|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 5, 2016 2:58:22 GMT -5
First, NEVER "water down" the encounter depending on party size. The six trolls on the first level are six trolls, period. If three first level characters encounter them, it will be a slaughter. If three tenth-level characters encounter them, it will be a cakewalk. THIS IS NOT A BUG. THIS IS A FEATURE. Second, the LEAST importan, LEAST interesting thing about any character, including the Fighter, is what dice they throw. Teach your players TACTICS. Tactics are not "mash whichever button finishes cooldown." This darn hobby needs referees who know tactics and enforce the results of poor tactics. The utter failure of most players as tacticians is best shown in a discussion elsewhere where somebody said "So the light armored guy moves faster, so he gets to the heavy armored enemy first and gets slaughtered." To which I replied "If you're stupid enough to throw light troops into the teeth of heavy, you deserve to get handed your ass in a bucket." I agree with you Mike, in principle. If, and its a big IF, the game we each play (D&D) was nothing more, nor less, than all the other throwaway games that are faddish, we rush to own, and play until we are bored then cast them aside looking for the new it. But from my observations, D&D is definitely not that kind of game. Just playing it is an investment of many things other than, simply, time, and opportunity to hang around with some pals and see who ends up owning Boardwalk or Park Place. I assume that some find--and treat--it as just another game. But I would argue that, were that so (and a belief held by the vast majority), I doubt we'd have forums where we all sit around dickering on about it decades after the fact. Though I stated I'd not comment further (and I will not on what I perceive as really straining at the gnat when it comes to all of this HD minutia) I will say this in reaction to both CCC and Gronan. I understand both of your views. Gronan's view I understand. Why? Because "I" understand tactics; CCC's view, yes, I understand that as well. Why? Because it is a game of many/varied instances, depending on the proclivity of the players involved. DMs who cannot infer on their own tactics beyond merely imbedded abstractions of the balance that is proportioned into the rules as "factors" (AC ranges/HP ranges, etc) WILL, however, treat play "as is" with no/some/many consequences, which could range from ambivalence to outrage. Ignorance does have its benefits in this case, which tends to lead at one extreme to changes (and thoughts regarding it where the true worth of those who know tactics can be benefitted from on forums like these, perhaps). If that does not occur then there is no problem with the game as otherwise projected and enjoyed. Gary stated that the game can be one of simplicity or ultimate complexity (in the INTRO), so there you have the ranges he knew would occur. Thus arguing for a true interpretation of how, and under what conditions, the game should be considered enjoyable, or relevant, for anyone is a moot point. It all depends on what they want out of it; but I will note to date that forums do not represent the vast majority of people who play these games, but are only indicative of a minority who enjoy specific ways of playing them.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 5, 2016 10:32:59 GMT -5
Some keen observations, Rob. No arguing that. I wonder, though, how many months, years, decades, it took for (what we typically label classic game as) checkers, chess, cards(poker?), mumbly peg, horseshoes, etc. to evolve/develop? These things didn't (afaik) spring out of the ground to be embraced by millions over night. And in that light, I believe therein lies a significant difference in what I am talking about when the matter approaches D&D as a game, and the others (mentioned). The other difference I enjoy analyzing and discussing is the approach various groups/refs take with the game. Some are hard core, not wishing to deviate the slightest from what is written, while others find themselves being urged to deviate to their heart's desires--again, inspired by what is written. (Actually, the authors instruct the refs to do just this, as you have pointed out numerously.) Beefing about from one direction or another is fine, for expressing one's opinion; whether the source be me, you, mike, or a hundred other folks. Ultimately, however, if anyone finds fault in the written and wishes to deviate, however, it is (a) up to them and, (b) totally approved and encouraged by the authors of the game. Well, now that I'm out of wind, perhaps this thread will find its way back to being about something.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 5, 2016 11:53:44 GMT -5
Some keen observations, Rob. No arguing that. I wonder, though, how many months, years, decades, it took for (what we typically label classic game as) checkers, chess, cards(poker?), mumbly peg, horseshoes, etc. to evolve/develop? These things didn't (afaik) spring out of the ground to be embraced by millions over night. And in that light, I believe therein lies a significant difference in what I am talking about when the matter approaches D&D as a game, and the others (mentioned). The other difference I enjoy analyzing and discussing is the approach various groups/refs take with the game. Some are hard core, not wishing to deviate the slightest from what is written, while others find themselves being urged to deviate to their heart's desires--again, inspired by what is written. (Actually, the authors instruct the refs to do just this, as you have pointed out numerously.) Beefing about from one direction or another is fine, for expressing one's opinion; whether the source be me, you, mike, or a hundred other folks. Ultimately, however, if anyone finds fault in the written and wishes to deviate, however, it is (a) up to them and, (b) totally approved and encouraged by the authors of the game. Well, now that I'm out of wind, perhaps this thread will find its way back to being about something. Hey Captain, I want to jump in here and disagree with you just a bit. IMO a hard core OD&D ref is not the one who tries to play by the RAW/BtB while ignoring only those passages that are throughout the 3LBBs that encourage/beg/plead with the reader to DIY/house rule/make the game your own/do something unique and different. Note that I am not saying it is wrong to play by the RAW/BtB, particularly the first few times you play - use it as it is, gain experience and then you will know what your preferences are and those of your group and you will then discern what you want/need to do to make it your own vision. However, IMO once that initial experience is gained, it is the hard core OD&D ref that goes whole hog the DIY route and truly makes it his own. It all depends on what they want out of it; but I will note to date that forums do not represent the vast majority of people who play these games, but are only indicative of a minority who enjoy specific ways of playing them.I would love to know how many people still play OD&D that are in that non-internet majority and have them share the myriad different ways they play.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 5, 2016 12:22:10 GMT -5
PD-- There is a lot of meat in this discussion; meaning, a lot of various elements kind of lumped together and, what I'm trying to draw attention to is a particular attitude. Being this: the game is irreproachable, and should be taken as is and if one doesn't get that, perhaps its not the right game for one.
