned through experience, if a DM won't grow and build a trust relationship with their players, walking is the only option that keeps us from being frustrated at the table.

The trust relationship is crucial. No rule can aid or abet it; it's a people thing.

FWIW, there is some interesting stuff in the recent movie about Blackmoor on how freaking bright Arneson was; but before he was an RPG referee/judge/DM he was an experienced miniatures game referee for about three years before he began the Blackmoor campaign). One of the points that keeps coming up from the experiences of that Proto RPG group from the Twin Cities is "Very few people are good at being referee, most just want to play." Sound Familiar?

That's where the issue has its roots.
How do you become a good DM/GM/Referee?
You try to do it and you find out how to do it by doing it.
Players having an adversarial relationship with their DM are already doomed.
Players who want to whack the Referee/GM over the head with the rule book are dooming themselves in so doing.

[Quertus]

I've likely said this before, but I'll say it again: one of the biggest advantages of an RPG over a war game or a computer game is the ability to go "outside the box".

Personally, I prefer systems that are sufficiently well designed, and characters that are sufficiently competent, that the entire game could be successfully played "inside the box", ***and*** GMs who are skilled enough that the entire game could be successfully played "outside the box".

As a corollary to that, I want to play characters with enough buttons to play the game entirely through pushing buttons *if that's the mood I'm in*. And, as a corollary to *that*, when it comes to things that are "important", I'm almost always in the mood to push buttons.

@Cluedrew: no, I am not *certain* that fewer people think outside the character sheet these days. But it feels that way, and others have reported observing a similar trend, as well. So, it seems like reasonable evidence.

What I *can* say, though, is that you've got things backwards - I played with *more* people decades ago than in the past decade.

@Satinavian - no, with the aforementioned caveats, flour is a win button against invisibility - it just works, no "opposed caster level checks" or other silly "maybe" checks required.

What I have had problems with is GMs questioning the *dispersion* of the flour. Your proposed experiment… while I might quibble over a few of the specifics for simulation value, I must admit, it sounds like you a) get the concept, and b) would be fun to test game theory with! Kudos!

[Cluedrew]

That's a problem with per-encounter XP, not leveling. There's absolutely no reason that completing enough 7th level encounters (or adventures) should force you to start playing 8th level ones,

I said most for a reason because yes there could be a system where you never have to level up but I've never seen one. Still I don't think its actually the per-encounter XP (character points) so much as the fact you have to spend them and/or there is only one thing to spend XP on: the level up.

@Satinavian - no, with the aforementioned caveats, flour is a win button against invisibility - it just works, no "opposed caster level checks" or other silly "maybe" checks required.

GM: "You what?"
Player 1: "I though flour on the assassin. So I can see them."
GM: "How?"
Player 2: "Wait, we know where the assassin is?"
Player 1: "I throw flour around the entire room."
GM: "But does the flour actually help."
Player 3: "I've read about this on old forums."
GM: "But how does it work?"
Player 4: "I cast counter spell."

[RandomPeasant]

The trust relationship is crucial. No rule can aid or abet it; it's a people thing.

I disagree with that. Rules by their nature build trust, or at least reduce mistrust. Certainly trust cannot be maintained by rules alone, as it is often needed precisely when the game steps outside the established rules, but the ability to say "no, I didn't make that up just to screw you guys over" is a valuable tool for preserving trust. I mean, just think about a related case: would you be more willing to gamble $20 on a hand of poker with someone, or a hand of a game he's made up and hasn't told you the rules to?

@Satinavian - no, with the aforementioned caveats, flour is a win button against invisibility - it just works, no "opposed caster level checks" or other silly "maybe" checks required.

Flour is a win button against a specific model of invisibility in specific circumstances. It's of only limited utility to you if invisibility makes stuff invisible as it comes into contact with the invisible character. It does very little if you don't know at least the general area where the invisible character is, or if you can't throw flour there. D&D at least has a few variations on "invisibility, but better" that counter specific counters to invisibility. It does nothing to a version of invisibility that solves the "how do you see while invisible" question by using a anti-memetic model of invisibility. Like any interaction, the interaction between flour and invisibility depends on the specific semantics of the setting/narrative/magic system, whether those semantics are captured by explicit rules or determined dynamically by the table.

