Quote from: flyingmiceYes! Trying to wean ex-D&Ders from attacking a Tiger tank with a Colt 1911A .45 calibre pistol is my life's work.

See I don't see this as a D&D-caused problem, because as you say, it wasn't really the case in AD&D1e or 2e. It's just 3.5 on. And D&D3.5 came out after computer games had been around for the better part of a generation.

And the thing in computer games is a gradual escalation of challenges. If you're not able to defeat the thing, often the game won't even let you try - there's just a scripted dialogue sequence, then you're whisked away to the next scene. Perhaps in the intro scene you'll get a look at the Boss you'll have to deal with in the final scene - again, a scripted scene where you can't try and fail to defeat him at the start.

Because computer games require only one player, many players come to a roleplaying game session with far more hours of computer games behind them than roleplaying games. Because computers are stupid, they can only manage that step-by-step, escalating challenges approach. Again, this has been going on far longer than this Challenge Rating nonsense.

Now, combine the long culture of computer games with the fact of players spending many more hours on them than they ever do on roleplaying games, and what you get is people expecting that every challenge they meet is one they can deal with head-on with no preparation or planning.

Also, again because of the stupidity of computers, the only challenges they can offer are obstacles - monsters to kill, platforms to jump between. They can't offer complications. So players come to the session and are really surprised by complications. Sometimes it's delighted surprise. "Finally, something that challenges my brain and not my twitch reflex or minimaxing!" Sometimes it's horrified and confused surprise. "What? But... can't I just kill someone and the problem is solved?"

I don't think you can blame D&D3.5 for this. It comes from computer games. I mean, D&D3.5 was published after Doom and Diablo.

Will D&D4 be fair and balanced like Fox News is fair and balanced?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSee I don't see this as a D&D-caused problem, because as you say, it wasn't really the case in AD&D1e or 2e. It's just 3.5 on. And D&D3.5 came out after computer games had been around for the better part of a generation.

You are correct, Kyle. The ultimate root of this attitude is computer games. AD&D 2 & 3 had their problems, but this wasn't one of them. I think the designers of D&D 3 figured this was a great tool for GMs to guage a threat, which it is, but many players and GMs alike looked at it as a model instead.

-clash

Quote from: HaffrungWhile we don't have any formal research on player attitudes towards risk and balance in D&D, we do have a fairly large company with lots of resources that periodically revises the game. It's reasonable to assume they make these revisions based on a pretty good sense of what their customers say they want. Judging by the mechanics that end up being incorporated and revised in the game, it's pretty clear that a lot of players want the game to be governed more by carefully calibrated rules and by transparent, clockwork mechanisms than by DM judgement. It's also pretty clear that PC death is much less common today than it was 20 years ago. To me, that spells player entitlement, and anxiety about risk and 'fairness'.

Fair point about Wizards doing their research, but I'm not sure if your conclusion is correct. It could be that many players are having difficulty with the CR/EL system as written, and want something that facilitates a smoother play experience. Or that greater transparency allows for DM's to gear their games just how they like, rather than being beholden to a set of mechanics that don't withstand rigorous analysis.

And yes, character death does seem to be less frequent, but I do wonder exactly how much of that is a response to juvenile players crying and winging. It could be that Wizard's are trying to perpetuate an (*gasp*) immersive agenda by extending PC lifespans, thus allowing more time for players to get into their characters mindset. Or they may have concluded that a strong identification with a particular playing piece leads to the greater likelihood of lengthy campaigns, which result in the group utilising more supplements.

The fact of the matter is that we just don't know for sure. I'm still enormously skeptical about how any of what we've been talking about obviates the necessity of DM judgement, though. It seems to me like an echo of the old "role vs. roll" argument, where a reliance on system benefits was seen as somehow undermining the narrative potential of RPG's. Understand that I'm in no way accusing you of holding such a view, it's just a weird sense of deja vu I'm experiencing right now.

Quote from: DrewAnd yes, character death does seem to be less frequent, but I do wonder exactly how much of that is a response to juvenile players crying and winging.

There's another question. Is it really the case that players are wusses and weep if their character is killed, or is it more that GMs are too wussy to kill any off?

I mean, some GMs really seem to fear ever upsetting any of their players, and to err on the side of being a softie.

I'm not saying GMs should be setting fire to someone's character sheet while cackling madly each session, but... Like me, I see the whole point of roleplaying rather than computer gaming or watching tv, the reason for it is that roleplaying's a social creative hobby. Now, the social thing isn't too relevant here because it can be a fun social occasion whatever the rules or play or GMing styles are. But the creative part... Well, the players get to really participate, to make choices that affect the outcome of the game. If their choices are meaningless, if the same thing happens no matter what, then they may as well read a book or play a computer game.

I've an old friend who works with physically disabled people as a carer. So she'll do things like take a guy to a pub. It's easier for him if someone can press through the crowd for him to get him a drink since he's in a wheelchair. She told me that sometimes these clients of hers would ask her something like, "do you think I should ask that girl out?"
"I don't know. It's up to you."
"Yeah but she might not like me 'cos I'm in a wheelchair and that."
"Ask her and you'll find out."
"But she might laugh and reject me and..."
"So you fuck up, that's life."

My friend explained to me that as she saw it, part of being human and living a full life was trying things you might fuck up completely. Making choices which could lead to happiness or fuck-ups, and you never knew till you tried. As a carer, her job was to put them in a position where they could have the chance to make those decisions. She was giving them the chance to fuck up, because only with a chance of fucking up are their lives meaningful.

