TheRPGSite

I've mentioned in several threads at this point that most of my players love gaining distinct mechanical abilities through leveling up. They are the ones that WotC are thinking of when they fret about "dead levels" where no mechanical benefits are gained.

Now, a lot of folks on this forum know deep down that many/most mechanical wiz-bangs are actually pointless circuitousness. They can even hamper the sort of improvisation that is supposed to be one of tabletop's advantages over computers by declaring, "You can't do this awesome thing unless you have 4 levels in X".

But my players can't see this. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy running games with such mechanics in them, I had great unironic fun with 4e. The problem is that my players balk at any game that doesn't offer "kool powerz", games that work more off of character skills, player skills, and a few strategically placed special abilities. I feel that this is a real shame for them and for me.

What are the best approaches to weaning players off of the craving for constant mechanical gain?
Should they be weaned off?
Is this a generational problem with no going back?

They're not your kids, you're not supposed to be trying to "wean" them off of anything.  They're your friends.  Play games with them that you all have fun playing.

It's system specific IMO.
DnD 5e has lots of level based "kool powaz!"
I enjoy running 5e because of that.

I also like Legend (MRQ2, RQ6 whatever) and would run Legend if I had players for it.
It doesn't really do that sort of thing, which is fine, as long as everyone enjoys that sort of gaming style.

I know right now, time is a premium for me, so more detailed games like Legend and so on, just take too long.
5E is like an instant gratification system for me. Level up is pretty quick and you can do a lot in a short timeframe.
So the level based powers you get are good fun and give quick gratification.

If my lifestyle changes so I can spend entire weekends playing RPGs, I'll probably look at less quick gratification and level based power games more.

Still, in answer to your question, what RPGs did you have in mind that your players aren't keen on?
For example, when I ran Legend, you can develop legendary abilities and stuff like that so make it more interesting. Players I was running it for looked forward to being able to do that, even if they never actually reached that point.

I find such level abilities a waste of time and prefer more freeform games.

But I mean, it depends on what game you're playing. If you don't want such a game, then play a freeform one like Dungeon World. But if you're already playing Pathfinder then you might as well embrace what the game is meant for. It's just a question of which game to pick.

Pitch a campaign idea for a system that does not include kool powerz.  If nobody bites, look at them expectantly for someone else to be willing to GM.  If/when they do bite, prove your theory - run such a damn good game that the lack of kool powerz is not missed.  

By the by, I run for folks aged 18-50 (or so).  I have not noticed any generational divide on this issue.

Quote from: Old One Eye;830875Pitch a campaign idea for a system that does not include kool powerz...If/when they do bite, prove your theory - run such a damn good game that the lack of kool powerz is not missed.

This has been my experience recently. My long time group had not yet played ACKS with me. I pitched an open table sandbox as a game type that went well with our current lifestyles and schedules. It has worked exceedingly well, and the campaign has been a lot of fun. Even the couple players who were hard core min/maxxers that I thought would only give up pathfinder/3.x when I prised it from their cold, dead hands, largely haven't missed it. They're having too much fun.

Quote from: Critias;830871They're not your kids, you're not supposed to be trying to "wean" them off of anything.  They're your friends.  Play games with them that you all have fun playing.

This.

More like wean yourself off of the Players who demand 'kool powerz'... find some folks who share your interests more closely.

Players have always been interested in 'power', whether its in magical item form or mechanical character doodads.
Potentially the issue is the players being in a mindset where they don't believe they can do something unless its on their character sheet. Hopefully if they realize they can do cool things in play, without an explicit mechanical widget, then they'll start to give up the need to have a specific power. But that requires them to actually try out a simpler ruleset to see how this work in practice, and even so they may not pick up the appropriate player skills fast enough to not get murdered by kobolds.
 
The in-between step maybe to try to play an older game and tack on some widgets (I don't know what system you want but for instance instead of B/X, there's BECMI and allow use of some of the dodgier General Skills). You can also try educational pamphlets like the Old School Primer.

Make them play Call of Cthulhu.

Quote from: danskmacabre;830872It's system specific IMO.
DnD 5e has lots of level based "kool powaz!"
I enjoy running 5e because of that.

I also like Legend (MRQ2, RQ6 whatever) and would run Legend if I had players for it.
It doesn't really do that sort of thing, which is fine, as long as everyone enjoys that sort of gaming style.

I know right now, time is a premium for me, so more detailed games like Legend and so on, just take too long.
5E is like an instant gratification system for me. Level up is pretty quick and you can do a lot in a short timeframe.
So the level based powers you get are good fun and give quick gratification.

If my lifestyle changes so I can spend entire weekends playing RPGs, I'll probably look at less quick gratification and level based power games more.

Still, in answer to your question, what RPGs did you have in mind that your players aren't keen on?
For example, when I ran Legend, you can develop legendary abilities and stuff like that so make it more interesting. Players I was running it for looked forward to being able to do that, even if they never actually reached that point.

It's a system thing, and a setting thing.
And part of it is expectation and and how interesting the character-setting interface is.  If the setting is meh, which leads to the interaction between the character and the setting  being meh, then the players will always search out for system perks to liven it up.

Players do like leveling/adding abilities.  But you can scale these into more granularity.

I run an online game about to hit 50 sessions right now, and the PCs are first year students.  So they can barely light a fucking candle still, though each PC has found out they are sensitive to a type of magic, which does have cool moments.  Game is flying by and heavily attended, due to the setting-character interface.

Quote from: Critias;830871They're not your kids, you're not supposed to be trying to "wean" them off of anything.  They're your friends.  Play games with them that you all have fun playing.

Actually, they are my kids - or, more accurately, my kids' friends. I've in the past run successful Labyrinth Lord campaigns for my kids & a mix of friends / neighborhood teens / neighborhood parents, so my kids mostly trust me. But too many of their friends in the new neighborhood want to start with POWERFUL HEROES and progress from there, rather than play in a more modest power level.

I'll compromise on humanocentric swords & sorcery for my kids, running multiracial middle fantasy, but I don't want to compromise on system structure: with novice young players, across at least 3 DMs, every game with power-rich systems like 4e has led to the children only trying to do what's on their character sheet, which in turn results in a very boring combat-centric game for them.

One of those DMs was highly experienced in 4e and runs a wildly popular open table, so he might have been able to improve their experience over time, but see again "wildly popular".

(Another answer would be for me to stop trying to run games for kids, but (1) I want to pass on my hobbies to my kids, and (2) having kids it's a huge struggle to make time for games which don't include them.)

Quote from: Critias;830871They're not your kids, you're not supposed to be trying to "wean" them off of anything.  They're your friends.  Play games with them that you all have fun playing.

What if they don't know what they're missing? I'd be a much poorer person, culturally speaking, if others hadn't pushed me out of my comfort zones.

I'd say the OSR owes much of its growth, evolution and influence over current game design to people who were talked into trying it.

Quote from: danskmacabre5E is like an instant gratification system for me. Level up is pretty quick and you can do a lot in a short timeframe.
So the level based powers you get are good fun and give quick gratification.

If my lifestyle changes so I can spend entire weekends playing RPGs, I'll probably look at less quick gratification and level based power games more.

Interesting way of looking at it. Usually the sales pitch goes:

"This game's mechanics are less complex so it's faster and better for people with busy lives."

But your reasoning is:

"This game's mechanical density adjudicating a simple scenario (dungeon crawl) will deliver satisfaction faster than Traveller's simple system adjudicating complex scenarios."

I hadn't thought it through like that.

Personally, I'd argue the answer is "make an interesting setting/situation, and give them interesting choices within it."

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;830866I've mentioned in several threads at this point that most of my players love gaining distinct mechanical abilities through leveling up. They are the ones that WotC are thinking of when they fret about "dead levels" where no mechanical benefits are gained.

I've never understood the need for levels if the only thing you are gaining is hitpoint bloat.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;830866Now, a lot of folks on this forum know deep down that many/most mechanical wiz-bangs are actually pointless circuitousness. They can even hamper the sort of improvisation that is supposed to be one of tabletop's advantages over computers by declaring, "You can't do this awesome thing unless you have 4 levels in X".

Hogwash.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;830942What if they don't know what they're missing? .

Sounds like a Dm issue

Quote from: Imperator;830912Make them play Call of Cthulhu.

LOL no shit! Then again... it might scare them off of gaming in general.

I "ween" players off of power-gaming by simply GMing the world as the game I want to run.

Not trying to sound trite, but it comes out in the "setup" of your campaign. If you're just saying "Let's play D&D 5e!" and roll up characters with people that don't have any idea of what they're in for - they're going to go off of whatever preconceived ideas that they're used to.

If you read 5e (or any other edition of D&D) it's very easy to see how people get into Kool Powerz mode. I beat the dead horse with this - but it's about the GM giving context to those powerz. Why do they exist? What does it mean to level-up? What context do these classes represent in your gameworld? What do they represent to the PC's?

Sounds complex... but it's really just about codifying the vision of gameworld and how it mechanically works in context with the rules.

I'm a little oldschool, in that for me - leveling assumes a *lot* of things other than "DING! I killed the Manticore, it's XP total is X and now I'm 8th level!" And players that play at that conceit of the game will never know anything else than that unless you give it context the way you want to run it. And you should be prepared that D&D might not represent the system you want to do this with.