I said most for a reason because yes there could be a system where you never have to level up but I've never seen one. Still I don't think its actually the per-encounter XP (character points) so much as the fact you have to spend them and/or there is only one thing to spend XP on: the level up.

E6 basically works that way. At the farther end of ruleslite games you get to systems where "leveling up" doesn't really make sense as a concept. But even outside those things, I think it's bad practice to treat a contingent design decision as fundamental just because no one has implemented the alternative.

[Ben Cummings]

I find with my players that they tend to enjoy either rough encounters that they pull through the skin of their teeth, or combats that they dominate through their planning. If they roll a room of goblin-skinned stat blocks that they blundered into without taking a scratch, it's generally not particularly thrilling or memorable. And if that's the case, I've failed as a DM.

How do I prevent this? I cheat like hell. I may create adventure hooks that nobody bites, or puzzles that are way less clever than I think they are, but I can always create tension by fudging things a bit. If combat is going too smoothly, say your goblin crit the paladin, even if it rolled a 5; throw a few more hit points on that monster so it survives one more round; some bad guys hear the fight and show up as reinforcements; bump that wizard's level, the players don't know what spells he memorized this morning. On the flip side, say the monster missed even when it crit so that paladin lasts one more round; shave some hit points off that dragon so that last standing hero can finish it off dramatically. This does take some skill. The PCs can easily see what's going on if that girallon suddenly can't hit the paladin crawling away from it with its 5 attacks. Mostly, I try not TPK my party unless they are being really, REALLY, dumb/stubborn.

And don't forget to let your players feel like the heroes. If they come up with a moderately clever plan, roll with it. If every encounter feels just as tense and down to the wire no matter how much plotting the players engage in, that's almost as bad as every encounter lacking tension. Even if you are fudging the numbers in the background, the players should always feel like the center of attention and like their decisions matter.

[Kardwill]

I said most for a reason because yes there could be a system where you never have to level up but I've never seen one.

I've seen games without "level up" rules.
Most of them are of course games designed for one-shots (like some horror RPGs, or many storygames) where the long term evolution of a caracter is unimportant, since that caracter will usually not be played after that game.

But there are also games with evolution, but no power-ups. Since I'm a Fate-monkey, the ones I'm most familiar with are some older Fate 3 games, like Spirit of the Century. In those, you already start with a powerful character with maxed-out stats and powers, and over the course of the campaign, you will switch some of those to aknowledge your character's evolution :
- You will switch a skill with another (So your plucky farmboy will decrease their "fighter pilot" and "gunslinger" skills so they can increase their "mystical knight" and "magic glowy sword" skills),
- you will replace some stunts/feats with others ("Okay, since we're moving away from my home, I'll axe my "Contact : navy academy" stunt to take "telekynesis"),
- you will change your aspects ("Plucky farmboy" and "I'll get to the academy!" --> "Space Wizard apprentice" and "The Dark Enforcer is my father").
Your power level mostly won't go "up", but move around.

And there are also games with "horizontal" evolution, where your power level don't get higher but broader : The powers you have at character creation are already as good as they'll ever be, but you gain more of them over the course of the campaign, so you have a bigger "toolbox" to solve problems. I'm not super familiar with those, but I've heard of a few of them.

Of course, the great majority of "classical" RPGs have power-up rules, and most players expect them (and like them). But they're not in every game.

And yes, I agree "power-up" can be a problem. Short-term, there is a real pleasure in seing your caracter getting over problems that looked impossible before, and that avoids a character getting stale. But long term, that means that many games will drift away from the players' and GM's confort zone, and it will feel like a completely different kind of story/universe. And many evolution rules are written "because a RPG needs experience", but not well thought out (I'm looking at you, Fate Accelerated)

[King of Nowhere]

Speaking for myself, I can say that battles lacking suspence, lacking risk, are boring. At best, they can be justified if the party took extensive preparations to tip the scale in their favor

[Talakeal]

I've seen games without "level up" rules.
Most of them are of course games designed for one-shots (like some horror RPGs, or many storygames) where the long term evolution of a caracter is unimportant, since that caracter will usually not be played after that game.

