No. No I will not draw from the Deck of Many Things. Why? For one, Murphy’s Law thinks your “clearly defined odds” and “mathematical probability” are positively adorable, and you can go to the donjon about it! For two, character investment is a big part of my enjoyment of the game, and potentially ruining a character I’m invested in is not worth the risk.
“I don’t care that much if my character dies” equates to “I don’t care that much if my character lives” which evens out to “I don’t care that much about my character either way.” And that’s just not my mindset. DM/chance just unceremoniously flushed Bob #3415 down the toilet? Oh well! Everyone get ready to meet his identical twin brother: Bob #3416!
If that’s how you prefer to play, then sure – go nuts. “I’m Johnny Knoxvillie and this is Dungeons and Dragons” isn’t wrong as long as you’re having fun. It just isn’t for everyone. And it certainly isn’t for me.
I was introduced to RPGs via a homebrew system a friend thought up that consisted mostly of a couple cool ideas and a grid of numbers. It was years before I played actual D&D (or AD&D as it was then called), but within a few months of my starting playing one of the rotating GMs used the Deck of Many Things to, as you put it, “shake up the campaign”. It was Russian Roulette with an unexpectedly cooperative bent as players who had wishes would use them to offset some of the worse effects (prolly not strictly according to Hoyle, but it worked). That session skyrocketed PC power levels and resources and set us off on totally new adventures.
Since that was my introduction, that’s how I’ve used it as well.
More recently, in a D&D 5e game, the DM broke out a subset of the DoMT and gave us a choice of 2 cards. So, yeah, I chose to pull 2 cards. And the first one basically sat me out the rest of the session as the party had to come find me. I hate being benched, but it was still a fun session overall.
I don’t know if the math supports pulling cards from the DoMT as an EV+ proposition, but, hell yeah, count me in. =)
"This is why attempts to make orcs and goblins in D&D less "racist" are so pointless."
I'm surprised to see this take here, given how often Spiderweb Software games feature enemies that at first appear to be generic faceless baddies but wind up having additional depth that explains why they're fighting or splinter groups that are peaceful, etc. Isn't the impulse to make orcs/goblins less "racist" the same impulse as, say, putting in friendly groups of Sliths in Avernum 1 or writing the Vahnatai to be attacking primarily due to cultural misunderstandings, etc, in Avernum 2?
Also, honestly, I'm starting to find calling an opinion a "take" somewhat tiresome. It implies that it is casually arrived at, trivial, and dumb.
Unless, when you said "take," you meant, "A deeply-held opinion based on a lifetime of reading and writing fantasy and studying history, military and otherwise, flavored by listening to my grandparents' WW2 stories in my youth." But I don't really think you did.
In the 18 all-new games I've written, going back 30 years, there have been plenty of instances where I put in species of thinking creatures that were Just Bad.
Also, when you identify a group as Just Bad, that is often a temporary designation made in the context of current events. To see an example, consider giving a seminar on Russian Cultural Achievements in Europe or Ukraine today versus giving a similar lecture 20 years ago.
As an extroverted nerd who gets attached to fictional characters easily, I don't think I've ever bounced off one of your articles so hard! I think our approaches to roleplaying games and what we're looking for are just alien to each other. I play tabletop RPGs pretty differently than board games in terms of character investment and what sorts of risks I care about.
So is the Deck of Many Things really cool? Yes.
Would I draw from it in a one-shot? Definitely.
Would I draw in the middle of a long campaign? Absolutely not.
I agree with your game design advice at the end though:
> I think it's a good idea to be unfair sometimes. Sometimes people should get more or less than they deserve. If your game isn't PvP, I think you should put in at least two times when the player gets something that feels too good and one time when the player gets unfairly screwed over.
I think this is a complete misunderstanding. No, I will not draw from the Deck of Many Things.
Two things:
1) No the Deck is not a metaphor for life. Life is a process of making choices based on incomplete information. To take the job or not take the job is not a choice to roll a die or not roll a die. The decision is full of information - there are all sorts of probabilities, and likelihoods. Your skill at predicting the future and planning for it make an enormous difference in the outcome. The deck is raw gambling. Your skill at predicting and planning do not make a difference. It's just a die roll.
2) We play in fantasy games to create coherent narratives. Icarus is not nonsense, it is a narrative about hubris and the choices we make. People want stories that matter. Emotional attachment to the characters you create, and that your friends create, is the point of a lot of roleplaying styles. Telling stories together.
The Deck is as pointless as the random dungeon generator. And I know some people love random dungeon generators. I think they're a pointless waste of time.
There's a mod for XCOM 2 called 'A Requiem For Man: Gameplay Mutators'. It features a bunch of modifiers that can show up for a single mission, where the game can wildly swing in favour of the player or the enemies. Is it always fair and balanced? No. Is it fun / memorable? Yes!
I don't really see why you have to start drawing cards as soon as you find a deck. It seems to me that a Deck of Many Things would be good to have on hand for various situations. Like a dire emergency when only a miracle can save you anyway, or when you need to use guile to get one over someone, like a blend of Deer Hunter and Gollum's riddle game.
I think it's generally played where when you find the deck you can carry it around, whatevs. But once someone starts drawing, that's it. Decision time.
(Though I think most people will just start drawing immediately. How could you resist?)
This is one reason why Nethack is still popular and fun to play. It's not fun if a game repeatedly punishes you and there's no sensible way to work around it, but if you can have a reasonable experience through a certain amount of (preferably not reflex based) skill, and match that with random events that make the game harder, easier, or just plain fun it drives you to return again and again.
Will I be kicking that sink or quaffing from a fountain, especially at lower levels? Absolutely!