Getting to 9th-10th level in my games takes a lot of work. It's virtually impossible to just dungeon-crawl your way there without having made enemies or did an awful lot of traveling etc. By 10th level you should be considering the bigger picture in my games, usually. I don't let people just purchase whatever feats they want when leveling either. They have to find someone to train them, or they need to exhibit the consistency of practice in downtime to self-train it. I'll often provide those things if the player asks "How can I go about self-training Savagery as a Feat?" and we'll work it into the game.

But the point is - you give those Kool Powerz context and you'll find that it gives a lot of players satisfaction they earned it rather than simply just dungeon-grinded up the preqrequisite number of XP then magically knows it. It will give you as a GM some sense of world-building too with possible springboards to other adventures. For instance I had a Ranger make friends with a Barbarian tribe to learn a Feat (and a class) and that turned into a series of adventures where the entire party was fighting to save the tribe from encroachment of the local Duke that wanted the tribes land.

Of course it will come down to you, as the GM, to set that standard and enforce it. And be prepared for negative results. Some people *just* want to play like that.

It's always confused me, that if people don't like cool powers, to the point of misspelling them and making them into bad words, and yet STILL play D&D, how in Demogorgan's name do they reconcile spells?  The epitome of Cool Powers.

I mean, at low levels a Wizard can put a gang to sleep with a single word.  Climb better than a Thief type, open doors with a single gesture and fire a triple volley of bolts that never miss.  Those are cool powers, and the higher you go, the better you get to where you can cross continents as easily as crossing a threshold to get to the next room, talk to a God and compel them to answer you truthfully, summon a storm of meteors to level a castle or army.  How is that acceptable, and yet, letting Fighter's dual wield and do damage on both blades/weapons not be OK, for example?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;830910Players have always been interested in 'power', whether its in magical item form or mechanical character doodads.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;830972It's always confused me, that if people don't like cool powers, to the point of misspelling them and making them into bad words, and yet STILL play D&D, how in Demogorgan's name do they reconcile spells?  The epitome of Cool Powers.

The problem is, this isn't really what the OP is talking about, and frequently not what other people are talking about when they criticize "kewl powerz". Perhaps this is because they are using the wrong phrase to describe the problem.

The problem is that the players described in the OP won't get out of the mindset of thinking in terms of mechanics  and system.. It might not necessarily be because they think they can only do what is described on the character sheet: they may know they can try anything, but before they will attempt it, they want to know what bonus they will get, so they can compare it to the bonuses from other mechanical advantages -- the "kewl powaz" -- before making a decision.

So the problem is not the power level. The problem is the numbers. Try playing the same system as before, but warn them to stop thinking in terms of numbers and mechanics. Think in terms of what your fictional actions actually do. Also tell them that you will change the way things work mechancally, and ]they don't get to know what or how, just that you will be fair. Keep all bonuses and penalties behind the screen, and ban gamer jargon; only let them describe what they are doing, and if they ask if one power is better than another, only answer "it's more powerful/less powerful", no hard numbers.

Perhaps add a time limit to making decisions. This is what was great about the old school one-minute round: it took about one minute to resolve, so it's practically real time. If someone delays making  a decision during combat, it takes that much time to make a decision in the game world. Players should always plan their strategies before they get into combat.

Get rid of skill checks for anything except quality. Just let most actions succeed, and be generous with the results. If you have to roll for attacks and damage, but a good idea gives you a near-sure thing, eventually you will start focusing on coming up with ideas instead of relying on the system to cover your ass.

I find it annoying only when someone bitches about the "dead space" in a class.

It got to really moronic levels over on BGG/RPGG with a thread about "fixing" stat bonus progression so there was no "dead space". argh!

These types yes. Wean them the heck off that mindset.

Otherwise just play and if they whine about a level up where they got no kewl powerz then tell them "To bad! You get all these other things throughout the class. What the hell is wrong with you?" well. Ok. Maybee not so harshly. :pundit:

First up, confession time, I'm a fighter fan.  And my idea of playing a meat shield is taking less damage.  So I want to be able to hit things hard, and fast, that way me and my friends take the least amount of damage.

This is not numbers, it's how a fighting man thinks, the less time the opponent is up, the less time he/she/it has to harm us.  So for me, I'll typically pick something long and phallic like a greatsword or use two weapons, depending on the mood I'm in.

And if I'm playing a level based game, I want abilities that help me do my job, as I see it.  Help the party take whatever foe or foes down as hard as I can.  And power bennies at various levels as long as they help me do what I want, is nice.  But they're often, as you, Talysman, describe them, Cool Powers.

But for me, I don't care what the numbers are, as long as they help my concept and make sure I'm not a liability, or I feel impotent for my choices.

However, I also have to point out that in my anecdotal experience that most D&D Wizard/Caster players always go for the 'numbers', if they could pick a spell or two.

For example, a decent wizard player will quickly realize that for most fights, a damage based spell like Fireball is incredibly inefficient, and will likely choose something that's more effective, like a 'save or die' spell, like Sleep, Flesh to Stone or Charm X.

That's looking at the numbers.

Now that I think on it's pretty much what we do in real life anyway.  We always look at the numbers and decide which is better based on various factors.  Take a car for example, how much miles per fuel unit, how much weight it can carry, how fast can it go in case of an emergency, all these things are looking for the most efficient method to get where you want.

Cool Powers is not the problem, it's the GM assigning more importance to them than they really are.  If they're in the game system, they're meant to be factored into every choice made.

Either accept it, or play something else.  And if the players don't want to?  Well, I hope your pool of players will allow you to find another group to play with you, with similar tastes.

Dude, are you or are you not the guy running the game? If you are, then say that you will run game X, that does not have kool powerz and if they do not want to play then they can go elsewhere.

While you are at it, go read Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads!!! (http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-Screwheads-Unexpurgated-Cyberpunk-Referees/dp/0937279455) Also found in PDF. (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/50383/Listen-Up-You-Primitive-Screwheads)

Quote from: jeff37923;830988Dude, are you or are you not the guy running the game? If you are, then say that you will run game X, that does not have kool powerz and if they do not want to play then they can go elsewhere.

While you are at it, go read Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads!!! (http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-Screwheads-Unexpurgated-Cyberpunk-Referees/dp/0937279455) Also found in PDF. (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/50383/Listen-Up-You-Primitive-Screwheads)

I owned that book, and it is among the WORST GM advice ever.  The other one being the Amber Diceless RPG core book.  It assumes you're taking an adversarial relationship with your players.  That's a wargamer attitude, where everyone on the other side of the table is an enemy to defeat.  RPGs haven't been like that since AD&D 1e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;830991The other one being the Amber Diceless RPG core book.

It is very safe to assume we have different definitions of "good".  I am now going to check out the other book mentioned, because if you think it rates along with Amber Diceless, it sounds pretty awesome to me.

Quote from: robiswrong;830993It is very safe to assume we have different definitions of "good".  I am now going to check out the other book mentioned, because if you think it rates along with Amber Diceless, it sounds pretty awesome to me.

It promotes pitting players against each other, and is gleeful in it's style of writing about it, that makes it Bad GMing advice in my book.  Is it a good game, despite that?  Depends on your experience with a Diceless system.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;830991That's a wargamer attitude, where everyone on the other side of the table is an enemy to defeat.  RPGs haven't been like that since AD&D 1e.

It was not like that even in 1e. I am pretty sure it was not like that even in OD&D. The DM was not out to "defeat" the players. The DM would though happily allow the players to defeat themselves. See Geezers recounting of the Bag of Holding scoring the first ever self TPK (and first TPK?) due to player foolishness.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;830991I owned that book, and it is among the WORST GM advice ever.

Obviously, tastes are different.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;830991It assumes you're taking an adversarial relationship with your players.  That's a wargamer attitude, where everyone on the other side of the table is an enemy to defeat.  RPGs haven't been like that since AD&D 1e.

Considering that the OP is trying to ween his Players off of a style of play, it looks like he is already in an adversarial relationship with them.

Quote from: jeff37923;830998Considering that the OP is trying to ween his Players off of a style of play, it looks like he is already in an adversarial relationship with them.

If your players are smokers and you are trying to wean them off that bad habit. Then you are in an adversarial relationship with them then.

As noted in a post above. If the players are being obnoxious about so-n-so then the DM is within rights to try and curb it somehow if they feel it warrants.

If they arent being annoying then we drift onto the slippery slope.

So the question to the OP is. Are the players being obnoxious about it? Is it being disruptive of play?

I play fighters too. I like to write a *lot* about fighter-related stuff for D&D. Most of the stuff I did for 3e and in Dragon almost always had material for fighters.

Here's the irony - what you're talking about is exactly what I'm talking about, but we're coming to the opposite conclusions. I'm saying when a Fighter gets "Awesome Feat X" it IS special. Otherwise it wouldn't be contained in a Feat.

The campaign assumption you're making is that just because you *can* have it, it's "normal".

Well that's as arbitrary to assume everyone walking the street "knows" Brazilian Jiu-jutsu.

