Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
All I know is by third level players can get pretty tired of counting torches.
Theory - Questions and Salt
- Thread starter Gus L.
- Start date
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
You are right---yet I struggle with the DM angst that I'm making things too easy.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
A DM's job is to make things fun. If making things easy means making things more fun, then you're doing the job right.
If there is fun in the challenge of light management, then you're not making the game more fun by mitigating it, no... but if that particular challenge isn't a source of fun but rather frustration or annoyance, then you are making the game fun by removing it.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Let's just say I'm doing a fun optimization search---I know I'm in the general vincinity of a local maximum, but I keep checking the gradients to see if I can increase the metric.
Also...I have no idea if I'm at the global maximum, but I'm hesitant to make any big search jumps.
Also...I have no idea if I'm at the global maximum, but I'm hesitant to make any big search jumps.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I would, but I have no idea wtf you're saying, so I can't say anything about it
I mean, I understand the words of what you said, but I'm wracking my brain trying to tie it to any sort of concept.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Not really niche so much as just a weird way to say something.
Grützi
Should be playing D&D instead
100% behind thisDangerousPuhson said:
If you boil away anything else "fun" is the reason we play and it's the only way to somehow measure if something is good or bad in an elfgameAnd here is where much confusion can come from: While nearly everyone can agree that "fun" is the most important part of playing ... what constitutes "fun" depends on each person and a lot of other factors. Many an argument was held about people having the "wrong" kind of funsqueen said:
If mechanics are your thing ... then go for it.
One of the greatest problems with fun and elfgames is simply a lack of clearly communicating what one wants and expects versus what others want and expect.
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Let me try again: My players definitely label a gaming session as "fun" when they win (i.e. thing go well). They are also way more likely to complain when things are tough or plans go south (i.e. the bad guys have a field day).
Here's where my own youthful experiences as a player come in to play. I started our (Holmes Basic) playing with kids in the neighborhood that were my age. It quickly turned into wish fulfillment---the classic Monty Hall/Price-Is-Right situation. It got boring quick.
I was fortunate to be allowed to play with some older players with a DM who was very iconoclastic, aloft, and not easily swayed by the petitions of his players. I was killed in the first session while madly running out of the dungeon. That's all it took---I was hooked for life!
In the home game with my kids---by virtue of being the adult/parent I am both smarter about how "things work in the world" and also used to low-grade "whining". I put forth the proposition to them when we started that a challenging (but fair) game has its ups and downs, but is ultimately more rewarding than wish-fulfillment. My own experience skipped from 1st edition to OSR---missing everything in between---but my impression of 3rd edition was of a caterring to the players' desires, and it was/is something I conciously try to avoid. The fact that we continue to play enthusiastically middle-school through college years is testament to the fact that "fun" is whatever "keeps you coming back to the table".
That's why I am alway fiddling with the hard/easy knob. Another example: detailed encumberance turned out to be too much of a kill-joy, so I dropped it. Not so sure if I need to be more of a stickler about light. But ultimately, I want the game to be "as hard as possible" without being "too hard" so the reward is that much sweeter. (An optimization search problem.)
Hence my DM angst.
Here's where my own youthful experiences as a player come in to play. I started our (Holmes Basic) playing with kids in the neighborhood that were my age. It quickly turned into wish fulfillment---the classic Monty Hall/Price-Is-Right situation. It got boring quick.
I was fortunate to be allowed to play with some older players with a DM who was very iconoclastic, aloft, and not easily swayed by the petitions of his players. I was killed in the first session while madly running out of the dungeon. That's all it took---I was hooked for life!
In the home game with my kids---by virtue of being the adult/parent I am both smarter about how "things work in the world" and also used to low-grade "whining". I put forth the proposition to them when we started that a challenging (but fair) game has its ups and downs, but is ultimately more rewarding than wish-fulfillment. My own experience skipped from 1st edition to OSR---missing everything in between---but my impression of 3rd edition was of a caterring to the players' desires, and it was/is something I conciously try to avoid. The fact that we continue to play enthusiastically middle-school through college years is testament to the fact that "fun" is whatever "keeps you coming back to the table".