What may appear to be a feature of the game does not, necessarily, make it a good one... is one of my points. Just because the tools are provided to watch hapless frustrated players run into tpk after tpk doesn't mean the game is working properly.
It is far too arrogant, IMO, to simply say D&D is a life's lesson learning game when, in fact, it isn't. And at least one of the authors, if not both, have time and again expressed in their articles written that D&D is...a game! Just a game! But that said, way too much importance has been attached to it. Some folks have claimed it to have cured their warts! (a joke)
So, my commentary has attempted to focus on this issue.
Now, as to the status of this thread, I fear it has lost its way.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 5, 2016 12:31:35 GMT -5
I like your commentary for reasons that would take up too much space here to expand upon, but are centered about... "Just a game! But that said, way too much importance has been attached to it". Keep pealing back the onion skin layers Capitan'...
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 5, 2016 13:29:55 GMT -5
PD-- There is a lot of meat in this discussion; meaning, a lot of various elements kind of lumped together and, what I'm trying to draw attention to is a particular attitude. Being this: the game is irreproachable, and should be taken as is and if one doesn't get that, perhaps its not the right game for one.What I am trying to convey is that the game is approachable and that one should not be afraid to take the authors at their word and tweak it to find your own sweet spot (not that of anyone else, but your own). I am arguing against limiting yourself to just taking it as it is. If it were truly irreproachable, then of course you would not house rule. But the authors did not say it was irreproachable, play it by the book don't deviate, instead they did say it is approachable and make it your own. What may appear to be a feature of the game does not, necessarily, make it a good one... is one of my points. Just because the tools are provided to watch hapless frustrated players run into tpk after tpk doesn't mean the game is working properly. If hapless frustrated players run into tpk after tpk, I would not argue that there is anything wrong with the game. I would argue that it is odd that the ref thinks this is fun for the players, i.e. the ref should not make combat the only option in every encounter. Now I understand where Gronan is coming from, in fact bitd that is exactly how we played; however, we did grow as players and did learn how not to die and part of that was learning not to attack things that were too powerful for us to fight. We learned that in most cases fighting was not option number 1. If players are incapable of learning that very simple lesson there are not to many options as to why they can't and that boils down to either a ref problem - no other options available or a player problem - cannot comprehend not fighting. It is far too arrogant, IMO, to simply say D&D is a life's lesson learning game when, in fact, it isn't. And at least one of the authors, if not both, have time and again expressed in their articles written that D&D is...a game! Just a game! But that said, way too much importance has been attached to it. Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 5, 2016 15:05:27 GMT -5
We all have to learn lessons in life or we do not advance by experiencing things. Even in Monopoly; in any game really, there are learning curves. That does not differ by degree in D&D only by kind. Though players may be at blame part of the time the subtleties are all in the DM's court so it must be judged on a case by case why tpks are so rampant.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 5, 2016 17:55:15 GMT -5
The last post for the evening, as it's almost 1am here in France.
CCC stated: "Ultimately, however, if anyone finds fault in the written and wishes to deviate, however, it is (a) up to them and, (b) totally approved and encouraged by the authors of the game."
Forgive me picking on this, but it contains a logical contradiction. If one finds fault with anything as written, as inferred, then they can also find fault in following the author's written words that players can deviate. It's a self-cancelling loop.
However, if we follow the spirit of the word rather than the written word itself, then this disappears entirely. So it is not what is written in the authorial sense, but what is inferred through the applied sense of the game philosophy extolled; and one either gets it or they play "As it is written, so let it be done."
And with that I bid you all G'Night!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2016 20:30:36 GMT -5
Bon soir, mon vieux!
|
|