Now you can certainly play your brand of D&D like that. Sure. Have at it. But that's when BJJ becomes a "kewl power" because it's free of any context of the campaign. That's what we're talking about. At least that's what I'm talking about. It's the entire notion that a player walks into a game and does "the character build" - one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of. At this level I take x, then I take a level of x to maximize on that, then this feat at level x - etc. etc. until you have this perfect one-trick pony RAW but completely out of context of any campaign, simply because it's built that way.

So this grand assumption of what you want RAW vs. what you have access to by dint of gaming is the gap that needs to be addressed.

Nothing in the rules says you *can't* make a character build. But what does it mean that because you're a Fighter you suddenly in the middle of your campaign in the Desert of Desolation you 1) get the necessary XP to level up 2) you decide to dip into Monk class 3) Pick up random Feat X etc. So in the context of your game, if that's cool, great. In my games - negative. You don't magically "learn" to be a Monk in the middle of an adventure, or learn some awesome maneuver out of nowhere. I'm more flexible if it's something you planned and are telling me "After we pitch camp, I spend two hours practicing that maneuver (so it will give me a reason to purchase Cleave or whatever) when I level up. So it's flexible to a point.

But it always comes down to how you wanna run it. For me - just being an Adventuring Class is special. In 5e that IS the assumption. Which is like 1e/2e. 3e did away with this by assuming everyone had a class (even if it was just Warrior/Expert or whatever). This conceit then changes everything about the game.

So 5e is actually closer to 1e in this respect. Which is good since the underlying math makes getting to 10th level the best part of the game, rather than the unholy shitpile 3.x turns into post 11th, and some say earlier than that.

It's also what got everyone hopped up on this idea that every level should have some cool power or ability. This is not an inherently bad idea, except the fact it makes the assumption that everyone has them.

As an aside - in 3.x I wanted Non-casters to get their feats frontloaded in small 5-level PrC's in order to keep pace with casters. Especially since the math favored the games that were pre-level 12. But for some reason... they wanted players to follow this really bad 20-level design that the system was horrible at.

So now you have a couple of generations of players with these expectations scratching their heads at 5e retro-feel in certain places. Or outright not liking it.

Edit - Pondsmith's "Listen Up, You Primitive Screwheads!" is a good book. Love it. But I don't need it. I've done this long enough to know what being really adversarial is vs. running a game that way. And to contextualize Screwheads that way is simply being obtuse.

Quote from: Naburimannu;830936Actually, they are my kids - or, more accurately, my kids' friends. I've in the past run successful Labyrinth Lord campaigns for my kids & a mix of friends / neighborhood teens / neighborhood parents, so my kids mostly trust me. But too many of their friends in the new neighborhood want to start with POWERFUL HEROES and progress from there, rather than play in a more modest power level.

I've had great success running Mentzer Classic D&D with my son, we started when he was 6. But he told me he wanted to play a dragon-riding wizard, and I let him start at 4th level MU with a white dragon mount.

You can do the same with these kids - let them start at higher level, say 3 or 4, with cool stuff like a magic mount, a magic sword, boots of levitation etc - one cool thing each may be enough. That should work well, they don't need all the huge complexity of 3e-4e.

My players are not adversarial and I do not resent them in any way. We have a great time. But as I've said before, they don't love RPGs so much that they won't go do something else if they aren't interested in the game I'm offering. No muss, no fuss, no hard feelings. Ultimatums won't work. They'll just give me a, "That sounds cool, it's just not for me, see you in Starcraft II later this week as usual, right?" and be on their way.

I can genuinely offer anything I want, but I can't compel people to sign up for it. They'll just run more board games or WoW raids or whatever instead. And I'll always be welcome to join them in that. But of course I want to run RPGs. So I compromise.

I compromise until I figure out a way to make a sales pitch that gets past their allergic reaction to what I described. That's what I'm asking for. It's not some drama, some battle of wills.

Alright, so the word "wean" infantilized them, poor choice of words on my part, it obscured the nature of the problem. I just want to open their minds a little.

Drag out the XP process so that leveling up takes +X more sessions. Fill out those sessions with more setting compelling content. Don't reward easy combat slaughters or easy money with XP.

Those who are just in it for the powerz grinding will float on back to online raids, those who are in it for playing a role in an imaginary world will stay and thrive — all are happy.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to run a system that lets the players do their thing, while running a game that challenges that mind-set without being over the top about it.

For instance, run a 3.5 or PF game - which has all the mechanical bits it sounds like your players are interested in - but run an adventure heavy with political stuff, mysteries, exploration, and/or kingdom-building. Give the players moments and opportunities to shine and use their mechanics, but also ensure that one of the main goals of the game is something that the mechanics explicitly do not cover, or if it does, does so with a wide enough brush that there's significantly fewer "dials and levers" for the players to engage with on a mechanical level.

If they are totally willing to drop the game essentially on a whim if it doesn't tickle their fancy, then you have a significantly harder job, and will have to ensure that the elements lacking in mechanical complexity are sufficiently compelling that they don't wander off.

This thread inspired Kodarr the Barbarian... system, campaign, and Game Mastering.

Here's the link to his advice column:  
http://www.draconicmagazine.com/articles/kodarrs-kommandments-8

VS

Wee bit of self promotion...

If players are really only interested in what their characters are capable of mechanically there is little that can be done. Try to excise them from your games and banish them to their mom's basement where they can spend countless hours building the ultimate whatever, because really, they will enjoy that more than actually playing.

Some ideas in brief:

Play a game that offers cool stuff instead of powers, like Traveller. In spite of surface similarity the dynamic may be different.

Emphasize followers instead of individual abilities. More units adds capability and tactical richness without the kewl factor.

When the players try to do something non-mechanical, treat it as their characters are highly competent and generally let them succeed unless there's a good reason not to. Then they'll be less inclined to look to powers as an escape clause for beating the world.

Once you put the rules in context, as Tenbones mentioned, then you end up making decisions on things other than the numbers.  Greatswords are always awesome...in games without reach, size or weight limits, or in settings where peasants carrying battlefield weapons into a bar raises no eyebrows.  In reality a greatsword isn't always the best tool anymore than a squad automatic weapon, automatic shotgun, or sniper rifle is always the best weapon for a soldier.  Context matters, and playing the rules divorced from setting relevance eliminates that context.

Whenever the players are focused on the rules to the detriment of the campaign setting...change the rules.  Pathfinder is great for Golarion...it makes less than zero sense in any other context.  Take all those prebuilt templates of powers, blow them up and reassemble into setting specific classes.  Don't allow unlimited multi-classing.  Allow for more free skill choice, so the min-maxers aren't forced into CharOp mode by having only X possible Skill slots at Y level.  Come up with alternate means of advancement based not solely on XP, but on time, money, social connections.

If your players are thinking of their characters as numbers on the sheet, there's only ever been one way to deal with that (if you think it needs dealing with) - get them off the sheet and into the heads of their characters with advancement totally in context based on your world, not on a body armor plate masquerading as an RPG book.

The more I think about it, the more I think you've got two options:

1) "Hey, I wanna run a game like this.  It'll be different than what you're used to, in that you won't have kewl powahz.  But here's what'll be cool about it.  Interested?"

2) Run the system with the kewl powahz.  Let 'em have them.  But then focus on the non-kewl-powahz parts of the game - the interactions, etc.  Let them see the cool stuff that exists outside of powers and widgets.

Personally, as a GM, I'm all for giving my players cool powers, so I just realized that I can't really contribute, so I am going to apologize for butting into this thread and backing out.

Sorry, man.

Happy Gaming.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;831009they don't love RPGs so much that they won't go do something else if they aren't interested in the game I'm offering..."That sounds cool, it's just not for me, see you in Starcraft II later this week as usual, right?"

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Sounds like you have computer gamers there who don't mind playing tabletop games, but don't particularly care one way or another whether it's a tabletop role-playing game.

You need a different group.  You've got one it sounds like that you have fun with, up to a point, and they're not willing to compromise at all towards making the game more fun for you (or even trying to).

When you can answer "See you in Starcraft II later this week as usual, right?" with "Nah, I'm playing in a RuneQuest game on Saturdays now.", you might see them start to put the merest fraction of thought into your tastes and likes instead of you always compromising instead.

Or not, then oh well.  At least you'll have a type of game you like.

Who got them started on "cool powers"? Maybe that person can get them off it with something new.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;831009My players are not adversarial and I do not resent them in any way. We have a great time. But as I've said before, they don't love RPGs so much that they won't go do something else if they aren't interested in the game I'm offering. No muss, no fuss, no hard feelings. Ultimatums won't work. They'll just give me a, "That sounds cool, it's just not for me, see you in Starcraft II later this week as usual, right?" and be on their way.

I can genuinely offer anything I want, but I can't compel people to sign up for it. They'll just run more board games or WoW raids or whatever instead. And I'll always be welcome to join them in that. But of course I want to run RPGs. So I compromise.

I compromise until I figure out a way to make a sales pitch that gets past their allergic reaction to what I described. That's what I'm asking for. It's not some drama, some battle of wills.

Alright, so the word "wean" infantilized them, poor choice of words on my part, it obscured the nature of the problem. I just want to open their minds a little.

Wait until some popular media comes around that really sells the sort of game you want to run, and pitch a game in that setting.  If they have Batman or Pirates of the Caribbean on their minds, they may be willing to go against their preference for playing Supermen.

