Is Tailor Made Better?

[Darth Ultron]

- customizing encounters to the PCs numbers & levels (CaS)
- customizing encounters to the PCs abilities (CaS on steroids)

I think the first three are great!

I don't like the last two very much, especially not the very last one.

The above two are, in fact, in most game rules. A GM makes and customizes encounters to the PCs. I'm not a fan of this, even more so D&D's way.

There's also content customization (both in terms of setting elements and encounters) to the players separate from the PCs. A good example here is phobias - one of the people I've had as players has a really deep, really entrenched fear of needles. She doesn't particularly like the idea of IVs, puts up with vaccination only because she also has a really strong sense of social responsibility, etc. If I, as a GM, in a game she was in repeatedly put cactus everywhere as a hazard in a desert and graphically described the effects every time someone fell in it or similar it would be a total jerk move.

Does a fear of needles translate into a fear of cacti?

I'm in big favor of this one: Taylor Things to the Players. Though my whole game is for the Players, not the Characters too. I also don't avoid hot button issues.

[Quertus]

Insult received.

In fact, many plots and stories have similar encounters for awhile. I was once exploring an Egyptian pyramid, and all encounters were undead. If a character had developed a hot new illusion-based power, it would be reasonable for the DM to add some grave robbers or others who could be affected by the illusions.

I once had a plot that involved all the animals being forced out of the great forest, and then the druid developed a big animal-affecting power. If I hadn't changed things, his power would have been worthless for several sessions.

It is simply untrue that every set of adventures will have the exact same "variety of encounters", and your suggestion that a theme-based plot indicates GM skills that need to be improved is simply false-to-fact.

What? No. That wasn't meant as an insult.

What I'm saying is, a GM who is good at / utilizes this skill will notice the "all undead all the time" nature, and add the grave robbers (plus scarabs, traps, puzzles, etc) regardless of the composition of - or even the existence of - the party.

Much like keeping pages of notes on which button does what on a console game, manually running through these steps is not a bad plan - far* from it - it's just not usually the best way, or the end goal.

Just as a sandbox (irl) isn't just a random collection of items, so, too, the GM gets to pick what he places in his sandbox, or in his adventure. A GM with the appropriate skills can choose to sacrifice variety for the integrity of their module, sure, but a GM without those skills has no choice but to employ an epimethian, post-production modification to their plans.

Just like how people comment on just how obvious GM railroading is, these changes to reality can detract from the experience. "gee, as soon as I got a fire-based power, we encounters our first ever creature that was vulnerable / immune to fire". It's so much cleaner to learn to vary encounters in the first place, than to risk detracting from the game by doing so after the fact.

* I mean, I wouldn't have called it "brilliant" if I thought it was a bad idea.

[Knaight]

Does a fear of needles translate into a fear of cacti?

A fear of being stabbed by needle like objects (which is what this boils down to) includes cactus needles often enough that I'm willing to make that assumption in the general case. In the specific case, it's either a definite fear or two unrelated phobias about needles and cactus needles.

[Pleh]

Reading a bit more of this to catch up (not fully caught up yet), I feel like I'm starting to get Tanarii's point a bit better.

If I were asked (and agreed) to write a module for organized play, I would know ahead of time that I would be writing for a potentially large group of individuals in separate groups who will, in all likelihood, have a wide array of different types of characters and encounter solving abilities. As such, I would work very hard to tailor my encounters to EVERY possible character to the best of my ability. In my mind, that mostly means starting with some fundamental plot to narrow my field, reasoning out the encounters that develop that plot, and then tailoring my encounters such that, by whatever means, ANY standard group of adventurers would have both a reasonable chance for success and failure in each encounter.

In this way, it's actually MORE work to tailor it to every conceivable group. Not like I have to take account for every possible Wizard spell that they might happen to have in the party, but I should expect every major and commonly used spell, surely. I should take into account Martial/Caster disparity and make the adventure fun (as best I can) for a party of full casters as well as a party of full martials.

But my point is that writing irrespective of the players while still making a solid, functional game, actually involves MORE tailoring as you have to account for every PC reasonably conceivable (and thus, every conceivable permutation of party composition).

If I were writing for a Star Wars Saga module, this wouldn't be too bad as there are only 5 base classes and a known quantity of prestige classes (and I could just set the module level low enough to not even be high enough for PrCs to come into play).

But if I were writing for D&D 3.5, I'd probably have to leave a note at the beginning for the DM as to what Splatbooks I was specifically trying to accommodate and recommend they disallow other resources or else do their own work of balancing those materials into the game.

Now, from this point, I'd like to offer a counterargument to this idea.

Yes, a really good DM can sit down and tailor a module to every conceivable party permutation within some bounds of reason.

But couldn't that same DM do more with a known party composition? To have all that knowledge, experience, skill, and work ethic to build a broadly tailored adventure and put it all to the same measure of use in building it for an adventure where the encounters can be custom fit to the exact heroes in question; wouldn't that same DM, with the higher pedigree and capacity be able to then do more if given more information to work with from the start?

Wouldn't such a DM be simply able to do more and better, given the same starting resources, planning a campaign where they are given the known party composition rather than expending resources to accommodate unknown variables?

[Quertus]

tailor my encounters to EVERY possible character to the best of my ability.

tailoring my encounters such that, by whatever means, ANY standard group of adventurers would have both a reasonable chance for success and failure in each encounter.

I should take into account Martial/Caster disparity and make the adventure fun (as best I can) for a party of full casters as well as a party of full martials.

But if I were writing for D&D 3.5, I'd probably have to leave a note at the beginning for the DM as to what Splatbooks I was specifically trying to accommodate and recommend they disallow other resources or else do their own work of balancing those materials into the game.

That is a Combat as Sport mindset of trying to balance the module and invalidate player choices. In a Combat as War mindset of trying to validate player choices, you still include variety, but for the purpose of the experience, not out of an explicit sense of balancing the module.

EDIT: that probably wasn't terribly clear; let me try again. If someone has a cool fire based ability, it would be nice for them to encounter something that is especially vulnerable to fire, and something that is especially resistant to fire, in addition to all the normal, run of the mill things. That's different than saying, "hmmm... the Fighter's Flaming Sword is too overpowered - I know, I'll make every monster immune to fire! That will fix the game balance!"

