Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Apple fox wrote: Sometimes the story being told is a certain way, sometimes we decide we want to not see certain things.
There is no scenario where the rules for a named character can not fit into a story. The lore might not but that doesn't mean you can't use the rules to represent a character who is suitable for the story. What you're doing is no different from deciding that space marines in your story only have bolters and therefore marine players can't take anything but tactical squads with no upgrades.
Apple fox wrote: Sometimes the story being told is a certain way, sometimes we decide we want to not see certain things.
There is no scenario where the rules for a named character can not fit into a story. The lore might not but that doesn't mean you can't use the rules to represent a character who is suitable for the story. What you're doing is no different from deciding that space marines in your story only have bolters and therefore marine players can't take anything but tactical squads with no upgrades.
Sometimes that fits, sometimes that doesn’t. We decide case by case. Sometimes we do things specifically to see what will be done differently, how players adapt is part of the fun as well.
The terrain changes has a far bigger effect on the game, sometimes we only have a few army’s present at all. We switch it up, and have no issues with this.
We have even done campaigns with our Marine players where using tactical squads and drop pods as they’re only units. Specific and was lots of fun.
I'm late to the discussion, but I like named characters and will fight you about it.
My space elves have been alive a long time, and the average 40k game represents like, a minute or two of battle. (At least that's my take.) On a busy day, Baharroth and Lelith could wrack up a hundred games worth action.
And if I'm really having trouble making the lore work for having a given character present, I just headcanon that said character is actually some other generic guy that just happens to have a fighting style better represented by the named character's rules. That's not Baharroth, no. That's Exarch Fengalon of the Guilty Zephyr. All the autarchs are busy elsewhere, so he's been tasked with commanding operations in his little corner of the battlefield. That's not Eldrad; it's an Iybraesilian farseer who favors the rune of the Morai-Heg and thus has access to the Doom power rather than Guide.
I also never really grocked the take that named characters shouldn't be present for "every little skirmish." It's not a skirmish; it's a planet-spanning battle. The camera just happens to be focused on the little section of the battlefield your named character is standing on at the moment.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Wyldhunt wrote: I also never really grocked the take that named characters shouldn't be present for "every little skirmish." It's not a skirmish; it's a planet-spanning battle. The camera just happens to be focused on the little section of the battlefield your named character is standing on at the moment.
But then how will I complain about artillery tanks fighting at close range?
Hecaton wrote: Since you can't perfectly divorce mechanics from flavor, having a progression system is important for the same reason having it in DnD is important.
It's important in D&D because D&D is a skirmish-scale wargame with a flimsy story attached to set up the combats, when it succeeds at telling a compelling story it's usually in spite of the rules not because of them. Leveling up in D&D is cool because it makes you better at the dice game, not because it makes much narrative sense or is essential to having a good story.
Same thing in 40k. You absolutely do not need any kind of progression system to tell stories in 40k, it's just desired because people imagine how cool it will be for their best unit to get re-rolls and extra attacks and stack it with their favorite stratagem and character buffs.
It sounds to me like you enjoy the dice optimization aspect of gaming (maybe I'm wrong but that's what it sounds like from your posts), which is perfectly valid. I'm guessing you enjoy other aspects as well, but dice optimization seems to be an important aspect.
Some people enjoy the role play aspect where decisions are made not on the basis of what is most optimal but on what fits the narrative best. The dice then tell them whether they were successful or not. This is the same as in D&D. Whether or not actions were successful is irrelevant to conveying a character. Both 40k and D&D can be played as a role playing experience or a dice optimization experience and, as with 40k, both are valid. The key is to find a group to play with who also sees them as valid.
I also never really grocked the take that named characters shouldn't be present for "every little skirmish." It's not a skirmish; it's a planet-spanning battle. The camera just happens to be focused on the little section of the battlefield your named character is standing on at the moment.
Planet wide with nobody around beside them.
That big heroes wouldn't have that small group around and would have support.
Only people with zero clue about war would claim it makes sense.
