Giving a player a character that's terrible and almost worthless compared to the other members of the party is generally considered bad by reasonable people, because it makes them totally replaceable by NPCs. Not having a meaningful contribution to the game is boring. I'm completely for crazy free-wheeling games sometimes (I have a 1E Gamma World game I run that is just that), but the Dark Elf player had a point. I'm not sure what you would consider "meeting you halfway". It was a little disappointing to see you dismiss his concerns, because you've otherwise always seemed like a cool GM.I don't think I'm dismissing the dude's concerns. I am still unhappy that he didn't have a good time in my game. What I'm dismissing is the concept that comparing your stats to other players is a meaningful metric for how much fun you are going to have. Sure we had a giant demon with the 12' tall scythe and a flaming dragon in the party, both of whom were much more valuable in a fight. Guess what? They were also more valuable in a fight than everyone else in the game!
And like I said before, the Warlock actually had crappier stats than the Dark Elf. Every time he cast one of his puny 1st level spells he would fall unconscious and need to be revived. That didn't stop him from seducing the comeliest bar wench he could find, or torching the village bar with a molotov. That dude and Doug's Chinese Fox (more crappy stats, though he could shapeshift to look like other people) would end up being the ones who burned down the big city, not the dragon or the demon, who wouldn't have been able to get within a mile of the place without raising a hue and cry.
The Rock Person had somewhat better combat stats than the Hobbit or the Chinese Fox or the Warlock or the Dark Elf, but I don't remember her for her fighting ability. I remember her for how she spent much of the session trying to find and kidnap the prettiest male in the village to bring home to her lair to serve as pool boy. Imagine adventurers on a dungeon expedition finding a captured paladin, not in the torture chamber on the rack or in some filthy cell, but chained to the wall of the underground swimming facility and forced to wear golden bejeweled swim trunks as his only attire!
Even the dragon and the demon weren't just walking piles of combat dice. The demon took several opportunities to sign up people for contracts with his infernal boss. (One smooth merchant said he needed to have his lawyer doublecheck the language.) And the dragon was always on the look out for the proper herbs and spices to employ whenever she roasted some victims.
In short, while there were some fights in the session, we weren't playing a combat game. We were playing a role-playing game. And I dispute the idea that one needs good stats to make the magic happen, or even stats that are as good as the other players. What I mean by not "meeting me halfway" is that the dude made no effort to develop a personality or goals. That crappy dark elf could have been many different things. "I'm looking for my cousin, the jerk with the 2 scimitars who is embarrassing the rest of us." "I'm a playing a ladytype in standard drow dominatrix garb. She's a feminist evangelist hoping to free women from the perverted patriarchy of the surface world." or even just "Hey, I've got a 30 Charisma so why don't I play the faceman for the party and see what I can talk people into doing for us?"
Also, no PC is totally replaceable by NPCs. That's just crazy talk.
%202.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Posts
Yep, gotta agree with you. People will piss and moan when they get 'crappy stats', but you'll never here someone say 'Doesn't this character seem too powerful?' Comparing stats takes all the magic out for the players, yet they do it because some are brainwashed into thinking they gotta win. They don't realize that RPGs aren't wargames, although they descended from them, and if they all roleplay and have fun, then that IS winning.
ReplyDeletecosign your post+Tedankhamen's.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only dude that relishes taking a crappy player w/1 HP and no hope for survival and trying to do something great? If yer gonna die, die spectacularly. And fer Christ's sake, this is a game, have fun.
In our games we rarely experience this kind of thing since...
ReplyDeleteA) Your ideas are more powerful than any stat.
and
B) Fighting isn't the only way to be cool.
Allow me to clarify...
The guy who punches people and sends the 3 city blocks is powerful, no question. But what happens when he faces an intagible opponent or a super speedster? I've seen the toughest and most combatastic PCs get shown up by the seemingly weak and inferior ones a thousand times because it required a creative player to defeat the enemy, not a pile of stat numbers.
It may have been difficult to pull this one off in the setting but if you are not the combat monster on the team (quite literally in M!M!) than be the trap guy, or the guy who parlays the best or the guy who searches for loot with guile and stealth while the muscle heads are duking it out.
Again, I don't play D&D type games that often so what I am saying may be hard to apply in some cases but really, if you want to play, find a way. Otherwise, when everyone picked a Dragon and Demon and such, use your head and pick something similar.
WordCap: Combrid - A communications device worn around the upper arm as an armband.
