Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Noon 05-01-07, 02:28 AM	I often see the sentiment "I'm bored with hack and slash" or similar variation. For those who have expressed the sentiment, have any of you actually lost at hack and slash? Just lost - either lost a pile of treasure, or died, or a TPK or something like that? It'd raise the question - how could we have avoided that? It might not be your sort of question, but it not a matter of boredom then. Ever lost at H&S?
CapnBone 05-01-07, 02:34 AM	No. I only roll 20's. Natural 20's. Every time.
KillerGM 05-01-07, 02:53 AM	Man, I lose all the time! All my parties are slaughtered to the delightful laughs of their adversaries. I don't know what the group is doing wrong - I try to have tactics, but my characters are always dead at the end of the fight! My players, however, are doing wonderfully. :P
SephDragoon 05-01-07, 09:23 AM	Yes, we lost several times... Ok, well, we only really LOST once. Other times, we just got owned, but survived. The most fun we had (except the fighter, who died on the first round), was in a fight against a lich who TPK'ed us. Frankly, I had more fun frustrating the lich, who couldn't save or die me, and had to resort to massive damage instead -_-. It was still fun though, and the TPK was worked into the story. If we don't have the danger of losing, it does get boring. It is great when the DM is playing something to its full potential, so long as he knows there is a way to win. I hold to that as well, I never throw something at my party unless I know there is a way to win. Either that, or I give them every chance possible to gtfo or die.
Seeker95 05-01-07, 09:24 AM	When I DM a "hack/slash" (better referred to as "combat oriented") adventure (or even a single such encounter), the party had better put as much thought and finesse into it as a mystery. My NPCs have a survival instinct. If cornered, they fight to kill. If there is an escape route, they will take it. If they succeed, many of them will attempt revenge/vengeance/justice. :D
celtredleg 05-01-07, 10:28 AM	I have never had a group get bored with combat oriented games. I have had individuals do so. I try as best I can to get like minded people into the group before we start.
celtredleg 05-01-07, 10:29 AM	I noticed that doesnt really answer ther OP. Yes I have had an occasional TPK. Close TPK, over half the party down happens on a frequent basis.
MHolland 05-01-07, 11:01 AM	The goal of the game is to have fun. Very rarely have I ever left a session feeling like I didn't have fun and 99% of the time there were issues with the DM.
Chimaera2000 05-01-07, 12:59 PM	It's true; if the group's had fun, then it's impossible to lose. :) Seriously, I don't recall any of my parties suffering a huge defeat in a hack n' slash style adventure. I have had a character die in such an adventure, but that was due to party-killing than anything due to the encounter.
Ashanti 05-01-07, 01:31 PM	This one time, in 2nd ed I DMed a games where a beholder TPK. Eveyone was pretty gutted but we gathered all the older dead characters (all kept on the wall of shame) and had them leap into the fray in threes to try to take down the beholder. The image of all of their old dead characters bouncing out of the forest like cheap ninja one last time was fantastic. Can't remember if they got the beholder though. Hack and slash is great. If I did not like it I would not play D&D and I would play something with more handwringing in it like Vampire.
Leo 05-02-07, 02:59 PM	Never. Altough roleplaying, diplomacy, craziness, puzzle-solving, and other are also fun, combat is always welcome in a session. And to be honest, most of the TPK's hapenned in combat, some due to dice unluck, others due to party greed or errors(cmon guys, that orc village surely has lots of treasure, it will all work fine, even if are just lv4). So much carnage... We actually took many of them , but whitout area damage, and more than 100 angry orcs, we wer simply overrun, but it was fun tought:P Of course the most humiliating defeat was a wolverine TPKing a lv 2 party due to several 20 in a row while the party seemed unable to roll anything bigger than 5.
ErikM 05-02-07, 03:37 PM	I tend to agree with the original poster. If there is the threat of death than it's less likely that "hack and slash" get's boring. My players know that I play the monsters just as if they were my characters. They use intelligent tactics (if appropriate), go for coup-de-grace, and generally just go all out... no punches pulled. Once you have established that you have no problem wiping out the whole party and busting out blank character sheets... Every fight becomes suspenseful.
WotC Mearls 05-02-07, 04:25 PM	IME, combat gets boring when there isn't much to do. If all the PCs and monsters are standing around, doing the same thing round after round, it gets dull. The threat of defeat helps that, since it makes die rolls more interesting, but if there's no interplay between the DM and the players, things get dull. I think that might be why some people contrast hack n' slash with roleplay. In a roleplay encounter, you have to have interaction and choice, or you aren't doing anything at all. By definition, if you're in a roleplaying encounter someone has to do some roleplaying for things to happen. In combat, it's a lot easier to simply roll dice, avoid decisions, and treat the rules like a form of accounting.
SephDragoon 05-02-07, 04:38 PM	Really, that is the thing... combat is boring when all you do is FRA all the time. Hence we like to throw in tactics, spells, and the ToB to fighter types to help make it flavorful.
TheCarrionCrawler 05-02-07, 04:51 PM	No. I only roll 20's. Natural 20's. Every time. Ah...I knew Chuck Norris lurked on these boards somewhere...
CapnBone 05-03-07, 01:51 AM	IME, combat gets boring when there isn't much to do. If all the PCs and monsters are standing around, doing the same thing round after round, it gets dull. The threat of defeat helps that, since it makes die rolls more interesting, but if there's no interplay between the DM and the players, things get dull. I think that might be why some people contrast hack n' slash with roleplay. In a roleplay encounter, you have to have interaction and choice, or you aren't doing anything at all. By definition, if you're in a roleplaying encounter someone has to do some roleplaying for things to happen. In combat, it's a lot easier to simply roll dice, avoid decisions, and treat the rules like a form of accounting. Very, very true
Noon 05-03-07, 04:42 AM	IME, combat gets boring when there isn't much to do. If all the PCs and monsters are standing around, doing the same thing round after round, it gets dull. The threat of defeat helps that, since it makes die rolls more interesting, but if there's no interplay between the DM and the players, things get dull. But they can't get dull if losing is on the table, surely? If you don't interplay, then your heading for doom. Err, unless the monsters are rigged (by having poor stats or being just plain pushovers) to die even from PC's just standing there and hacking with no other interplay happening - in which case losing isn't on the table and not an example of what I've brought up. Surely it can't be dull if potentially losing is really on the table? I think that might be why some people contrast hack n' slash with roleplay. In a roleplay encounter, you have to have interaction and choice, or you aren't doing anything at all. By definition, if you're in a roleplaying encounter someone has to do some roleplaying for things to happen. In combat, it's a lot easier to simply roll dice, avoid decisions, and treat the rules like a form of accounting. I think if losing is really on the table, rather than interplaying with the GM to get something to happen, your interplaying to avoid something happening - losing. Combat has already put things in motion - you don't have to do something for things to happen now. Indeed, things happen with quite a horrible regularity all by themselves!! Instead, do something to stop a nasty thing happening :) Like whether you can beat the orcs in time to go and rescue the townspeople from being killed! The only time it's easier to roll dice and avoid decisions in combat is when losing isn't really on the table. What do you think about that proposition?