One of these can be done without even looking at the party, and makes the game richer. The other, IMO, it's just being a ****, and sacrificing variety for balance.

As you can tell, I'm biased towards maximum Player Agency & Combat as War.

[Pleh]

That is a Combat as Sport mindset of trying to balance the module and invalidate player choices. In a Combat as War mindset of trying to validate player choices, you still include variety, but for the purpose of the experience, not out of an explicit sense of balancing the module.

I don't see how that follows. How does Combat as Sport limit player choices? You mean the limits of what I can plan for? It's the DM's job to adapt to a live scenario. It's nice when a module creator makes that as easy as possible.

But games are not simultaneously Sandbox and Scripted Module.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That is a Combat as Sport mindset of trying to balance the module and invalidate player choices. In a Combat as War mindset of trying to validate player choices, you still include variety, but for the purpose of the experience, not out of any sense of balancing the module.

*TWEEET* Flag on the play. False assertion. Balancing the module != invalidating player choices. Bad Quertus.

You're stuck in a "Combat as War=good, Combat as Sport=bad" mentality that is a) not well defined, b) absolutely arbitrary, and c) ignores the vast majority of all motivations to play. It also feeds a player vs DM antagonism that can severely damage fun. It also feeds a need to optimize mechanically without regard to characters--if you don't, you die.

A counter question. You're playing a particular game with a particular set of people. One of them mentions that he plans to take an option that, while flavorful and totally in character, will have absolutely no use in this module/campaign. As a DM, what do you do?

a) Say nothing and allow the player to waste a build resource since it will never be triggered.
b) Warn the player that that option is worthless in this campaign.
c) Find a way to incorporate that option into the campaign, even in small ways.

In my opinion, option a) is antagonistic and anti-fun and invalidates the player's choice. It's also the CaW/neutral DM default. Option b) gives away important information (risking meta-gaming). Option c) involves tailoring and so is non-neutral, but validates the choices of the players.

I know which one I'd pick--option c) all the way. It's most likely to preserve fun without damaging anything. In this specific case, it's a real situation. A player of mine took Witch Sight, a 5e warlock ability that grants the user certain perception abilities that were unlikely to come up in play as I had planned. So I'm making sure to include such situations. Not tons, and not as requirements for progress, but as elements that let him feel special and let him feel that the choice wasn't a trap. Same with my other players. I place opportunities for them to use their abilities so they feel cool. Places where choosing option 1 over option 2 will make a difference. I hate trap options. Every option should have value. Every choice should have interesting consequences both for success and for failure. Since I'm building the campaign as they go, I can do this.

I can't if I'm following a module. There are too many options to keep track of for a module writer. That means that there will be trap options and "best" options. This gives incentives to meta-game and to plan characters to the module instead of letting them grow organically. If in act 1 there are tons of undead, giving away a turn undead option would be suicide, even if it fits the character better to have an ACF instead. Now, sure, modules can give branching choices, but there will always be more restrictions than on a tailored campaign. That's inevitable, part and parcel of writing a module for mass distribution. You can't think of everything. That means that some groups will be unable to complete it due to choices they made at session 0 and others will breeze through it, again due to choices at session 0. This is un-fun to me.

I trust the DM on the ground much more than I trust a commercial writer. Because the DM (or any DM I'm willing to play with) is much more invested in the success of the game (having fun). The writer has gotten paid when you bought the module. They're not there to see the module in play. It's the DM that will be blamed if the module is unfair or restrictive or otherwise unfun.

[Quertus]

*TWEEET* Flag on the play. False assertion. Balancing the module != invalidating player choices.

... Um, yes it does. Heck, even the most common form, balancing for number of players, invalidates the choice to try the module with additional or fewer bodies.

Bad Quertus.

You're stuck in a "Combat as War=good, Combat as Sport=bad" mentality

Guilty as charged. That is my personal bias.

that is a) not well defined, b) absolutely arbitrary, and c) ignores the vast majority of all motivations to play. It also feeds a player vs DM antagonism that can severely damage fun. It also feeds a need to optimize mechanically without regard to characters--if you don't, you die.

Well, now, there's some problems here in both of our assumptions.

You're assuming that the goal is to "win". That's wrong thinking. Bad PP. My goal is to experience - and, yes, that includes a fair amount of dieing in D&D. I want to come by my deaths honest. That does not require mechanical optimization, and would be more accurately characterized as "character is the only thing that is important". Something something tweet flag false assertion something something.

EDIT: and something something ignore majority motivations something something.

A counter question. You're playing a particular game with a particular set of people. One of them mentions that he plans to take an option that, while flavorful and totally in character, will have absolutely no use in this module/campaign. As a DM, what do you do?

a) Say nothing and allow the player to waste a build resource since it will never be triggered.
b) Warn the player that that option is worthless in this campaign.
c) Find a way to incorporate that option into the campaign, even in small ways.

In my opinion, option a) is antagonistic and anti-fun and invalidates the player's choice. It's also the CaW/neutral DM default. Option b) gives away important information (risking meta-gaming). Option c) involves tailoring and so is non-neutral, but validates the choices of the players.

Strongly disagree. Changing the module invalidates the player's choice. Just like saving someone from suicide invalidates their choice. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that you're wrong to pretend otherwise. (EDIT: wrong to pretend it isn't invalidating their choice, in case that wasn't clear)

On a good day, I'd notice, and choose option b.

However, this goes back to the "GM skills" bit. If I failed my skill check, and accidentally created a module unfairly biased for or (especially) against an ability, yes, I would be willing to fix the module.

But a published module? No, I'd just use option b. "I don't think 'Necrophilia on Bone Hill' is a good module for a diplomancer or sneak attack rogue build..."

Places where choosing option 1 over option 2 will make a difference. I hate trap options. Every option should have value. Every choice should have interesting consequences both for success and for failure. Since I'm building the campaign as they go, I can do this.

Having choices make a difference seems opposed to hating trap options. I know how I resolve this, but I'm curious how you do so.