It doesn't make sense. Not meant to. It's designed to get all your money from your wallet to gw's pocket.
You can justify however you want but named characters are to make gw money.
Or the battles will simply not be at the exact same time and place.
Also, you can always pick one of the following universal hand-waves: "eldar in disguise", "alpha legionaire", "it's a clone", "the warp screwed up time again" or "because Mork and Gork said so".
You know, just like official novels defining the very setting do.
The only reason to not have multiples is if they are in the same game, or you are using synchronous missions. Outside of that, you are just prioritizing your pet peeve over another player's enjoyment.
It beggars belief to have that as the norm in the campaign. It also gets away from the focus - which is developing your own fluff, like an rpg character.
As I alluded to above, I think it's fair to say that any notion of developing characters died with 9th edition.
Eh, at least when you are playing crusade, this isn't really true.
From one of the longest running crusade forces I played during 9th:
Spoiler:
Lord Vladimir Krukhov (LoV) is the current commander of the Plagueship Pallidus Ascensorem. His rival Master Karlman von Kronfeld of the Dark Angels (primaris captain in gravis armor), who in charge of a dark angels company consisting primarily of chapter rejects deemed unfit for the inner circle who were thus volunteered to test the highly faulty initial primaris conversion. The first met during the Charradon campaign during the rout at Okharium where Karlman heroically fought Vladimir and his bodyguard to a standstill, and despite suffering from terrible acid burns (battle wound: deep scars) and being left for dead, he managed to buy enough time for two squads of ravenwing outriders to escape and inform the nearby Ad Mech airforces who then drove back the death guard and recovered the dying Master (victory: dark angels).
Later, at Karlman identified Vladimir's vessel over the water world of Fathom and decided to take avenge is fallen brothers. Making planetfall, Karlman cut a path through Vladimir's commanders (killing a plaguecaster, a noxius blightbringer and a foul blightspawn) before facing off against Vladimir in a duel again. Despite trading blows for an eternity (3 rounds of combat), neither fell and the Death Guard were forced to retreat to the warp. For his heroic deeds, Karlman was given the honor to be enhanced with a relic from the dark age, a frenzone injector (crusade relic) to increase his speed in combat even further and he was also given the honor of being knighted (DA battle honor).
They clashed a third time during Typhus' final push to activate Miasmic Malignifers across the entire Charadon sector to wipe out all imperial defenders. Karlman climbed atop a central ruin to issue a challenge to the abomination which he had failed to kill twice so far. Vladimir met the challenge and they traded blows with their powerfists while the battle was raging around them. Vladimir eventually landed a lethal blow, knocking Karlman down. He reached into his guts and tore out the frenzone injector, to have it improved by the powers of nurgle and implant it into himself (Vladimir got the same crusade relic, Karlman got Battlescar: Lost Leg to represent losing the injector).
During a later campaign, they met on the battlefield two more times, but despite Karman looking for a rematch, Vladimir no longer deemed him a worthy opponent and just sent his subordinates after him who all get killed. Eventually this lead Karlman to swear an oath to kill Vladimir and directly attacked him with a squard of terminators and a chaplain in tow. While the deathwing terminators and the deathshroud were fighting, Vladimir killed Karlman and dropped his lifeless body into a scrapheap, just before the chaplain (name escapes me) strikes him down in the name of the emperor. The chaplain returns to the fleet with the broken body of Karlman. The wounded Vladimir returns to the Pallidus Ascensorem, just to find out that the dark angels had boarded it and planted bombs to blow it up (a series of Boarding Action games). After killing the judicar in charge or the boarding teams with his own hands and deactivating most of the bombs, he had to fight down an insurrection (DG played by a different player) before moving to a new battlefield.
Karlman was declared dead, with the interrogator chaplain taking charge of the company and a librarian becoming the DA player's new protagonist. Originally intended to be a backfield supporter, fueled by insane dice luck and hand-picked battle honors, turned into a legendary duelist that fought Magnus himself and walked away.