That's why I am alway fiddling with the hard/easy knob. Another example: detailed encumberance turned out to be too much of a kill-joy, so I dropped it. Not so sure if I need to be more of a stickler about light. But ultimately, I want the game to be "as hard as possible" without being "too hard" so the reward is that much sweeter. (An optimization search problem.)
Hence my DM angst.
Last edited:
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
If you mean that the DM has a responsibility to actively promote "fun", then I think I disagree. I find the game runs best when players make their own fun. IMO, the DM's job is to create an environment that is interesting and interactive, and to adjudicate those interactions fairly; the players will take it from there.
I actually think more people would run better games if this assumption was not so prevalent, but I'm having trouble coming up with language to describe the impact. I may come back to this when I have had a chance to ruminate upon it.
I will say that if one person is primarily responsible for "fun", then you are drawing on only a fraction of the minds around the table for that endeavour; and that I have seen tables where that assumption leads to passive players who may emote like crazy (everyone's an amateur actor) and create wild backstories, but never make a meaningful decision that drives the direction of the game. And then the DM is forced to railroad, because otherwise nothing happens. But I don't know how common that is.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
It's not one person being "responsible for all the fun"; it's more like the DM is a guide to fun situations that the players get to play in. If those situations are tense and challenging, that's great... IF that's what the players are looking to play. If not, it's going to not be fun for the party, akin to playing Cyberpunk if they all wanted to play Call of Cthulhu - doesn't mean Cyberpunk is not a fun game, but it means it's not the game the group was hoping to play.
If the party thinks worrying about torches and light spells is not especially fun, then there's literally ZERO harm in omitting it. You may wax rhetoric about being a "conflicted DM" stuck balancing verisimilitude with streamlined play or whatever, but at the end of the day, if what the DM brings to the table isn't fun, then NOBODY is having fun.
If the party thinks worrying about torches and light spells is not especially fun, then there's literally ZERO harm in omitting it. You may wax rhetoric about being a "conflicted DM" stuck balancing verisimilitude with streamlined play or whatever, but at the end of the day, if what the DM brings to the table isn't fun, then NOBODY is having fun.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I guess the key is reading the players. Do they really hate it....or are they just grousing about it because they generally seek player advantage.
You do see my point, right? There is an inherent antagonism between what players petition for (easy success) and how hollow the game becomes when its devoid of challenges.
Ultimately, that's why I am intrigued when I hear about the resource management sub-game.
You do see my point, right? There is an inherent antagonism between what players petition for (easy success) and how hollow the game becomes when its devoid of challenges.
Ultimately, that's why I am intrigued when I hear about the resource management sub-game.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Yes and no. D&D (or whatever flavor of knock-off you choose to play) has this kind of inherent "challenge" aspect built into its lore - we hear of wargamers huddled around a table in Gygax's basement, while mastermind Gary tries to come up with new and bizarre ways to kill them. It's the legend of D&D, and in many cases (among grognards especially), they view any "dumbing down" as an affront to the original spirit of the game. Which is fine, frankly. The beauty of tabletop games is that not all tables are alike. Some guys live for that old-school challenge (why, I hear they've even built a sort of "Renaissance" around it - imagine that!). In those guys cases, they live for the nitty-gritty trappings like light management and encumbrance rules and realistic mortality. If the DM for that group says "I'm doing away with light rules since you all have continual flame torches and darkvision anyway", it probably won't go over well.
However, outside that rare niche of players (and it is a minority), it's a pretty common thing for players to think that tracking torches and counting down the hours of lantern oil they're carrying isn't very fun, especially when it comes to the later spells ("DM: "your light spell ends, and it's dark now", Player: "Well I cast light again, like I have thirty times already...", DM: "Ok, you can see again", Player: *sighs*).
This isn't a case of players saying the game is too hard... this is a case of players saying that the game is getting annoying - VERY distinct difference.
Resource management is good for people who care about resource management. Problem is, unless you absolutely know your players enjoy resource management, all your fixating on it is only going to waste. What I've found is that resource management is one of those things that only the DM ever gets excited about, probably because they aren't the ones actually managing the resources. Players don't petition against it because it's making the game harder for them; they petition against it because it's not fun for them.
