In my last few posts I've tried to talk about the concept of a right way to play games and this last post is somewhat of a tricky one, in part because I want to finish it here and this question is the root of a lot of bigger arguments in gaming. The biggest issue with the idea of a right way to play, at least in my mind, is that it's sort of a mask for either a bigger question or idea that the person is trying to state.
It can be about gamestyle preferences, it can be a question of what a person brings to a game, really there are a lot of ways to look at it. One way is simply a matter of style and preference, the people talking about roleplay or optimization as if they were mutually exclusive for example. Another is a bit trickier and it's somewhat more prevalent in online gaming than it would be in tabletops.
In online games there can be said to be a more objective right and wrong way to play, part of why I say this is that those games are generally of a less 'sandbox' method in that classes or skillsets are designed for certain things and the game can't really alter itself based on learning curves on a case by case basis (barring server wide patches and the like). The games are also much more based around cooperation in that if a person doesn't build the warrior to tank as well as they can or the healer is built incorrectly...well that ends up making things hard for others and creating frustration for all those involved. Part of what makes a game work, and what makes a way to play 'right' or 'wrong' has to do with what makes all the people involved happy and lets them have fun.
Ignoring the systems, the arguments, etc. we all game to have fun, to relieve stress and do something interesting with out friends. Now the biggest thing in all of it is that you and those around you are having fun. Someone is playing the wrong way when they and those around them aren't having fun, sometimes it means that the person should redo their character, sometimes it means that the group needs to change in terms of some people leaving or something similar.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
The right way to play pt. 2 (sorry this took so long)
Sorry to any readers out there, real life got in the way of things for a while, I guess I'm back and will hopefully be able to put out more posts and make something enjoyable.
When last I left my second issue in the idea of playing right or wrong had to do with the concept of a player focusing more on the mechanical aspect of the game, and when the others in the group complained he argued that he got into the game to fight monsters, slay dragons, and find treasure not sit in town conversing in 'thees and thous' with local yokels. For those who are familiar with such arguments part of this is from the whole 'roleplay vs rollplay' or 'optimization versus RP' and other things that crop up.
In some cases it's a false dichotomy started by people more enamored with RP than mechanics arguing that a person who has any interest in mechanics is clearly only interested in that and they don't know how to properly roleplay. While there can be cases where people obsess over raw numbers to the exclusion of any RP elements I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I also would argue that to an extent optimization IS roleplaying but that might be a discussion for another day. Now, some people might argue that the mechanically focused player in the example is playing wrong, or at least isn't playing the game to its full potential. Conversely people might also feel some sympathy for him, if he's in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, Hackmaster, or any other game that sells itself as a game full of action and exploration then it does seem a bit like the player in question might feel like they were the victim of a bait and switch. Depending on the game some might even argue that the roleplay centric players might be 'doing it wrong' if the game they're using is a much more heavily action oriented one.
This isn't to denigrate roleplayers either, roleplay can help bring a game more to life. It can help flesh out characters and work out backgrounds for them as well as make players feel like they're a part of the world and really care about the story and feel excited about that happens around them. Some games do a better job of stimulating roleplay than others and I won't say much more on that subject.
The real crux of the issue in this one is more a matter of player expectations and group style. I have had players who have told me of my own games that they are alternately too roleplay light or heavy, that we need more or less action, etc. Now a lot of it boils down to personal preference of the players and what the person running is comfortable with. This might be a case where the group would either need to seek a compromise, maybe doing more action sequences if reasonable along with trying to get the recalcitrant player to interact more with the story. It might also just be that the player is a bad fit for the group, he or she would be happier with a group that did more action, adventure and exploring in their games rather than emphasizing social interaction.
At least this is my view, if anyone has any comments, feel free to offer them in the comments section.
When last I left my second issue in the idea of playing right or wrong had to do with the concept of a player focusing more on the mechanical aspect of the game, and when the others in the group complained he argued that he got into the game to fight monsters, slay dragons, and find treasure not sit in town conversing in 'thees and thous' with local yokels. For those who are familiar with such arguments part of this is from the whole 'roleplay vs rollplay' or 'optimization versus RP' and other things that crop up.
In some cases it's a false dichotomy started by people more enamored with RP than mechanics arguing that a person who has any interest in mechanics is clearly only interested in that and they don't know how to properly roleplay. While there can be cases where people obsess over raw numbers to the exclusion of any RP elements I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I also would argue that to an extent optimization IS roleplaying but that might be a discussion for another day. Now, some people might argue that the mechanically focused player in the example is playing wrong, or at least isn't playing the game to its full potential. Conversely people might also feel some sympathy for him, if he's in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, Hackmaster, or any other game that sells itself as a game full of action and exploration then it does seem a bit like the player in question might feel like they were the victim of a bait and switch. Depending on the game some might even argue that the roleplay centric players might be 'doing it wrong' if the game they're using is a much more heavily action oriented one.