Our group actually refers to the two models as "Vladimir" and "Karlman" now, and due to popular demand, Karlman was returned as a redemptor dreadnaught to fight "one more battle". Vladimir managed to collect three boons of chaos by downing a GSC Patriarch, an Eldar Farseer and Ahriman in three consecutive games and ascended to daemonhood, though 10th has so far prevented him from testing his newfound powers.
Note that this is just the story of those two models because it turned out to be particularly epic, but there were many more. Like the kopta unit which has their koptas plated with stormshields after successfully collection four out of five dark angel weapon crates, the one-eyed disgraced big mek who tried to take over the job of the speedboss twice (and got krumped twice because of that), the genius admech techpriest that abandoned all of her army and her allies to die in order to secure and escape with two pieces of dark age technology, the rhino whose machine spirit was named "Speedy" for outracing a deffkilla wartrike or the necron lord who specifically took measures to armor his command barge after being dragged off his ride and being beaten to scrap by horde units on four different occasion.
All of that happened on the tabletop, mostly enabled and supported by official GW narrative rules. The campaigns played were from the Book of Rust and two homebrew campaigns using various rules and missions from the campaign publications. We had some house rules in place, but none really affected the story in a meaningful way.
Both the LoV and the gravis captain(at the time) had zero options and were just generic dudes when they started out. They still managed to create their story, have unique wargear (weapon enhancements, crusade relics), have battle scars and made a name for themselves. None of that was planned or scripted, it was all just 40k rules and dice.
During the campaigns (especially during the big battles at the end of a campaign), Vladimir fought alongside Mortarion, Abaddon, Rottigus, Cypher and Be'lakor. Karlman has fought with Azrael, Belial and Tor Garadon. The have faced countless named foes, some named by publications, others by players, many of them multiple times.
TL;DR: Essentially the "developing characters" part of the narrative has moved from the listbuilding stage to an actual narrative framework. And GW managed to do it surprisingly well. In fact, they did it so well that some greedy managers swarmed in to ruin it again for 10th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Planet wide with nobody around beside them.
That big heroes wouldn't have that small group around and would have support.
Only people with zero clue about war would claim it makes sense.
It doesn't make sense. Not meant to. It's designed to get all your money from your wallet to gw's pocket.
You can justify however you want but named characters are to make gw money.
Have you ever read any 40k novel? Like a single one?
40k is a setting by people who have zero clue about war, for people with zero clue about war.
At this stage, realistic application of tactics and rational decisions by leaders should be considered immersion breaking
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/21 11:46:57
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Special characters are just little rulepacks not different from non-named characters. Yoy can use these rules for your own models and characters if they fit the idea in your head well, exactly as you would customizable ones.
For example if rules for Calgar represent your own idea of a character better than a non-named option you can use them even if it isn't actual Calgar or even if your army isn't Ultramarines. Just try to keep the model WYSIWYG when it comes to equipment.
(For example you want your army of Chaos primaris to be led be a twin power fist badass chaos lord - just use the rules)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/21 12:12:15
Cyel wrote: Special characters are just little rulepacks not different from non-named characters. Yoy can use these rules for your own models and characters if they fit the idea in your head well, exactly as you would customizable ones.
For example if rules for Calgar represent your own idea of a character better than a non-named option you can use them even if it isn't actual Calgar or even if your army isn't Ultramarines. Just try to keep the model WYSIWYG when it comes to equipment.
(For example you want your army of Chaos primaris to be led be a twin power fist badass chaos lord - just use the rules)
See, that is *very* close to my opinion, but coming from the other way. I think characters/leaders should have a bunch of wargear, rules, ability options that you can then customize them with. Then special characters are a way to show off the zany things you could do with said options. Here is Marneus Calgar, for him we took the dual power fist and honor guard wargear options, and the inspiring leader ability.
usernamesareannoying wrote: I tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?
Just a HH player's opinion here. I think that if you're bringing a Primarch or a character that can significantly alter an army (Sevatar, for example), you should tell your opponent. It's just good sportsmanship, IMHOP.