I can't if I'm following a module. There are too many options to keep track of for a module writer. That means that there will be trap options and "best" options. This gives incentives to meta-game and to plan characters to the module instead of letting them grow organically. If in act 1 there are tons of undead, giving away a turn undead option would be suicide, even if it fits the character better to have an ACF instead. Now, sure, modules can give branching choices, but there will always be more restrictions than on a tailored campaign. That's inevitable, part and parcel of writing a module for mass distribution. You can't think of everything. That means that some groups will be unable to complete it due to choices they made at session 0 and others will breeze through it, again due to choices at session 0. This is un-fun to me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I find that a fun source of variety, and validation of my choices. If success and failure aren't on the table, what's the point?

That having been said, outside the worst railroading "you must have demolitions to blow up this wall to continue", I've rarely lost at session 0; rather, party composition has made the module much more interesting as we scramble to figure out ways to complete our objectives using what resources we have available.

Perhaps I enjoy creativity more than you do? (EDIT: before someone takes that the wrong way, I enjoy creativity more than most people. I even love the unplanned party / drop-in game minigame of "how do we work with this group of characters" that is anathema to people who have dogmatic requirements for party composition.)

I trust the DM on the ground much more than I trust a commercial writer. Because the DM (or any DM I'm willing to play with) is much more invested in the success of the game (having fun). The writer has gotten paid when you bought the module. They're not there to see the module in play. It's the DM that will be blamed if the module is unfair or restrictive or otherwise unfun.

Well, given that a) I don't trust the GM on the ground, and b) I've seen the GM on the ground ruin modules by changing them many times (and, IIRC, never* seen the experience improved by a GM changing the module), my experience differs greatly from your implied assertion.

* I have had GMs modify modules to make them fit the campaign world without completely ruining the module.

I don't see how that follows. How does Combat as Sport limit player choices? You mean the limits of what I can plan for? It's the DM's job to adapt to a live scenario. It's nice when a module creator makes that as easy as possible.

But games are not simultaneously Sandbox and Scripted Module.

Does the above, plus my edit to the original post, answer your questions?

[Cluedrew]

In this way, it's actually MORE work to tailor it to every conceivable group.

Is it even tailored at that point? Lets say for instance that I come up with a back story for my World of Warcraft character (I could even use the pre-existing lore as a base to make sure my character fits into the world). How much of the story is going to fit that character? Probably none. Why because to have something fit everyone, it will never fit any one character very well. Although MMORPGs do have different goals, do you think you could write a modal for an unknown party, no matter how much work you put in could you make it as good as "here are the character sheets and this is the campaign log of how they got to level 5" (modal starts at level 6)? I don't think I could.

On Combat As: Really I think it comes down to a matter of what do you think is important: the set up for the battle or the battle itself.

Combat as Sport is interested in each and every fight. So they make every fight interesting, like a match in a game. This does cut off some design space, as fights that are obviously won or obviously lost from the very beginning aren't very interesting in isolation. There is often an assumption that the fight will go to completion as well, which forces the difficulty down as not to lose PCs all the time.

Combat as War is interested about the decisions around the fight. The fight itself exists in part to justify those choices. Enemies of different strengths exists to create easy or hard fights to avoid or accept and differing types of strength demand different preparation. Which does mean that "unwinnable battles" become an option because getting into the fight was the mistake, as opposed to anything during the fight.

That is my summery that I have pieced together. I also wrote it before Quertus's latest post.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll start by again stating that all of this is a question of taste, not objective truth. There is an implied "in my opinion" in front of all my sentences.

... Um, yes it does. Heck, even the most common form, balancing for number of players, invalidates the choice to try the module with additional or fewer bodies.

No more than not balancing anything does. A not-balanced game either hasn't been checked against possible combinations (it's untested) or it's been checked and balance has been intentionally discarded (which is a form of tailoring in and of itself). As soon as you play-test (which all commercial modules do) and adjust based on the play test, you're engaged in balancing.

Well, now, there's some problems here in both of our assumptions.

You're assuming that the goal is to "win". That's wrong thinking. Bad PP. My goal is to experience - and, yes, that includes a fair amount of dieing in D&D. I want to come by my deaths honest. That does not require mechanical optimization, and would be more accurately characterized as "character is the only thing that is important". Something something tweet flag false assertion something something.

No, I said that it often leads to trying to "win." What "win" means differs for different people. Your particular assumptions work for you, they don't work for the vast majority, as evidenced by the fact that CaW (still something whose definition seems to bend and twist as convenient) games are very very niche, even among the niche game styles. And characters counting is counter to the idea of testing yourself against a module--by dying you're cutting off that experience and that character, so the characters that successfully experience the most are those most tailored to that module.

Strongly disagree. Changing the module invalidates the player's choice. Just like saving someone from suicide invalidates their choice. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that you're wrong to pretend otherwise. (EDIT: wrong to pretend it isn't invalidating their choice, in case that wasn't clear)

How? You've stated this, but never actually justified it. I can see it in a case where there is a defined branching path--a choice of path A should be different than a choice of path B. But if you're not using modules, there isn't a predetermined path. There are merely a lot of possibilities. My basic rule is that nothing is real until it's come out at the table. Everything, including setting elements, is uncertain until a player observes it in play. Once observed, it's immutable. This allows me to decide that my initial notes were wrong, that this area really is like X, not like Y. As a result, I can adapt to player-induced changes seamlessly--I'm not pre-generating the entire state of the world at T=0. This also saves on up-front work for things that may or may not be ever met. It allows me to tell many stories in the same world because choices have scope--their effects are determined much later. It also saves brain space, something that I desperately need.

On a good day, I'd notice, and choose option b.

However, this goes back to the "GM skills" bit. If I failed my skill check, and accidentally created a module unfairly biased for or (especially) against an ability, yes, I would be willing to fix the module.

But a published module? No, I'd just use option b. "I don't think 'Necrophilia on Bone Hill' is a good module for a diplomancer or sneak attack rogue build..."

So you're opting for limiting player options by disallowing a whole spectrum of characters. You're also giving the player a lot of information that they can then use to meta-game (build a character to the specific challenges, not build a character to play a character). Thus, the "acceptable" character space is severely limited by the module. That, to me, is a weakness of a module. Your first option (creating a "balanced" module) runs counter to your initial statement that doing so invalidates player choice. I'd rather start a campaign with a theme, and a general idea of some of the major conflicts and build the components in a JIT fashion. It's much more flexible and allows adaptation to the particular players and their different desires. Same with smaller components--I'll start with a concept map and a few of the basic players/fixed setting elements. Everything else is built on-the-fly to maintain consistency with what I've already stated at the table.

