Monsters! Monsters! event on 1/30 in Champaign, Il

[gaptooth]

I just saw this. I won't be anywhere near Illinois, but I thought it might be fun for those who will.

[mahrundl]

Sigh. And being run by Jeff Rients too. No chance of me getting there either, alas...

[Vin Ahrr Vin]

Hmmm. I'm only a few hours from Champaign. I may have to see if I can work it into my schedule!

[gaptooth]

I've been following the Jeff's debriefing posts about the game, which has turned into an interesting discussion. You can find them here:

* From Sunday's Game
* Something I liked about M!M!
* Physical artifacts of my M!M! game
* So let's get into this

Apparently, Jeff had a player who didn't grok the game and saw his character as worthless, so he pouted and left early. This conversation is especially interesting to me because I recently had an analagous experience when I ran two sessions of T&T for the D&D Encounters group I play with.

Since I have an ongoing relationship with these folks, the thing came off with a lot more friendliness and sensitivity, but it was a similar issue: One player failed two Saving Rolls in one session when trying to use her cleric's powers and came to see the T&T expression of the character as a Fail.

I realized later that T&T violates a particular expectation set up by Type IV D&D: Combat is the place for every character's unique abilities to shine, every time. Compared to the two warriors in the party, who were routinely mowing down mobs of enemies, disarming foes, and commanding them to surrender, she saw her character as underpowered. Having already established an abrasive personality for her character (which, ahem, I'm a big fan of), the perceived weakness made her think that the party wouldn't have any incentive to keep her around.

Thing is, the same player consistently revels in the non-combat encounters, and I don't think she really enjoys the laborious and drawn out battles engendered by the 4th Edition mechanics. I thought T&T would appeal strongly to her play style in particular, since the role of combat can easily be minimized and the pace is generally a lot more rapid than in D&D, making more room for the kinds of scenes where her character and play style really shine.

Since we went back to D&D, the way we address this is by deliberately avoiding a combat every session. This has taken us off the rails of the D&D Encounters program, which is bad for the game store owner who has to report our progress to Wizards, but I think that concern is almost moot now: We're just three chapters in to a five chapter adventure that was supposed to end over a month ago, and a new "Season" is supposed to be starting now.

[gaptooth]

Forgot to mention: Jeff posted some more gleanings from T&T here.

Apropos to the above, I wonder if any of you have had similar experiences. Since the problem seems to be rooted in expectations, it strikes me that a better briefing might elicit more successful play. Introducing T&T to kids is super easy in this respect-- at least in my experience --since their expectations are usually less defined than more seasoned players.

What do you think?

[sligo]

In one of my groups, the players prefer a more detailed, tactical combat system - not to the level of D&D, per se, but more than what T&T offers. One player complains that T&T doesn't have enough of a framework for him to define his character. Most other games (2nd gen and 3rd gen, anyway) have skill lists, feats, qualities, edges, etc., where points are spent during character creation and advancement. T&T doesn't have that (at least not formalized.) People who lack the creativity to figure this stuff out on their own are lost in the free-form system that T&T is. IMHO, they are too accustomed to the video-game style of character creation and development that they really can't think in terms of a true RPG system. (I submit that video games that claim to be RPGs really aren't.)

[cartomancer]

Feb 14, 2011 15:37:08 GMT -5 sligo said:

I submit that video games that claim to be RPGs really aren't.

Well, they kindda are. All video games are. It's just not roleplaying in the tabletop sense.

Taking something like Baldurs Gate or Diablo as an example (as they lean heavy on how you build your character). They don't have the limitless capacity and flexibility that a game like Tunnels and Trolls can offer but the same argument can be put forward for items such as solo adventures. In both cases your limitations are the boundaries set by others, where as face-to-face, the limitations are those you set yourself.

So in a way all video games are rolplaying (as you're certainly not playing yourself... Well, maybe in The Sims) but, if the limitations of the world are imposed upon everything that world, then it's no longer a limitation as all characters are equally disadvantaged.

[mahrundl]

Gaptooth, I'm going to Exalt you for posting those links and for stepping up to defend T & T's lack of balance on Jeff's blog!

[ragnorakk]

Yeah - well said Gaptooth!

[gaptooth]

Thanks for the affirmations, folks! When I first got into T&T, the obvious imbalances were definitely something I wanted to "fix", but I let everyone roll up their überpowerful dwarves with TAROs in Strength anyway-- my daughter was so excited when she got a starting character with 64 Strength! Later, I decided that I would "balance" all the kindreds in my game by offsetting every multiplier. The wonder of the game is that it works without such fixes.

I was speaking from my own marvel, mainly. Now that I realize a diversity of stats doesn't break the game, especially in 7e where good stats are offset by the higher cost of advancement, I don't fret over it at all.

What matters more to me now is that the kindreds available should be purposefully selected with respect to the setting. I'm tired of the careless pastiche of fantasy races and cultures that has become the default offering in fantasy role-playing. I don't want to clutter my game with the same old stereotypes-- if I include a kindred, it should be an interesting and exciting part of the fiction.

[machfront]

Seeing Jeff's comments concerning the fellow who seemed to be unhappy with his (or rather, the abilities of...or seeming lack thereof) dark elf character made me wonder if Jeff used, or is aware of and made fully clear to the players, combat SRs...

[Deleted]

I did explain the concept at the beginning of the game and reminded the players they existed. One player used a SR to stuff a paladin into a large sack, another to sneak about and cut the rope on a boat tied to pier, etc.

[Burraggha]

Welcome jrients. Glad to see they aren't talking behind your back! =0)

[ragnorakk]

I guess in a way the fact that the SR mechanism could be interpreted to tie ANY action to a roll on a stat could be frustrating to a person with low stats - but of course not every action needs be rolled on (tie your shoes? L4 SR on DEX? No way!)

[machfront]

Feb 16, 2011 8:42:28 GMT -5 @jrients said:

I did explain the concept at the beginning of the game and reminded the players they existed. One player used a SR to stuff a paladin into a large sack, another to sneak about and cut the rope on a boat tied to pier, etc.

Ha ha!
Well, then the fault lies with the player in question, IMO.
Still...pity that he didn't have a good time.