In 40K, the primarchs - at least the loyalist ones - don't really significantly alter the army. Even last edition it was more often the named captains that did that (I'm thinking mainly the two DA Captains) - and I wouldn't be surprised to see something in the codex that wrangles extra OC to Ravenguard and/or Deathwing based on a Strat, Belial/Sammael or some such to represent their non-standard "org chart"
Ermmm...ok? I was specifically talking about 30k, where Primarchs and high level characters (like Sevatar) can completely change an army because of their inclusion. But, whatever.
Cyel wrote: Special characters are just little rulepacks not different from non-named characters. Yoy can use these rules for your own models and characters if they fit the idea in your head well, exactly as you would customizable ones.
For example if rules for Calgar represent your own idea of a character better than a non-named option you can use them even if it isn't actual Calgar or even if your army isn't Ultramarines. Just try to keep the model WYSIWYG when it comes to equipment.
(For example you want your army of Chaos primaris to be led be a twin power fist badass chaos lord - just use the rules)
See, that is *very* close to my opinion, but coming from the other way. I think characters/leaders should have a bunch of wargear, rules, ability options that you can then customize them with. Then special characters are a way to show off the zany things you could do with said options. Here is Marneus Calgar, for him we took the dual power fist and honor guard wargear options, and the inspiring leader ability.
Back in 5th a buddy tried to create a crusade via house rules and we all made custom protagonist characters. Unfortunately, either he was a bit too generous with the character creation or I was a bit too by the books about it. Most of the group came up with ideas and had him assign points costs to them. I did a bit of that, but mostly used the wargear rules in the 5e Imperial Guard Codex to buy all of the gear for my character. He ended up being horribly overcosted compared to his rivals, but it was still fun to do. My character was based on a drunk commissar character from an old white dwarf issue a buddy had told me about. At the time commissars could only execute within the unit they were attached to. My guy could execute w/in 12 inches (pistol range). He also had a plasma pistol and a rule called "Here, you fix this" where he'd toss the pistol to someone else whenever it failed it's Gets Hot check. I'll also note that there was a minimum battle size for including our characters, although I forget what that was. We also wanted to involve battlefleet gothic in the campaign in a way that would influence the ground battles (determining who goes first or decides on the size of battle, etc), but never got around to it.
Long story short, in some codices, you had some of the tools to describe what you are talking about once upon a time. GW just needed to take it a step farther and add stuff for abilities.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/21 14:01:36
I don't get the fuss about events banning named character. As far as I am aware, nobody is pointing a gun in your direction forcing you to take part. Go play elsewhere with people whose rules you like. Event organisers are free to do what they fancy.
If their events are so riddled with gale breaking atrocious and stupid rules I guess nobody will attend them and it'll die out on its own. Simple.
As for the interpretation of camera zooming in in a specific moment of a wider battle... I mostly agree. There lacks some overall en ironment to make it 100% immersive to me but I think it is not a stupid point to make. As is the one about how short of a time span a tabletop game actually represents.
I'm not a combat veteran at all so take it with a pinch of salt, but surely manoeuvres when your the patrol ahead or the last tank of the platoon with a few infantrymen holding a crossing sure looks like this in a way. I'll let vets give their better opinion on this and stay careful.
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: It sounds to me like you enjoy the dice optimization aspect of gaming (maybe I'm wrong but that's what it sounds like from your posts), which is perfectly valid. I'm guessing you enjoy other aspects as well, but dice optimization seems to be an important aspect.
Some people enjoy the role play aspect where decisions are made not on the basis of what is most optimal but on what fits the narrative best. The dice then tell them whether they were successful or not. This is the same as in D&D. Whether or not actions were successful is irrelevant to conveying a character. Both 40k and D&D can be played as a role playing experience or a dice optimization experience and, as with 40k, both are valid. The key is to find a group to play with who also sees them as valid.