No. No I will not draw from the Deck of Many Things. Why? For one, Murphy’s Law thinks your “clearly defined odds” and “mathematical probability” are positively adorable, and you can go to the donjon about it! For two, character investment is a big part of my enjoyment of the game, and potentially ruining a character I’m invested in is not worth the risk.
“I don’t care that much if my character dies” equates to “I don’t care that much if my character lives” which evens out to “I don’t care that much about my character either way.” And that’s just not my mindset. DM/chance just unceremoniously flushed Bob #3415 down the toilet? Oh well! Everyone get ready to meet his identical twin brother: Bob #3416!
If that’s how you prefer to play, then sure – go nuts. “I’m Johnny Knoxvillie and this is Dungeons and Dragons” isn’t wrong as long as you’re having fun. It just isn’t for everyone. And it certainly isn’t for me.
I was introduced to RPGs via a homebrew system a friend thought up that consisted mostly of a couple cool ideas and a grid of numbers. It was years before I played actual D&D (or AD&D as it was then called), but within a few months of my starting playing one of the rotating GMs used the Deck of Many Things to, as you put it, “shake up the campaign”. It was Russian Roulette with an unexpectedly cooperative bent as players who had wishes would use them to offset some of the worse effects (prolly not strictly according to Hoyle, but it worked). That session skyrocketed PC power levels and resources and set us off on totally new adventures.
Since that was my introduction, that’s how I’ve used it as well.
More recently, in a D&D 5e game, the DM broke out a subset of the DoMT and gave us a choice of 2 cards. So, yeah, I chose to pull 2 cards. And the first one basically sat me out the rest of the session as the party had to come find me. I hate being benched, but it was still a fun session overall.
I don’t know if the math supports pulling cards from the DoMT as an EV+ proposition, but, hell yeah, count me in. =)
"This is why attempts to make orcs and goblins in D&D less "racist" are so pointless."
I'm surprised to see this take here, given how often Spiderweb Software games feature enemies that at first appear to be generic faceless baddies but wind up having additional depth that explains why they're fighting or splinter groups that are peaceful, etc. Isn't the impulse to make orcs/goblins less "racist" the same impulse as, say, putting in friendly groups of Sliths in Avernum 1 or writing the Vahnatai to be attacking primarily due to cultural misunderstandings, etc, in Avernum 2?
Also, honestly, I'm starting to find calling an opinion a "take" somewhat tiresome. It implies that it is casually arrived at, trivial, and dumb.
Unless, when you said "take," you meant, "A deeply-held opinion based on a lifetime of reading and writing fantasy and studying history, military and otherwise, flavored by listening to my grandparents' WW2 stories in my youth." But I don't really think you did.
In the 18 all-new games I've written, going back 30 years, there have been plenty of instances where I put in species of thinking creatures that were Just Bad.
Also, when you identify a group as Just Bad, that is often a temporary designation made in the context of current events. To see an example, consider giving a seminar on Russian Cultural Achievements in Europe or Ukraine today versus giving a similar lecture 20 years ago.
As an extroverted nerd who gets attached to fictional characters easily, I don't think I've ever bounced off one of your articles so hard! I think our approaches to roleplaying games and what we're looking for are just alien to each other. I play tabletop RPGs pretty differently than board games in terms of character investment and what sorts of risks I care about.
So is the Deck of Many Things really cool? Yes.
Would I draw from it in a one-shot? Definitely.
Would I draw in the middle of a long campaign? Absolutely not.
I agree with your game design advice at the end though:
> I think it's a good idea to be unfair sometimes. Sometimes people should get more or less than they deserve. If your game isn't PvP, I think you should put in at least two times when the player gets something that feels too good and one time when the player gets unfairly screwed over.
I think this is a complete misunderstanding. No, I will not draw from the Deck of Many Things.
Two things:
1) No the Deck is not a metaphor for life. Life is a process of making choices based on incomplete information. To take the job or not take the job is not a choice to roll a die or not roll a die. The decision is full of information - there are all sorts of probabilities, and likelihoods. Your skill at predicting the future and planning for it make an enormous difference in the outcome. The deck is raw gambling. Your skill at predicting and planning do not make a difference. It's just a die roll.
2) We play in fantasy games to create coherent narratives. Icarus is not nonsense, it is a narrative about hubris and the choices we make. People want stories that matter. Emotional attachment to the characters you create, and that your friends create, is the point of a lot of roleplaying styles. Telling stories together.
The Deck is as pointless as the random dungeon generator. And I know some people love random dungeon generators. I think they're a pointless waste of time.
There's a mod for XCOM 2 called 'A Requiem For Man: Gameplay Mutators'. It features a bunch of modifiers that can show up for a single mission, where the game can wildly swing in favour of the player or the enemies. Is it always fair and balanced? No. Is it fun / memorable? Yes!
I don't really see why you have to start drawing cards as soon as you find a deck. It seems to me that a Deck of Many Things would be good to have on hand for various situations. Like a dire emergency when only a miracle can save you anyway, or when you need to use guile to get one over someone, like a blend of Deer Hunter and Gollum's riddle game.
I think it's generally played where when you find the deck you can carry it around, whatevs. But once someone starts drawing, that's it. Decision time.
(Though I think most people will just start drawing immediately. How could you resist?)
This is one reason why Nethack is still popular and fun to play. It's not fun if a game repeatedly punishes you and there's no sensible way to work around it, but if you can have a reasonable experience through a certain amount of (preferably not reflex based) skill, and match that with random events that make the game harder, easier, or just plain fun it drives you to return again and again.
Will I be kicking that sink or quaffing from a fountain, especially at lower levels? Absolutely!
I played Nethack a ton in 1992. Can't imagine how crazy it is now.
So much of modern game is fueled on fumes of the early days. The general design of Soulslikes and Roguelikes contain such 80s energy.