Thalok 05-03-07, 08:48 AM	I've never been bored with combat-orientated play, mainly because our DM is about as evil to us as he possibly could be. My character is just as fun to play in a combat-orientated situation as a social or diplomatic one, as he's dumb as a rock and hard as one too (feral gargun/barbarian, lvl 4/2 respectively). Whenever he has to demonstrate his social finesse, he generally ends up acting completely innapropriately, and the rest of the group has to make up for whatever he did wrong, yet when it comes to a punch up he comes into his own. I like that contrast. Recently he took enough hits to kill the rest of the group, and yet came out of a fight against three bearded devils alive and well enough to carry the other 3 players to safety. The fight had been interesting because my last character had died spectacularly against a hydra, trying stupidly to grapple it and getting goodness-knows how many AOO's from the hydra in return, reducing him to a fine red mist (:weep:) , and therefore making the rest of us wary for our character's lives.
Noon 05-07-07, 12:15 AM	Still curious about answers on this one. I suspect one issue is "What is real risk". It's easy to think something attacking you means there is real risk - but if the design mechanically stacks the odds in the players favour, is that real risk, or simply the illusion of risk?
TriOmegaZero 05-07-07, 12:40 AM	Had a Dire Tiger eat my 6th level Scouts face with one full attack once. Then chewed up the rest of the party. That was about the standard for that campaign. As long as you vary the encounters, things shouldn't get boring. If all that happens is 'I full attack, they full attack, I full attack, ad nauseum', it does get dull, but that's what terrain and tactics are for.
Noon 05-09-07, 03:00 AM	Do you have to vary the encounters? I mean, if you can't actually figure out a way to beat an encounter, could it only ever be dull to do it again?
bhu 05-09-07, 03:33 AM	[QUOTE=Noon;12285375]But they can't get dull if losing is on the table, surely? If you don't interplay, then your heading for doom. Err, unless the monsters are rigged (by having poor stats or being just plain pushovers) to die even from PC's just standing there and hacking with no other interplay happening - in which case losing isn't on the table and not an example of what I've brought up. Surely it can't be dull if potentially losing is really on the table?QUOTE] Yes. Yes it can. There have been many sessions I've played where it came down to hours upon hours of "roll to hit" and "roll for damage" (if we hit), with little other dialogue whatsoever. After you fight the 700th orc in a 10 by 10 foot room you simply just dont care anymore. I can think of at least 3 sessions where I actually hoped my character died just so I could leave.
Noon 05-09-07, 11:26 PM	You'd really class that as having the potential to lose being on the table? I mean, you've just described combat rolls happening - combat rolls by themselves can, as I've noted, be rigged to a desired result (ie, the players winning or losing). I'm guessing that if after several hours you weren't dead, they were rigged to you winning. That surely means the potential to lose wasn't at all on the table, right? Seriously, just cause a gobo is stabbing at you, doesn't mean potetially losing is really on the table, does it? If your just rolling attacks and they are mechanically in your favour, you will just win. This isn't dull because its hack and slash, it's dull because the end is predetermined. A railroad. Are people thinking hack and slash is boring, when really it's railroading that's boring?
Prak, the Mad 05-09-07, 11:35 PM	yes, at the last D&D world game day... worst character builds I've ever seen...
bhu 05-10-07, 02:29 AM	You'd really class that as having the potential to lose being on the table? I mean, you've just described combat rolls happening - combat rolls by themselves can, as I've noted, be rigged to a desired result (ie, the players winning or losing). I'm guessing that if after several hours you weren't dead, they were rigged to you winning. That surely means the potential to lose wasn't at all on the table, right? Seriously, just cause a gobo is stabbing at you, doesn't mean potetially losing is really on the table, does it? If your just rolling attacks and they are mechanically in your favour, you will just win. This isn't dull because its hack and slash, it's dull because the end is predetermined. A railroad. Are people thinking hack and slash is boring, when really it's railroading that's boring? No it's dull because we'd done it all before a thousand times. Yeah we didnt roll above an 8 for hours on end sometimes (I think those dice were cursed) but because it was the same damn thing every campaign. You see a room, it has a monster, roll initiative, then A (die) or B (steal his stuff). Rinse. Repeat. Repeat again. Repeat again the next month. Repeat again the year after that. Even if there's the chance for me to die, so what? If I die we start over at 1st level and do it all over again. As many times as people are willing to show up. Until everyone burns out and we call it quits for a while and move on to another rpg. If I think a GM is purposefully letting us win or purposefully killing us off I wont stay around. But if I wanted mindless repetitive killing I'd just play a video game. I do acually like combat, but not so much that I dont want to do anyhting else. And the rolls arent rigged. We all roll in front of everyone, DM included. If we think someone is trying some sleight of hand, he's out.
Noon 05-10-07, 03:33 AM	No, I don't mean faking rolls. I mean the stats are slanted so you'll in the end, win. Just because a gobo is stabbing at you, doesn't mean your bad ass fighter is actually at risk of losing the battle. I can give examples of how the numbers make you look like your threatened with losing, when really your on a railroad to winning. Even if there's the chance for me to die, so what? If I die we start over at 1st level and do it all over again. Well as I said, if you died that'd raise the question "How could we have avoided dieing?" Sure, that might not be the sort of question your interested in, but then it's not a case of being bored, is it? Even though it's repeatedly described as such. It's personal preference, not inherant dullness in the playstyle.
UltimateReality 05-10-07, 05:51 PM	Are people thinking hack and slash is boring, when really it's railroading that's boring? Not necessarily. A good DM can vary encounters, and that will help with the "boredom" of lots of combat quite a bit. But there still has to be a reason for the encounters. WHY am I fighting all these orcs/ninjas/dire animals? The combat needs to fit within the framework of the story, otherwise it flows poorly and seems "boring". It's one reason I shy away from random encounter tables. You don't need to have all your encounters be plot advancing all the time -- sometimes a bit of a thematic breather is useful. There are also encounters that can be plot-related that the party doesn't realize, or encounters that are designed simply to give a "flavour" to an area (for example, the ruined jungle temple that is full of plant-creatures). These encounters still serve a purpose. It is combat for combat/xp's sake that gets boring.
Lina_Inverse 05-10-07, 10:36 PM	I enjoy loseing as much as winning. Dieing means i made mistakes and i can correct them and therefore get better. The worst thing i can imagine for hack and slash is where i CAN'T lose, wheres the fun in combat without the tactical depth. Sometimes i wonder if those crazy people who don't enjoy killing monsters and taking there stuff had DMs who went easy on them and thats why they don't enjoy it.
bhu 05-11-07, 10:08 PM	Cant say I've ever had a DM go easy on me. The last one put us up against a city of Beholders. At 4th level. You can imagine how it went.
SephDragoon 05-11-07, 11:21 PM	In my experience... DM's have only gone easy on me in the past when at very low levels (1-5). Past that, it was either a real challenge, or the DM simply underestimated the party, or we got extremely lucky. Like when we fought the level 17 frenzied beserker... it didn't frenzy at first because he didn't think we'd kill it in one round. But by golly, it took only one round of melee and that thing was dead, without ever going into frenzy. If it had gone frenzy from the beginning, it would have had 8 rounds before we could have ever even THOUGHT of killing it. But that's how the dice rolled, and my DM didn't think before hand. Currently we are fighting a battle cleric that is literally nova'ing on us to kill us... no more pulling out the stops.
