-
桌面之外的制作 Crafting Away from the Table (https://theangrygm.com/crafting-away-from-the-table/)
作者：愤怒的GMThe Angry GM (https://theangrygm.com/)
发布时间：January 14, 2019
(https://krseoul.imgtbl.com/i/2024/06/03/665d2bf6abdff.png)
因水平有限，使用ChatGPT4.0o翻译。
仅供个人参考，无法保证准确性，不能作为具有普适性的、面向大众的译文使用。
若想更准确了解原作者及文章的用意，请阅读原文 (https://theangrygm.com/crafting-away-from-the-table/)。
制作系统，还记得吗？
还记得几个月前我大胆宣布的计划吗？我说要开发一个可以嵌入 D&D 和 Pathfinder 中的制作系统的概念框架。 (https://www.goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=149670.0)我还说这会很难，很复杂，而且需要很长时间。确实已经过去了很长时间。所以，我想是时候开始工作了，对吧？
是的，当时我说需要很长时间时，我的意思是我需要很长时间才能重新回到这个项目上。我最近有很多事情。别烦我。听着，我会通过不写一个冗长的介绍™来补偿你。好吧？
还有，提醒一下，这篇文章是写给那些对如何设计规则系统感兴趣的人以及那些想在他们的游戏中添加制作系统的人。如果你不是这些人之一——特别是如果你讨厌制作系统并且不想要它们——很好。离开吧。去读我的其他许多文章之一。不要留言。没人关心你“永远不理解为什么人们喜欢制作”以及你认为“所有制作系统都是无聊、单调重复的”这种想法。最不关心的是我。我不在乎的东西，我会删除。然后我会变得愤愤不平。因为我讨厌管理评论。所以我会关闭所有评论并开始禁言一些人。
好吧？酷。
原文:
Crafting. Remember that? Remember how, a few months ago, I announced my bold plan to develop the conceptual framework for a crafting system that you could shove into D&D or Pathfinder? (https://theangrygm.com/king-angry-and-the-holy-grail/)And how I said it would be difficult and complicated and take a long time? Well, it has been a long time. So, I guess it’s time to get to work, huh?
Yeah, when I said it would take a long time, I meant it would take a long time for me to get back to the project. I’ve had a lot going on. Leave me alone. Look, I’ll make it up to you by not doing a Long, Rambling Introduction™. Okay?
And, just a reminder, this article is for people who are interested in how to design rules systems and for people who want to add a crafting system to their game. If you’re not one of those people – specifically if you hate crafting systems and don’t want them – neat. Get lost. Go read one of my many other articles. No, don’t bother leaving a comment. No one cares that “you will never understand why people like crafting” and that you think “all crafting systems are boring and grindy and repetitive.” Least of all me. And what I don’t care about, I delete. And then I get resentful. Because I hate moderating. So, I shut off all comments and start banning people.
Okay? Cool.
-
又是制作系统？我们为什么需要它？
我意识到我们已经很久没有谈论制作系统了。所以，我会回顾一些之前说过的内容。在某个时候，我已经理清了什么使制作系统具有吸引力，因此我们需要在制作系统中包含哪些元素。但我懒得回头检查。所以我们再快速过一遍。
制作系统是指玩家可以为自己和队伍创造和定制装备的系统。听起来很简单，对吧？其实不然。因为仅仅能够创造和定制装备是不够的。如果你只是允许玩家大部分时间制作他们可以从《玩家手册》装备列表中购买的同样装备——就像 D&D 3R、Pathfinder 和5E的基础制作系统那样——你就错失了一个重要的点。是的，我知道这些系统也允许你制作无法购买的魔法物品。我会回头讲述系统的这一部分。
关键在于定制化。虽然不同的玩家出于不同的原因使用制作系统，但基本上有三个主要动机。首先是创造性的表达。一些玩家希望以某种方式装备他们的角色，以符合他们对角色的设想。其次是补充进阶。一些玩家希望通过装备新的能力和加成来推动角色的进阶方向。顺便说一下，这在本质上是创造性表达的机械等价物。事实上，这两个动机往往会因为这个原因而融合在一起。第三是克服挑战和解决问题。基本上，玩家可以使用制作来克服游戏中的特定障碍或使这些障碍更容易应对。例如，如果队伍计划与火山龙战斗，那么冰箭和抗火药水可以使战斗更容易。
我们称之为表达、进阶和准备。而且，公平地说，这些都是赋权的形式。甚至创造性的表达也是如此。这赋予玩家在角色故事中发挥主动作用的权力。制作系统是赋权的。