But there are also games with evolution, but no power-ups. Since I'm a Fate-monkey, the ones I'm most familiar with are some older Fate 3 games, like Spirit of the Century. In those, you already start with a powerful character with maxed-out stats and powers, and over the course of the campaign, you will switch some of those to aknowledge your character's evolution :
- You will switch a skill with another (So your plucky farmboy will decrease their "fighter pilot" and "gunslinger" skills so they can increase their "mystical knight" and "magic glowy sword" skills),
- you will replace some stunts/feats with others ("Okay, since we're moving away from my home, I'll axe my "Contact : navy academy" stunt to take "telekynesis"),
- you will change your aspects ("Plucky farmboy" and "I'll get to the academy!" --> "Space Wizard apprentice" and "The Dark Enforcer is my father").
Your power level mostly won't go "up", but move around.

And there are also games with "horizontal" evolution, where your power level don't get higher but broader : The powers you have at character creation are already as good as they'll ever be, but you gain more of them over the course of the campaign, so you have a bigger "toolbox" to solve problems. I'm not super familiar with those, but I've heard of a few of them.

Of course, the great majority of "classical" RPGs have power-up rules, and most players expect them (and like them). But they're not in every game.

And yes, I agree "power-up" can be a problem. Short-term, there is a real pleasure in seing your caracter getting over problems that looked impossible before, and that avoids a character getting stale. But long term, that means that many games will drift away from the players' and GM's confort zone, and it will feel like a completely different kind of story/universe. And many evolution rules are written "because a RPG needs experience", but not well thought out (I'm looking at you, Fate Accelerated)

I find that a lot of great games fall apart once you add in advancement.

D&D is certainly the ur-example of this, as the game really only works from about level 3-10, hence the popularity of E6 and the like.

Game design, both on a system level and a scenario building level are so easy to balance if they don't scale, but on the other hand most players need the "carrot" approach that powering up gives them to keep their interest. Very much a double edged sword.

[Calthropstu]

I find that a lot of great games fall apart once you add in advancement.

D&D is certainly the ur-example of this, as the game really only works from about level 3-10, hence the popularity of E6 and the like.

Game design, both on a system level and a scenario building level are so easy to balance if they don't scale, but on the other hand most players need the "carrot" approach that powering up gives them to keep their interest. Very much a double edged sword.

D&D works fine at high levrls. It's just a different game.

[Xervous]

D&D works fine at high levrls. It's just a different game.

Being able to trivially skip the winding road through the forest of probable bandits is absolutely a feature at higher levels, not a bug.

[Talakeal]

Being able to trivially skip the winding road through the forest of probable bandits is absolutely a feature at higher levels, not a bug.

Maybe. But a lot of players might enjoy the idea of beating up those bandits, or being able to contribute to the plot if they can't cast teleport.

[RandomPeasant]

Maybe. But a lot of players might enjoy the idea of beating up those bandits, or being able to contribute to the plot if they can't cast teleport.

I mean, they can still can. teleport doesn't require you to skip the bandits, it just lets you skip them. If, as a group of characters who could make a credible go at regime change in a Hell, what you want to do is beat up on some dudes who hold up caravans for food, you can go do that. And you definitely don't need teleport to contribute to a high level adventure. There's a huge range of things you can do to contribute to a story that is "like A Practical Guide to Evil" or "like The Stormlight Archive" instead of "like Lord of the Rings" or "like Game of Thrones". If you don't want to be able to do any of those things, what you want to do is play a low level game, and that is what low levels are for. There are certainly issues that arise from supporting a wide range of power levels in a single system, but one of the benefits is that people can do the things they want to do without having to eliminate other things.

[Calthropstu]

Maybe. But a lot of players might enjoy the idea of beating up those bandits, or being able to contribute to the plot if they can't cast teleport.

And the option of fighting those bandits exists. But if they aren't your objective... why? "I want to spend hours roflstomping low level bandits who pose no threat to us and have almost no decent loot."

Wizard: I vote we not.

[Cluedrew]

I've seen games without "level up" rules.

I misspoke, I meant I don't know any systems with levels (roughly: a broad description of your character's power in a single encompassing measure that can be directly increased) that don't force you to level up. For instance you cannot decide to stop at level 6 in D&D (without house-rules) and just grow broader instead of going to level 7.