Noon 05-12-07, 01:39 AM	Thank Lina, fully my line of thought too!!! Really nice (read: a relief) to read that for a change. :) Good luck to you! Bhu: No, I can't imagine how it went. Unless you walked down the main street, in which case the question 'how could I have avoided death' leaps to mind instantly. SephDragoon: Are those examples where you were bored with the hack and slash as well? It doesn't seem to be, whether you were on the rails to victory or otherwise. Were looking at examples of both boring and railroaded to win - and in my and Lina's case, drawing a connection between them.
bhu 05-13-07, 03:07 AM	4th level PC's against a Beholder and you can't imagine how it went? Look at the numbers. It has a 26 AC and all its eye rays have a DC 17 Save. We couldnt even get surprise because it has a +18 Listen, +22 Spot. And as for the Goblin example it's easy to tell if the DM's fudging. If your AC is a 15 and the gobbo misses on a 10, but hits on an 11, you know it has a +4 to hit. If it ever hits on a 10 or less after that (or conversely misses on an 11 or higher) you know the DM is fibbing. Same with damage rolls. If he rolls a d6 and its a 3, and he says you took 3 damage, you know it doesnt have plusses or minuses.
Noon 05-13-07, 04:30 AM	You don't look at numbers, you look at player choices - how numbers mesh against each other mean nothing, it's the choices you made before they meshed that matter. Including before the actual encounter. I can't imagine what choices you made - you can only tell me the story. With the gobo, as I said, I'm not talking about fudging - going right by the book stats and rolls its still easy to set up a completly railroaded victory. If you think the only way to railroad a victory is to fudge, then you wouldn't notice the times they railroaded you to victory fairly and squarely by the book. A hard question: Do you think that if you go perfectly by the book with legit rolls, there has to be a danger of losing on the table?
bhu 05-13-07, 04:35 PM	Not really a hard question. Depends on what they're throwing at you. If it's not high enough to effect your level and they're going strictly by the book, it's still a cake walk. Which I cant say I've ever experienced. If anything the CR of what we encounter is usually a little high. It's not the winning or losing i find boring it's the repetition. The knowledge that no matter what you do, you'll be doing the same session over and over again till you die or quit or change DM's to one who wants to run something other than a mindless video game (and there have been few enough of them). There's no real anticipation because im not playing a character im playing a set of numbers that I have no emotional attachment to or investment in. If I win the fight I get to play a bigger set of numbers. If not I start over again with a different set of numbers. It doesnt matter if I make a backstory, or even have a name because the DM wont care. Im just dwarf number 3. There isnt even usually much of a story. "There's stuff to kill over here lets go". Thats great once in a while as stress relief, but not a steady diet of it.
Noon 05-13-07, 07:09 PM	I think even high CR can easily be a railroad to victory. Sure it might drain your spells and healing potions, but that's the trick of it - the GM simply assigns rest points and potions in treasure and hey presto, the illusion of being able to lose is complete! It's not the winning or losing i find boring it's the repetition. The knowledge that no matter what you do, you'll be doing the same session over and over again till you die or quit Okay, perhaps the problem is this - you keep coming back? It can't repeat without you turning up to the gaming table (assuming your GM doesn't kidnap you at gunpoint and bring you to the table). Your the one returning...it's you who's making it boring. Perhaps? Take a seduku or crossword - once you've done the puzzle, do you erase your answers and do it again? No! You can probably remember half of it - it'd be very boring. In games where losing is on the table - once you beat it, you don't return to it. The victory is yours forever. Going back is just like erasing the seduku answers and doing it again. Forgive me seconding guessing a possible reply: "But I want a long term campaign!" Ah, but again this isn't hack and slash being dull, this is preference. You prefer a long term game (whatever that ultimately entails). It's your preference. Sure, hack and slash (where you can lose) doesn't mesh with you, but that doesn't make it inherantly dull. Wouldn't you say?
bhu 05-14-07, 12:08 AM	Never had a long term campaign. never had a character live beyond 8th level. If I return it's because at times where I live options for playing were incredibly limited. You played with 1 or 2 groups, or didnt play. Never in my life have i talked with someone as deliberately obtuse as you. I can only assume at this point your a troll or have an axe to grind so I'm calling it quits. No point in keeping this thread going.
Verdande 05-14-07, 02:28 AM	I can only assume at this point your a troll or have an axe to grind so I'm calling it quits. No point in keeping this thread going. Or possibly he wants to understand why some people find hack and slash boring, when he does not. I've personally loved GMing a hack and slash dungeon-crawl, and my players always love it, too. They love all the strange creatures and unknown powers and the excitement of not knowing what's behind the door. Plus, they know I don't pull any punches. I love the looks on their faces when they barely beat down a tough encounter by skill, tactics, or sheer luck. They never have fun when it's too easy or way too hard, and neither do I. Hope i've helped. :)
Noon 05-14-07, 03:31 AM	Bhu, I'm not obtusely looking past your evidence that H&S is dull, I'm saying its useless. None of them suggested something other than preference was involved. The question of how you could have avoided dieing was there - you haven't yet addressed how that question would always be dull, to everybody in the world. You've only gone and given examples of how it's dull to you. The only way I could be obtuse is if your preference is shared by everyone in the world. Verdande, well since I'm trying to get at the whole 'H&S is dull' and your example is of someone finding it fun, it doesn't help the thread, but it does make me feel a bit warm and fuzzy :) Anyway, perhaps the whole 'H&S is dull' thing is sort of a reflexive projection - like if you find fire burns you, you reflexively think it burns other people too. Same if someone finds something dull - they might reflexively think other people find it dull too.
Verdande 05-14-07, 03:53 AM	Bhu, I'm not obtusely looking past your evidence that H&S is dull, I'm saying its useless. None of them suggested something other than preference was involved. The question of how you could have avoided dieing was there - you haven't yet addressed how that question would always be dull, to everybody in the world. You've only gone and given examples of how it's dull to you. The only way I could be obtuse is if your preference is shared by everyone in the world. Verdande, well since I'm trying to get at the whole 'H&S is dull' and your example is of someone finding it fun, it doesn't help the thread, but it does make me feel a bit warm and fuzzy :) Anyway, perhaps the whole 'H&S is dull' thing is sort of a reflexive projection - like if you find fire burns you, you reflexively think it burns other people too. Same if someone finds something dull - they might reflexively think other people find it dull too. Glad I could help. =] To be fair, though, I tend to play fast-and-loose with rules, and I'm pretty sure that's not what most people think of when they think hack and slash. Most people likely think about standing in a blank, featureless room casting spells at orcs that keep coming out of a doorway, moving 30'' a round, all armed with falchions, rather than tentatively moving through a mysterious dungeon where zombies and kobolds and the like are waiting to ambush you and put your tactical abilities to the challenge in hard combat. I dunno, though. How do you define hack and slash?