但它并不适用于所有人，对吧？因为制作意味着一定程度的工作。我指的是玩家的工作，而不是角色的工作。玩家必须在不同的制作选项之间进行选择，并弄清楚如何花费需要花费的资源。即使不是资源问题，它仍然类似于选择专长、法术或角色能力。需要做出选择，而你不可能拥有所有东西。问题是制作系统更复杂。因为有很多不同种类的装备和组合，人们即使不能同时使用所有装备，也可以携带很多装备。所以，制作系统必须是可选择加入的。它不能是强制性的。对每个玩家来说，要求过高。相反，如果有玩家——或团队——出于上述某种动机希望参与制作并认为这值得，他们可以玩制作游戏。其他玩家不必参与。而且他们不能因为桌上的制作玩家而浪费自己的时间。至少不会浪费大量时间。
但现在，让我们谈谈资源。因为制作系统确实提供奖励。它既有内在的奖励，也有外在的奖励。也就是说，制作系统很有趣，因为它是制作；而它很有趣是因为你制作的物品。由于有创造性表达的存在，一些玩家仅凭他们完全用自己制作的装备装备自己——和他们的队伍——就会感到满足。这是内在的奖励部分。因为有奖励，就必须有成本。制作系统必须消耗资源。但这是有趣的地方……
即使制作系统必须由个别玩家选择加入，其实际收益也是全队共享的。如果一个团队中有一个工匠可以制作魔法药剂或魔法武器或其他任何东西，他们可以为所有人制作东西。团队中的每个人都可以从工匠那里受益，而且大多数团队都会利用这一点。我无法想象有哪个团队会拒绝由炼金大师提供的充足治疗药水。这太疯狂了。
重点是，即使个别玩家必须选择加入制作东西的繁琐工作，即决定制作什么和如何花费资源等，整个团队也必须选择花费资源，因为整个团队都能受益。一旦整个团队选择了花费资源，你也会看到团队参与一些制作决策。这是好事。因为你希望这样的系统能够推动团队选择和团队行为。
现在，这就是 D&D 3R搞砸的地方。因为制作涉及两种成本。首先是金钱。这很好，因为它可以很容易地作为团队资源和个人资源进行分配。也就是说，团队可以汇集他们的资源，让工匠创建一批药水；工匠可以用自己的个人财富份额制作个人物品；任何其他玩家也可以给工匠他们的个人财富份额以制作特定物品；团队可以投资于某个特定武器以使下一次冒险更容易，即使它仅由一个人使用。这是我所说的团队资源的完美例子。
但3R还要求工匠花费他们自己的经验值（XP）来制作任何物品，除了《玩家手册》中的装备列表。这是个糟糕的设计。真的很糟糕。不仅这是个人而非团队资源，还因为这是工匠必须为团队中的任何成员花费的个人资源。而且这是一种昂贵且强大的资源。总的来说——我不在乎《开拓者》粉丝会对我怎么说——花费经验值几乎总是糟糕的。角色进阶几乎是你在游戏中能获得的最有价值的东西。所以，必须为了其他任何东西而花费任何数量的经验值几乎总是一个糟糕的主意。
Pathfinder 通过完全用金钱来解决这个问题。不需要其他资源。这实际上也是一个大错误。但我会等到我们讨论制作资源时再详细讲解为什么。我只想说：如果唯一的制作资源是金钱，你就不是在制作。你只是在购买装备。更重要的是，你也在将制作与游戏脱节。现在，我保证，当我们最终讨论制作资源时，我会详细解释这一切。我们现在讨论的是谜题的另一个部分。
但 Pathfinder 还有一个问题。它是一个复杂的系统，需要掷骰子、计算乘数和在长时间内跟踪部分进度。基本上，你需要算出物品的成本，花费一部分作为原材料，进行技能检定，如果成功，你将结果乘以难度等级（DC），并与阈值进行比较。如果超过阈值，你在一周内完成物品。如果没有，你会取得进展，并需要继续进行以完成物品。这涉及很多步骤。而且最重要的是，这需要一个GM。因为一旦玩家进行检定，就意味着在裁定一个行动。这意味着游戏已经开始。这意味着GM在监督它。
是的，GM可以信任玩家在家中进行适当的掷骰，但这是一个敏感话题，涉及到很多人的隐私问题。我理解原因。说到底，这是一个信任问题。你是否信任你的玩家在桌子外进行掷骰并诚实地报告结果？尤其是当失败会花费他们资源时？这是一个复杂的问题，取决于游戏外的许多因素。个人因素。因此，这是一个游戏设计应该避开的问题。
所以，你有两个选择。要么你不得不面对信任问题，要么你必须使用桌上时间和GM时间来解决制作问题。这意味着一旦玩家选择使用制作系统，他们就会要求其他玩家和GM一起配合他们。而且他们使用制作系统的次数越多，他们会占用GM和桌上时间的时间就越多。
这是我今天要解决的问题。如何允许一个玩家选择加入而不要求其他玩家被拖累。这是不是很方便呢？我们对制作系统需求的回顾恰好在这里结束了。
是的，我知道。我真是太棒了。
原文：
What Was Crafting Again? And Why Do We Want It?
I realize it’s been a long time since we talked about crafting. So, I’m going to review some of the stuff I’ve said before. At some point, I’m pretty sure I ironed out what makes a crafting system desirable and therefore what things we want in a crafting system. I can’t be bothered to go back and check, though. So, we’re just going to run through it again quickly.
Crafting is a system whereby players can create and customize gear for themselves and their party. Simple, right? Well, not really. Because the ability to create and customize gear isn’t enough. If you simply allow players to, for the most part, just create the same gear they can buy from the equipment lists in the Players Handbook – as the baseline crafting system in D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5E allow – you’re missing a big point. Yes, I know those systems also allow you to create magical items that you can’t just buy. I’ll come back to that half of the system in a second.