No, you have that backwards. The "focus on dice optimization stuff" is a criticism of D&D and how it has some major failures as a narrative system, catering to players who prefer skirmish-scale combat and character optimization at the expense of players who want a focus on the story and people.
This is Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 209349039053460943906905409690546546905th Cannon Fodder. He is great at leadership and commands his regiment from his horse. Here are all the stories of his battles.
vs.
This is Colonel John Doe of the Cadian 209349039053460943906905409690546546905th Cannon Fodder. He is great at leadership and has a plasma pistol and power sword. Here are all the stories of his battles.
How exactly is one "developing your own fluff" but the other isn't? Are you confusing "developing your own fluff" with "picking upgrades from an option table"?
No. Players in the campaign I ran were writing short narratives after battle, giving their forces' motivations for doing what they were doing, developing rivalries, etc.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: It's important in D&D because D&D is a skirmish-scale wargame with a flimsy story attached to set up the combats, when it succeeds at telling a compelling story it's usually in spite of the rules not because of them. Leveling up in D&D is cool because it makes you better at the dice game, not because it makes much narrative sense or is essential to having a good story.
Same thing in 40k. You absolutely do not need any kind of progression system to tell stories in 40k, it's just desired because people imagine how cool it will be for their best unit to get re-rolls and extra attacks and stack it with their favorite stratagem and character buffs.
I used DnD as an example because it's the most well-known rpg; even games like Vampire have progression systems. They add something to roleplaying experiences that most players enjoy.
Hecaton wrote: No. Players in the campaign I ran were writing short narratives after battle, giving their forces' motivations for doing what they were doing, developing rivalries, etc.
What does that have to do with whether you use the rules for a generic unit or for a named unit to represent your character? You're proving my point here.
I used DnD as an example because it's the most well-known rpg; even games like Vampire have progression systems. They add something to roleplaying experiences that most players enjoy.
They enjoy it because of the dice game and how it makes their characters better at winning it, not because of story needs.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: What does that have to do with whether you use the rules for a generic unit or for a named unit to represent your character? You're proving my point here.
Because the rules for a named character represent that named character, not someone like them.
Hecaton wrote: Because the rules for a named character represent that named character, not someone like them.
Nope. "This is my new character using the rules for the named character" has existed for as long as named characters have existed.
RPGs aren't just story, and they aren't just games. You need game *and* narrative. Narrative campaigns are similar in that way.
Neither of these things requires leveling up like in D&D. It's a product of players who are focused on "make my dice math numbers bigger" over anything else and the cultural dominance of D&D, where people struggle to even imagine an RPG that doesn't work like D&D.
Neither of these things requires leveling up like in D&D. It's a product of players who are focused on "make my dice math numbers bigger" over anything else and the cultural dominance of D&D, where people struggle to even imagine an RPG that doesn't work like D&D.
Progression systems are near-ubiquitous across RPGs, even ones without level systems. You might want to think about why that is.
Why? Is it also a "cheap cop out" to use a Cadian model with the Tallarn regiment doctrine in 8th? Do you get outraged if someone brings an old Mars-pattern Shadowsword when the rules clearly represent a different pattern?
And IIRC using named character rules to represent your army's version of the idea was even suggested by GW.
Progression systems are near-ubiquitous across RPGs, even ones without level systems. You might want to think about why that is.
I know why it is: players want to make their dice math numbers bigger.
Hecaton wrote: Progression systems are near-ubiquitous across RPGs, even ones without level systems. You might want to think about why that is.
Except you are playing an army, not a single character. Your army can progress just fine even if you run named characters.
I'd also like to point out that almost every single one of your posts in this thread is "because I, Hecaton, say so". There is literally no reason discuss any of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/21 22:05:04
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Nope. "This is my new character using the rules for the named character" has existed for as long as named characters have existed.
Right, and it's a cheap cop-out.