Quote from: CRKrueger;831147Once you put the rules in context, as Tenbones mentioned, then you end up making decisions on things other than the numbers.  Greatswords are always awesome...in games without reach, size or weight limits, or in settings where peasants carrying battlefield weapons into a bar raises no eyebrows.  In reality a greatsword isn't always the best tool anymore than a squad automatic weapon, automatic shotgun, or sniper rifle is always the best weapon for a soldier.  Context matters, and playing the rules divorced from setting relevance eliminates that context.

Whenever the players are focused on the rules to the detriment of the campaign setting...change the rules.  Pathfinder is great for Golarion...it makes less than zero sense in any other context.  Take all those prebuilt templates of powers, blow them up and reassemble into setting specific classes.  Don't allow unlimited multi-classing.  Allow for more free skill choice, so the min-maxers aren't forced into CharOp mode by having only X possible Skill slots at Y level.  Come up with alternate means of advancement based not solely on XP, but on time, money, social connections.

If your players are thinking of their characters as numbers on the sheet, there's only ever been one way to deal with that (if you think it needs dealing with) - get them off the sheet and into the heads of their characters with advancement totally in context based on your world, not on a body armor plate masquerading as an RPG book.

Exactamundo!

Edit: fuck i'm old.

Quote from: Alathon;831191Wait until some popular media comes around that really sells the sort of game you want to run, and pitch a game in that setting.  If they have Batman or Pirates of the Caribbean on their minds, they may be willing to go against their preference for playing Supermen.

To clarify, it's not about playing supermen, it's about distinctive mechanical crunch. D&D's Sneak Attack is a perfectly mundane thing in the gameworld's fiction, but still qualifies as "kool powerz" because it has been sectioned off and complexified for a certain class to feel special.

As for the media based-pitch, I did try. I used Firefly to pitch Traveller and Stars Without Number. No sale.

By the way, I do want to thank everyone who has posted in this thread, it has been very interesting and thought provoking.

Players usually want abilities with mechanical heft because it's something guaranteed to work. Being creative without it takes more energy and effort, and they don't know how effective it will be. Meanwhile they have abilities spelled out to exact specifications on their character sheet. Eventually they might stop looking outside of those abilities altogether.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;831226Players usually want abilities with mechanical heft because it's something guaranteed to work. Being creative without it takes more energy and effort, and they don't know how effective it will be. Meanwhile they have abilities spelled out to exact specifications on their character sheet. Eventually they might stop looking outside of those abilities altogether.

To build on this..I suppose it might be useful to take a step back and figure out what's making them tick. This actually nails one of the major things: players who are interested in the 'game' element of the roleplaying game tend to want to exploit existing rules to beat the system. Some of them maybe just don't like failing (taking the risk to figure out whether the GM is likely to shoot down an idea). Some of them just aren't that creative - which is to say, when you give them a problem they try and solve it by translating it to game mechanics to get the solution, instead of putting themselves into the situation as their character. A number of them have an active feeling of revulsion at the idea that GM interpretation should be involved; there's a feeling that a solution thats not directly from the rules is cheating somehow.

The other thing that maybe a factor is that a lot of the newer games are fairly high-powered compared to older ones. A higher power level often goes with more detailed rules, as in 4E, because once you leave reality behind people stop being able to agree on what's reasonable for a character to do without them. So not liking low-powered games is tied into it somehow as well.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;831213To clarify, it's not about playing supermen, it's about distinctive mechanical crunch. D&D's Sneak Attack is a perfectly mundane thing in the gameworld's fiction, but still qualifies as "kool powerz" because it has been sectioned off and complexified for a certain class to feel special.

As for the media based-pitch, I did try. I used Firefly to pitch Traveller and Stars Without Number. No sale.

By the way, I do want to thank everyone who has posted in this thread, it has been very interesting and thought provoking.

Glad to pitch in, I've had a lot of good gaming advice from this board.

If they like crunchy mechanics but aren't insistent on superheroic character abilities, it does sound like they appreciate the crunch for itself, for being well-defined, and easily understood when compared to predicting how the DM will adjudicate things.  They offer surety, a written contract of what they'll be able to do in the setting (people in our world often being very cruel about what they promise and deliver).

Get an accomplice, someone who isn't a best friend or wife or such, but who agrees with you on the idea of less crunchy mechanics having merit, or is at least not hostile to it.  Run a game that permits both high crunch and low crunch characters, in which your accomplice plays a low crunch character, and throughout that game demonstrate that such a character can be fun to play, and that the lack of well-defined crunchy abilities does not restrict them but can enable them, and does not wedge them into a bad bargaining position where they ask for a lot and get little.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;831213As for the media based-pitch, I did try. I used Firefly to pitch Traveller and Stars Without Number. No sale.

Please say this was not your pitch, but rather, you are just truncating things because this is a message board and not an essay.  Because this pitch is fucking terrible.  It does nothing whatsoever to engender interest.  

Pictures, dude.  A few minutes on google images to get the right feel works wonders.  Describe the exciting things you anticipate to be doing in the game.

Quote from: Old One Eye;831319Please say this was not your pitch, but rather, you are just truncating things because this is a message board and not an essay.  Because this pitch is fucking terrible.  It does nothing whatsoever to engender interest.  

Pictures, dude.  A few minutes on google images to get the right feel works wonders.  Describe the exciting things you anticipate to be doing in the game.

Don't worry, I pitched Traveller a few times before I even saw Firefly (years after it came out). I figured it would be a good tactic because Firefly has a lot of cred in my circles.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;831347Don't worry, I pitched Traveller a few times before I even saw Firefly (years after it came out). I figured it would be a good tactic because Firefly has a lot of cred in my circles.

Traveler is not the pitch unless the players are already stoked to try out Traveler before you try the pitch.  You do not sale the system, you sell the dream.  Traveler is merely the vehicle to get to the dream once they are slavering for it.

Here is an analogy.  Part of my day job is to work with the mortgage industry.  A mortgage loan officer gets paid commission for selling mortgage loans.  You will starve as a mortgage loan officer if your pitch consists of the terms of the mortgage loan.  You hook the customer by selling them the dream of owning a home.  You have them imaging getting the keys and becoming master of their own domain.  You talk about the home the realtor showed them, you discuss what they plan to do with each room, how they want the yard, etc.  Only after they WANT that home do you get into the nitty gritty of 4.5% interest, 5% down, etc.

When you pitch a new campaign idea, you are a salesperson.  Sell the dream.  Once they are hooked, they will play even if the specifics of 2d6+skill vs DC8 does not sound exciting.  Then run a damn good game to prove the dream is real.

Do this a couple times, and your group will trust you.  They will be willing to try whatever because your game is that damn good.

But if you focus on mechanical specifics ... well ... tell me how many people you know who purchased a new car because of torc ratio rather than how it looks.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;831213To clarify, it's not about playing supermen, it's about distinctive mechanical crunch. D&D's Sneak Attack is a perfectly mundane thing in the gameworld's fiction, but still qualifies as "kool powerz" because it has been sectioned off and complexified for a certain class to feel special.

I know I said I was going to step out, and frankly, I'm not going to suggest anything, but the Bold part?  That is literally every single spell in a D&D styled game.  Every single spell is a separate rules block that has it's own unique abilities and doesn't interact with the base game, in any way.  So by allowing spells in D&D, you're allowing Kool Powerz.

What makes them different?  The fact that the DM (in some editions) is the one who gives them out?  Or something else that makes them "OK"?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831356I know I said I was going to step out, and frankly, I'm not going to suggest anything, but the Bold part?  That is literally every single spell in a D&D styled game.

*mumblemumble* D&D should have had a more freeform magic system (such as noun-verb) that relies on DM judgment and player skill/creativity. The spell lists don't fit with everything I think is most-right with OD&D.

Quote from: Old One Eye;831354But if you focus on mechanical specifics ... well ... tell me how many people you know who purchased a new car because of torc ratio rather than how it looks.

That's a bad analogy because...  Actually no, it's a good one, but it defeats your point.  See, torc power may not be on their minds, but horsepower, top speed, 0-60 in how many seconds.  Or if not going for a sports car, you sell them how many people it seats, how safe it is, how much mileage per gallon of gas.

All those are mechanical bits (Kool Powerz) that look past how neat the car looks, is what a lot of people look for, they WANT to know how a car performs, because if it looks pretty, but doesn't go very far, or guzzles gas like your favourite slurpie on a hot day, then people will feel like they've been ripped off.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831360That's a bad analogy because...  Actually no, it's a good one, but it defeats your point.  See, torc power may not be on their minds, but horsepower, top speed, 0-60 in how many seconds.  Or if not going for a sports car, you sell them how many people it seats, how safe it is, how much mileage per gallon of gas.

All those are mechanical bits (Kool Powerz) that look past how neat the car looks, is what a lot of people look for, they WANT to know how a car performs, because if it looks pretty, but doesn't go very far, or guzzles gas like your favourite slurpie on a hot day, then people will feel like they've been ripped off.

I'd just like to say that I'm currently looking at new cars and my wife and I are on completely different sides of the situation. I AM looking at torc, horse-power, NHTSA safety ratings, seating, air-bags, MPG, as well as 0-60, stopping, wheel diameter, features, and trim. My wife, on the other hand, can say if she wants or doesn't want a car just on how it looks. And all of that stuff that's important to me, minus safety and maybe AWD capability, is stuff she feels I shouldn't be concerned about.