See, the key to the whole thing is customization. While different players engage with crafting systems for different reasons, there are basically three major motivations. First, creative expression. Some players want to outfit their characters a certain way to match a vision they have of their character. Second, supplemental advancement. Some players want to outfit their characters with a set of new abilities and bonuses to push their character’s advancement in certain directions. That’s basically the mechanical equivalent of creative expression, by the way. In fact, those two motivations can often get smooshed together for precisely that reason. Third, there’s overcoming challenges and solving problems. Basically, players can use crafting to overcome specific obstacles in the game or make those obstacles easier to deal with. If the party is planning to fight a volcano dragon, for example, frosty arrows and potions of fire resistance can make the fight a lot easier.
Let’s call those expression, advancement, and preparation. And, to be fair, those are all forms of empowerment. Even creative expression. That empowers the player to take an active hand in the story of their character. Crafting is empowering.
But it doesn’t work for everyone, right? Because crafting implies a certain amount of work. And I don’t mean work for the character. I mean work for the player. The player has to choose between the different crafting options and figure out how to spend whatever resources need to be spent. And even if it isn’t a matter of spending resources, it’s still similar to picking feats, spells, or character abilities. There’s a choice to be made and you can’t have everything. The problem is crafting is more complicated. Because there’s so many different kinds of equipment and combinations and people can carry lots of bits of equipment even if they can’t use it all at the same time. So, crafting has to be an opt-in kind of thing. It can’t be required. It’s too much work to demand of every player. Instead, if there are players – or groups – who want to engage with crafting because of one of the aforementioned motivations and find it worth the cost, they can play the crafting the game. The other players don’t have to. And they can’t have their time wasted by the craftsman at the table. At least not substantial amounts of time.
But now, let’s talk about resources. Because crafting does provide rewards. It is both intrinsically and extrinsically rewarding. That is, crafting is fun because it is crafting and it is fun because of the items you craft. Because of that whole creative expression thing, some players will get a warm fuzzy just from the idea that they have outfitted themselves – and their party – entirely in stuff they have made themselves. That’s the intrinsically rewarding part. Because there is a reward, there also has to be a cost. Crafting has to use up resources. But this is where things get interesting…
See, even though crafting has to be something players opt into on an individual level, the actual benefits are group-wide. If a group has a craftsman who can make magical potions or magical weapons or whatever, they can make stuff for everyone. Everyone in the group can benefit from the craftsman. And, most groups will take advantage of that. I can’t imagine any group with an alchemical brewmeister refusing to be kept well-stocked with healing potions. That’d be crazy.
The point is, even though individual players have to opt into the busy work of actually crafting stuff. That is, deciding what to craft and how to spend resources and all that crap, the entire group has to be able to opt into spending resources because the entire group can benefit. And once the entire group does opt into that, you’ll also see the group participating in some of the decisions about what to craft. And that’s good. Because you want a system like this to drive group choices and group behavior.
Now, this is where D&D 3.5 screwed up. Because there were two costs associated with crafting. The first was money. That’s fine. Because that can be divvied up as both a group resource and an individual resource easily. That is, the group can pool their resources to allow the crafter to create a stock of potions or the crafter can use his personal share of the treasure to make a personal item or any other player can give the crafter his personal share of treasure to make a specific item or the group can invest in a particular weapon that will make the next adventure easier even though it will be wielded by only one person. That’s a perfect example of the type of group resources I mean.
But 3.5 also required the crafter to spend their own XP to craft any item except those on the PHB equipment list. And that was terrible. Seriously terrible. Not only was that a personal, not a group, resource, but it was also a personal resource that the crafter would have to spend on behalf of any member of the group. And it was an expensive and powerful resource to waste. In general – and I don’t care what the Numanuma fans are going to shriek at me – spending XP is pretty much always terrible. Character advancement is pretty much THE most valuable thing you can earn in the game. So, having to trade off any amount of that advancement for anything else is pretty much always a terrible proposition.
Now, Pathfinder fixed that by making it entirely about money. No other resources were required. Now, this is actually a big mistake too. But I’m going to save talking about why until we talk about crafting resources. I’m just going to say this: if the only crafting resource is money, you aren’t crafting. You’re just buying equipment. And, more importantly, you’re also detaching crafting from the game. Now, I promise, I will explain all of that in more detail when we finally get around to crafting resources. We’re dealing with a different piece of the puzzle.
But here’s the other issue with Pathfinder. It was a complex system that required a die roll, multipliers, and tracking partial progress over long periods of time. Basically, you figured out the cost of the item, spent a fraction of that on raw materials, rolled a skill check, and if the check was successful, you multiplied your result by the DC and compared it to a threshold. If you overcame the threshold, you made the item in a week. If not, you made progress and had to keep going to finish the item. That’s a lot of steps. And, most importantly, it involves a GM. Because the minute a player is rolling a check, an action is being adjudicated. And that means the game is on. And that means the GM is overseeing it.