This isn't to denigrate roleplayers either, roleplay can help bring a game more to life. It can help flesh out characters and work out backgrounds for them as well as make players feel like they're a part of the world and really care about the story and feel excited about that happens around them. Some games do a better job of stimulating roleplay than others and I won't say much more on that subject.
The real crux of the issue in this one is more a matter of player expectations and group style. I have had players who have told me of my own games that they are alternately too roleplay light or heavy, that we need more or less action, etc. Now a lot of it boils down to personal preference of the players and what the person running is comfortable with. This might be a case where the group would either need to seek a compromise, maybe doing more action sequences if reasonable along with trying to get the recalcitrant player to interact more with the story. It might also just be that the player is a bad fit for the group, he or she would be happier with a group that did more action, adventure and exploring in their games rather than emphasizing social interaction.
At least this is my view, if anyone has any comments, feel free to offer them in the comments section.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Right way to play? Pt. 1
I'm going to try to address each question as a blog post and be as concise and coherent as possible, and hopefully interesting. Let's look at the first one, where a person new to a game posts on a forum about the game asking for advice on their character. The responses are varied and each one seems to give an idea of a 'right' way to play, or the reactions to said posts. The concept of a right way to play is varied, to some people there is no real wrong way to play but there are ways that are better and worse.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Is there a right way to play?
This is something that comes up every now and again in games, and it's in both online and tabletop games, is there a right or wrong way to play? I think this one is going to be somewhat piecemeal because it's kind of a big question or at least one that isn't easy to answer. Part of the idea of there being a right or wrong way to play is the concept that there are better and worse ways of playing a game. The idea on this is somewhat dependent on who is asking and why, and it's part of what causes all kinds of arguments at game tables, forums, and blogs.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
When Roles Go Bad Pt. 2
Here I am for a belated part two. I apologize for taking so long but I hope it will be worth the wait. I mentioned that one issue that comes up in the role system is simply that the roles themselves can get in the way and screw things up trying to keep everything balanced. This area is a bit more subjective but can do a lot to impact fun as well as being common in video games as well as tabletop games. In essence it's a matter of things feeling overly similar, or 'samey'. IE two classes that are supposed to be different and distinct end up feeling identical in results and play.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
Monday, April 11, 2011
When Roles go Bad pt 1.
I mentioned before that in 4th edition one of the better ideas that they had was putting forward a solid role system, IE the classes would be set to certain types and their functions would be set around that. Defending the group, healing party members, raw damage, or AoE/Debuffing. The role system is used in other games and there are a lot of advantages to it. For one thing designing classes is a bit easier when there is a clear idea of what the class is supposed to do as well as helping figure out if something is marked too high or low in terms of damage, hit rating, etc. The problem is that roles can also lead to stagnation and can, if used incorrectly, lead to a game that is frustrating, samey, or just plain bad. I am going to try to do this in shorter bursts, I realize a lot of my posts are kind of text walls and it might be easier for someone to follow the posts with shorter posts and maybe my stuff will improve if I'm more focused.
One common problem in role based games comes from a problem in division of labor, especially in the area of the damage dealer. In most of these games everyone is able to deal a certain amount of damage, it isn't impossible for the people healing, debuffing or tanking to also lay a pretty good smackdown. However this leads to a problem, if their damage is comparable to that of the 'dedicated' damage dealer then three questions arise.
1) Why bother playing a dedicated damage dealer if a class in another role can crank out about the same amount of damage and have other options and features besides?
2) What was the point of the pure damage class in question, or even the pure damage role if the other classes in these roles can get near the damage output or perhaps even outpace it?
3) If the pure damage role is able to put out an incredibly high amount of damage, high enough that the other roles can't match it at all, then how do you avoid the idea of everyone simply going for raw damage and trying to overwhelm the targets with speed and a few hard blows.
In fourth edition D&D there were quite a few, for lack of a better term, errata storms that would hit because the Fighter was apparently outdamaging strikers, and then they would dial back the strikers to keep them from doing too much. It got frustrating but it also showed a basic problem, damage isn't exactly a complicated thing compared to what a lot of other classes do but it can still be easy to screw up, and when it goes wrong here it can get worse in other areas. I'll get into the problem of things feeling identical and some of the other issues from the role system in later posts.