Having choices make a difference seems opposed to hating trap options. I know how I resolve this, but I'm curious how you do so.

Trap options are, to one degree or another, options that are always sub-optimal. If there are no undead, turn undead is a trap if you can choose something that works. This is orthogonal to choices making a difference. I prefer all choices to be useful but have different consequences that shape the scenario. That is, it's a test with no right answer. Within reason, every approach will work. How they work, and whether the trade-off is worth it to those players, is the important thing. I've seen organized play devolve into "You should plan on always killing everything, because you can't rely on a DM or a table letting anything else work." That's annoying. It locks out all non-fighting-related options as traps, since they'll never be useful. It's what I see with optimization--things that don't have guaranteed mechanical effect are down-rated because you can't count on them working in a module or organized play (since they rely on having a DM). That removes much of the draw of TTRPGs.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I find that a fun source of variety, and validation of my choices. If success and failure aren't on the table, what's the point?

That having been said, outside the worst railroading "you must have demolitions to blow up this wall to continue", I've rarely lost at session 0; rather, party composition has made the module much more interesting as we scramble to figure out ways to complete our objectives using what resources we have available.

Perhaps I enjoy creativity more than you do? (EDIT: before someone takes that the wrong way, I enjoy creativity more than most people. I even love the unplanned party / drop-in game minigame of "how do we work with this group of characters" that is anathema to people who have dogmatic requirements for party composition.)

I enjoy creation, not creativity (in the abstract). I DM because I love coming up with reactions to things I never expected. If I had a fixed module to run, I'd be bored to tears. In addition, modules feel constraining to me as a DM. If I don't run it exactly, I'm doing it wrong. And that takes away my fun, which comes in adapting things, surprising the players, throwing plot twists, calibrating things on the fly to maintain fun, and incorporating their suggestions into the world. If I had to build that all myself, it'd come out really poor. Instead, I leave things loose enough that if a player mentions that "it's probably like X" and it fits better than what I had planned, I'll run with it. It's the idea of "Yes, and..." applied to scenario design.

I'm motivated mainly by wonder, narrative, and agency when playing TTRPGs. And inflexibility runs counter to that. I don't like scripted things--I can read the script way faster and more accurately than a DM can read it out loud. Published modules are the ultimate expression of scripted for me with the "when the party enters, read <text>" pattern. There's a fixed objective and nothing else matters. Nothing else you do can really change the game much.

As to railroading, in most pre-5e published modules the valley of "expected parties" is really really narrow. They presume you have access to XYZ abilities (usually condition removal), they assume you've got a heavy melee hitter (except those that assume everyone's a stealthy skill monkey), they presume you have access to other resources like certain magical items. Without those, your chances of success diminish quickly (or are zeroed out entirely). That's railroading in drag, unless you can find loopholes to "break" the scenario--this "breaking" requires a DM willing to go along with it. You can take the easy path, or you can die. Horribly. No middle ground.

In addition, following a module inevitably slows down play whenever things threaten to go off-track, because the DM either has to improvise from nothing (the descriptions are never sufficient or extensive enough, because they assume you're following one of the blessed paths) or has to cross-reference material. I've seen that--3-5 minutes of the DM looking for things in the module PDF. Repeatedly. That's boring.

Well, given that a) I don't trust the GM on the ground, and b) I've seen the GM on the ground ruin modules by changing them many times (and, IIRC, never* seen the experience improved by a GM changing the module), my experience differs greatly from your implied assertion.

* I have had GMs modify modules to make them fit the campaign world without completely ruining the module.

If you don't trust them why the heck are you playing with them? There's lots of DMs I won't play with because I can't trust them to play in a way I find fun. This doesn't make them bad, just unsuited for me personally. Also, if the modules aren't adaptable without ruining them, that's seriously fragile railroading, something I find unacceptable.

[Pleh]

Does the above, plus my edit to the original post, answer your questions?

Yes. Your answer seemed to be saying my statements were wrong when your position more accurately states that my statements need to disclaim a limited application to a particular gamestyle.

I can happily accept this.

... Um, yes it does. Heck, even the most common form, balancing for number of players, invalidates the choice to try the module with additional or fewer bodies.

I disagree. The players made the choice of numbers of players and it impacted the game. No choice has been invalidated, it has been recognized and responded to.

See, the players can choose to play with fewer players specifically to increase their challenge. But the could make the same choice without wanting an increase in difficulty. They might just want the chance to play despite not having enough players to play it as it was written. At that point, the choice is not to increase the difficulty, but lower the entry requirements without disrupting the difficulty.

Neither is right or wrong and both choices compell different reactions from the DM.

Running out of time. Probably be back later with more.

[Tanarii]

*TWEEET* Flag on the play. False assertion. Balancing the module != invalidating player choices. Bad Quertus.

Agreed. I may currently be preferring Combat as War play overall. But Combat as sport, nor designing a module to be easier for CaS play than CaW play, doesn't mean "limit player options" or "invalidate player choices".

At its most basic, it simply means balancing encounters for a specific level range and length of adventuring day, but also assuming the party will be that level and have available that length of adventuring day (but not overextend it) when encountering them. As opposed to not assuming the party will be that level or spend that length of adventuring day (and not overextend it).

That also means it's more about the way an adventure or module is played than designed.

Obviously, in the spectrum of DMs designing adventures there's actually a continuum between CaW friendly and CaS friendly. There's a world of difference between (for example) Keep on the Borderlands and any 4e single session official play module.

[Quertus]

I disagree. The players made the choice of numbers of players and it impacted the game. No choice has been invalidated, it has been recognized and responded to.

See, the players can choose to play with fewer players specifically to increase their challenge. But the could make the same choice without wanting an increase in difficulty. They might just want the chance to play despite not having enough players to play it as it was written. At that point, the choice is not to increase the difficulty, but lower the entry requirements without disrupting the difficulty.

Neither is right or wrong and both choices compell different reactions from the DM.

Running out of time. Probably be back later with more.