Noon 05-14-07, 07:20 PM	Yeah, good question. I think I was looking at other peoples definition, if you go by the post title. Other peoples definition seemed to be absent any genuine risk of losing. Frankly rather than the definition of hack and slash, what's important is defining a genuine chance of losing. For example, you could have intense diplomactic peace talks with a genuine risk of losing. Whether it's hack and slash or peace talks, it's the genuine risk that's important to me. But I focused on hack and slash here because - well, I'd say that's what the game focuses on primarily (if I were on a forum for a peace talks game, I'd use peace talks instead of H&S in the title). So, it could be anything - it could be an iron chef competition to cook the best food, or it could be H&S. But the genuine risk of losing is the important thing (for discussion in this thread). Is it okay to say the definition of H&S isn't important? :) The question is how/if the risk of losing is implemented? To be fair, though, I tend to play fast-and-loose with rules, and I'm pretty sure that's not what most people think of when they think hack and slash. This next bit is a bit of meandering discussion - take with grain of salt! :) I will say this about playing hard and fast with the rules - it's flows easily into a training course toward railroaded victories. Basically players don't want to lose. That's obvious. But the thing is, the GM doesn't really want to either, and typically he's just about on the same side as the players. That means each time there is a genuine risk of losing, and the players do indeed lose, the GM will have lost. The thing about playing fast and loose and the GM having lost, is that it is an entirely natural reaction upon having lost, to correct your actions. This means a GM who has had a group lost and who plays fast and loose with the rules will probably start avoiding rules that make play have a genuine risk - and because he doesn't follow the rules as is, he can easily do this. I don't know if you've ever burnt yourself on a stove top - once I was cleaning one and forgot I used it just before. Scorched my fingers - every time I cleaned it afterward, I was very wary of going near them. I'm saying the same thing here - when the groups lose, the GM loses and is 'scorched' - and will, because he's playing fast and loose and can, avoid rules that implement genuine risk of losing in the game. And I'm not talking about fudging - more like adding a healing potion or a rest spot here and there, all within the rules, all removing the genuine risk of losing. Anyway, this is a real concern for me (I think it's a real issue, anyway) - I don't want to just be humouring myself that I faced a real challenge, when I roleplay. In fact I hate the idea of tricking myself like that.
UltimateReality 05-14-07, 08:24 PM	Other peoples definition seemed to be absent any genuine risk of losing.Well, except for mine -- namely, WHY do I care about these creatuers/NPCs I'm fighting? Honestly, if I just want monster after monster with little to no explanation or connection...I'll go play a video game. The risk of losing is real enough, but why do I care about losing? Why do I care about winning against these creatures? I need at least a basic plot or the session is just Doom with extra paperwork and a slower running game engine. each time there is a genuine risk of losing, and the players do indeed lose, the GM will have lost. <snip> And I'm not talking about fudging - more like adding a healing potion or a rest spot here and there, all within the rules, all removing the genuine risk of losing.I have two questions for you regarding this... 1. What do you think of a group who, apparently, doesn't want to face the real risk of losing? Or, may want the appearance or the risk of losing, but doesn't want to ever actually lose? In conjunction with that, 2. What do you do with a group that has ****-poor tactics? Any suggestions? Let Darwin teach 'em? What if they're the same group as mentioned in question #1? Can you guess, I'm a tactician in with a bunch of butt-kickers...the group's latest brilliant plan in my campaign went like this: party walks into NPC aristocrat's residence and tells the butler there's a plot to kidnap the aristocrat, and they need to see him right away. Butler says okay. Party meets NPC and proceeds to kidnap him. All well and funny, hahah. Then they make a ransom note, pretending to be a country their country is at war with. Good start. But then -- they tell the people to ship the money by one of the PC's shipping lines. The PC in question goes back to town and waits for the money to be delivered. So we are at the following situation... -cops suspect one of the following: 1. PCs were found out and kidnapped/ambushed by real kidnappers with the noble 2. more likely, PCs ARE the kidnappers, and spies for the country they're at war with -the PCs walked into the noble's house completely undisguised, despite the fact that they're 8th level. Oh, and the druid has a DIRE APE for a companion. And the PC WENT BACK TO :censored: TOWN because he was greedy enough to try and get extra shipping fees on top of the ransom. Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot: the PC who wrote the ransom note went back to town. When he concluded negotiating price with the cops, he signed a contract with them. They now have a sample of his handwriting to match with the note.
Noon 05-15-07, 03:51 AM	Well, except for mine -- namely, WHY do I care about these creatuers/NPCs I'm fighting? Honestly, if I just want monster after monster with little to no explanation or connection...I'll go play a video game. The risk of losing is real enough, but why do I care about losing? I'm just saying people can care, not that they will. If you can lose, then it's possible to be interested in finding out how not to lose. I'll grant it's not compelling to you - but would you agree that's your preference? It just doesn't float your boat, which is fine - but it could float someone elses, you'd agree? I have two questions for you regarding this... 1. What do you think of a group who, apparently, doesn't want to face the real risk of losing? Or, may want the appearance or the risk of losing, but doesn't want to ever actually lose? If they can actually state it, verbally that they don't want to lose or just want the appearance of risk, that's fine. They honestly know what they like and good on them to pursue it. It's people who will state they want one thing but really want another. I find that basicly a type of dishonesty - it doesn't do anyone any favours. In conjunction with that, 2. What do you do with a group that has ****-poor tactics? Any suggestions? Let Darwin teach 'em? What if they're the same group as mentioned in question #1? Can you guess, I'm a tactician in with a bunch of butt-kickers...the group's latest brilliant plan in my campaign went like this: party walks into NPC aristocrat's residence and tells the butler there's a plot to kidnap the aristocrat, and they need to see him right away. Butler says okay. Party meets NPC and proceeds to kidnap him. All well and funny, hahah. Then they make a ransom note, pretending to be a country their country is at war with. Good start. But then -- they tell the people to ship the money by one of the PC's shipping lines. The PC in question goes back to town and waits for the money to be delivered. So we are at the following situation... -cops suspect one of the following: 1. PCs were found out and kidnapped/ambushed by real kidnappers with the noble 2. more likely, PCs ARE the kidnappers, and spies for the country they're at war with -the PCs walked into the noble's house completely undisguised, despite the fact that they're 8th level. Oh, and the druid has a DIRE APE for a companion. And the PC WENT BACK TO :censored: TOWN because he was greedy enough to try and get extra shipping fees on top of the ransom. Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot: the PC who wrote the ransom note went back to town. When he concluded negotiating price with the cops, he signed a contract with them. They now have a sample of his handwriting to match with the note. Hoo boy. Okay, imagine a panel with shiney buttons that control some things that are in a minature world in a glass case. When you imagine it like this, you can see it's possible to just press buttons with a complete disinterest in what goes wrong in the glass case. It's just happy happy, joy joy button pressing. I think your asking me this question cause you sense, yes sense, that they don't give a damn about being told they have lost. You know it's not going to be climactic, even though it's going to change everything in the game, perhaps even to the point of every single PC's necks snapping. It's not going to be climactic cause they don't give a crud about avoiding failure. When you list every screw up they made (in the politest fashion, of course), they aren't going to go "Damn, have to be better at that next time!", they are going to have expressions that say "So?". See, these people would say to you "Hey, if I cared about losing, I'd go play a video game!" and they will stumble through your games failing miserably as in your example, chanting this like a mantra. It's just shiney button pressing fun to them. They've identified the hobby as being 'shiney button fun'. They do not want a wake up call about their failures, they only want more shiney buttons. That is if I'm reading them right. They might have every single PC hung and then go in unison "Oh, I know where we went wrong - damn, we made some big mistakes!" and then your fine (err, unless you want them to win just so the plot isn't derailed - which is another issue entirely). Why, what did you want to ask me about them? :cool:
UltimateReality 05-15-07, 12:29 PM	I'm just saying people can care, not that they will. If you can lose, then it's possible to be interested in finding out how not to lose. I'll grant it's not compelling to you - but would you agree that's your preference? It just doesn't float your boat, which is fine - but it could float someone elses, you'd agree?Yep. :) I know pure hack 'n slash isn't my preference. Which isn't to say I don't like combats. High-combat games can be fun. It's people who will state they want one thing but really want another. I find that basicly a type of dishonesty - it doesn't do anyone any favours.I think when it boils down to it they want to showcase their nifty abilities of the week...Although they can't do so very well, and, being non-tactical players, it doesn't always turn out too well for them. It's actually not so bad for me as a DM, cuz I can tune things down, cut them some slack in the logic department, whatever. I feel bad for the one player amongst them who does like a challenge though...It's really hard to pull off something tactical with everyone trying to showcase their newest build. :P I think your asking me this question cause you sense, yes sense, that they don't give a damn about being told they have lost.Kind of. They're going to whine about how whatever it is that beat them had too high of a CR, ***** for a little bit longer, then get over it and make another Shiny New Character of the Week. (I couldn't believe it when a player had an argument with another DM awhile ago about how players shouldn't face anything above their party level for encounters. This player was also a long-time DM. Who put a 21st level party up against a CR 50 aspect of Lolth as a railroading measure. :rolleyes: ) they don't give a crud about avoiding failure.I think you're right to a certain extent here. The trick fo rme is...how do I make them care about failure? Maybe I can't and shouldn't try? (They're certainly not closet roleplayers, motivated by their characters or anything.) When you list every screw up they made (in the politest fashion, of course), they aren't going to go "Damn, have to be better at that next time!"Yeah, they're going to go "that was too powerful! We shouldn't have face that! Ability X that the opponent used is broken! Circumstances added to the CR!" (sorry, I'm totally ranting. They're not quite that bad. Sometimes.) It's just shiney button pressing fun to them. They've identified the hobby as being 'shiney button fun'. They do not want a wake up call about their failures, they only want more shiney buttons.So would you just give them more places to run amok and more things to mess up? (I forsee myself with a party of Chaotic Evils/Chaotic Stupids very quickly. *grin*) unless you want them to win just so the plot isn't derailed - which is another issue entirely).Actually, I try to keep an open-ended plot so that no matter what happens, the campaign rolls on, in one way or another. Do you think that part of the problem is that I try to make failure somewhat interesting? Not as interesting as success, mind you, and without any of the rewards success brings, but is making failure entertaining taking away from their sense of risk, do you suppose? For example, if the party fighter with an 8 in Cha and a 6 in Int decides to try and Diplomacy the governor's daughter for some reason, and he rolls really low, like less than 5 total on his roll, someone in the group will often say something like "Hah, you walked up to her and said: 'Nice hooters'!" or something similar. He still rolled low enough that she doesn't like him, obviously, and thinks worse of him than she did before he opened his mouth. But do you think that the entertainment factor is taking out too much of the sting of failure?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-15-07, 01:23 PM	When Ultimate says that she doesn't find hack'n'slash all that interesting it is becuase of personal preference. The thing with hack and slash D&D is that for the most part the major draw for it was being able to relax and destroy stuff. It is fun to just wade into the masses and part them with your pointy stick of death. I know plenty of poeple like that. For them they don't want to lose, they don't even want want to risk losing. they want to take their frustrations about whatever out on the hapless pixel/gobliniod/whatever, and it has to die brutally repeatedly, over and over again. To them question of how, why did i lose never enters the equation. If they do find they are continuely die, losing they either turnthe difficulty setting down, or play a different game. When you ask yourself the question, "how did I lose?" it isn't nessescarily becuase becuase you want to make the game more interesting, or find away past the tough part. No there are cheat codes, briding the DM, etc for that. When a players asks himself, "What happened?" They are trying to figure out what went wrong. How can they improve, get better, tougher, stronger. DnD doesn't nessesarily lend itself to that level of competiveness. Not as much as say competitive sport, or games like magic the gathering. Those games tend to be more advisarilial. D&D is more co-operative. In the case of some players, they have asked the question "how did I lose." And for a time the answer was more clear. "The dragon killed me with it's breath weapon. I can aviod that by getting evasion." then they die to a raging FB hitting them with a small building. The answer to the question becomes, ok low AC/low HP. then they go out to phantasmal killer. Ok low will save, then they run into an iron golem and have no source of bludgeoning admantine damage. then the paladin gets ripped apart by a hydra. the rogue falls in a hole, the party is TPKed by evards tentical trap. So on and so forth. Eventually they come to the conclusion that no one character can survive everything. Indeed even with a sinergized party there are still situations that come in whcih there is no answer to the question "How could I have beaten that, witht he character I was playing?" at which piont they realise that regardless of how they build or play their characters there is always someway that they can be killed/lose. At which they no longer build to be the best/win all the time. instead they build for a concept, something else, something less competitive. At that piont the question of, "how did I lose" becomes irrelavent. Instead it is, "what to play next." Ultimate is for the most part a story teller. For her it all has to make sense. The question "how did i lose" isn't as important as "why is the dire animal in the dungeon, and for that matter why am I in the dungeon?" At that piont whether or not the risk is real, or not what isn't important, if the encounter doesn't flow logically from the events preceeding it then it's just more dice rolling. And if that is all that the game is then why not play a video game? Mean while other players don't care about the monsters, the story, winning or losing. For them the game is about developing the their characters. To these players the question becomes, "How does my character feel, think, react, to these encounter." To them monster after monster is just plain not fun, regardless of actual risk or not. And they'd probally ask themselves, "where can I find a better DM?" before they ask themselves, "why did I lose back there?" D&D has a very broad apeal to a wide range of people. many of whom never bother with the question of why did i lose. To them getting better at the game isn't what attracts them to it, indeed for the most part they could care less. For those do care about getting better at it, D&D as stiff competion from competitive sport, better stratgy games, and video games. These games allow for more clearly defined rules, that do not rely on the whims of the DM, and becuase of their nature they are easier to practice at, and become better at. However there are still players who for them the question of how to become better is relavant. But like the other players to whom the question is not relavant it is all a matter of personal preference.