One common problem in role based games comes from a problem in division of labor, especially in the area of the damage dealer. In most of these games everyone is able to deal a certain amount of damage, it isn't impossible for the people healing, debuffing or tanking to also lay a pretty good smackdown. However this leads to a problem, if their damage is comparable to that of the 'dedicated' damage dealer then three questions arise.
1) Why bother playing a dedicated damage dealer if a class in another role can crank out about the same amount of damage and have other options and features besides?
2) What was the point of the pure damage class in question, or even the pure damage role if the other classes in these roles can get near the damage output or perhaps even outpace it?
3) If the pure damage role is able to put out an incredibly high amount of damage, high enough that the other roles can't match it at all, then how do you avoid the idea of everyone simply going for raw damage and trying to overwhelm the targets with speed and a few hard blows.
In fourth edition D&D there were quite a few, for lack of a better term, errata storms that would hit because the Fighter was apparently outdamaging strikers, and then they would dial back the strikers to keep them from doing too much. It got frustrating but it also showed a basic problem, damage isn't exactly a complicated thing compared to what a lot of other classes do but it can still be easy to screw up, and when it goes wrong here it can get worse in other areas. I'll get into the problem of things feeling identical and some of the other issues from the role system in later posts.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Time in Preparation versus TIme in Play
I mentioned in my previous post an issue that I had, dragons were one example but it was frequently found with just about any monster that was in mid paragon tier to epic tier. While putting the encounter together was relatively easy, if a bit time consuming if the person running had to copy or type up the monsters stats, the encounters themselves required a hell of a lot more attention and probably more than a few pauses as you tried to figure out what was triggered and anything else that happened. This got progressively worse as you went up in levels, I was actually sorely tempted to shell out an extra 15 bucks a month to Wizards of the Coast for the D&D insider stuff because they had been promising a digital battlemat that a DM could use that would also let me see the ranges for abilities marked on the board as things moved and would actually let me know what went on, even track and calculate damage, ability recharges, and if anything would get triggered. The feature was never implemented for reasons I won't get into her, but had it been done I might have put the money down for it just because I was having so much trouble.
One of the big selling points of fourth edition was supposed to be that it was easier to run and that encounters were quicker to set up and use. This was sort of true but it kind of glossed over a few things. Encounters in heroic tier were in fact fairly quick and easy to run as well as set up, I kind of think heroic tier got the most playtesting and study because of that and it also avoided the HP inflation problems. Encounters above that had problems both in terms of tracking everything and having to stop combats or interrupt turns because they had triggered something, entered an aura, or something similar. The other thing ignored is that unless you typed up the statblocks of the stuff you were using you had to keep hopping around in monster manuals which broke flow and was more likely to make you forget things, and given all the abilities and features there were times where typing up a single regular encounter (where I made NO modification to the monsters) took more time than me building and modifying a 'big' opponent like a dragon or high level spellcaster, and it was also much more tedious since I was just copying things from a book rather than playing with abilities and actually designing something.
A bit older and wiser, a bit more experienced with games and systems and I would have to say that if I have to choose between having to spend more time preparing an encounter or having clunky and issue laden encounters when running I will take having to take more time to prepare almost every time. There are a few reasons for this, the biggest being simply that I have a hell of a lot more time to prepare than I do to play. Unless I am a professional game master (IE I'm being paid to run games and am doing it 5 days a week for 6-8 hours a day) I am probably only running games once a week. Even with a job you can usually take a few minutes each day to mess with a monster or tweak things. Conversely most groups probably only play for about 4 hours, maybe 6 and even then they probably don't game for the full duration of that and if I have to keep halting or dealing with issues during combats it means that the game is bogged down and less progress is made. Part of it is this, I have more time to prep than I do to play and when the game bogs down it's not just my time it's the time of everyone at the table.
The other thing is that prep work gets easier and quicker over time due to familiarity, if you have to choose spells there are probably some you use frequently and can simply put in from memory. The same can be said somewhat of things during encounters but that has more to do with remembering what the triggers and area sizes are constantly, and unless the monsters in question are used a lot it's less likely to be easily memorable. Also a lot of the prep work can help familiarize a game master with the system in question, if only in seeing how things like magic systems, special abilities and things like that work and how they interact with other things.
It can also help keep encounters relatively distinct, so that it doesn't feel like you're doing a retread every time you use a certain monster or classed enemy. You can do more to tweak the monsters, alter spell selections or change powers and generally make the creatures feel more unique. It's good for the players because it means they are less likely to get bored and it means that the encounters you make can be adjusted and reused if you end up a bit short on time without feeling like a rerun.