Not saying it doesn't have it's place, but it's very much one of those vestigial rules that can usually be thrown out if need be without much fuss from the rest of the group.
However, outside that rare niche of players (and it is a minority), it's a pretty common thing for players to think that tracking torches and counting down the hours of lantern oil they're carrying isn't very fun, especially when it comes to the later spells ("DM: "your light spell ends, and it's dark now", Player: "Well I cast light again, like I have thirty times already...", DM: "Ok, you can see again", Player: *sighs*).
This isn't a case of players saying the game is too hard... this is a case of players saying that the game is getting annoying - VERY distinct difference.
Resource management is good for people who care about resource management. Problem is, unless you absolutely know your players enjoy resource management, all your fixating on it is only going to waste. What I've found is that resource management is one of those things that only the DM ever gets excited about, probably because they aren't the ones actually managing the resources. Players don't petition against it because it's making the game harder for them; they petition against it because it's not fun for them.
Not saying it doesn't have it's place, but it's very much one of those vestigial rules that can usually be thrown out if need be without much fuss from the rest of the group.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Agreed.
When I was a player (late 70's)---we generally ignored it, so it isn't (from me) a mind-set of "canon" or the "the right way to play"....just a suspicion that there might be more goodness to plunder (for all) if I wasn't so lax on certain restrictions.
For example, I love the idea brought up in another thread about "What to do when you are lost underground in the dark?"
Sure, it might be a "one-time fun" experience---but sounds memorable as hell.
When I was a player (late 70's)---we generally ignored it, so it isn't (from me) a mind-set of "canon" or the "the right way to play"....just a suspicion that there might be more goodness to plunder (for all) if I wasn't so lax on certain restrictions.
For example, I love the idea brought up in another thread about "What to do when you are lost underground in the dark?"
Sure, it might be a "one-time fun" experience---but sounds memorable as hell.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Ok. There is a vast difference between "the DM's job is to make things fun" and "do not implement mechanics that serve no game related purpose". Of course mechanics are the purview of the DM. Encumbrance in particular serves no purpose unless there is a lengthy journey with logistical problems (Dark Sun or Descent into the Depths of the Earth) or you have to choose between equipment and bulky treasure (and to be clear, in that situation you should only have to deal with encumbrance once, when the DM asks "How you gonna carry that?").
Ditto for torches and arrows. If you can restock regularly and there are no encumbrance issues, then tracking them is work without purpose. If you have to choose between carrying torches and carrying treasure, or expect to stay months in the Underdark, that is another thing entirely.
Slick
*eyeroll*
Well there's the issue then, you have to make it "fun" (though I think "engaging" is a better word, not everything has to constantly be positive and fun to be worthwhile or memorable). Like Beoric said, you should obviously ditch it if it's just management for management's sake, but if it's gotten to that point in the first place in an exploration-focused game, then you've got an issue. Light is an important and underutilized component of exploration, it lets you conceal things, build suspense, etc. There should be monsters that wait to ambush those characters in the dimly-lit periphery but are terrified of torchlight waved at them as a threat, secrets and treasures that sparkle and reveal themselves when illuminated by a lantern's beam, NPC's that call out for help or to give assistance when they see the shining beacon of the party in the distance.
Like any resource in the game, you have to give the characters clear benefits, reasons to want it, and then make it equally clear how it can be threatened.
Now, you could say "but not every player wants that and if they don't want that then don't do it" but in my experience player's generally don't know what they actually want. They know the kind of game they want to play, but not the mechanics that would make it function in a satisfying way. Some players will only ask for features that make it easier at the expense of engagement. There's probably people who don't want to deal with the limitations of the magic system and think it would be more fun to fling spells around willy-nilly like Harry Potter, but that would make for a very boring game of D&D in practice. Encumbrance and light sound boring on paper which is why many modern groups dismiss them outright, but implemented well they add a lot to the dungeon-crawling experience.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
DangerousPuhson: "Hey Forum, you should probably play the game that's most fun for your group"
Forum: *dogpiles onto DangerousPuhson*
Mwap mwap mwaaaaap....
Forum: *dogpiles onto DangerousPuhson*
Mwap mwap mwaaaaap....