Noon 05-16-07, 03:20 AM	Hi UltimateReality, I think you're right to a certain extent here. The trick fo rme is...how do I make them care about failure? Maybe I can't and shouldn't try? (They're certainly not closet roleplayers, motivated by their characters or anything.) I think a stronger question to ask is - what are you trying to salvage from them - why put in this effort? What are you trying to salvage from them that's worth the effort? Unless it's just the desire not to lose at engaging the blighters, which I can understand from a tactical minded GM and relate to myself. Do you think perhaps that at times it seems that you can't make them care and shouldn't try - but then at other times there seems to be hope of doing it? Do you think that part of the problem is that I try to make failure somewhat interesting? Not as interesting as success, mind you, and without any of the rewards success brings, but is making failure entertaining taking away from their sense of risk, do you suppose? For example, if the party fighter with an 8 in Cha and a 6 in Int decides to try and Diplomacy the governor's daughter for some reason, and he rolls really low, like less than 5 total on his roll, someone in the group will often say something like "Hah, you walked up to her and said: 'Nice hooters'!" or something similar. He still rolled low enough that she doesn't like him, obviously, and thinks worse of him than she did before he opened his mouth. But do you think that the entertainment factor is taking out too much of the sting of failure? Kind of. Take a look at this optical illusion: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html See how you can see the same image as either a young woman or an old woman? The way your running it, I would estimate, can be seen two ways - as either a challenge, or shiney button pushing joy joy. It's just a matter of perspective and yes, even habit (I see a young lady first in that image, myself for example). One game can be seen in entirely two completely different ways. Also a feedback loop - probably every time you head towards challenge orientated, you can actually lose stuff, they grumble - and you think your upsetting challenge orientated players and thus doing the wrong thing - and cater to how they see the game (if they see it as old lady, your making it more old lady). Well, that's a very flimsy hypothesis. But I mention it, because most likely anything I could suggest would upset them - thus seeming wrong to do, if you assume they are into tactically overcoming things.
Noon 05-16-07, 03:49 AM	Hi TPK, Eventually they come to the conclusion that no one character can survive everything. Indeed even with a sinergized party there are still situations that come in whcih there is no answer to the question "How could I have beaten that, witht he character I was playing?" at which piont they realise that regardless of how they build or play their characters there is always someway that they can be killed/lose. At which they no longer build to be the best/win all the time. instead they build for a concept, something else, something less competitive. At that piont the question of, "how did I lose" becomes irrelavent. Instead it is, "what to play next." I like how you build up the arguement, it was very well structured and true. But I disagree at the proposed 'reflexive' turning point. Just like I said about finishing a crossword - you don't go back. Here your describing players learning all they can apparently know and then - reflexively moving on from "how did I lose" play, to some sort of "what to play next" concept play. I wont argue that it can't happen - it can and probably quite often. I don't think it's reflexive though - I think some players will get to that point and - will walk away. It's a finished crossword to them - and power to them, I say. I think since your suggesting it's a natural, reflexive progression, it is the ultimate point of play. I disagree - once I've finished learning all the tactics and situations of D&D or such, I'll walk away (a conquerer, thank you :cool: ). For moral dilemma concepts, I'll use some indie game like riddle of steel or capes - I wont use the same product with a transition point. Ultimate is for the most part a story teller. For her it all has to make sense. The question "how did i lose" isn't as important as "why is the dire animal in the dungeon, and for that matter why am I in the dungeon?" At that piont whether or not the risk is real, or not what isn't important, if the encounter doesn't flow logically from the events preceeding it then it's just more dice rolling. But I don't like this - your saying Ultimate likes something important - but at the same time setting her up that if she says she likes something else, it could only involve that crazy nonsense stuff. I don't think that gives genuine space for her to express what she wants. I think your promoting a play style by connotating a negative quality of nonsense to other stuff. Can you promote that play style without having to make others negatives? For those do care about getting better at it, D&D as stiff competion from competitive sport, better stratgy games, and video games. These games allow for more clearly defined rules, that do not rely on the whims of the DM, and becuase of their nature they are easier to practice at, and become better at. Sadly though the rules of those games are contrived. Take basketball Vs climbing the wall of a cliff - the rules of basketball/any sport are contrived. The rules of climbing a cliff are real. I've always thought roleplay gives access to rules which are real, but even more dangerous than climbing a cliff (thus not to be done in real life like a cliff climb can be). An apparently rich, non (real) life threatening source of learning the hard, real rules. The 'whims' of a GM is a whole issue in itself, though.
Johnny_Angel 05-16-07, 03:55 AM	I don't really know what to say except that I've been involved in many TPKs. Just different DMing styles I guess, but survival wasn't very easy with the DM I used to play with. I had a lot of fun though; I guess I just like a challenge. I will, however, say that it wasn't totally hack-n-slash; there were many encounters in which diplomacy was the best option... ...there were also many of those encounters in which our dim-witted barbarian felt that it was a good idea to swing his axe and ask questions later which resulted in the rest of the party getting killed.
Alex_P 05-16-07, 02:31 PM	Hi. *raises hand* I find D&D's take on hack-and-slash boring. Noon, I get what you're saying. Which is pretty much "A tactical game is only fulfilling if it's fair and the outcome is actually affected by the choices you make," right? (There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the gist, I think.) I'm with you on that. But, see, while it tries hard, D&D just isn't put together in a way that provides the kind of tactical play I like. That's a matter of the hard mechanics (i.e. "the rules") and soft mechanics (like the traditional adventure structure). Here are some examples. This is going to be long and rambly; I'm happy to elaborate or explain further... The tactical bits of the game emphasize prep more than play. Most of the biggest decisions about how to meet a challenge are made during character creation, or while shopping around for equipment between adventures, or while resting and picking what spells to learn for the next day. The handling time for making a new character from scratch is pretty high, too, because there are a lot of decision points involved (I'm mostly talking about non-first-level characters here; I'm assuming a D&D game with high lethality won't keep resetting the PCs to first level all the time). You have a lot of choices in preparation but most of the actual fight ends up being about executing pre-planned combos rather than choosing from a big range of various options. At least, as far as I define "combos" and "options." Now, the standard adventure structure has the PCs facing challenges they know fairly little about. That turns all of your preparation into a bit of a crapshoot. Or, maybe you're high-level or otherwise empowered with information, in which case you can prepare for things reliably, but that level of pre-planning actually detracts from the tactical variety of playing the scene itself. Also, mechanically, character components are either too rigid or too plastic. Once you pick a feat, for example, it stays picked forever (barring that new rebuilding thing you can do). That's not very fun for me because it's so... rigid. You're making a choice once and then it just sticks around (I'm okay with that in other contexts, and I think it's important for continuity of character, but as far as tactical challenge goes, it's boring). In contrast, when you acquire a magic item or memorize spells or whatever, you're working with all of these very ephemeral things. These are your big choices and they're not a part of your character, which is very, umm, de-protagonizing. D&D's totally missing a middle ground here. I can tell you what a middle ground might look like: cybernetic implants in a cyberpunk game. These represent a character component that is actually part of your character and semi-permanent, but can