Agreed. It's a difference between if they choose to play with a different number of PCs vs if they are forced to. Actually, I suppose it's more complicated than that - whether the players or characters explicitly choose to alter the party composition in order to affect the experience of the module. That is when it is denying them Agency to deny them the logical consequences of their choice.

No more than not balancing anything does. A not-balanced game either hasn't been checked against possible combinations (it's untested) or it's been checked and balance has been intentionally discarded (which is a form of tailoring in and of itself). As soon as you play-test (which all commercial modules do) and adjust based on the play test, you're engaged in balancing.

Clearly, we need to go back to defining tailoring if you're attempting to contend that not tailoring is a form of tailoring.

Under definitions of tailoring that don't include not tailoring, rebalancing the game is a form of tailoring that, as I explained better above, removes Player Agency if the imbalance was intentional on the players' part.

I'm not really sure where to go with definitions of tailoring that include not tailoring.

No, I said that it often leads to trying to "win."

Well, you actually said, "It also feeds a need to optimize mechanically without regard to characters--if you don't, you die."

I simply responded with, "yup, you die - Agency at work". Do you prefer games with lower Agency? Most people do, I don't.

What "win" means differs for different people. Your particular assumptions work for you, they don't work for the vast majority, as evidenced by the fact that CaW (still something whose definition seems to bend and twist as convenient) games are very very niche, even among the niche game styles.

Can I get a neutral reading on this? It sounds like I'm being accused of moving goal posts, and I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone agrees with this, and can point out any inconsistencies in my definition of CaW.

I feel like I'm defining it consistently, albeit piecemeal, but I admit I could be blinded by my own biases here.

And characters counting is counter to the idea of testing yourself against a module--by dying you're cutting off that experience and that character, so the characters that successfully experience the most are those most tailored to that module.

... What? You've lost me here.

How? You've stated this, but never actually justified it.

If the players or the PCs make the conscious decision to approach the problem differently (with a different number or composition of PCs, for example), then changing the module undies their actions and denies them agency. This is, IMO, railroading 101. It's so basic, I can't imagine anyone not seeing it. So, apparently, I'm really failing to express my idea... as evidenced by all the text I cut out that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.

The GM wants the module to turn out / feel a certain way. The PCs make choices that would change that outcome / feeling. So the GM changes reality to force things back to their way. That's railroading. That's removing Player Agency. Any "custom tailoring" that removes explicit player / character intent is railroading.

So you're opting for limiting player options by disallowing a whole spectrum of characters.

Nope. Not disallowing. Allowing players to choose whether or not they want to run a character who will not perform as expected. Enabling the Agency to make that choice.

You're also giving the player a lot of information that they can then use to meta-game (build a character to the specific challenges, not build a character to play a character).

True. But the module title, "Necrophilia on Bone Hill" probably already did that for most players.

I won't deny that there's a choice here. And I'm all about, "it's easier to roleplay ignorance if you are, yourself, ignorant", so I totally agree that it's a cost. And I'm sad to have to pay it. But, a) IME, there's usually a lot worse metagaming going on than just knowing the module title, or that a sneak attack rogue or diplomancer might not be an optional choice for this module / that this module might not be the best time to run that character, and B) IMO it's a lot better than letting them go in blind.

Thus, the "acceptable" character space is severely limited by the module. That, to me, is a weakness of a module.

Agreed. Sometimes, it's worth it for the integrity of the module. Sometimes, a module built for hearts just isn't appropriate for four clubs and a spade. But, in general, a module where you have to say, "sorry, your character will not perform according to your expectations" is a failure of module design.

Your first option (creating a "balanced" module) runs counter to your initial statement that doing so invalidates player choice.

Interesting point. But, IMO, wrong word - "varied", not "balanced" (especially since that word is being used to describe changing the module after the fact. Wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of four parts here). Does creating a varied experience invalidate Player Agency? Heck, does creating an "all undead" or otherwise same-y experience invalidate Player Agency?

I'm on the side of "no" here - the Players have the option and ability to do whatever in either case. But I could be wrong.

Trap options are, to one degree or another, options that are always sub-optimal. If there are no undead, turn undead is a trap if you can choose something that works. This is orthogonal to choices making a difference. I prefer all choices to be useful but have different consequences that shape the scenario. That is, it's a test with no right answer. Within reason, every approach will work. How they work, and whether the trade-off is worth it to those players, is the important thing. I've seen organized play devolve into "You should plan on always killing everything, because you can't rely on a DM or a table letting anything else work." That's annoying. It locks out all non-fighting-related options as traps, since they'll never be useful. It's what I see with optimization--things that don't have guaranteed mechanical effect are down-rated because you can't count on them working in a module or organized play (since they rely on having a DM). That removes much of the draw of TTRPGs.

This deserves a better response, but, in short, I generally agree with most of this.

I enjoy creation, not creativity (in the abstract). I DM because I love coming up with reactions to things I never expected.

The only thing I enjoy about being a GM is the players coming up with the unexpected. But you don't enjoy that side of it, only your side of creating things once they do so?

If I had a fixed module to run, I'd be bored to tears.

And here is where we must define "module" differently. Set starting conditions is what defines a module, to me. So (have the scripts in the module) react all you want to the PCs unexpected actions, and it's still a module, IMO.

In addition, modules feel constraining to me as a DM. If I don't run it exactly, I'm doing it wrong.

Yup. And if I don't roleplay my PC 100% correctly, I'm doing it wrong. Hint: I never hit my 100% accuracy mark, even when I got the opportunity to roleplay myself in an RPG.

Still, I think I have hit the much easier benchmark of accuracy in running a module.

And that takes away my fun, which comes in adapting things, surprising the players, throwing plot twists, calibrating things on the fly to maintain fun, and incorporating their suggestions into the world.

Oh, you find a more Calvin ball approach fun? Never mind, then.

If I had to build that all myself, it'd come out really poor.

And thus my comment about it being a skill that one can build.

Instead, I leave things loose enough that if a player mentions that "it's probably like X" and it fits better than what I had planned, I'll run with it. It's the idea of "Yes, and..." applied to scenario design.

It might be interesting to have a GM who could do that well.

I'm motivated mainly by wonder, narrative, and agency when playing TTRPGs. And inflexibility runs counter to that.

Having set rules of reality is the only thing that makes Exploration worthwhile. Not quite the same as Wonder, but I'll argue they're related.

