DarkLightHitomi:
I call it modern more because it is the standard expectation in modern designs but not older designs. That is not meant to imply that such thinking didn't exist from the beginning. There us a reason after all that Gygax complained about playing the rules vs playing the game. That kind of player always existed, but it wasn't always the design philosophy.
I see, thanks, I get what you're talking about, you want a return to the metagaming days of yore: Challenge the Players, not the Characters.
And no bones, that is metagaming.
The way I play is to mix that, challenge the Character, with an informed Player.
For example: I don't care if you, the Player, are a skilled surgeon. If your Character doesn't have any medical skills,
they do not have any medical skills. So telling me that Thrax the Barbarian has watched his village shaman clean and suture wounds means diddly if their skill for Wound Treatment is 0, you're rolling with a 0 skill.
Likewise if I tell you that Thrax has detected a trap ahead (good Trap Finding roll), your meta-knowledge on how to get around traps doesn't help if you have no Trap Removal skills. Because I'm not telling you how it's trapped, how it's set off, etc. That's going to come down to your Character's skills.
Can you avoid the trap by taking a different route? Getting meta-creative and burrow through a wall, just turning around, or flying over it etc? Sure, any of those things
might work (and some certainly will, like turning around and going a different way), and that's being an informed creative Player, but you will not defeat the trap by "placing a bench over the pressure plate", that tactic is part and parcel of Trap Disarming type skills (figuring out how the trap is triggered exactly and what the trap will do). And frequently I will put in odd things that "trigger" trap detection skills, or just "metagamingly" sound like trap triggers, oddly colored tiles, oddly raised stones, a crack in the floor/wall/ceiling, "dart sized holes" in the wall's relief artwork, etc, specifically to frustrate metagamers who don't have the proper skills on their Characters.
Also I never challenge the Players in ways that a roll of the dice against a Character's skill cannot solve, because I abhor Gygaxian metaplay/metagaming (except dealing with "plotlines", and even then there are plenty of skills that can help the Character become informed, but ultimately decisions are made by the Player and executed by the Character).
DarkLightHitomi:
Firstly, I wasn't talking about metagaming.
Actually you are. you're talking about challenging the Player not the Character, and that takes the challenge "off the table" and places it squarely against the Player.
quote:
Try reading Tucker's kobolds. That is an example of how creative thinking can make something weak into something terrifying.
Tucker's Kobolds is a classic example of metaplay, create a situation that exceeds or targets the
Character's weaknesses, avoids attacking their strengths and/or resistances, and forces the
Players to outwit and out strategize the GM.
Tucker's Kobolds only works on "lower/mid level" D&D Characters who do not have access to all the "super heroic" magics available to a party of 12th or higher. Once a party can routinely murder a dragon without breaking a sweat or even worrying, Tucker's Kobolds are a non-challenge, even to your "video-game mindset" Players.
gladiusdei:
since I started this whole conversation, I feel like I need to input. What Darklighthitomi is describing is what I was saying about the versions. I agree that 4th and beyond feel decidedly "video game" in outlook.
3e and beyond (it actually started in 3e with the "ditch the GM" mindset of 3e, the "a rule for everything" design philosophy) were designed to remove the metaplay. If your PC didn't have Diplomacy, then your amateur thespian Player wasn't going to be making impassioned pre-battle speeches, or picking locks without Lockpicking, or describing how magic works without ... ah... Thaumaturgy? (I can't remember the "magic knowledge" skill for D&D anymore)
Now, I'll grant you 4e had a very ... mmm ... "linear fixed solution path" mindset baked into it and the way the "powers and abilities" had "cooldowns", yes, I've heard the "it's emulating an MMO" repeatedly. To me it the "tap your powers" and "board movement" and "zone control" felt like a CCG game mixed witht eh Heroquest boardgame. More boardgamey and Magic the Gathering than WoW.
But I do see that complaint.
However... For me, 3e (and beyond) were a bit of a fresh breathe of air, a turn of the system more towards the games I prefer where your
Character has the skills, not the Player.
If you want to challenge me, the Player, then let's go all the way right? We take bokkens, and we fight. I mean, that's only fair, right? If I have to solve the GM's devious word puzzle and remember which fork is the salad fork to avoid an 'international' incident for the Characters, GM has to get his butt-whipped in real time for his orcs...
quote:
what Darklighthitomi is talking about is presenting everything as if "power" is the answer, when it doesn't need to be.
This is true, and even the way I run games; highly skilled, highly tactically minded, problem solving Players will have far greater success than less personally skilled, less tactical, less "problem solving" minded Players. I try to account for this with Tactics checks from Characters, and advising the "non-tactically" minded Players but, yeah, even I admit I don't always do the greatest job.
quote:
I do agree that fighters are more one-dimensional by nature, but that's part of the nature of a dungeon crawling game. The fighter is intended to be the tank between the more "powerful" magic users and the dangers that threaten them.
And this is where non-D&D games shine. In GURPS for instance, the Wizards almost never "out power" the Fighter types, they just out 'versatile' them. They have far more problem solving tools in their arsenal, but most of those tools are there to empower themselves
and other Characters. In fact, empowering the Fighter is usually the most tactically sound thing a Wizard can do in a fight in GURPS... mages are support, not glass-cannons (though depending on the rules the GM is using, they can be very D&D Wizard like, if one wants). But out of a fight? Very few other "professions" have the problem-solving versatility of a mage.
quote:
My initial question is closely tied to all this. I like gestalt because of the story aspects of it, the interesting class combinations that create unusual and cool characters. But if every player only approaches it as a way to maximize their "power" as you define it, it isn't worth my time, because they aren't looking for the same type of game I am.
Then your best bet is to carefully work with the Players and watch out for powerful combos. Admittedly when I played Gestalt games I preferred to mix Rogue into something else, purely for the skills. I hate playing under-skilled classes.
Gavinfoxx:
Oh yes, Don't use D&D 3.5 for a noncombat game at all, ever.
This is fact. If you want a mostly non-combat style game, chose a system that strongly supports non-combat encounters. I personally recommend GURPS, though FATE is a sound choice, as is FFG's L5R, they have interesting non-combat stress and defeat mechanics that most other games do not. Following that, basically any system where the reliance is on Skill use rather than innate "class" ability, even for combat, is a better way to go as the system will have a reliance on skill use and a more primary way of adjudicating skill usage. So Savage Worlds, the Storyteller System (Chronicles of Darkness), etc. Even
Chartmaster Rolemaster is better at non-combat games than D&D, though you'll never be using it's famous damage charts, which is either a blessing or a curse depending on your viewpoint (it's a blessing, trust me).
This message was last edited by the user at 09:29, Mon 22 Nov 2021.