The possible exception I have though of since I wrote that is actually Dungeons: The Dragoning 40K 7th Edition, which tiers its top level purchases in a way that could be considered levels, but it doesn't (to my knowledge) force you to buy higher tiered purchases as time goes on.

On High-Level Play: My concern was not any particular ability, but just that characters tend to drift away from each other in terms of the scope and scale of their abilities, so only some character's get the paradigm shift.

[Kardwill]

I misspoke, I meant I don't know any systems with levels (roughly: a broad description of your character's power in a single encompassing measure that can be directly increased) that don't force you to level up. For instance you cannot decide to stop at level 6 in D&D (without house-rules) and just grow broader instead of going to level 7.

Well, sure. I think the very concept of character level is to encapsulate power-ups in easy-to-swallow chunks. So a game with levels will have power-ups : That's usually why the designer chose to have "levels" in the first place.

That said, I'm not an expert (not into D&D these days, the game is too crunchy and too combat-focused for my taste) but isn't E6 doing exactly what you mentioned (i.e. stopping "power up" at level 6, and allowing more of an "horizontal growth" after that)? I know it's basically an house-rule, but it's established and polished enough that it can be considered its own version/edition of D&D.

[Telok]

I misspoke, I meant I don't know any systems with levels (roughly: a broad description of your character's power in a single encompassing measure that can be directly increased) that don't force you to level up. For instance you cannot decide to stop at level 6 in D&D (without house-rules) and just grow broader instead of going to level 7.

The possible exception I have though of since I wrote that is actually Dungeons: The Dragoning 40K 7th Edition, which tiers its top level purchases in a way that could be considered levels, but it doesn't (to my knowledge) force you to buy higher tiered purchases as time goes on.

Checked. About 40300 xp through books 1&2 before you have to start making spell combos & special attacks to keep spending xp. Although that started with a particular build that begins play with 3s in all stats & 1s in all skills. You might get another 10k xp with a different stating point. Even at the books suggested 600 xp per session that's 67-70 sessions before you have to start thinking about the combos & attacks. And still a level 1 character (although 5s in all skills & 6s in all attributes).

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree with that. Rules by their nature build trust,

That's an overly general statement that borders on wishful thinking rather than fact.
Rules also create loophole diving and cheating. (See any professional sport, in particular soccer and football(American).

What rules most often create are bounds and boundaries. But they are also useful for an attempt at a common understanding. (Though for a board game, or a game like chess, they very much define the game - RPG's broke that mold which is one of the reasons for their appeal).

Put another way, if rules build trust, whey are there so many court cases?

[Talakeal]

I mean, they can still can. teleport doesn't require you to skip the bandits, it just lets you skip them. If, as a group of characters who could make a credible go at regime change in a Hell, what you want to do is beat up on some dudes who hold up caravans for food, you can go do that. And you definitely don't need teleport to contribute to a high level adventure. There's a huge range of things you can do to contribute to a story that is "like A Practical Guide to Evil" or "like The Stormlight Archive" instead of "like Lord of the Rings" or "like Game of Thrones". If you don't want to be able to do any of those things, what you want to do is play a low level game, and that is what low levels are for. There are certainly issues that arise from supporting a wide range of power levels in a single system, but one of the benefits is that people can do the things they want to do without having to eliminate other things.

First, I still take issue that D&D doesn't break at high levels. The discrepancy between the various options in the game drifts further and further apart as levels get higher, literally making for a more "broken" experience by most any metric.

Second, playing a "low level game" requires the GM do some heavy house-ruling to create a low level world. Like, if I want to play a martial character who actually matters, who can topple kingdoms and slay krakens and arch-devils, and who isn't rendered impotent by a mid-level wizard, that isn't an experience any level of D&D can provide without heavy DM investment, but it is absolutely something that the game thinks should be viable.

And the option of fighting those bandits exists. But if they aren't your objective... why? "I want to spend hours roflstomping low level bandits who pose no threat to us and have almost no decent loot."

Wizard: I vote we not.

One common complaint about my games is that I often gloss over stuff that isn't important, when the PCs really want to indulge in the power fantasy portion of the game by blowing off steam and showing off in a consequence free situation.