I always thought it was lame when people just look at their combat stats and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for grim-faced heroes that go about their business with seriousness and determination, but it's not all about combat. In fact, almost nothing is about combat, except for combat.
At the end of the night, nobody remembers "oh man, you really cut that dude in half with your magic axe", but everybody remembers how Elmdred the Warrior picked up Ipslipt the Madman and pitched him down a well after calling him ugly and stupid. And et cetera.
"I'm looking for my cousin, the jerk with the 2 scimitars who is embarrassing the rest of us."
ReplyDeleteROFLMPO...
Jeff, if you ever play in a game I run you have a waiver from my "no Drow" rule.
I totally agree with you. A character's value is not measured by his attributes but how he is played.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I've always had a lot more fun playing characters with limitations - low attribute scores provide interesting hooks for character development.
People play RPGs for different reasons. Some people really like the idea of feeling powerful. This isn't a surprise - we're playing a fantasy here.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point, however, I have played in games that were focused more on combat and/or spell casting.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem arises when someone feels like their character has no meaningful way to contribute to the play session. In a combat heavy game (or even a game where non-combar skill checks dominate), a player may feel unable to contribute.
I have been there, several times, and it led to some very boring sessions (especially when your weak PC gets knocked out near the beginning of a combat that takes a couple hours to resolve).
The real challenge is how to make sure these types of situations don't happen.
I've also become a strong believer in having mechanical engagement constantly in the game, so if "role playing" is the way to have fun with a character that isn't very good in combat, then the game mechanics should be able to be engaged during this "role play".
And there's nothing wrong with a particular game, or a particular character within a game, not being someone's cup of tea.
Of course from the understanding I have of T&T (I only played it once or twice, and "played" one of the solo scenarios without the rules), I think it should be pretty accommodating and not leave a player with a character that can't be effective in some way. And of course Monsters Monsters is serious silliness (one of the few times I played T&T was actually MM), and there is going to be quite some disparity between PCs. The idea is to play that up and have fun with it. Yea, the dragon's going to be doing most of the killing, and the goblins may be doing most of the dying...
Frank
I'll admit to recently dropping an online game due to crappy stats. I was playing a 1hp thief with below average abilities in a a game with 3hd+ monter characters, and I was fine with that. i love a challenge, but then the DM informed us that he would be imposing a Int / Wis fumble table for characters with low stats (both of which i fell under) to enforce proper role-playing. I don't mind playing a fool, even a hopeless one, but having DM imposed suicidal actions thrusted on me just wasn't my idea of fun.
ReplyDelete@BlUsKrEEm: UGH, I don't blame you for dropping at all. I don't mind a challenge, either, but any time someone tries to mechanically enforce "proper role-playing," I find myself asking, "Wait a minute, just who is it who's playing this character, anyway? Because apparently it isn't me." It's one reason I favor alternate alignment systems - I got fed up with too many games of D&D 3.5 devolving into arguing about whether or not something was "in character" because of alignment. That's not role-playing, that's a straitjacket.
ReplyDelete@JeffRients:
ReplyDelete'Giving a player a character that's terrible and almost worthless compared to the other members of the party is generally considered bad by reasonable people, because it makes them totally replaceable by NPCs. Not having a meaningful contribution to the game is boring.:'
This sounds kinda insulting, and is of course, subjective, in any event. And, NPCs are fun and cool,(except those who aren't ;-)) but you can hardly run an entertaining game without the PCs who are the focus, regardless of what else is happening in-universe.(Regardless if they are the most powerful or influential.) And I wouldn't want to try. But some players seem to have a fanatical hatred of NPCs(even one successfully defending her/him/itself every once in a while is 'spotlight stealing' or so on...), often with a corresponding fear of a GM's 'powers'. I dunno. I never had those types of players, but have observed them in friend's games and online. I think it ties in with being stat-centric as a way to stack-up in the hierarchy of coolness.(Badassery, even through social influence sometimes.)
'What I'm dismissing is the concept that comparing your stats to other players is a meaningful metric for how much fun you are going to have.":
You and me both, man! I've been in this same situation on both sides of the 'screen', and I personally don't mind 'crappy' stats as long as I'm playing!(Though I had a player get cheesed off in an Arkham Horror game and come close to demanding a retire a character and try for a better spread of Weapons and Spell cards. Her rudeness was repudiated by the others. A boardgame, but still...) One new player years ago before he sat in at my game) flat out tell me that he saw characters(PC or NPC) as piles of numbers! I can't even comprehend why anyone like this would even play an RPG, even back then. I mean there was Duke Nukem, Doom, Final Fantasy, 7th Saga, Heroquest, Warhammer Quest, Monopoly, etc... you could play instead. But fictional 'bad-assery'(especially of the physical kind) means so much to some people. And I'd say there's nothing you can do to accomodate them, unless you change your style to suit their whims.(Possibly pissing off other players in the process.) I'm so glad there's MMO's now, as the majority of these types are drawn to them instead.