Personally speaking, I think I'm going into it with a LOT more knowledge and will most likely pick a better vehicle than what she'd go into with and get swindled with purchasing. What is so funny is how deep one's commitment to a dealership or vehicle brand one can be. My wife swears by Subaru and insists that they can and will run forever and a comparable vehicle in both mileage, body, size, and price is automatically worse. I find that ridiculously frustrating.


So....I'm not sure what this has to actually do with the thread of players losing or not using Kool Powerz but I saw cars being brought up and my current vehicle situation sort of relevant.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831356I know I said I was going to step out, and frankly, I'm not going to suggest anything, but the Bold part?  That is literally every single spell in a D&D styled game.  Every single spell is a separate rules block that has it's own unique abilities and doesn't interact with the base game, in any way.  So by allowing spells in D&D, you're allowing Kool Powerz.

What makes them different?  The fact that the DM (in some editions) is the one who gives them out?  Or something else that makes them "OK"?

I totally agree. Player Agency, a term often that refers to specialized stuff a player has complete control over, has often been only the purview of spellcasters in pre-3E D&D. With the advent of Feats and the continuation of things like Maneuvers (3e, 5e, and Pathfinder) and re-newable exploits (4e) it's given more agency to a far larger number of character classes. What was originally 1 person making the "what should I use now....?" is now the entire table. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing, but apparently it is.

I have a question though, why do you want players to rely less on Kool Powerz? It wasn't really mentioned in the OP so I thought I'd ask for better clarification. Are they getting in the way of improv? Can they be used in conjunction with improv (Lord knows I do this a LOT in 3.5, 4E, 5E, and PF)? What do you hope to accomplish by having players rely less on their mechanical abilities and more on their own personal knowledge/abilities or should they?

See I can remember from my AD&D 2e days where DMs were often more rewarding for outgoing individuals in the group. Ones who would "hog" the role-play splotlight, ones who would use their real-world knowledge to solve "in-game" problems. Ones who would game-the-DM instead of actually adhering to their's characters stats. Another player, for example, specifically detailing how to pick a dead-bolt lock with wire and a small metal fitting and using that knowledge for their Int 9 Dwarf Warrior in the game and the DM being perfectly fine with that. To me, that's a huge problem.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831360That's a bad analogy because...  Actually no, it's a good one, but it defeats your point.  See, torc power may not be on their minds, but horsepower, top speed, 0-60 in how many seconds.  Or if not going for a sports car, you sell them how many people it seats, how safe it is, how much mileage per gallon of gas.

All those are mechanical bits (Kool Powerz) that look past how neat the car looks, is what a lot of people look for, they WANT to know how a car performs, because if it looks pretty, but doesn't go very far, or guzzles gas like your favourite slurpie on a hot day, then people will feel like they've been ripped off.

My apologies for lazily typing on a message board rather than fleshing out the concept.

Those mechanical bits on the car, the car salesperson can only use them to make the sale if such things are already important to the customer.  I will never care about 0-60 when looking for a car.  The salesperson will not make the sale to me if that is the pitch; it is a turnoff if that is the focus.  My best friend is keenly concerned about it, and so, 0-60 is a big selling point to him.

Similarly, the particular mechanical bits to Traveler have already been shown to be a turnoff to the OP's players.  But he still wants to make the sale.  Doubling down on selling the mechanics of Traveler will turn his potential players away.  Conversely, if the OP were in this thread asking how to sell Traveler to players who like a sraightforward game system with little in the way of kool powerz, my advice would be to talk up Travelers's mechanics.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;830866What are the best approaches to weaning players off of the craving for constant mechanical gain?
Should they be weaned off?
Is this a generational problem with no going back?

We play RuneQuest and do a lot of HeroQuesting.

Kewl powers are what makes the PCs different and special. Personally, I love them.

However, we gain them from HeroQuesting, not from increasing levels, so they are slightly different.

Quote from: Batman;831365I have a question though, why do you want players to rely less on Kool Powerz? It wasn't really mentioned in the OP so I thought I'd ask for better clarification.

So that we have the option of playing the many interesting games that don't offer the same amount of kool powerz.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831356I know I said I was going to step out, and frankly, I'm not going to suggest anything, but the Bold part?  That is literally every single spell in a D&D styled game.  Every single spell is a separate rules block that has it's own unique abilities and doesn't interact with the base game, in any way.  So by allowing spells in D&D, you're allowing Kool Powerz.

The same is true for magic items (and non-magic items for that matter) -- they each provide a block of "Kool Powerz". What spells and magic items are in my game are completely under the GM's control, however.  Of course, in the games I run, everything is under the GM's control as there are no rules for players to try to enforce on the GM -- only guidelines for the GM to use in creating his or her campaign.

I don't have the problem with "kool powerz" because players who enjoy the "gamist aspect" of RPGs more than they enjoy exploring and interacting with the setting as their character(s) generally refuse to play in my games or drop out after a session or two of not being able to impose their preferred style of play on the GM and other players.

QuoteWhat makes them different?  The fact that the DM (in some editions) is the one who gives them out?  Or something else that makes them "OK"?

The fact that I give them out and that they all have limitations that make it somewhat easy to prevent their use (spells fail if the caster takes damage before the spell goes off, spells can't be cast if the caster is silenced or can't gesture, magic items can be dropped, etc.) is what makes them acceptable in my games. Naturally, these limitations apply to enemies as well as PCs. Players

I think the best solution is to seperate the Coolzz from the Powers. I have run mechanically simple system were three players all had healing spells. Mechanically exactly the same. Descriptive and coolz wise they each produced their healing differently. Each in its own cool individual way

1) one prayed and sand Psalms
2) the martial artist - Mr Miyagi it rubbing his hands together etc
3) was a Dr. so did mock surgery putting things back together

If you're talking about class-based systems... I'll pass on this idea.

What would be the point? If everyone has it, then you should just bake it into the core system.

If you're talking about these being options a PC can take - fine. Ultimately it will still be regulated by the advancement rules of the game and that throttle is in the hands of the GM.

Quote from: Old One Eye;831354Here is an analogy.  Part of my day job is to work with the mortgage industry.  A mortgage loan officer gets paid commission for selling mortgage loans.  You will starve as a mortgage loan officer if your pitch consists of the terms of the mortgage loan.  You hook the customer by selling them the dream of owning a home.  You have them imaging getting the keys and becoming master of their own domain.  You talk about the home the realtor showed them, you discuss what they plan to do with each room, how they want the yard, etc.  Only after they WANT that home do you get into the nitty gritty of 4.5% interest, 5% down, etc.

Selling a dream.... so you're the guy who trashed the global economy in 2008. :D

Quote from: soltakss;831374Kewl powers are what makes the PCs different and special. Personally, I love them.

To quote the wily Watto " No, they won't-a"

Unless a kewl power is UNIQUE to a particular character, and no other character before or after that one has the same power, the kewl powers do nothing to make the character unique and special.

They are simply mechanical widgets used to do do stuff. If I can build a character with the exact same kewl powers as another character thenneither of by definition are unique.

One of the issues with having a vast array of kewl powers is that some of them are going to be better than others and will chosen by everyone due to effectiveness producing optimal cookie cutter builds which is the exact opposite of unique.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831539One of the issues with having a vast array of kewl powers is that some of them are going to be better than others and will chosen by everyone due to effectiveness producing optimal cookie cutter builds which is the exact opposite of unique.

Funny thing: this seems to never actually happen.

Could it be that there's a difference between: (1) theorycrafting and investigating the mechanical underpinning of a game; and  (2) making decisions about what you want to play, limiting the problem space and - while possibly optimizing within that space - winding up with a local maxima, rather than a global one?

Quote from: S'mon;831507Selling a dream.... so you're the guy who trashed the global economy in 2008. :D

Hehehe, pretty good one.  I'm the poor sap trying to stop the economy from being trashed by such greedy folks.  ;)

Quote from: Batman;831365I totally agree. Player Agency, a term often that refers to specialized stuff a player has complete control over, has often been only the purview of spellcasters in pre-3E D&D. With the advent of Feats and the continuation of things like Maneuvers (3e, 5e, and Pathfinder) and re-newable exploits (4e) it's given more agency to a far larger number of character classes. What was originally 1 person making the "what should I use now....?" is now the entire table. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing, but apparently it is.

I think its arguable that anyone gets "player agency" as you put it, pre-3E. Outside of very fixed circumstances what they do is very GM-dependent, the rules they plug in to are fuzzy, and there's a lot of hidden information that will invalidate them: the 1E DMG has a secret chapter of what spells do that the PHB omitted, and monster abilities are (or are meant to be) mysterious.
But to answer your question, when the exact capabilities of everyone is delineated you eventually get to the point where every problem is solved by pushing a button on your character sheet and the player may as well not be there.
For the game to be worth playing it has to incorporate player skill - the only questions are how much, and what kind ? Rules-fu before the game, tactical play during the game, role-playing...these are all player skills of one sort or another.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;831588But to answer your question, when the exact capabilities of everyone is delineated you eventually get to the point where every problem is solved by pushing a button on your character sheet and the player may as well not be there.