be swapped out during appropriate downtime. In other words, something that's fixed during an adventure but switchable in between adventures, which is really the ideal here. If you want another example, take a look at how the Guild Wars video game handles character abilities. Finally, there's the biggest mood-killer, something that's harder to change than all these fiddly mechanics. Challenge-focused gaming is about playing to win, right? Giving it your best shot and all that? Well, the GM can't do that in D&D. She's got unlimited power in setting up challenges. If she wanted to win, she'd win instantly. It's like playing around with a professional athlete: we can have fun throwing the ball to each other, but really shouldn't bother with hardcore competition because it's just a foregone conclusion. No matter how even the odds are, hardcore tactical play with a D&D-style GM basically means playing against someone who's wearing kid gloves the whole time. That's a big "Yawn" thing for me. And I hate wearing those kid gloves because then it's not a meaningful experience at all, so I don't go all crazy-tactical when I GM. What it boils down to is: no, I can't get the tactical thrill I want from a game out of D&D, because all the fiddly bits are in the wrong place and the power structure isn't conducive to strong and honest competition, and no amount of character death will change that. -- Alex
UltimateReality 05-16-07, 04:08 PM	I think a stronger question to ask is - what are you trying to salvage from them - why put in this effort? What are you trying to salvage from them that's worth the effort?That's a very good question. I guess part of me wants to provide the lone tactician in the group with the challenge he desires. (In case you haven't figured it out already, TPK and I are married, and he's a player in the group -- he's also our usual DM.) Part of me wants to keep the process interesting for myself -- if I don't have tactics, I slip right back into worldbuilding, which is a lot of fun, but leads to me spending all my time writing campaign settings instead of DMing. :) Do you think perhaps that at times it seems that you can't make them care and shouldn't try - but then at other times there seems to be hope of doing it?I'm not sure. As TPK has mentioned they've acquired a defeatist attitude, and fail to realize that tactics and teamwork mean more than any class ability or stat. I guess I would say they've discovered there's no cheat/god mode in D&D, and thus are kind of fatalistic about their characters. They don't get attached to them in any way, regardless of how long they play them. The threat of losing their characters means nothing, because there's always another concept in the wings. The way your running it, I would estimate, can be seen two ways - as either a challenge, or shiney button pushing joy joy. It's just a matter of perspective....One game can be seen in entirely two completely different ways.Touche. I've never seen this explained explicitly; you do a good job of making that clear. :) once I've finished learning all the tactics and situations of D&D or such, I'll walk away (a conquerer, thank you :cool: ).TPK and I were actually discussing why tacticians play D&D at all yesterday. The answers we came up with were numerous. There's the obvious -- it's all they know/have access to/can get others to play. But I think there's a deeper thing there too. D&D provides a kind of reality simulator -- granted, it's fantasy, but basically you can do anything in D&D. Some tacticians are interested in more than just the rules interactions. A campaign is like a sandbox. You can try anything, mess around, see what happens, what's more effective. This applies to more than just combat. I'm talking about characters' decisions on what political factions to support, which missions to go on, hell, even what they say to the beggar kid on the street when they sell their phat lewt at market. It gives people a chance to "play with life" in a way we can't (or don't want to) normally risk doing. I think part of the appeal for some tacticians in D&D is that you can do so much. We tend to think of tactics as combat maneuvers, but it encompasses so much more...PR plans, goals, organizational structuring.... But I don't like this - your saying Ultimate likes something important - but at the same time setting her up that if she says she likes something else, it could only involve that crazy nonsense stuff. I don't think that gives genuine space for her to express what she wants.I don't know that he's saying that -- more that this is what I feel is important in the game. Or at least a major part of what I feel is important. (I'm actually more strongly a method actor, specialist, and tactician than a storyteller.) Can you promote that play style without having to make others negatives?By a strict definition of "promotion", I don't believe so. Promoting it means you believe it to be better than others, so must somehow show how they lack -- a necessarily negative exercise. Personally, I understand that people get different things out of the game. I try to accommodate the preferences at my table, and not step on others' toes when I'm playing. I'm a fairly relativistic kind of person, so I try not to think my style of fun is better or more fun than anyone else's. The rules of climbing a cliff are real.This is why real life is the ultimate challenge. :D (Why, just the other day my DM threw Student Loans at me, so I had to min-max my grocery budget...) Anyway, sorry for kind of derailing your thread with some massive posts here...
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-16-07, 04:21 PM	When i say that ultimate is a story teller, I'm not trying to set anything up as either negative, or postive. I'm simply stating my impression of her play style. Actaully a very small portion of. She is also a methood actor, and tactician. She optimizes better then i do, and enjoys kicking but as much the next player. But that isn't really the piont here. Your asking people who find hack'n'slash D&D boring, if it is boring becuase of an apparent lack of a challenge. As if losing, and apparent risk of losing cpuld change that. So that when the player die they ask themselves, "why did I lose?" Which leads to the odivouse question, "How would I prevent that from happening in the future?" And asking ones self that question serves the propose of becoming a better a player, mechanically wise at any rate. And to some players the game certainly has that apeal. Which is cool to each their own right. However for others players how to improve, from a mechanics stand piont, never actually enters the equation. To them the game isn't about the monster, the fight, the mechanics, or winning and losing for that matter. It's about something else. And thats ok too. The piont that i'm trying to make is that when someone stats I find hack'n'slash boring, it isn't nessesarily the risk, or lack of, of losing. That may not even matter to them. It could be becuase hack'n'slash simply does not apeal to their individual tastes. Another facet of the game does. There isn't anything wrong with this, nor does it follow that there is something wrong with hack'n'slash. Its just a difference of tastes, no more, no less.
Noon 05-17-07, 12:47 AM	Hi Alex, Strange, some things you say are on, some are way off. I get what you're saying. Which is pretty much "A tactical game is only fulfilling if it's fair and the outcome is actually affected by your success or failure," right? (There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the gist, I think.) I go 'Wha?' at this, for example. The outcome affected by my success? Nothing I do in play is a success - it's all just stuff that happened. Only when you get to the end and its a win, could you legitimately say anything I did was successful. So it's impossible to influence the outcome with successes - you can't have succeses (as I put it here) until the ending is a win. No matter how many passing rolls you make. Finally, there's the biggest mood-killer, something that's harder to change than all these fiddly mechanics. Challenge-focused gaming is about playing to win, right? Giving it your best shot and all that? Well, the GM can't do that in D&D. She's got unlimited power in setting up challenges. You've made some really interesting points in between, but I skip to this because how I answer the question puts them all in a different light. Basically you think it can only ever be a challenge if the GM is going all out to beat you. Think about real life rock climbing - who's your opponent there? Uncaring rock? How can rock go all out to beat you - can't be a real challenge then, surely? It is - because the opponent is yourself. You. And you are going all out to beat yourself, to beat anything in you too weak to take this on - to throw yourself against challenge! No, the GM doesn't need to go all out to beat you for it to be a challenge. You do. If you can't, then that's it for challenge play. Basically if you take up these terms, you realise the GM is just a facilitator in the war you wage upon yourself, in order to thrive and improve. I'm not saying that solves the other issues you raise or in terms of GM fiat and manipulation, but it's a foundation.