Yes, a GM could trust a player to make the appropriate rolls at home, but that’s a hot issue that rustles a lot of panties and gets a lot of people’s jimmies in a wad. And, frankly, I understand why. I mean, yes, at its core, it’s a trust issue. Do you trust your players to make die rolls away from the table and report them honestly? Especially when failures will cost them resources? It’s a tricky question and depends on a lot of factors outside of the game. Personal factors. And therefore, it’s a question the game design should shy the hell away from.
So, you have two options. Either you have to confront the trust issue, or you have to use table time and GM time to resolve crafting. Which means that it no longer becomes a question of a single player or group opting into the system. The moment a player chooses to use the crafting system, they are demanding the rest of the group and the GM go along with them. And the more they use the crafting system, the more of the GM’s and the table’s time they are going to use.
And that is the problem I’m going to solve today. The issue of allowing one player to opt in without requiring the rest of the table to get dragged along for the ride. And isn’t it convenient that our review of the needs of a crafting system ended pretty much right there?
Yeah, I know. I’m frigging amazing.
-
这听起来像什么别的东西吗？
所以，我们需要一个游戏系统，允许玩家创建和定制装备，以便他们能够进行创造性表达，定制角色的能力，并为即将到来的挑战做准备。它需要是单个玩家可以自行完成的，不需要团队的参与，也不需要游戏主持人的参与。这听起来像什么吗？
实际上，它听起来像三个不同的东西。而且，我在本文中已经提到了其中两个。
首先，这听起来很像购买装备，不是吗？当然，这是完全合理的。购买《玩家手册》中的普通装备通常是游戏主持人允许玩家单独完成的事情。玩家拥有所有需要的信息，而实际过程非常简单。划掉金币——这是从团队战利品中分配的——并根据其成本添加你想要的装备。大多数游戏主持人不会过多参与装备购买。我个人也允许我的玩家在会话之间购买他们想要的任何东西，只要他们的角色结束会话时处于一个合理可以购买物品的地方。
现在，我们将变得非常抽象。这很重要，因为在设计新系统时，你必须能够从非常抽象的角度看待它们。我们所谓的购买装备实际上并不是购买装备。这就是为什么那些称游戏中的任何事情为“经济”的笨蛋需要被敲打头脑。购买装备并不是购买装备。玩家实际上是在通过销毁金钱来为他们的角色创造装备。就好像金钱并没有实际流向某个工匠，部分用于购买制作更多商品的材料，部分用于支付他的生活费用。就好像没有人在游戏世界中通过他们的劳动和创业精神创造价值并得到补偿。就好像没有有限资源在自由市场中分配。只是一个你可以添加到角色上的游戏机制列表和一个资源成本。
记住这个区别。因为它会非常重要。
其次，这整个制作装备的事情听起来也很像升级你的角色。显然，不同系统中的升级方式差异很大。但从抽象的角度来看，结果是一样的。你通过游戏获得了一定数量的资源。一旦你有足够的资源，你就有资格为你的角色添加一个特定的机械元素。例如，当你在D&D中达到4级时，你可以增加一个能力值。在《探险者》系统中，每隔一个等级，你可以增加一个专长。当一个法术施法者提升等级时，他们获得新的法术和额外的法术位，等等。
现在，如果我们足够抽象化，我们可以让升级听起来完全像购买装备。你通过游戏收集一定的资源。最终，你可以将该资源转换为一个特定的机械元素并添加到你的角色中。希望你能看到它们的相似之处。但要让它们真正完全相同，我们必须忽略一些事情。例如，经验值（XP）不像金币（GP）那样会消失。你不需要花费经验值。只是当你越过一个阈值时，你会获得一个好处。这重要吗？不，但也重要。经验值不需要消失的原因——不需要被花费——是因为玩家在经验值和等级方面没有任何选择。当你获得一定数量的经验值时，你就会提升等级。而当你提升等级时，你会获得一定数量的资源。你不能选择如何分配你的经验值。一旦你提升等级，就不能取消获得该等级。你也不能获得同一个等级两次。实际上，经验值只能用于提升等级，必须按特定顺序获得，并且都是完全自动的。如果不是这样，你就必须花费经验值。
此外，提升等级是一个更复杂的过程。实际上，等级本身并没有多大意义。通常情况下。我是说，有时你会在某些掷骰中增加你的等级作为奖励，或者你掷与等级相等的骰子，等等。在这些系统中，等级确实有意义。但是在D&D中，等级并没有太大意义。但当你提升等级时，你也会获得其他东西。你会获得专长和能力值增加，职业能力，生命值，技能点，法术和数值奖励，以及你在特定版本中获得的其他东西。升级是一个复杂的过程。你获得经验值，经验值变成等级，然后等级变成一堆其他选择。一堆其他资源。例如，一个专长选择。或者一个法术位。这些好处是由你获得的等级和你正在玩的职业决定的。或者你多职业化的职业。
所以，购买装备和升级都涉及通过花费你通过游戏获得的资源来自定义你的角色。购买装备相对简单，而且相对开放。有很多选择，你可以以多种方式花费你的金钱。但效果通常很小，范围很有限。即使你购买的是一套强大的魔法盔甲，效果也仅限于一个防御奖励和一个可能的独特能力。如果你想要某些大件物品，你必须存钱。如果你想要一些小件物品，你几乎可以随时花钱。而且很少有装备会改变游戏。
升级则更复杂。你会对你的角色做出很多更改。但这些更改是由系统规定的。你将有一个具体选项的列表，通常受之前选择的限制，然后从这些选项中选择。在某些情况下，你会直接获得机械上的好处。而这些好处是基于你已经做出的选择。选择如职业，子职业和构建。在某些情况下，在某些系统中，如果你想要某些选项可用，你必须为那些做准备，并在早期等级满足前提条件。升级对游戏玩法有更大的影响，并且改变很多。因此，它发生的频率较低，在特定的间隔发生，并且涉及很多限制。
现在，第三个相似的事情实际上与升级非常密切相关。那就是角色创建。创建角色基本上与升级相同。只是放大到极致。基本上，它就像获得一个基础等级。它更复杂，需要建立一些永远不会改变的机械内容——比如职业和种族和背景——但它也只发生一次。所以，它可以负担得起复杂化。它也比升级更少限制。实际上，在很多方面，角色创建实际上设定了所有未来等级获得时将被施加的许多限制。
所以，这些东西有什么共同点？购买装备，升级和创建角色？好吧，它们都是可以在游戏外和远离桌面完成的事情。不需要游戏主持人的直接参与？尽管玩家可以合作和作为一个团队工作——例如决定如何花费团队资金，或者讨论谁想扮演什么角色——但他们并不需要这样做。