See, I get the impression that all we're bashing is 4e.  Because a lot of players did that in the local RPGA.  But that was a problem with how the RPGA was set up, where improvisation and free thought was frowned on, simply because allowing it would alter the playing field, and when you have players who can wander to any table, you need a pretty firm set of rules.  But home games are supposed to be more flexible.  Maybe no one thought outside the box after all.

You know, now that I think on it, Kool Powerz have been around since at least AD&D 2e.  I don't recall seeing anything in the reprinted 1e books, but if you wanted the best all-round saves, you went Fighter.  If you wanted to specialize in a weapon, to hit and do more damage, you also went Fighter.  You wanted to be a half-healer, be immune to diseases, you went to Paladin.  Rangers are for those who want to dual wield and look badass doing it in the woods.  You want to pick locks and climb walls, you went Thief.  You fell into the Jack of All Trades trap, you went Bard...  But everyone knows that they are the Party's Face.  Their go-to guy/gal when you wanted to step into politics.

Kool Powerz exist to help differentiate each other in a game where niches are important.  If you remove those, then you may as well all make the same character, because there's nothing that will say "I'm a FIGHTER!"  Or "I'm the Wizard!" unless you give them special toys to fondle.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831591See, I get the impression that all we're bashing is 4e.  Because a lot of players did that in the local RPGA.  But that was a problem with how the RPGA was set up, where improvisation and free thought was frowned on, simply because allowing it would alter the playing field, and when you have players who can wander to any table, you need a pretty firm set of rules.  But home games are supposed to be more flexible.  Maybe no one thought outside the box after all.

You know, now that I think on it, Kool Powerz have been around since at least AD&D 2e.  I don't recall seeing anything in the reprinted 1e books, but if you wanted the best all-round saves, you went Fighter.  If you wanted to specialize in a weapon, to hit and do more damage, you also went Fighter.  You wanted to be a half-healer, be immune to diseases, you went to Paladin.  Rangers are for those who want to dual wield and look badass doing it in the woods.  You want to pick locks and climb walls, you went Thief.  You fell into the Jack of All Trades trap, you went Bard...  But everyone knows that they are the Party's Face.  Their go-to guy/gal when you wanted to step into politics.

Kool Powerz exist to help differentiate each other in a game where niches are important.  If you remove those, then you may as well all make the same character, because there's nothing that will say "I'm a FIGHTER!"  Or "I'm the Wizard!" unless you give them special toys to fondle.

Been there since Paladins and rangers were more than just ways of playing a fighter and druids weren't just a sort of cleric (who of course also had kool powerz)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;831588I think its arguable that anyone gets "player agency" as you put it, pre-3E. Outside of very fixed circumstances what they do is very GM-dependent, the rules they plug in to are fuzzy, and there's a lot of hidden information that will invalidate them: the 1E DMG has a secret chapter of what spells do that the PHB omitted, and monster abilities are (or are meant to be) mysterious.

True, but every game is dependent on the GM. The GM in a 4e game, for example, is just as able to say "nope, that spell doesn't work here" as they were in a 2E AD&D game. But that's not entirely what I was alluding to. The point wasn't that the DM can change effects but that codified effects were prevalent information for the players. A wizard casts fireball has a reasonable idea of what is going to happen but a fighter who says to a DM he wants to vaunted over the table, slash at an orc, then leap up to a hanging chandelier has really no clue as to what that will entail. The agency here is 100% with the GM.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;831588But to answer your question, when the exact capabilities of everyone is delineated you eventually get to the point where every problem is solved by pushing a button on your character sheet and the player may as well not be there.

If that is true then this is a systematic problem that has effected nearly every single version of the game. It specifically points to spells and other do - dad's (magical and mundane) that entails any mechanic outside of what the DM states to do. And if that's true, then the entire premise for classed - based games are obsolete. You might as well play a class-less game like GURPS or even straight basic d20 with ability scores and race but everything from that point on (except math) is free-form.
 

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;831588I For the game to be worth playing it has to incorporate player skill - the only questions are how much, and what kind ? Rules-fu before the game, tactical play during the game, role-playing...these are all player skills of one sort or another.

I haven't seen a D&D - style game yet that has excluded these so far.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;831542Funny thing: this seems to never actually happen.

Could it be that there's a difference between: (1) theorycrafting and investigating the mechanical underpinning of a game; and  (2) making decisions about what you want to play, limiting the problem space and - while possibly optimizing within that space - winding up with a local maxima, rather than a global one?

Spin it however you like, the simple truth is that the only unique things about a character to make it special come from the player, not a rulebook or the character sheet.

Quote from: Batman;831619True, but every game is dependent on the GM. The GM in a 4e game, for example, is just as able to say "nope, that spell doesn't work here" as they were in a 2E AD&D game. But that's not entirely what I was alluding to. The point wasn't that the DM can change effects but that codified effects were prevalent information for the players. A wizard casts fireball has a reasonable idea of what is going to happen but a fighter who says to a DM he wants to vaunted over the table, slash at an orc, then leap up to a hanging chandelier has really no clue as to what that will entail. The agency here is 100% with the GM.

Fireball as all sorts of unknowns associated with it. How is the GM going to estimate the whole 33,000 cubic foot area, is he going to blow up the party? Are they seriously going to enforce item saving throws that will fry all the treasure? Most spells in AD&D are a double-edged-sword; there's not as much discrepancy between the fighter and the wizard as you might think.

My point is more of a tangent and I'm actually not specifically calling out 4E here (3E probably comes closest to complete player empowerment). What I'm trying to say is that if you're looking to justify powers as an alternative to player skill because player skill is bad...that doesn't necessarily hold up since the game has to test player skill of one kind or another. And it does, just different skills in different versions.

Similarly but (going back to your earlier example) I wouldn't hold up the Int 9 dwarf lockpicker as a 'bad thing'; its a different playstyle to what you may prefer, but if the game is being viewed by all the participants as a contest of player skill vs. DM fiendishness there's nothing wrong with it; its at the least some involvement. In the same vein, I'd rather have people tell me how they're searching for traps/doors/whatever than just rolling a die.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;831653Fireball as all sorts of unknowns associated with it. How is the GM going to estimate the whole 33,000 cubic foot area, is he going to blow up the party? Are they seriously going to enforce item saving throws that will fry all the treasure? Most spells in AD&D are a double-edged-sword; there's not as much discrepancy between the fighter and the wizard as you might think.

I'd probably slap the DM for quibbling over minutia. But lets say that the Player doesn't know how the DM decides these things. After it happens and the DM decides that it doesn't blow up the party instantly but he requires saving throws for both characters and items (success means you are singed, but you're overall fine in regards to clothing and items. Failure means you take significant damage and your items are mostly destroyed, find a new suit). The player, assuming he survives, would then know from that point on how a Fireball will most likely be addressed in a similar circumstance. If not and the DM does something completely different the next time, that's a DM problem and not a game/rules/player one.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;831653My point is more of a tangent and I'm actually not specifically calling out 4E here (3E probably comes closest to complete player empowerment). What I'm trying to say is that if you're looking to justify powers as an alternative to player skill because player skill is bad...that doesn't necessarily hold up since the game has to test player skill of one kind or another. And it does, just different skills in different versions.

I don't think game-widgets justify anything, they're specific abilities gained from a class (often considered a character's profession) and don't necessarily mean an alternate to player skill. In some circumstances the rules help, like using Diplomacy, because not everyone using Diplomacy in a D&D game is an aspiring thespian with the natural knack for sounding fancy. Does that mean that a player shouldn't try out the Diplomatic-thing because they're personally not inspiring?

Also, I agree that player's skill is important because they have to know how, when, and how often to employ such widgets. Further a player's skill is also tested when situations arise when there's not easily readable solution. For example, climbing up a sheer cliff might be easy for the Fighter and Rogue, but far less so for the Str 11 Cleric or Str 8 Wizard. This means that the player might have to devise a way up that's not specifically drawn from their character sheet (or uses a specific spell or item in a way that's not ordinary). That doesn't mean that they shouldn't still have those widgets, it means that situations should arise where they're less prominent.  

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;831653Similarly but (going back to your earlier example) I wouldn't hold up the Int 9 dwarf lockpicker as a 'bad thing'; its a different playstyle to what you may prefer, but if the game is being viewed by all the participants as a contest of player skill vs. DM fiendishness there's nothing wrong with it; its at the least some involvement. In the same vein, I'd rather have people tell me how they're searching for traps/doors/whatever than just rolling a die.

I've never personally picked a lock before but I have a 1st level Rogue character with a +7 (+9 with lock picking tools) in Disable Device and Open Lock. Should I still be required to go into detail how I open the lock with picks and files? Because we'd be there a while as I slowly search Wikipedia on the subject as my turn continues on and on. Or what if I were terribly uncoordinated and lacked any physical attributes in real life, would I have to perform or describe with specific detail how my Goliath Fighter chopped one in half with a fancy sword-wielding maneuver?