'mechanical engagement constantly in the game':
I think you mean player engagement through the mechanics? I try to make sure the players have something to do at all times, the rules don't necessarily have to come into it. But, I'm not a social combat kinda dude, either. YMMV.
What Barking Alien said for emphasis!
'I don't think I'm dismissing the dude's concerns. I am still unhappy that he didn't have a good time in my game.':
I'd say you're not, as your still feeling bad about it some time later! But, you can't make everybody happy all the time....
I wouldn't give it too much more thought if I were you. I mean, everybody else enjoyed themselves, and it seems like you're a kick-ass GM.
I wish I would've been there, it sounds like it rocked! And of course, playing an EC game would've been even more awesome.
Even if your game were -ALL- combat, complaining that your PC has crappy stats is just complaining that you, the player, don't have enough imagination to make it do awesome things anyway.
ReplyDeleteHide, seek, sneak, use items, steal things, deceive, sabotage, and distract.
This is just poker really, isn't it? You don't play the cards you're dealt, you play the person across from the table (uh and the other people too). Strategy, not statistics. Insight, not incredible luck (on your draws or your rolls).
ReplyDeleteThese win bracelets.
Not every character can kill every monster, and not every gambler can bluff every cardsharp, but when your initial strategy fails you don't leave the table in a huff. You try to find somewhere that sells acid, or you convince someone tougher to be your bodyguard, or something.
Figure out a way around the obstacle. Just because the obstacle may be your dice or stats instead of a chimera doesn't change the fact that that basic tenet is what gaming is all about.
With a Dragon and Demon in the mix I'd WANT to be the "pathetic" elf. Basically in every combat situation, I'm no threat, I'm not the guy the bows are pointed at, I'm not the guy who's going to get impaled on every spear. I'd hide and rob the dead in the dragons wake....
ReplyDeleteI wasn't suggesting that combat stats are all that matters. My all-time favorite PC was a Star Wars character who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Importantly, though, she had abilities that let her succeed in computer hacking, impersonating officials, and running the government of a planet. (This is a tangent, but abilities are always more interesting than numbers. Higher numbers are boring.)
ReplyDeleteWhat I am suggesting is that having no meaningful mechanical way to do something in the game that can't be done better by another party member is boring. It means that almost all the real adventuring is done by the other PCs, leaving you to go play video games while they engage in a long fight that you can't contribute to meaningfully past maybe "Roll 1d6 occasionally".
The idea behind things like classes and levels is that characters are supposed to have different abilities on roughly the same scale of power overall. This is the idea of balance, which has existed since the very beginnings of RPGs, yet somehow draws a lot of hate from old schoolers, probably because they associate the concept with failures like Fourth Edition. The point of balance is to keep people engaged by giving all of them things to do.
I see RPGs as a mix of character roleplaying and the adventure of the game itself. Assuming no weirdnesses like GMs who try to play your character for you, you can always roleplay. However, you can't adventure if you aren't given the tools to do so, and that's no fun in a game where you're expected to go on adventures (which I will guess is pretty much all games).
This all comes with the proviso that the right group can make anything fun. I have good memories of a gimped Dwarven Cleric with bad (for a cleric) Wisdom and low everything else. I decided that he worshipped a made-up cthonic tentacle god and threw bodies into holes (any random hole would do) to sacrifice them to him. It was hilarious and everyone at the table liked the character. The point here being, the right circumstances can "soft balance" things, but you can't always count on those circumstances.
That ran a bit long. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, certainly not a guy who runs a consistently cool gaming blog. I'm just giving my honest opinion of how this stuff works. Also, the added information of 30 Charisma on the Dark Elf indicates that he probably wasn't being played right, because I love high Cha characters. I always go for the latter in a choice between "Combat" and "Shenanigans" to achieve party goals.
@Fey Corgi:
ReplyDelete'What I am suggesting is that having no meaningful mechanical way to do something in the game that can't be done better by another party member is boring. It means that almost all the real adventuring is done by the other PCs, leaving you to go play video games while they engage in a long fight that you can't contribute to meaningfully past maybe "Roll 1d6 occasionally".':
Dig deep and Find the Awesome of the character! And as said, there are other ways to contribute in combat other than brute(physical or eldritch) force. And other types of 'fighting' that don't involve curb-stomping. I'd say that meaningful in this context would be character input in the unfolding action drama. But whatever works for your style....