我想在这里提出一个有趣的观点——嗯，至少我认为这是有趣的，我是对的，所以我提出它——有趣的是，随着时间的推移，规则和版本的发展，角色生成中的掷骰数量已被最小化。D&D的创造者已经列举了许多原因。游戏平衡。坏掷骰的负面影响远远超过好掷骰的好处。减少关注通过随机机会决定角色而更多关注你自己精心设计的角色。等等。但我没有听他们提到的一件事是，随着角色生成变得越来越长，更复杂，更拖沓，更涉及，并且复杂性因玩家而异，允许玩家独立创建——或至少完成——他们的角色变得越来越重要。我是说，作为一个游戏主持人，我绝对不会坐在角色生成会话中，除非我真的不得不那样做。那东西无聊透顶。而且不需要我。想出概念作为一个团队，当然，如果你愿意的话。我会这样做。但是实际的角色生成？回家自己做。回来告诉我你做了什么。
问题是，再次出现信任问题。我认为，除了游戏平衡问题之外，强调非掷骰的一个秘密原因是为了完全避免信任问题，这样游戏主持人就不会觉得需要去想是否应该监督角色生成。再次，我不在信任问题上发表意见。我认为给任何绝对的、普遍的答案是否应该信任玩家自己掷骰是非常愚蠢和天真的。我有过可以信任的玩家。我有过不可以信任的玩家。我也有过不确定的玩家。问题不在于信任或缺乏信任，而在于必须做出决定。并且必须对某些玩家说，“对不起，我不信任你自己生成能力值。”这是规则不应该让你说的坏事。即使是真的。
原文：
Does This Sound Like Anything Else?
So, we need a game system that allows players to create and customize equipment so that they can express themselves creatively, customize their character’s powers and abilities, and prepare for upcoming challenges. It needs to be something that a single player can do on their own with no participation from the group. Or the GM. Does that sound like anything at all?
Why yes. It actually sounds like three different things. And I’ve already mentioned two of the three in this very article.
First, it sounds a lot like just buying equipment, doesn’t it? Well, sure. And that makes perfect sense. Buying mundane equipment from the Players Handbook equipment list is the sort of things that GMs often let players do on their lonesome. The players have all the information they need. And the actual process is pretty simple. Mark off the gold – which has been divvied up from party loot – and add the piece of equipment you want based on its cost. Most GMs don’t get too involved with equipment purchases. I know I personally let my players buy anything they want between sessions provided their characters ended the session somewhere where they can reasonably buy goods.
Now, this is where we are going to get very abstract. And it’s important to get abstract here because, when you’re designing new systems, you have to be able to look at them in very abstract terms. What we call buying equipment isn’t really buying equipment at all. And this is why numbnuts who refer to anything that happens in the game as “an economy” need to get smacked in the head. Buying equipment isn’t buying equipment. The player is literally creating equipment for their character by destroying money. It’s not as if the money is going to an actual craftsman who is going to use the money partially to buy supplies to make more goods and partially to cover his living expenses. It’s not as if there is anyone in the game world actually creating value out of their labor and entrepreneurship and being compensated. It’s not as if there are limited resources being allocated in a free market. There’s just a list of game mechanics you can add to your character and a resource cost.
Remember that distinction. Because it’s going to be very important.
Second, this whole crafting thing also sounds a lot like leveling up your character. Now, obviously, leveling up your character varies a lot from system to system. But in the abstract, it comes down to the same thing. You’ve earned a certain amount of resources through gameplay. Once you have enough of them, you’re entitled to add a specific mechanical element to your character. For example, when you hit level 4 in D&D, you get to increase an ability score. Every other level in Pathfinder, you get to add a feat. When a spellcaster gains a level, they gain new spells and extra spell slots. And so on.