The thing is most people don't know how to search for traps in real-life, or fight with dual-scimitars, or recite complex rituals off-the-cuff, or swoon a fancy Lady of the State with words of love via diplomacy, or even pick a simple dead-bolt. By making the player find out how to do all this stuff is unreasonable and taking away widgets to accomplish these abilities you might as well not bother playing in the first place. What happens is: "well I'm terrible at talking to pretty girls IRL so I might as well scrap this poetic bard character even though I wanted to play one because deep down the idea is intriguing. But imagination and wanting to play someone your not be damned if I can't back it up in role-play."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831647Spin it however you like, the simple truth is that the only unique things about a character to make it special come from the player, not a rulebook or the character sheet.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The rulebook and character sheet is what the player uses to make the character unique.

Quote from: Sommerjon;831701:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The rulebook and character sheet is what the player uses to make the character unique.

Considering that all players (hundreds-of-thousands or more, in D&D's case) have access to the same rulebook and character sheet, it would seem, a priori, that those are not what make a character unique. Unless you're working with a different definition of unique than the rest of us...

Quote from: Bobloblah;831707Considering that all players (hundreds-of-thousands or more, in D&D's case) have access to the same rulebook and character sheet, it would seem, a priori, that those are not what make a character unique. Unless you're working with a different definition of unique than the rest of us...

I don't play with the hundreds or thousands or more players.  I play with the people sitting in front of me who I've invited to play with me or joined in playing.

Linefallow Falcon may be exactly like hundreds of other mecha pilots out in the wider world in his build, but as far as my world is concerned he's unique.

That Linefallow Falcon has the exact same stats as Curvenemy Peregrine run by a guy in Timbuktu doesn't matter one tiny bit to me.

It's when Linefallow Falcon has the same exact stats as Rightangleacquaintance Owl in the same exact group I'm playing in that it's a problem.

Quote from: Gabriel2;831711It's when Linefallow Falcon has the same exact stats as Rightangleacquaintance Owl in the same exact group I'm playing in that it's a problem.

Abuse of the word "unique" aside (along with the improbability of two characters at a single table having identical "stats"), why is this a problem at your table (as in: what are the specific negative consequences)?

Quote from: Bobloblah;831714Abuse of the word "unique" aside (along with the improbability of two characters at a single table having identical "stats"), why is this a problem at your table (as in: what are the specific negative consequences)?

It doesn't happen lately for obvious reasons.  But this really sucked in my Robotech years where the only differences between Veritech Pilots were their Physical Prowess stat and their role play component.

But when multiple characters at the table are mechanically identical or extremely similar, they will usually take identical course of action when mechanics are involved.  So you get two characters doing the same things.

I can certainly differentiate my character through my role playing contribution.  But the mechanics are part of the fun too.  If I didn't want to engage with the mechanics, I'd dispense with them.  So, I'd like to feel like there is some difference in my character mechanically from the guy with the same type of the character across the table.

Quote from: Gabriel2;831726It doesn't happen lately for obvious reasons.

I'm afraid the reasons aren't obvious to me. Why not?

Quote from: Gabriel2;831726But this really sucked in my Robotech years where the only differences between Veritech Pilots were their Physical Prowess stat and their role play component.

But when multiple characters at the table are mechanically identical or extremely similar, they will usually take identical course of action when mechanics are involved.  So you get two characters doing the same things.

The mind boggles. I have never seen two characters do the same thing because they had the same stats (and I've played plenty of Robotech). Because whatever it was made the most sense within the context of the game world, on the other hand? Sure, often. But I take it you're saying you know they took the same action because there wasn't some mechanical widget to differentiate them at that moment in the game - do I understand that correctly?

Characters have (in theory) an infinite number of options open to them in an RPG. That's the medium's primary strength. The idea that the limit of what you can do is defined by what is printed on your character sheet is... crazy. That doesn't mean mechanics are irrelevant/aren't being engaged with, or that one needs to "dispense with them"... that's just a strawman.

I'm not really sure you've answered my question, at least, not directly. What is it about the mechanical difference between your character and the one across the table that matters to you? Is it the desire to be mechanically "better" at something? Do you feel trapped with an optimal choice based on mechanics? I'm looking for real specifics as to why you'd like to "feel like there is some difference in my character mechanically."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831647Spin it however you like, the simple truth is that the only unique things about a character to make it special come from the player, not a rulebook or the character sheet.

Then why would it matter if everyone brings a fully-optimized cookie-cutter build? If the uniqueness of a character comes from the player and not the rules used to make the character, the mechanics a player uses should be largely irrelevant, except those that impact how the player plays the character.

Even if two characters have the exact same stat array, they can still be played differently. Look at the example from the 2e PH: the example at the end of the chapter on ability scores gives two very different ways the exact same stats can be played.

Quote from: BobloblahWhat is it about the mechanical difference between your character and the one across the table that matters to you? Is it the desire to be mechanically "better" at something? Do you feel trapped with an optimal choice based on mechanics? I'm looking for real specifics as to why you'd like to "feel like there is some difference in my character mechanically."

For the same reason that people get weirded out by the idea of having a clone. We thrive on personal identity; we like the idea that we are each unique in our own ways. Playing a character that is exactly or nearly-exactly identical to another one is weird and off-putting; we don't like the idea that we aren't unique in some fashion, and while RP can negate some of that, if we interact with the game world largely through mechanics, no amount of RP is going to overcome the fact that these characters "feel" identical.

Quote from: Sommerjon;831701:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The rulebook and character sheet is what the player uses to make the character unique.

[Yoda] That is why you fail [Yoda]

Quote from: GnomeWorks;831733Then why would it matter if everyone brings a fully-optimized cookie-cutter build? If the uniqueness of a character comes from the player and not the rules used to make the character, the mechanics a player uses should be largely irrelevant, except those that impact how the player plays the character.

CORRECTAMUNDO!!  It doesn't matter if several people are playing tricked out fighters with the same stat spread, feats, abilities, and gear. What makes each one unique is the player behind the character and how he/she brings it to life.

Likewise, it doesn't matter if these same players all played OD&D fighting men with the same 3d6 in order stat array. It would still be up to the player to provide that something special that makes a character memorable.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;831733For the same reason that people get weirded out by the idea of having a clone. We thrive on personal identity; we like the idea that we are each unique in our own ways. Playing a character that is exactly or nearly-exactly identical to another one is weird and off-putting; we don't like the idea that we aren't unique in some fashion, and while RP can negate some of that, if we interact with the game world largely through mechanics, no amount of RP is going to overcome the fact that these characters "feel" identical.

The stop interacting with game world through mechanics and start exploring the game world through the act of playing a character. There is so much shit that is a problem because some players aren't interacting with the game world at all they instead interact with the mechanics.

Such players engage the game as a series of numbers puzzles and everything else is meaningless backdrop. There is a lot more to exploring a fictional world than DC's and bonuses but some players just can't get past them. When presented with something in the game world the first questions are; which widget do I need to use? and what's the DC?  That is interacting with the mechanics instead of the game world.

Quote from: Bobloblah;831732I'm afraid the reasons aren't obvious to me. Why not?

I feel like I've been prefacing all my posts lately with this, so I figured I'd dispense with it.  I prefer single player/single GM games.  Duplicate PCs aren't a problem with that kind of arrangement.

QuoteThe mind boggles. I have never seen two characters do the same thing because they had the same stats (and I've played plenty of Robotech). Because whatever it was made the most sense within the context of the game world, on the other hand? Sure, often. But I take it you're saying you know they took the same action because there wasn't some mechanical widget to differentiate them at that moment in the game - do I understand that correctly?

I admittedly misspoke.  I didn't mean literally identical.  But when all characters have the same number of attacks, the same bonuses to do things, the same skill percentages, and even halfway the same skill lists, as well as no meaningful difference between an attribute of 3 and an attribute of 15, they do tend to do the same things when they need to invoke mechanics.

QuoteI'm not really sure you've answered my question, at least, not directly. What is it about the mechanical difference between your character and the one across the table that matters to you?

I want to feel like the whole thing is "my guy."  My preference is to not feel like I merely grabbed a sheet off a tablet of pre-gens and filled in the name and bought a couple of pieces of equipment.  I can do that if I need to.  I'm not saying role playing is an inconsequential part.  It's half of the whole.

Quote from: Gabriel2;831747I feel like I've been prefacing all my posts lately with this, so I figured I'd dispense with it.  I prefer single player/single GM games.  Duplicate PCs aren't a problem with that kind of arrangement.

Ah, ok. Hadn't seen you post that previously.

Quote from: Gabriel2;831747I want to feel like the whole thing is "my guy."  My preference is to not feel like I merely grabbed a sheet off a tablet of pre-gens and filled in the name and bought a couple of pieces of equipment.  I can do that if I need to.  I'm not saying role playing is an inconsequential part.  It's half of the whole.

What if you didn't know what was on the other player's character sheet?

Quote from: Critias;830871They're not your kids, you're not supposed to be trying to "wean" them off of anything.  They're your friends.  Play games with them that you all have fun playing.

Yeah this. I've never liked post about teaching people a "better" way to play or have fun. "Weaning them off" their preference is bad way to put it as it comes across as incredibly patronizing like you're showing them a more grown up way to enjoy something that's basically Let's Pretend.

If you want to try out a a different play style I'd suggest just sitting down and talking to them like adults. Sell your idea and why you think it might be fun. I'd guess you're all friends or at least friendly so they might want to give it a shot.