Having logical consequences and a nice, firm, static reality is, IMO, a prerequisite for meaningful Agency. But, sure, I suppose Calvin ball could be considered the ultimate in Agency.

I don't like scripted things--I can read the script way faster and more accurately than a DM can read it out loud. Published modules are the ultimate expression of scripted for me with the "when the party enters, read <text>" pattern. There's a fixed objective and nothing else matters. Nothing else you do can really change the game much.

How, exactly, does having your starting conditions set in stone affect how much Agency you have to affect the mutable future?

As to railroading, in most pre-5e published modules the valley of "expected parties" is really really narrow. They presume you have access to XYZ abilities (usually condition removal), they assume you've got a heavy melee hitter (except those that assume everyone's a stealthy skill monkey), they presume you have access to other resources like certain magical items. Without those, your chances of success diminish quickly (or are zeroed out entirely). That's railroading in drag, unless you can find loopholes to "break" the scenario--this "breaking" requires a DM willing to go along with it. You can take the easy path, or you can die. Horribly. No middle ground.

Not my experience, either running or playing in modules, published or of my own design.

Now, I won't deny that it's much harder if the GM is a ****, but most systems have enough rules that the fault is obviously with the GM railroading if they don't let you climb over or go around the wall that the module expects you to employ explosives upon.

And, if the GM is a ****, well, IMO you're better off with a module than with their ****, as their **** may well be custom tailored to their railroading skills. No thank you.

In addition, following a module inevitably slows down play whenever things threaten to go off-track, because the DM either has to improvise from nothing (the descriptions are never sufficient or extensive enough, because they assume you're following one of the blessed paths) or has to cross-reference material. I've seen that--3-5 minutes of the DM looking for things in the module PDF. Repeatedly. That's boring.

Me writing out static reality beforehand does not, IME, make me run the game more slowly than me lying about reality. Not seeing where a static module is worse here.

If you don't trust them why the heck are you playing with them? There's lots of DMs I won't play with because I can't trust them to play in a way I find fun. This doesn't make them bad, just unsuited for me personally.

I don't have a good answer for you here.

Also, if the modules aren't adaptable without ruining them, that's seriously fragile railroading, something I find unacceptable.

Um, no, you missed the point: some idiots just like to take a **** all over an otherwise just fine module. How Shakespeare looks after I've eaten it and **** it out had nothing to do with the quality of Shakespeare.

Agreed. I may currently be preferring Combat as War play overall. But Combat as sport, nor designing a module to be easier for CaS play than CaW play, doesn't mean "limit player options" or "invalidate player choices".

At its most basic, it simply means balancing encounters for a specific level range and length of adventuring day, but also assuming the party will be that level and have available that length of adventuring day (but not overextend it) when encountering them. As opposed to not assuming the party will be that level or spend that length of adventuring day (and not overextend it).

That also means it's more about the way an adventure or module is played than designed.

Obviously, in the spectrum of DMs designing adventures there's actually a continuum between CaW friendly and CaS friendly. There's a world of difference between (for example) Keep on the Borderlands and any 4e single session official play module.

So, just to check: if you limit the players' ability to intentionally affect the difficulty of the module, you don't consider that to be a violation of their Agency?

[Tanarii]

Neither CaS nor a custom tailored adventure to the players PCs limits player agency. So your question doesn't seem relevant to anything.

Edit: now if you have more than one party in your campaign, and you customize the location for each separate party, then your doing some serious fantasy-environment reality bending. But for a single party, customizing the start conditions of any given section of a module to the party is just deciding on the start conditions for that section.

[Pleh]

Agreed. It's a difference between if they choose to play with a different number of PCs vs if they are forced to. Actually, I suppose it's more complicated than that - whether the players or characters explicitly choose to alter the party composition in order to affect the experience of the module. That is when it is denying them Agency to deny them the logical consequences of their choice.

Ok, but in my example, "not having the recommended number of players," it's not any person limiting their agency. It's just that fewer people can't do as much as having more people.

They still chose to simply do what they could with their given resources and are only constrained by their circumstances. This can't be bad as it's as neutral as anything can be. It's just a byproduct of imperfect games and groups which can be readily compensated for.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Quertus, I do think we have divergent definitions of modules. The ones I've seen have had way more than a set of starting conditions. They've had detailed NPC reactions "if the party says X, reply with Y", details about the steps needed to solve situations Z, etc.

Oh, and about changing things in the fly--that's not Calvin ball. Only planned things get changed. Nothing that they've seen (that is the players) changes. I may have planned encounters A,B, and C along their predicted route. But because they took an action that fit the world's (and their characters) logic better than my projections did, I have to reconfigure the encounters to adjust to this new shared understanding of the world. I don't presume to know the world perfectly, even though I built it. They often show that there's a better, funner way of perceiving those facts that puts everything in context. Thus, the unseen state must change to fit that new, better understanding.

[Quertus]

Neither CaS nor a custom tailored adventure to the players PCs limits player agency. So your question doesn't seem relevant to anything.

Your character hires extra muscle to make an upcoming fight easier. In response, the GM, wanting the fight to be a certain difficulty, increases the number / power of the opposition proportionally. Has the GM violated your Agency in invalidating your choice? I say yes.

[NichG]

Your character hires extra muscle to make an upcoming fight easier. In response, the GM, wanting the fight to be a certain difficulty, increases the number / power of the opposition proportionally. Has the GM violated your Agency in invalidating your choice? I say yes.

A very standard, and IMO essential DM technique is to say for example 'this kind of encounter/fight/etc is so easy for you given your power level, that we're not going to use table time to play it out anymore'. When you're peasants, three bandits laying in ambush on the road might be a life or death situation. When you're archmagi and demigods, those bandits might ostensibly still be there, but they are incapable of (mechanically) actually mattering. It doesn't impact your character's agency at all - you can still go and kill ten thousand bandits using your archmage powers - but at the same time it doesn't need to be played out and detail anymore because there's no question about whether or not you could possibly succeed.

So if there's a fight which would have been played out in detail, and you hire an army of mercenaries to help you fight it to the extent where basically you can't possibly lose or even suffer significant risk, I think its entirely appropriate to zoom out and say 'okay, you and your mercenary team clear out the enemies, now what?'.