I'm all for using named character rules to represent your own character. If I want to run a tau commander who heavily favors kau'yon and consequently prefers to utilize a suit with stealth technology, then I don't think it's unreasonable to use Shadowsun's rules instead of those of a crisis commander. If I want to field an army themed around an incubus shrine but don't want to have it lead by literally Drazhar, I might use Drazhar's rules but fluff him as a hierarch with his own personality and goals. You're entitled to your opinions, but it kind of feels like your opinions might be based in some bias based on past experience or something?
Neither of these things requires leveling up like in D&D. It's a product of players who are focused on "make my dice math numbers bigger" over anything else and the cultural dominance of D&D, where people struggle to even imagine an RPG that doesn't work like D&D.
That feels about as disingenuous as Hecaton's "cheap cop-out" claim. Not every RPG has a progression system. People who like progression systems aren't just obsessed with bigger numbers. While progression systems in RPGs do you usually translate to more power and thus more freedom to explore power fantasies, they can also be useful for demonstrating that a character has become more competent or built up connections over time as a result of his experiences. If I havea bunch of dots in allies and contacts in Vampire because I spent a bunch of xp to represent the network of people I've buddied up with over time, that can be great for exploring character connections even if it doesn't make me better at juggling motorcycles. Or if I did put dots into super strength so I can juggle motorcycles, it might be a physical representation of the growing competence/confidence my newly-turned vampire is developing as they acclimate to their new existence.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
I'm sure there are less-popular RPGs that do it in a better way but D&D and the RPGs that follow the D&D model (IOW, most RPGs) have a progression system heavily focused on "make the numbers bigger" as the only character development. You start at level 1 with small numbers, you make the numbers bigger, and simultaneously all the enemy numbers get bigger to match. So at level 20 you still need the same roll on the D20 to hit but you've "advanced" by having +40 to hit against AC 55 instead of +1 to hit against AC 16 like you had at level 1. It encourages a mindset where a character is defined by their combat abilities (as represented in the mechanics) and list of monsters killed, not by personality or social relationships or anything that would really define a story.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/21 22:59:49
I know why it is: players want to make their dice math numbers bigger.
That's a common component of many games. The "g" in rpg stands for game. 40k is a game. Deal with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Except you are playing an army, not a single character. Your army can progress just fine even if you run named characters.
In our campaign, it was both. It was assumed your alter ego was your main warlord.
Jidmah wrote: I'd also like to point out that almost every single one of your posts in this thread is "because I, Hecaton, say so". There is literally no reason discuss any of them.
Nah. I'm pointing at the vast body of game design canon here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: I'm sure there are less-popular RPGs that do it in a better way but D&D and the RPGs that follow the D&D model (IOW, most RPGs) have a progression system heavily focused on "make the numbers bigger" as the only character development. You start at level 1 with small numbers, you make the numbers bigger, and simultaneously all the enemy numbers get bigger to match. So at level 20 you still need the same roll on the D20 to hit but you've "advanced" by having +40 to hit against AC 55 instead of +1 to hit against AC 16 like you had at level 1. It encourages a mindset where a character is defined by their combat abilities (as represented in the mechanics) and list of monsters killed, not by personality or social relationships or anything that would really define a story.
Games with less of a combat focus oftentimes have a progression system that allows for other things. A progression system is still there - hence the "game" part of "roleplaying game." It's not *necessary*, but it is a good element to have in a game that will help people to have fun.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/21 23:29:18
Over the years, pen and paper role-playing games are the ones where I've engaged with the greatest number of different games by different makers. I've been playing P&P RPGs for 42 years, and pretty consistently. I've played related forms of RPGs, such as LARPs, and convention-based RPGA Living City events; 0-20 campaigns, 20-30 Epic Campaigns, and stand-alone convention games.
The closest of ever come to what Owl might be aiming for is Chronicles of Amber (diceless role-playing, whose challenges were resolved via a bidding system) and Puppetmaster (a system that used some dice, but worked with a very loose progression system that allowed the malign entities possessing puppets to either possess additional puppets, or augment a particular puppet- progression is "loose" because it isn't the malign entity that changes over the course of the game, merely the puppets that said entity possesses).