Quote from: Nexus;831749Yeah this. I've never liked post about teaching people a "better" way to play or have fun. "Weaning them off" their preference is bad way to put it as it comes across as incredibly patronizing like you're showing them a more grown up way to enjoy something that's basically Let's Pretend.

If you read more than the first post, the OP already addressed this. The rest of the thread addresses the rest of your post from various angles.

Quote from: Bobloblah;831748What if you didn't know what was on the other player's character sheet?

Then admittedly it might not bother me for a little bit, but upon exploring my character's mechanical abilities, I would eventually realize they were mechanically the same character.  And it would start bugging me at that point.  I'd want to mechanically differentiate my character in some way.

I do think there are multiple factors at that point.  Far more than I can hypothesize about.  I do also feel there's a certain degree of self correction which automatically happens because of campaign play.

Quote from: Bobloblah;831753If you read more than the first post,

Well, obviously I read more than the first post since I replied to the second one.

Quotethe OP already addressed this.

That doesn't change my opinion of the phrasing and the attitude which is, IMO, all to common.

QuoteThe rest of the thread addresses the rest of your post from various angles.

And none of that changes my opinion on how the OP should proceed. That's what I stated.

 You seem abruptly hostile for no reason.

Quote from: Nexus;831756And how does that effect my opinion which is all I stated. You seem abruptly hostile for no reason.

No reason other than....the Internet.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831743CORRECTAMUNDO!!  It doesn't matter if several people are playing tricked out fighters with the same stat spread, feats, abilities, and gear. What makes each one unique is the player behind the character and how he/she brings it to life.

When I think of my memorable characters from the past, what I recall is *not* their stats, abilities, or powers.

YMMV.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831743CORRECTAMUNDO!!  It doesn't matter if several people are playing tricked out fighters with the same stat spread, feats, abilities, and gear. What makes each one unique is the player behind the character and how he/she brings it to life.

You didn't answer my question.

Why does it matter if they bring "tricked out" characters to the table? Mechanical optimization does not preclude solid roleplaying.

Quote from: Nexus;831756And none of that changes my opinion on how the OP should proceed. That's what I stated.

 You seem abruptly hostile for no reason.

Bobloblah been off his meds recently apparently. Its not just you.

Quote from: Batman;831681I'd probably slap the DM for quibbling over minutia. But lets say that the Player doesn't know how the DM decides these things. After it happens and the DM decides that it doesn't blow up the party instantly but he requires saving throws for both characters and items (success means you are singed, but you're overall fine in regards to clothing and items. Failure means you take significant damage and your items are mostly destroyed, find a new suit). The player, assuming he survives, would then know from that point on how a Fireball will most likely be addressed in a similar circumstance. If not and the DM does something completely different the next time, that's a DM problem and not a game/rules/player one.

The player would just as easily be able to determine how their somersault over a table to attack an orc works on the second try with the same GM, wouldn't they?
Is there really a sizeably different level of agency there?  

QuoteI've never personally picked a lock before but I have a 1st level Rogue character with a +7 (+9 with lock picking tools) in Disable Device and Open Lock. Should I still be required to go into detail how I open the lock with picks and files? Because we'd be there a while as I slowly search Wikipedia on the subject as my turn continues on and on. Or what if I were terribly uncoordinated and lacked any physical attributes in real life, would I have to perform or describe with specific detail how my Goliath Fighter chopped one in half with a fancy sword-wielding maneuver?

The thing is most people don't know how to search for traps in real-life, or fight with dual-scimitars, or recite complex rituals off-the-cuff, or swoon a fancy Lady of the State with words of love via diplomacy, or even pick a simple dead-bolt. By making the player find out how to do all this stuff is unreasonable and taking away widgets to accomplish these abilities you might as well not bother playing in the first place. What happens is: "well I'm terrible at talking to pretty girls IRL so I might as well scrap this poetic bard character even though I wanted to play one because deep down the idea is intriguing. But imagination and wanting to play someone your not be damned if I can't back it up in role-play."

Well what if I'm bad at min/maxing, should I be forced to describe what combination of powers from my Goliath Fighter is needed to chop an orc in half?
Seriously though, I get where you're coming from, I wouldn't personally make players search Wikipedia for answers to mundane problems (nor do I want to dress up in an orc costume and get sworded to death five times a session).
I do think engagement with the game world beyond just rolling the dice is important though, and that can be sacrificed because either you have some cool ability which automatically activates (and makes any description of what's going on purely window-dressing), or because someone else has the cool ability and you don't and it wouldn't be fair you get a try.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831743The stop interacting with game world through mechanics and start exploring the game world through the act of playing a character. There is so much shit that is a problem because some players aren't interacting with the game world at all they instead interact with the mechanics.

Such players engage the game as a series of numbers puzzles and everything else is meaningless backdrop. There is a lot more to exploring a fictional world than DC's and bonuses but some players just can't get past them. When presented with something in the game world the first questions are; which widget do I need to use? and what's the DC?  That is interacting with the mechanics instead of the game world.

But, this fine person is trying to find the right way to change your mind (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/61899/how-do-i-teach-players-to-engage-with-a-game-in-a-rules-first-way). If you're recptive to it.

Quote from: Batman;831681What happens is: "well I'm terrible at talking to pretty girls IRL so I might as well scrap this poetic bard character even though I wanted to play one because deep down the idea is intriguing. But imagination and wanting to play someone your not be damned if I can't back it up in role-play."

RPGs are a group activity. If that guy playing the Poetic Bard and always going "I seduce the princess... Diplomacy roll 36" is going to make me miserable as GM or fellow player (and IME it often will make me miserable - and I've seen much much worse than that at the table from can't-roleplay types) then I'd rather he didn't play the Poetic Bard anywhere in my presence.

But the vast vast majority of shy players are perfectly capable of playing charismatic PCs, with the support & encouragement of the GM. It's only a very small minority with serious psychological problems who need to stay clear of such characters for the benefit of everyone else.

Quote from: Sommerjon;831701The rulebook and character sheet is what the player uses to make the character unique.

I've read multiple accounts from various people who have (usually at con games) handed out identical character sheets to all the players at the table and then watched as each player played their characters in completely different ways.

If the rulebooks and character sheets for each character were identical, yet the characters were unique, then it was clearly not the rulebooks or character sheets which made them unique.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;831733Then why would it matter if everyone brings a fully-optimized cookie-cutter build? If the uniqueness of a character comes from the player and not the rules used to make the character, the mechanics a player uses should be largely irrelevant, except those that impact how the player plays the character.

In general, I agree that it's not a problem for the characters to be mechanically identical, as the players can (and will!) still make them unique in play.

However, in this specific case of fully-optimized cookie-cutter builds, I would be against it because "optimized builds" (and, indeed, "builds" in general) imply that the player is approaching the game as a mathematical problem to be optimized and I prefer not to play in that manner, regardless of whether the characters are mechanically identical to each other or not.

Quote from: Nexus;831756You seem abruptly hostile for no reason.

You're right. I felt like you were ragging on the OP for something that had long since been explained, but I must've been in a bad mood when I replied. My apologies for coming across in such a hostile fashion.

Quote from: Omega;831771Bobloblah been off his meds recently apparently. Its not just you.

Oh, no. With you or was quite intentional. You were being a master of bad-faith argumentation in that other thread.

Quote from: nDervish;831859

Quote from: Sommerjon;831701

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831647Spin it however you like, the simple truth is that the only unique things about a character to make it special come from the player, not a rulebook or the character sheet.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The rulebook and character sheet is what the player uses to make the character unique.

I've read multiple accounts from various people who have (usually at con games) handed out identical character sheets to all the players at the table and then watched as each player played their characters in completely different ways.

If the rulebooks and character sheets for each character were identical, yet the characters were unique, then it was clearly not the rulebooks or character sheets which made them unique.

If the Edgar Suit makes'em unique and the rules books and character sheet are not used, then why do we have them?

The kewl powerz + the Edgar Suit makes'em unique.

Quote from: Bobloblah;831908Oh, no. With you or was quite intentional. You were being a master of bad-faith argumentation in that other thread.

Or you were being the master of loony bin arguments. Keep going though. You have plenty of backers over on RPGG.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;830866I've mentioned in several threads at this point that most of my players love gaining distinct mechanical abilities through leveling up. They are the ones that WotC are thinking of when they fret about "dead levels" where no mechanical benefits are gained.

Now, a lot of folks on this forum know deep down that many/most mechanical wiz-bangs are actually pointless circuitousness. They can even hamper the sort of improvisation that is supposed to be one of tabletop's advantages over computers by declaring, "You can't do this awesome thing unless you have 4 levels in X".

But my players can't see this. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy running games with such mechanics in them, I had great unironic fun with 4e. The problem is that my players balk at any game that doesn't offer "kool powerz", games that work more off of character skills, player skills, and a few strategically placed special abilities. I feel that this is a real shame for them and for me.

What are the best approaches to weaning players off of the craving for constant mechanical gain?
Should they be weaned off?
Is this a generational problem with no going back?

I think the trick is getting them to try an old-school style to begin with; if they try, then after a while they should start to see the value of it, and how it creates an intense and sometimes more challenging style of gaming.

But there's also variants of old-school games that walk something of a middle-path in this, where you can get something at every level.  So I guess that would be a weaning off.