[Tanarii]

Your character hires extra muscle to make an upcoming fight easier. In response, the GM, wanting the fight to be a certain difficulty, increases the number / power of the opposition proportionally. Has the GM violated your Agency in invalidating your choice? I say yes.

Yes of course. So would making a planned fight easier because the party lost a PC in the previous battle in the session, or worse because they expended more resources than expected. But who does that? That's ridiculous.

-------

The one standard thing for CaS that's kinda iffy is if the DM adjusts all encounters for the number of players who chose to show up that day. If 3 show up instead of 5 reducing difficulty, if 5 show up increasing it. But that's not outside help, nor adjusting based on what's already happened that day. It's adjusting for stuff that happens outside the game, not in it. So it's not really affecting player agency within the game to do things like hire a bunch of goons, or have the PCs face consequences for their choices within the session.

[Quertus]

A very standard, and IMO essential DM technique is to say for example 'this kind of encounter/fight/etc is so easy for you given your power level, that we're not going to use table time to play it out anymore'. When you're peasants, three bandits laying in ambush on the road might be a life or death situation. When you're archmagi and demigods, those bandits might ostensibly still be there, but they are incapable of (mechanically) actually mattering. It doesn't impact your character's agency at all - you can still go and kill ten thousand bandits using your archmage powers - but at the same time it doesn't need to be played out and detail anymore because there's no question about whether or not you could possibly succeed.

So if there's a fight which would have been played out in detail, and you hire an army of mercenaries to help you fight it to the extent where basically you can't possibly lose or even suffer significant risk, I think its entirely appropriate to zoom out and say 'okay, you and your mercenary team clear out the enemies, now what?'.

Well, that's certainly changing the game when you go to such extremes. Personally, I think even spotting someone a pawn, or adding a few minions to one side still impacts the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, that's certainly changing the game when you go to such extremes. Personally, I think even spotting someone a pawn, or adding a few minions to one side still impacts the game.

Some people enjoy epic combat. For them, adding mercenaries is good if it allows them to fight bigger, fiercer things. So for them, increasing the fight difficulty is exactly what they want out of the game. That's not invalidating their choices, it's exactly why they made that choice.

In my opinion, this works best if it's explicitly stated as a consequence or presented as an option. "If you bring more forces, you may fight bigger fights. The scaling is such that it will be easier on net, but not linearly so. Is that what you want?" (Directed at the players).

[NichG]

Well, that's certainly changing the game when you go to such extremes. Personally, I think even spotting someone a pawn, or adding a few minions to one side still impacts the game.

My point was more, it's changing things for the players but it's exactly because it doesn't change things for the characters that it's a fairly uncontroversial DM move (compared to, say, powering up the bandits).

You might reduce OOC player agency (in the sense that they can't choose to play out easy fights in detail), but the decisions and outcomes they can make IC are the same - you're just moving things offscreen.

Since OOC, players generally want to play rather than narrate, you do end up influencing them to metagame reasons for their characters to get into trouble. So you end up with a tailored game anyhow.

[Darth Ultron]

If the players or the PCs make the conscious decision to approach the problem differently (with a different number or composition of PCs, for example), then changing the module undies their actions and denies them agency. This is, IMO, railroading 101. It's so basic, I can't imagine anyone not seeing it. So, apparently, I'm really failing to express my idea... as evidenced by all the text I cut out that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.

I don't see it.

Your saying the odd statement here of once a DM creates anything and writes it down it is absolutely static and can never, ever be changed. And this just makes no sense.

Like to use your own example: the module is made for four 1st level characters. So playing the game will be six 5th level characters, and you'd say the DM must leave everything as is? So the game must be an utter waste of time? Or like say the composition of the characters is different, so they are all say sneaky and don't do head on fights....you'd say the foes must literally walk into walls like a dumb video game and can't change tactics.

And then, what your saying really goes off the deep end. Like if the DM writes down on January 1st ''NPC Zoc has a potion of healing'' then that can never ever be changed? NPC Zoc is ''stuck'' with that one potion of healing forever?

And then what about the Improv Exploit? If the DM has the vague idea of NPC Zoc, but no official written down permanent write up....then the DM can, on a whim, simply give/make/create NPC Zoc to have absolutely anything they want on a whim. Right?

The GM wants the module to turn out / feel a certain way. The PCs make choices that would change that outcome / feeling. So the GM changes reality to force things back to their way. That's railroading. That's removing Player Agency. Any "custom tailoring" that removes explicit player / character intent is railroading.

Well, as you pointed out yourself....Player Agency is the DM doing things...so if the DM wanted things a set way, why would they even do things the other way in the first place? The answer is: they would not.

But then maybe your not being clear, because it sounds like your just being beyond crazy.

Like say the DM has a nice queen murder mystery set in a castle adventure, and the players all sit down to play, and they agree to play through the adventure. Now the module is set to turn out as a murder mystery for the characters to solve and have a murder mystery feel. One minute into the game the PC's slaughter the king and take over the kingdom and go to war! So the players want a bloody murderhobo insane war game. So your saying the DM ''must'' just sit back and be like ''yes, players whatever you want."?

Your character hires extra muscle to make an upcoming fight easier. In response, the GM, wanting the fight to be a certain difficulty, increases the number / power of the opposition proportionally. Has the GM violated your Agency in invalidating your choice? I say yes.

I'd say no. This is really a basic DM function and one that will forever separate table top RPGs from computer ones. It is amazing that some people it is wrong for a DM to apparently ''think'' anything. After all the DM is not ''thinking'' things just to be a jerk monster, the DM is thinking things as that is the role (''job'') they have taken in the game. And part of that role(''job'') is making interesting, challenging, engaging events for the players to encounter and over come.

To suddenly say ''oh, the DM should do nothing and just let the players control the game, do the goal and win'' really does not make any sense. Why even play the game then? The DM could just pack up and leave and say ''oh, your character took over the world" or whatever.

And such things are not altering the game world. Even if the Hobgoblin Guards ''suddenly'' had battle axes +3 of sharpness...does not really ''mean'' anything. The Pc's might do some sort of wacky plan of attack and kill all the hobgoblins before they even get to attack...for example.