Now, if we abstract this enough, we can make leveling up sound exactly like buying equipment. You gather a certain resource through play. And eventually, you can convert that resource into a specific mechanical element and add it to your character. Hopefully, you can see how close they are. But to really make them identical, we’d have to ignore a few things. Like the fact that XP, unlike GP, doesn’t go away. You don’t expend XP. It’s just that, when you cross a threshold, you get a benefit. Does that matter? Well, no. But yes. The reason XP doesn’t have to go away – the reason it doesn’t have to be spent – is because the players don’t really have any choices when it comes to XP and levels. When you gain a certain amount of XP, you gain a level. And when you gain a level, you gain a certain number of resources. You can’t choose how to allocate your XP. And once you gain a level, it’s gained. You can never ungain it. And you can never gain the same level twice. Effectively, XP can only be spent gaining levels, they have to be gained in a specific order, and it’s all completely automatic. If that weren’t the case, you would have to spend XP.
On top of that, gaining a level is a much more complicated affair. Actually, level doesn’t mean anything by itself. Usually. I mean, in some sometimes, you add your level as a bonus to certain rolls or you roll a number of dice equal to your level or whatever. In those systems, level does mean things. But level in D&D doesn’t mean a lot. But when you gain a level, you also gain other stuff too. You gain feats and ability score increases and class abilities and hit points and skill points and spells and numerical bonuses and whatever else you gain in your particular edition. Leveling up is a complicated process. You gain XP, the XP becomes a level, and then the level becomes a bunch of other choices. A bunch of other resources. A feat choice for example. Or a spell slot. And those benefits are prescribed by the level you’ve obtained and the class you’re playing. Or the class you’ve multiclassed into.
So, buying equipment and leveling up both involve customizing your character by adding or customizing mechanical elements to your character by spending resources you’ve earned through play. Buying equipment is fairly straightforward and pretty open. There’s lots of choices and you can spend your money lots of ways. But the effects are pretty minor and pretty limited. Even if you’re buying a powerful suit of magical armor, the effects are pretty much limited to a defense bonus and maybe a single, unique ability. If you want something big, you have to save for it. If you want something small, you can spend for it pretty much whenever you want. And very rarely is any piece of equipment game changing.
Leveling up is complicated. You will make a lot of changes to your character. But those changes are dictated by the system. You’ll have a list of specific options, usually constrained by choices you’ve already made, and you’ll choose from amongst those options. In some cases, you’ll simply be given mechanical benefits flat-out. And those will be based on choices you’ve already made. Choices like class and sub-class and build. And in some cases, and in some systems, if you want certain options to be available, you will have to plan for those and meet prerequisites at early levels. Leveling up has a much bigger effect on gameplay and it changes a lot. As a result, it happens infrequently, at specific intervals, and it involves a lot of constraints.
Now, the third similar thing is actually very closely related to leveling up. And that is character creation. Creating a character is basically the same as leveling up. It’s just amped up to eleven. Basically, it’s like gaining a foundational level. It’s even more complicated and it requires the establishment of some mechanical stuff that’s never going to change – like class and race and background and stuff – but it also only happens once ever. So, it can afford to be complicated. It’s also less constrained than gaining a level. In fact, in a lot of ways, character creation actually sets many of the constraints that will be imposed on all future level gains.
So, what do these things have in common? Shopping for equipment, leveling up, and creating a character? Well, they are all things that can be done outside the game and away from the table. Without the GM’s direct involvement? And while the players can collaborate and work as a group – deciding how to spend party funds, for example, or discussing what character who wants to play – they don’t have to.
And I’d like to raise an interesting point here – well, at least I think it’s interesting, and I’m right, so I’m raising it – it’s interesting to note that as time has gone on and rules and editions have evolved, the amount of die rolling in character generation has been minimized. Now, D&D’s creators have cited a number of reasons. Game balance. The downsides of bad rolls far outweighing the benefits of good rolls. The decreased focus on playing characters dictated by random chance over characters you’ve carefully designed for yourself. And so on. But one thing I haven’t heard them mention is that as character generation has become a longer, more complex, more protracted, more involved process – you used to be able to have a complete character in ten frigging minutes when I started playing this stupid game thirty years ago – as character generation has become a more complex process and the amount of complexity varies from player to player, it’s become increasingly important to allow players to create – or at least finish – their characters independently. I mean, as a GM, I will absolutely NOT sit through a character generation session unless I absolutely freaking have to. That crap is boring as hell. And it doesn’t need me. Come up with concepts as a group, sure, if you want to. I do that. But the actual character generation? Go home and do it yourself. Come back and show me what you did.