The thing about these games is that I didn't particularly like them compared to other games; they felt less like games and more like pure Improv. Now, I'm a trained and licensed Secondary School drama teacher, so I've got a healthy respect for Improv as an art form, but it's not what I want to do when I get together to play a game. Don't get me wrong: Improv is an important ELEMENT of an RPG, and you don't actually have an RPG without out it. But Role-Playing GAMES, as an artform, DO include both Role Playing elements (varying degrees of of immersive Improv) and game-mechanic elements.
The RPGs that I find MOST satisfying are those where sometimes you can guide the narrative with Improv alone, sometimes you can guide the narrative with mechanics alone and most of the time you're using a combination of those two things.
Now, RPGs typically include progression. D&D's progression system, being Level-Based, is IMHO a weak progression system, and truth be told, the only time in RPG history that MOST RPGs used a Level-Based system was the open gaming license heyday of D&D 3 and 3.5, when every company took a crack at a d20 system under the OGL- most noteably, the West End Games Star Wars porting to a D20 System, along with Legend of the Five Rings... Both of which were better and more immersive when using their own mechanics.
MOST games actually use skill/ability based progression, where you don't have to reach a set threshold of experience to gain a set suite of improved abilities, but rather your XP form a pool from which you can make purchases of new skills or abilities at any time. This system more closely resembles what we see in Crusade. In fact, Crusade takes it further by using not one, but two separate progression currencies- RP and XP.
Skill/ Ability based progression systems are more immersive and intuitive than level based systems. They allow GMs to connect the narrative to the skill being purchased; when I GMed, every player knew that I would never allow them to improve a skill or ability until they had attempted to use that ability often enough that improvement in the skill fit the narrative.
This is STILL how I determine my progression in Crusade; if I destroy a unit with shooting attacks, and that pushes me over the XP threshold for a battle honour, I consider it immersion breaking to take a melee battle honour. This is why our GM lets me pick my Honours rather than roll them randomly- he knows it would drive me flying rodent gak crazy to roll a battle honour that didn't match the narrative.
The point is that game mechanics are a part of the format for narrative gaming. Suggesting that people who have a healthy interest in the mechanical components of the game in order to facilitate the narrative component are number-crunchy types the way Owl does is, quite frankly, an insulting oversimplification.
SOME players will be number crunchy power gamers looking for the best combo they can find. But others will be system-hoppers who seek the most immersive mechanics, and enjoy exploring the interactions between narrative and mechanics.
And some members of both camps have such well developed role-playing and storytelling skills that they can mask their preferences beneath lairs of performance- one of the crunchiest combo-seeking players I've ever met is also a fantastic role-player, so that anyone who observes him in games would never guess that he spends as much time as he does running the numbers.
In my experience the vast majority of generalizations fall apart at the extreme ends of the spectrum, so I don't find them particularly useful, and I tend to avoid them. Which is why I find childish generalizations about ALL narrative players, or ALL competitive players to be beneath the level of discourse I look for in forums for grown-ups.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/22 00:57:05
So, any "discussion" of how dnd plays seems to be framed in a very 4th ED+ lens here. 5th Certainly is about rolling huges tracks of dice, and making your DM cry.
1st, or ADnD, or even Arnesson's Adventures catalogue were never about making it to a higher level to make bigger spells and damage. It was about literally surviving to make it to that level. If you made it to level 20 as a druid, your weren't just a level 20 druid, you were the LITERAL ARCH DRUID. Gygax invented DnD to be a grueling slog for players, where skill mattered over dice. Dice helped RP, not so much in combat, where most characters would be dead in round 3.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Calling D&D a "skirmish-scale wargame" is a bridge to far on the road to reductive descriptions for my liking...
Why? D&D started as an expansion for adding fantasy characters to a wargame and it retains an overwhelming focus on the mechanics of combat, with its storytelling aspects being little more than a framework to justify the combat. Countless pages of elaborate combat mechanics, every social encounter reduced to "roll Diplomacy against DC 35".