I think it's much the same with GMing. If I know that every encounter I have is either a scripted dialogue or a combat which I can win with reasonable dice rolls or twitch reflex, then my choice to enter that encounter isn't meaningful. There's no real chance of a fuckup. As GM, my job is to give the players the chance to fuck it all up. I'm giving them meaningful choices. The choices they make matter, and affect the outcome of the game.

This then gives us the "creative" part of the hobby. Okay, maybe you ain't the Hemingway of character background writers, maybe your accents are all terrible and your acting worse than the most wooden of soap stars. But you can make choices. And not just multiple choice, but write your own short answer. And those choices will make other things happen, and you'll be part of creating this series of events. You'll get to be creative, one way or another.

If every challenge is merely an obstacle, if all that's challenged is your dice and your ability to tack together the right traits for this encouter - well, you may as well go play a computer game.

Now, do players really only want these kinds of scripted challenges? Don't they want meaningful choices? Are they really that in love with computer games? If not, why wouldn't they play one? Why are they sitting here with their dice and cheetos when they could be at home? Don't they want something different?

Is it really players wanting games like this, all scripted and challenging only their dice? Or is it that gamemasters are too timid and dim to give the players something different? Did they really put Challenge Ratings in because players wanted them, or because the GMs were being unimaginative wusses?

It's just that I've seen a lot of players go through my game groups I've GMed or played in, and a lot of them complain about these sorts of games. They say, "if I wanted something like that I'd just play Diablo." Then they play a game with complications as well as obstacles, which challenges their minds as well as their dice, where their decisions are meaningful and affect the outcome of the game - and they love it. Not all of 'em, sure - but most.

Are they really selling this kind of scripted choiceless game to D&D players, or D&D GMs?

Quote from: CalithenaWill D&D4 be fair and balanced like Fox News is fair and balanced?

Have you ever actually watched Fox News for any significant amount of time?  (I'm honestly curious.)

Quote from: flyingmiceIf it's in the rules, it's fair game. D&D 3E is much more difficult to houserule than older editions due to its tightly structured design. Older D&D and AD&D players are far more cavalier about rules.

This is exactly why I felt it so difficult to just fudge things in my D&D 3.5 game.  Things were so tightly structured that it was difficult to just fudge one part without worrying what it might mean to other parts.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't think you can blame D&D3.5 for this. It comes from computer games. I mean, D&D3.5 was published after Doom and Diablo.

So maybe what D&D 4 really needs is save gems or reset gems that let you replay an encounter if it goes badly -- just like computer games.

Quote from: John MorrowHave you ever actually watched Fox News for any significant amount of time?  (I'm honestly curious.)

Hi John -

I don't own a TV. I've watched more Fox than other news because it's more likely to be on in other places, but we're talking like an hour a month here tops. There's an observer bias with my attitude towards Fox in that I tend to think of their news broadcasts as contiguous with BillO and Hannity and so any rat-fuck stupid thing those guys say I tend to attribute to the news department (it is supposedly a news network). I do know that the news dept. itself has scrubbed out or falsified partisan affiliations on several occasions where the accused party is a Republican (Foley was shown as a Democrat, Larry Craig is currently having the slot under his picture left empty).

I'd rather not talk to you about this stuff because I greatly respect your opinion on role-playing games.

Quote from: John MorrowSo maybe what D&D 4 really needs is save gems or reset gems that let you replay an encounter if it goes badly -- just like computer games.

I thought that was called "raise dead".

Quote from: CalithenaI'd rather not talk to you about this stuff because I greatly respect your opinion on role-playing games.

I don't think that Fox in unbiased.  I simply think that it's not nearly as biased as many people assume, especially once you go outside of Bill O'Reilly and Hannity.  I was curious whether your opinion was from personal experience or came from someone else.  You answered my question.  Thanks.

Quote from: CalithenaI thought that was called "raise dead".

You'd have to make it a first level spell and get rid of the loss of the level.

In other words, make it readily available and usable without penalty.

See, threads like this are why I question whether this site is really as "mainstream" as is often claimed.  

This is like a cornucopia of stock D&D bashing, all concentrated in one place.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere's another question. Is it really the case that players are wusses and weep if their character is killed, or is it more that GMs are too wussy to kill any off?

I mean, some GMs really seem to fear ever upsetting any of their players, and to err on the side of being a softie.

I think it's both, pretty obviously. Though the "wussy" language isn't entirely justified--especially, I think, under older versions of (A)D&D. Look, there are people who just want to play their characters, who become very attached to them, and are profoundly bored by strategic and tactical concerns.

Personally, I've had trouble with these sorts of players; not only do I prefer a more "stiff upper lip" style of play, I also think some people come to the table with an uncompromising attitude regarding the inviolability of their characters. Nevertheless, I think it's well within the Cheetoist creed to suggest that if you have a group of friends, one of whom fits this profile, then as long as everyone else is cool with the idea, it's perfectly reasonable for everyone else to compromise, and for the GM to modulate the challenges so that you have interesting decisions, but rarely ones that will end up killing a PC if the "wrong" choice is made. It only becomes a problem when the GM carries the assumption from game to game that kid gloves are needed.

Another possible source of the phenomenon--and this does lie squarely with the GM, so it's closer to your hypothesis, Kyle--is when you've got a GM who's heavily invested in a particular plot that depends on the survival of some or all of the PCs. E.g., the classic "quest to save the world". If a key PC dies, that's the end of the game. Unless maybe you assume, after a TPK, that some other group of 3-5 adventurers is going to pick up exactly where the original party left off, which, frankly, is lame...and one of the reasons I tend to dislike quests.

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, threads like this are why I question whether this site is really as "mainstream" as is often claimed.  

This is like a cornucopia of stock D&D bashing, all concentrated in one place.

I dunno.  I've met plenty of people who love D&D.  Not a one of them were without some complaint about this rule or that.