The point is that, once again, there’s the trust issue. And I think that one of the secret reasons for emphasizing non-die rolling – APART from the game balance thing – has been to avoid the trust issue altogether so that GMs don’t feel the need to even wonder whether they should be overseeing character or not. And, again, I’m not weighing in on the trust issue. I think giving any absolute, universal answer to whether you should trust your players to roll dice on their own is just stupidly naïve. I’ve had players I could trust. I’ve had players I couldn’t. And I’ve had players I wasn’t sure about. The problem isn’t the trust or lack thereof, it’s having to decide. And having to say to some players, “I’m sorry, I don’t trust you to generate ability scores on your own.” That’s a bad thing for the rules to make you say. Even if it’s true.
-
这对玩家来说是什么样的？
那么，以上这些信息告诉我们我们的制作系统应该是什么样子呢？我不知道你怎么想，但我知道它告诉了我什么。它告诉我，制作系统需要是一个游戏外、桌面外的系统。就像购买装备、升级或创建角色一样。这意味着它不能涉及掷骰或需要游戏主持人的监督。这基本上意味着交换资源。当你深入研究时，这就是制作的本质。把原材料变成成品，对吧？
通过观察我提到的这三个系统的差异，我还可以确定关于制作系统的其他几个重要事实。首先，注意到每个系统都使用自己的资源。角色创建是一个显著的例外。但是购买装备使用金钱，升级使用经验值。不过，尽管这两种资源不同，但它们的获取方式相同：通过玩游戏获得。同样，制作也应该使用自己的资源。但这些资源应该通过玩游戏获得。第二点是为什么时间作为制作的资源很糟糕。按定义，时间是通过不玩游戏获得的资源。使用时间作为资源意味着在制作和冒险之间创造一个权衡。除非你做一些愚蠢的抽象，比如让玩家通过冒险“赚取”闲暇时间。也就是说，你将闲暇时间作为奖励发放。按照系统规定的任意数量。
除了这种方式愚蠢并且在世界的设定中没有意义，因为角色总是可以通过花费额外的时间来获得更多的时间，所以游戏主持人只能通过干扰长时间的制作过程来夺走时间——比如通过攻击城镇来中断马拉松式的制作会话——问题在于游戏主持人将时间作为冒险的奖励来发放，而制作是一个自选系统。就像购买装备一样，它对所有角色和所有玩家都不重要。而且像购买装备一样，它是一个定制、表达和赋能的系统。所以，你希望玩家——而不是游戏主持人——尽可能多地控制这个系统。
换句话说，每个系统都鼓励游戏主持人根据玩家面临的遭遇分配一定数量的宝藏。但游戏主持人也有权在世界中隐藏更多的宝藏。把它放在可选的路径上，作为支线任务的奖励，放在可选的挑战后面，等等。这是对参与可选内容的奖励。此外，玩家可以做些事情来赚取额外的钱。他们可以从敌人那里收集装备并出售。推NPC支付更多。他们可以偷东西。用他们的技能赚钱。他们可以囤积财富。他们可以节省和储蓄。游戏主持人并不直接控制金钱奖励。它更直接地与玩家的行动相关联。就像那些真正用经验值系统而不是懒惰地随心所欲地发放等级的游戏主持人一样，因为为什么玩家应该在他们的行动和奖励之间有任何主动性或联系感呢。
所以，制作必须使用在游戏过程中获得的资源——这些资源可以在正常游戏过程中找到，或者玩家可以有意寻求，或者游戏主持人可以作为可选内容的奖励悬挂出来——并且必须允许这些资源在桌面外转化为有用的机械元素，无需监督。这意味着不能有掷骰。
另外，制作也是可以经常发生的事情。几乎和购买装备一样频繁。老实说，制作和购物在虚构世界中的限制是一样的。英雄们必须在一个有商店或制作工具的文明地点。这是一个在城镇里的事情。这很好。但是制作不应该像购买装备一样频繁或常见。这意味着它应该比购买装备更复杂和更受限制。制作一把长剑不应该像购买一把长剑一样容易。是的，我看到了这个陷阱。别担心。我们会修正它。如果你现在还没有看到，我会在修正之前谈到它。以后。在这篇文章里不会。
复杂性和限制也是合适的，因为这个系统是可选的。是自选的。团队不必使用制作。玩家不必使用制作。如果他们愿意，他们会使用。它增加了深度，但这种深度是某些人不一定欣赏或需要的。但是那些想要这种深度的人愿意用一定程度的复杂性来换取。所以，再次说明，它比购买装备更复杂和受限。但也不太过。
顺便说一下，不是要批评失败的系统——尽管我确实喜欢发牢骚——这是 Pathfinder 未能修复 D&D 3R制作系统的地方。不仅需要掷骰，一旦你越过掷骰，它就没有什么不同于购买装备的地方。也就是说，你用钱换取装备。只是掷骰决定了你能获得多少折扣。即使在制作过程中需要施放某些法术的限制也没有什么实际意义，因为你可以支付法术费用。所以，这只是另一种购买装备的方式。一个前面有非常复杂的讨价还价系统的方式。
总之……
这就是我们的制作系统在抽象上应该是什么样子。从玩家的角度来说。它必须看起来像购买装备。但有所不同。更多限制，更多复杂性，并且有完全不同的感觉。使用在游戏过程中获得的资源，玩家也可以有意寻找，游戏主持人也可以用来奖励不同类型的可选游戏。
但现在我们必须从不同的角度来看待它。两个不同的角度。首先，从游戏主持人的角度来看它是什么样的？其次，对于不想使用它的玩家和游戏主持人来说，它是什么样的？回答这些问题——这是我下次写关于这个主题时要做的——将引导我们确定可花费的制作资源实际上是什么样的。
吊胃口吊胃口。我是不是很会吊胃口？
原文：
What’s It Look Like to Players?