Alex_P 05-17-07, 03:19 AM	Noon, Sorry. I meant "the outcome is affected by your choices." I've edited the post to reflect that. I understand the "you're not up against the GM" thing. You could say that about, for example, any single-player video game: the game designers are all-powerful when it comes to setting up the game, so it's not really a fair fight, but it can still be fun, right? (I don't know that many non-electronic games that follow this pattern, but you could certainly identify, say, the old Lone Wolf game books or Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings board game.) I guess my point about the GM is really this: it's the GM that sets up the adversity in D&D, and I want that adversity to be hardcore. That applies to all kinds of other bits and not just the tactical stuff, too, actually. But I think it's quite hard to achieve that if she has to limit herself and is the only one who can do it. Personally, I know I have a much easier time when I don't have to constantly stop and think "Okay, is this too much? Am I overdoing it?" Also, this means that I as the GM don't really get to do the same thing the players are doing. Just being there to be a facilitator doesn't float my boat -- if the game is all about being excited about one particular thing (e.g. in this case, tactical challenges), then everyone should get to experience that thing. You can solve this in the long term by switching up who's GMing, but I'd rather have something that actually makes it feasible to change up who's facilitating several times per session. So, I agree that I could have a fun challenge-focused experience in a game that uses D&D's model of player and GM authority, but (a.) the roles would have to be being traded back and forth a lot more often than they can be now and (b.) you'd still have to pare down the game structure to deliver challenges really quickly, one after the other, with fairly little downtime in between (this is part of what "hack and slash" play is already trying to accomplish by taking out the intervening non-tactical scenes). Right now, I don't play TRPGs for tactical fun. Most games I've encountered suffer from the player/GM authority problem described above and involve a lot of extra stuff that isn't very tactical or challenging -- you might end up with, say, an hour of tactical fun for every three or four hours of overall play, and that doesn't quite feel fast enough or consistent enough for me. I haven't really been able to find a "pure" tactical game. I'm sure one could exist, since I have been able to find games that are "pure" in other departments. I must admit I haven't been looking that hard, since I can get my tactical fix elsewhere but only TRPGs really deliver on the kinds of collaborative improvisational storytelling I enjoy. -- Alex
Ashanti 05-17-07, 11:54 AM	Content deleted.
Noon 05-17-07, 10:53 PM	Hi Alex, I get you, but as I read it your not so much bored with hack and slash (with the real chance of losing), but bored with the current implementations of it that are on the market. That's what I'm reading - your bored with the current designs, because those designs do not deliver. And over alot of valid points, which frankly I agree with by and large and actually find a little relief that I see someone seeing them too! :) So I was suggesting it was preference before - but here it'd be disinterest in playing a game for what it poorly delivers (which is sensible). I get that and will mull it over. Oh, but I can't help but take a crack at the problem with the GM: One quick idea is that the GM has a character in a completely different location (perhaps an evil one, just for the fun of being a contrast to the good party). Play goes back and forth - the GM GM's a round of player actions in their dungeon/danger zone, then the players collaboratively GM a round of the GM's character in his dungeon/danger zone. I haven't tried anything like that yet, though one could say that any time a GM works his NPC's to be a bit more vicious, he's sort of doing that game already.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-18-07, 12:07 AM	Oh, but I can't help but take a crack at the problem with the GM: One quick idea is that the GM has a character in a completely different location (perhaps an evil one, just for the fun of being a contrast to the good party). Play goes back and forth - the GM GM's a round of player actions in their dungeon/danger zone, then the players collaboratively GM a round of the GM's character in his dungeon/danger zone. I haven't tried anything like that yet, though one could say that any time a GM works his NPC's to be a bit more vicious, he's sort of doing that game already. Hmm now that is an interesting idea? Kinda like a duel quest, were while the PCs are doing there thing, a BBEG is slowly riasing to power...interging.
UltimateReality 05-18-07, 12:12 AM	Hmm now that is an interesting idea? Kinda like a duel quest, were while the PCs are doing there thing, a BBEG is slowly riasing to power...interging.Very intriguing indeed...it might work better if someone else DMs the BBEG as a solo campaign though. (Metagamey players and all that.)
Alex_P 05-18-07, 08:48 AM	Oh, but I can't help but take a crack at the problem with the GM: One quick idea is that the GM has a character in a completely different location (perhaps an evil one, just for the fun of being a contrast to the good party). Play goes back and forth - the GM GM's a round of player actions in their dungeon/danger zone, then the players collaboratively GM a round of the GM's character in his dungeon/danger zone.Noon, I can think of a few other interesting examples. There's a game called Polaris that's a good model for this, though it's not tactical at all (it's like a storytelling game). You all sit around a table and roles rotate each scene. Here's a synopsis from John Kim's RPG Encyclopedia (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/alphabetical/P-Q.html):Polaris: Chivalric tragedy at the utmost north 1st ed by Ben Lehman (2005) Tao Games A mythic fantasy game about knights of the Stars fighting the Mistaken demons of the Sun. It is designed for four players who split the gamemastering duties depending on which player character is spotlighted. A given player has a "new moon" (the player on his right, who controls personal and emotional ties), a "full moon" (the player on his left, who controls societal and hierarchical ties), and a "mistaken" (the player across from him, who controls enemies and has more control over conflict and story). As the players switch off spotlight, the roles switch around. There are also twelve "key phrases" that govern timing and decision-making. To start a scene, you begin with "And so it was"; if you object to a development, you interject "But only if" or "You ask far too much" (at which point you must negotiate the story, or sacrifice a Theme on your character sheet), and end with "And that was how it happened." When it is time for another character, you say "But hope was not yet lost, for [the next character] still heard the song of the stars" and start again. There's a game called Capes. Also not very tactical, though it's much more mechanically fiddly than Polaris. The trick there is that you can swap which character you control every scene, and you gain tokens (that you use to make stuff happen in the story) for losing a conflict. So, if you run low on tokens, you can take over a villain character next scene, build up a big conflict with the other players, and then get tokens back when they beat him, which you can then use to make stuff happen for your hero characters. There's a Lord of the Rings board game (well, there are a lot of Lord of the Rings board games -- this one's by Reiner Knizia and was published in 2000). The game is cooperative: every player is a hobbit and you're trying to get the ring to Mt. Doom together. You draw little tiles out of a bag to see when bad stuff happens to you. However, there's also an expansion where one player can be Sauron, and he's got cards and stuff that he plays against you. It's a little bit hard to describe since I haven't played it in, like, 3 years, but this is a decent model for the "going all out" thing I was talking about earlier: Sauron has limited resources, which gives him the freedom to try to kick your ass as hard as he can without breaking the game. -- Alex
Noon 05-19-07, 06:01 AM	Well it sounds like you really need full on player Vs player to get into tactical mode. Basically those designs are either for non tactical use or you'll be engaging abstract game mechanics, not the learning nuances of the world through a imagined substitute. Anyway, I'll have another crack at it - for strong PVP, the GM makes up the dungeon before hand still and you use a concrete system (ie, the rules are as unambiguous as the rules for chess are). Then for each room you randomly determine who plays the monsters and who plays the PC's. There, you'll have to engage the imagined game world as depicted, but it'll be full on in your face action! Perhaps I should start up a PBP based on that? Personally I have PC ownership issues - if I did this I'd have the lose stakes be that the PC can't die, only forced into retreat (with the room recovering back to original strength/forces - perhaps even a bit stronger as penalty for failure). But it'd be kind of fun to kick the ass of my own PC every so often!
Alex_P 05-19-07, 07:11 AM	Noon, I don't like the revolving-character model, either. I do really like the revolving-spotlight model of Polaris, though. And I'd like to see it combined with the cooperative hot-potato action of the LotR board game (you're all in it together, but the hobbit who currently has the ring is the one who gets the most crap sent his way). I agree that hard restrictions on challenge setup can go a long way towards upping the tactical oomph of the game. -- Alex
Jhalad 05-21-07, 08:53 PM	I killed 67 characters in my Shackled City campaign. I TPKed them in the last campaign. My party likes to die. They are really good at it... I used to be a nice DM, too.