And, in game, if the player can have a character hire help.....why can't all the NPC's in the world do that? Or why can't the NPC foes do things like call for reinforcements?

And in the above example...assuming the DM just rolls over and says ''yes players, whatever you want", do the players agree to getting less XP/rewards, per the game rules, for having an easy non challenging fight?

[Tanarii]

But then maybe your not being clear, because it sounds like your just being beyond crazy.

Like say the DM has a nice queen murder mystery set in a castle adventure, and the players all sit down to play, and they agree to play through the adventure. Now the module is set to turn out as a murder mystery for the characters to solve and have a murder mystery feel. One minute into the game the PC's slaughter the king and take over the kingdom and go to war! So the players want a bloody murderhobo insane war game. So your saying the DM ''must'' just sit back and be like ''yes, players whatever you want."?

No. But just 'cause they mustn't doesn't mean they shouldn't. Clearly these players know how to turn a boring game into hella fun.

I'd say no. This is really a basic DM function and one that will forever separate table top RPGs from computer ones.

Now who's talking beyond crazy? That was a pretty clear cut example of removing player agency with a quantum ogre.

As I said earlier: "But who does that? It's ridiculous."

Now I know.

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: I'm going to rewind a bit, to address the question "how is not tailoring a kind of tailoring?". Remember those decision chains early in the thread? Group->System->World->Party->Campaign and many variants? Well there is actually one link on that chain we forgot to mention.

Decision Chain

That is, how the decisions are made can change depending on what you are aiming for. So (assuming I'm a good enough GM to pull all this off) lets say you ask me to run a game for you and some people of a similar play style. So my usual System->World<->Party->Campaign decision chain isn't going to work. Instead I might do System(which might already be decided for me)->World->Campaign-Party. Party almost occurring independently off to the side by the players. And that is because the start of both of those decision chains is actually: Group->Decision Chain.

So tailoring how you make decisions might mean you end up not tailoring certain things for certain other things. And that is how not tailoring is a kind of tailoring. Unless they were talking about something else completely different.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To Quertus: I'm going to rewind a bit, to address the question "how is not tailoring a kind of tailoring?". Remember those decision chains early in the thread? Group->System->World->Party->Campaign and many variants? Well there is actually one link on that chain we forgot to mention.

Decision Chain

That is, how the decisions are made can change depending on what you are aiming for. So (assuming I'm a good enough GM to pull all this off) lets say you ask me to run a game for you and some people of a similar play style. So my usual System->World<->Party->Campaign decision chain isn't going to work. Instead I might do System(which might already be decided for me)->World->Campaign-Party. Party almost occurring independently off to the side by the players. And that is because the start of both of those decision chains is actually: Group->Decision Chain.

So tailoring how you make decisions might mean you end up not tailoring certain things for certain other things. And that is how not tailoring is a kind of tailoring. Unless they were talking about something else completely different.

Sorta-kinda, but not really. Although this is a good point about the whole range of possible tailoring methods that I think most home-game DMs use naturally.

I was trying (and obviously failing) to express the following:

1) It seemed as though Quertus was claiming that balancing modules based on anything PC related (assumed party levels, assumed party numbers, assumed skill sets, etc) was tailoring (and thus detrimental to player agency, another claim I dispute).
2) But modules are play-tested and balanced based on the feedback. This includes making adjustments if the initial assumptions (which I believe are inevitable and necessary) were unlike what people actually did when playing it.
3) Thus, the claim in step 1 is one of
3a) true but meaningless in practice (since all modules are balanced this way, all modules are therefore, by his definition, tailored).
3b) false (balancing based on these factors isn't a useful sign of tailoring).
3c) moot (because that wasn't what he was claiming at all, and I misread something).

That is, I wasn't saying that "not tailoring == tailoring", I was saying that this particular example doesn't work. That is, it was an attempt at a disproof by contradiction. :shrug: Not important now, really.

I still think that CaS and CaW aren't good terms with solid definitions. They seem to be more "Term for style I like" and "Term for style I don't like." No two persons use the same definitions it seems, and people aren't consistent from post to post as to what exactly is meant by either.

[Darth Ultron]

Now who's talking beyond crazy? That was a pretty clear cut example of removing player agency with a quantum ogre.

So if I understand you right....a DM can never change anything once it is written down somewhere? If the guards are 3rd level warrior humans with full stat blocks, they must always be that, no matter what?

But on the other hand, if the DM has nothing, or just a tiny note that says human guards, then the DM can improv/make/create the guards into anything on a whim? So they could be anything, as nothing is set?

So the Dm can sit there with a empty sheet of paper, and when the player attacks with their character and hired thugs the DM can just improv/create do anything at any challenge level they want to on a whim.

But the DM that planned ahead and wrote the stat blocks down for X is absolutely stuck with X forever and can never change anything?

[Knaight]

I still think that CaS and CaW aren't good terms with solid definitions. They seem to be more "Term for style I like" and "Term for style I don't like." No two persons use the same definitions it seems, and people aren't consistent from post to post as to what exactly is meant by either.

You're not the only one. These are terrible jargon, and they've been extremely widely adopted to the point where it seems like GNS theory was a tiny thing nobody ever talked about.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder says it explicitly. Core Rulebook pg. 9:

While a 1st-level character might be up to saving a farmer’s daughter from rampaging goblins, defeating a terrifying red dragon might require the powers of a 20th-level hero. It is the Game Master’s duty to provide challenges for your character that are engaging, but not so deadly as to leave you with no hope of success.

Also, this Extra Credits video:



Every GM is at heart a game designer, so learning more about game design (even games in other media) will make you a better GM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, this Extra Credits video:



Every GM is at heart a game designer, so learning more about game design (even games in other media) will make you a better GM.

I'm probably the wrong one to talk (since I'm not motivated by challenge much at all), but I think there's a large difference between "fair" and "unfair" difficulty. Difficult because it requires coordination, thought, and memory (good platformers)? Fine. Difficult because the game engine is buggy or cheats? Not fine (for the majority, I believe).

For TTRPGs, that's one reason I'm not fond of leaving things up to a random table. The odds of getting a string of insurmountable challenges in a row (unless the table is tightly tuned) is too high for me to find it fun. As is the chance of getting a bunch of cake-walks in a row. Random odds are random, after all.