So, what does all of this tell us about what our crafting system has to look like? Well, I don’t know about YOU, but I know what it tells ME. It tells me that the crafting system needs to be an out-of-game, away-from-table system. Like buying equipment or gaining levels or making characters. And that means it can’t involve die rolls or GM oversight. Which means, it basically comes down to exchanging resources. Which, when you get down to it is what crafting is. Turning ingredients into stuff, right?
But by looking at the differences between the three systems I cited, I can also determine a few other important facts about crafting. First, notice that each of the systems above uses its own resources. Well, character creation is a notable exception. But buying equipment uses money. And gaining levels uses experience points. But, though those two resources are different, they are gained in the same way: they are gained by playing the game. Crafting, likewise, should use its own resource. But those resources should be gained by playing the game. That second point is why time is a terrible resource for crafting. By definition, time is a resource that is gained by not playing the game. Using time as a resource means creating a tradeoff between crafting and adventuring. Unless you do something stupidly abstract like have players “earn” downtime by having adventures. That is, you hand out downtime as a reward. In whatever arbitrary amounts the system dictates.
Now, apart from the fact that that’s just dumb and makes no sense in the fiction of the world because the characters can always spend extra time just by spending extra time and so the GM can only take time away – say by interrupting marathon crafting sessions by attacking the town – the problem with the GM handing out time for crafting as a reward for adventuring is that crafting is an opt-in system. Much like buying equipment, it isn’t important for all characters and all players. And much like buying equipment, it’s a system of customization, expression, and empowerment. So, you want the players – not the GM – to have as much control over the system as they can.
Put another way, the GM is encouraged by each system to dole out certain amounts of treasure based on the encounters the players face. But the GM is also empowered to hide more treasure in the world. Put it down optional paths, offer it as rewards for side quests, put extra treasure behind optional challenges, and so on. It’s a reward for engaging in optional content. Moreover, the players can do things to earn extra money. They can gather equipment from their enemies and sell it. Push NPCs to pay them more. Steal from people. Earn money with their skills. And they can horde wealth. They can scrimp and save. The GM doesn’t directly control the monetary rewards. It’s tied more directly to the players’ actions. In much the same way that non-terrible GMs actually use XP systems instead of being lazy and doling out levels whenever they damned well feel like it because why should the players have any sense of agency or connection between their actions and their rewards.
So, crafting must use resources gained during play – resources that can be found during the course of normal play or that can be purposely sought by players or dangled as rewards by a GM for optional content – and it must allow those resources to be converted into useful mechanical elements away from the table with no oversight. Which means no die rolls.
Now, crafting is also something that can happen frequently. Almost as frequently as buying equipment. Honestly, the same constraints exist in the fiction around crafting as exist around shopping. The heroes must be in a civilized location with shops or crafting tools available. It’s an in-town thing. That’s fine. But crafting shouldn’t be as frequent or common as shopping for equipment. That means it should be a bit more complex and more constrained than buying equipment. It shouldn’t be as easy to make a longsword as it is to just buy a longsword. And yes, I see the trap this is creating. Don’t worry. We’ll fix. And if you don’t see it yet, it’s something I will talk about before I fix. Later. Not in this article.
The complexity and constraint are also fitting because the system is optional. It’s opt-in. Groups don’t have to use crafting. Players don’t have to use crafting. They will if they are willing to. It adds depth, but it’s an esoteric sort of depth not everyone appreciates. Or needs. But the people who want the depth are willing to pay for it with a certain amount of complexity. So, again, it’s more complex and constrained than buying equipment. But not too much more.
By the way, not to harp on failed systems – though I do like pissing and moaning – this is where Pathfinder failed to fix the D&D 3.5 crafting system. Not only does it require a die roll, but once you get past the die roll, it doesn’t do anything different than shopping for equipment. That is, you trade money for gear. It’s just the die roll determines how much of a discount you get. Even the constraint of needing certain spells cast during the creation process doesn’t really matter because you can pay for the spellcasting. So, it’s just another way to buy equipment. One with a very complicated bargaining system in front of it.
Anyhoo…
That’s ultimately what our crafting system has to look like in the abstract. From the player side anyway. It’s got to look like buying equipment. But different. More constrained, more complex, and with a completely different feeling. Using resources gained during play, which the players can also purposely seek, and which the GM can use as a way of rewarding different types of optional play as well.
But now we have to look at it from a different side. Two different sides. First, what does it look like from the GM side? And second, what does it look like to the players and GMs who don’t want to use it? And answering those questions – which is what I’ll do the next time I get around to writing about this – will lead us to determine what the spendable crafting resource will actually look like.
Teasey teasey teasey. Aren’t I a tease?
-
施工完成。