There's another element in this as well about using multiple monsters, this can almost be its own thing but I'll try to stick to the topic at hand. A lot of encounters will have more than one big honkin monster and as mentioned at mid to high levels there is a lot to keep track of on one monster. For groups of them it can be a nightmare, yes, in theory you can keep it all tracked on notes but a lot of them have auras and other trigger effects or things that happened if they became injured. It almost feels like they felt they could get away with doing this because, hey, you usually didn't have to do any special work before the game putting the encounters together, or not very much so it was fine to overload the monsters with all these features. The thing was that at least with prep work it's more like a learning curve, it is initially difficult but the stuff you're working with is fairly simple and you'll be reusing a lot of it as you go through the game. With the other system it should be better in theory, simple stuff at first with more complexities added, the problem is that you tend to get whole boatloads of effects at once around the same time for many different creatures rather than a nice gradual increase and not much of it is similar so it's hard to generalize stuff you learn from one encounter to the next.
I speak on this as someone who mostly runs games. Though I would like to hear what others out there think..and if I have any readers. Comments on this would be most appreciated, thanks.
One of the big selling points of fourth edition was supposed to be that it was easier to run and that encounters were quicker to set up and use. This was sort of true but it kind of glossed over a few things. Encounters in heroic tier were in fact fairly quick and easy to run as well as set up, I kind of think heroic tier got the most playtesting and study because of that and it also avoided the HP inflation problems. Encounters above that had problems both in terms of tracking everything and having to stop combats or interrupt turns because they had triggered something, entered an aura, or something similar. The other thing ignored is that unless you typed up the statblocks of the stuff you were using you had to keep hopping around in monster manuals which broke flow and was more likely to make you forget things, and given all the abilities and features there were times where typing up a single regular encounter (where I made NO modification to the monsters) took more time than me building and modifying a 'big' opponent like a dragon or high level spellcaster, and it was also much more tedious since I was just copying things from a book rather than playing with abilities and actually designing something.
A bit older and wiser, a bit more experienced with games and systems and I would have to say that if I have to choose between having to spend more time preparing an encounter or having clunky and issue laden encounters when running I will take having to take more time to prepare almost every time. There are a few reasons for this, the biggest being simply that I have a hell of a lot more time to prepare than I do to play. Unless I am a professional game master (IE I'm being paid to run games and am doing it 5 days a week for 6-8 hours a day) I am probably only running games once a week. Even with a job you can usually take a few minutes each day to mess with a monster or tweak things. Conversely most groups probably only play for about 4 hours, maybe 6 and even then they probably don't game for the full duration of that and if I have to keep halting or dealing with issues during combats it means that the game is bogged down and less progress is made. Part of it is this, I have more time to prep than I do to play and when the game bogs down it's not just my time it's the time of everyone at the table.
The other thing is that prep work gets easier and quicker over time due to familiarity, if you have to choose spells there are probably some you use frequently and can simply put in from memory. The same can be said somewhat of things during encounters but that has more to do with remembering what the triggers and area sizes are constantly, and unless the monsters in question are used a lot it's less likely to be easily memorable. Also a lot of the prep work can help familiarize a game master with the system in question, if only in seeing how things like magic systems, special abilities and things like that work and how they interact with other things.
It can also help keep encounters relatively distinct, so that it doesn't feel like you're doing a retread every time you use a certain monster or classed enemy. You can do more to tweak the monsters, alter spell selections or change powers and generally make the creatures feel more unique. It's good for the players because it means they are less likely to get bored and it means that the encounters you make can be adjusted and reused if you end up a bit short on time without feeling like a rerun.
There's another element in this as well about using multiple monsters, this can almost be its own thing but I'll try to stick to the topic at hand. A lot of encounters will have more than one big honkin monster and as mentioned at mid to high levels there is a lot to keep track of on one monster. For groups of them it can be a nightmare, yes, in theory you can keep it all tracked on notes but a lot of them have auras and other trigger effects or things that happened if they became injured. It almost feels like they felt they could get away with doing this because, hey, you usually didn't have to do any special work before the game putting the encounters together, or not very much so it was fine to overload the monsters with all these features. The thing was that at least with prep work it's more like a learning curve, it is initially difficult but the stuff you're working with is fairly simple and you'll be reusing a lot of it as you go through the game. With the other system it should be better in theory, simple stuff at first with more complexities added, the problem is that you tend to get whole boatloads of effects at once around the same time for many different creatures rather than a nice gradual increase and not much of it is similar so it's hard to generalize stuff you learn from one encounter to the next.
I speak on this as someone who mostly runs games. Though I would like to hear what others out there think..and if I have any readers. Comments on this would be most appreciated, thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