'the idea of balance, which has existed since the very beginnings of RPGs, yet somehow draws a lot of hate from old schoolers':
Actually, around the time of AD&D is when 'balance' became uppermost, ime. Before that it was like the Wild West(Literally in the case of Don Kaye's Murlynd! :-)) up in this bitch! Centaurs, Ninja, Wereboars, Robots, Witches and Warlocks.(See OD&D and the Holmes Basic set, in particular.[As well as Alarums and Excursions and Sorceror's Apprentice, White Dwarf, the Strategic Review, Dragon when it was THE Dragon, etcc...]) That's where the famous 43rd level Balrog that Gygax spoke disdainfully of in Dragon originated: "I did get a letter and I don't know if I still have it or not from a"43rd level Balrog" complaining that he didn't enjoy the game anymore -- it was too boring. Too many things were being done going from the sublime to the ridiculous that were virtually killing the game. Now, of course, there is a choice. You can play Dungeons and Dragons which is an open ended, freeform, lightly structured type of a game or you can play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which is a different game." And some(but not all, by any means) Old Schoolers adored it back then, and they(and others!) love it still. Me, I was never on that bandwagon. Ninjas(but it's a secret, there called something else in-game! ;-)), Living Orb Body Thieves, Purple Hairy Radioactive Cometoid Barrages, Pterodactyl Women, Medusae, MagiTanx, Armor Golems, Dwarf Barbarians(in a world where neither exist.) who can't use Magic on pain of death by demon, Succubus Brides, Spells that turned Blood to Dirt, and Tarzan Clones for our group!
'The point of balance is to keep people engaged by giving all of them things to do.':
The point of 'balance' in almost all the discussions(online and off) I've had and pretty much all the reference material, especially older stuff, is to keep players 'from wrecking the game' through characters that are 'too powerful'. More recently(around the era of 3rd Edition(D&D), the concept has been applied to monsters/npcs as well.
I'm not trying to insult anyone here, certainly not a guy who runs a consistently cool gaming blog. I'm just giving my honest opinion of how this stuff works.
ReplyDeleteI'm not offended or anything. I just thought your comment merited a lengthy response.
Fey Corgi said: “What I am suggesting is that having no meaningful mechanical way to do something in the game that can't be done better by another party member is boring.”
ReplyDeleteWARNING: The text below is my opinion. Mentally insert an occasional “in my opinion” or “for me” if necessary. I edited them out ’cause I didn’t like the clutter.
The thing that makes RPGs special is that there are no rules. Instead you have a judge. (I could add a lot of caveats here, but let’s stick to the traditional setup for these purposes.) Looking to mechanics for the fun is missing the point. Mechanics are the least meaningful part of the game.
(Something I had to learn through experience, by the way. I wasn’t smart enough to figure that out on my own. ^_^)
Especially in this case. T&T with Jeff at the helm, and a player is looking for meaningful mechanical stuff? You’ve got a combat system even more abstract than (pre-2000) D&D and intentionally free-form “saving rolls” and... Well, that’s pretty much it. You have a judge who isn’t going to dismiss every creative idea you bring but embrace and celebrate them.
I don’t want to come across as blaming the player, though. I think the answer is that this person just didn’t get this style of game or just doesn’t like this style of game. Nothing wrong with that.
And am I the only one who really enjoys sitting back and watching my cohorts do cool things or play a role well? Some of my favorite sessions in the past couple of years have been ones where almost nothing happened except an interesting conversation between a PC (not mine) and an NPC.
I'm just dropping in to point out how right you are.
ReplyDeleteFey Corgi wrote:
ReplyDelete> The idea behind things like classes and levels is that characters are supposed to have different abilities on roughly the same scale of power overall.
This is an idea foreign to Tunnels & Trolls. Even without using the "uncommon kindreds" allowed in M!M!, the luck of the dice and your choices of Kindred and Type can make a huge difference in the power level of your starting character. Prior to edition 7.5, there wasn't even any assumption that characters of the same "level" were commensurate in any way, mechanically speaking. Does that mean they aren't commensurate in terms of fun? Not at all!
But that's something you probably have to experience for yourself. It's a game that offers a lot of scope for creative and clever play, with a dash of luck, to trump numeric odds.
Word verification: beflame