[D&D 3.5] "I don't play for endings" (way too long)
Callan S.:
Hmm, when you put it that way, no! To "play D&D" would mean saying I know what D&D is, or whoever else says "Lets play D&D" would be saying they know what it is. You can't refer to doing something without implying you know what it is. As said, it's company (past and present) pats any version on the head - what is true D&D? Who knows? Or wants to clash with someone elses idea of it?
However, talking about making up something as we play, and talking about canabalizing D&D rules or rules from other books that seem to suit, that is fun! I'll have to start asking about that first next time - also that helps kick off the talk in a 'make up a game' session. The talk will be roughly like in this thread and the forge in general. Still feel a bit ripped off with the books - but the best revenge is living well/playing happily! :) Also checking out what RPG's I can actually find in shops, check 'em out to see if they are just the one thing. Perhaps canabalizing them otherwise, bwa ha ha ha ha!
It's probably that time for anyone to give their last comments to the thread before closing time, aye?
masqueradeball:
Just an aside Callan, but have you ever put serious effort in running D&D by the book, and getting people to consent to do the same, you'd be surprised at how well it works. Its like playing one of those board games thats based of D&D (you know, Descent or Dungeoneer or Dungeon Twister or whatever, heck even Munchkin kinda counts) except its a lot better. D&D breaks when you try to do things with it that it wasn't meant to do... As far as the company line equating to "Do whatever you want" well, I guess that kind of sucks, but... they're not really saying that, I don't think. They're saying, try to make the game the best it can be for you... it just is tied up really really deeply in trusting your DM like you would your mother.
Calithena:
Talking: I wanted to say you don't talk when you sit down at the chess club. But actually even at the club you scope out people of equal ability. You've ferreted out the 'casual players' just by being at a club, so you don't have to worry about destroying sensitive people, but on the other hand no one wants to waste their time either. The expert might play a few games with the tyro as a kindness, but will prefer to play against other experts most of the night, most of the time.
With 'D&D', which means everything from 'any role playing game at all' to 'this particular edition of a game actually titled D&D' to 'the way me and my friends played such-and-such at time x', not talking means you just show up and see what happens. The stronger your preferences are for particular ways of playing, the more time-wasting this threatens.
----------------------
What I'm thinking about that made me want to post was the social stuff.
I'm totally fine with real-life social status and issues between players mediating and being mediated by what happens in an RPG. (Others may not be, which is fine too.) The situation Callan describes to me would be poisonous, but not because the social dimension is there - it's because the social dimension is shitty and juvenile, or at least seems to be by my standards and reading of Callan's description.
Distributed 'player control' as an approach to RPGs is theoretically interesting in all kinds of ways and has produced some thought-provoking designs. But I think it's perhaps misplaced as a response to the problem of shitty social manipulation. I suppose it's possible that distributed control makes the entire game shut down faster if someone's an overt dick, but you can always take your social manipulation to a higher level.
Being adult and mature in your social relations can happen with a 'God GM' or with totally distributed power across the table or anything in between. Each approach can be manipulated in different ways and has different strengths and weaknesses.
-------------------
As a corollary to this, though, I just thought of an interesting reason why some people might like the kind of play described in Callan's post, God GM, social manipulation, and all. Just as some horror movies let you get off by fantasizing about being the killer - or Grand Theft Auto's fantasy of lawlessness - maybe being in a D&D game of this kind lets you be as big a shithead as you possibly can in a constrained environment.
In other words, I wonder whether the shittiness of these games is actually for some players a feature, not a bug. "At home and school and at work I have to be nice to people whether I like them or not. Fuck that shit! I want to be in it for me and get away with whatever I can...."
Thinking about that, I'm sure it's right, actually - it explains a huge amount of play I've seen over the years in a satisfying way. The ruthless killers, the peevish social manipulators, the bad boys, all kept in as tight a cage as possible, raising the ante for the stab out, the break, etc.
So it's a kind of gamism after all, but the game is (1) fucking the DM (that actual person) and (2) fucking the other players (we're the leaders, we get the magic items, etc.). The SIS and the system are props for that social interaction. And that's where the real fun is for a lot of people who play our games.
But going back to the conversation issue I started with, how many of them can admit that to themselves, let alone to others thinking of joining their group?
Callan S.:
I'd like to add some extra notes to my post, since when the penny dropped it was all so clear, but perhaps not described well.
Essentially there are two outcomes - A: I either do the particular activity I set out to do, or B: I don't. It's binary, there's no inbetween. And when Ron posted, I realised all the talk in the world wont change that it ends up at one or the other.
Be careful in reading this, I'm not saying talk can't change which outcome you end up at. I'm saying once you arrive at an outcome, all the talk in the world cannot then change that you ended up at that outcome - you ended up at A or B. You can't end up at B, have a bit of a chat and somehow end up at A instead.
Take the volleyball example - all the pregame talk possible wont matter, if no one else is actually interested in a ruthless game except you. You've already hit outcome B - you've failed to do the activity you set out to do. "No! See, now you just gee 'em up, get em feeling ruthless!". No, this is like the example of the gambler who keeps repeating the same behaviour, because he will not accept he failed to do the activity he set out to do when he lost the first bet. Putting in more and more effort into geeing them up or whatever is like the gambler throwing more and more money at it so he can win (what he has already, permanently lost). The activity you set out to do involved ruthless volleyballers already there, it did not involve you geeing them up.
When you accept you've failed to meet your expectations, you naturally look for something else you want to do (what you want might be in the same area as before, or you might want to go for a jog now, or something else). You change your behaviour. If you don't accept you failed, you can try new approaches all you like, with all the forge help and talk you can get - your still plugging away at a battle you already lost, repeating the same core behaviours much like the gambler does. Any other change in behaviour don't matter if you have a core set of behaviours which simply must be followed (since 'they have not failed'!). Those core behaviours will overide any other changes in behaviour, if they get in the way of the cores desire.
Personally I thought I wasn't getting to A because I thought it was a skill, like driving, and I was a bad driver and running into a tree half way and just needed to get better. The way Ron phrased it, I realised I'd lost before I'd begun - to 'play D&D' requires someone to assert their version of D&D for play - bang, that wont let me meet my version of D&D, so I'm already at B. No amount of skill will overcome that because it's already happened. It's over already. And thus...behaviour change! Which feels good!
masqueradeball:
Sorry, but I have to disagree and I hope hope hope that I'm not just being contentious. I think you see D&D as a game in the traditional sense, but no matter how you slice, its not. It will never tell you what to do next. I know this sort contradicts what I said above about playing it by the book, but by "by the book" I guess I just meant taking the most obvious course provided by the book and following it.
With very few exceptions, role playing "games" are essentially sets of tools that a group of people can use to make a game... The game is the scenario the GM/DM/Storyteller presents, not anything in the book, and there's no possible way anyone can know what their getting before hand besides discussion: so, with these tools that we bought, what kind of game are we going to make.
Their are RPG's now that fix this (Panty Explosion comes to mind, because I've actually played it... it sounds like a lot other Forge-y RPG's do the same) and if you want to avoid all the "so what the fuck are we doing here" talk, I highly suggest sticking exclusively to those games.
But even then, talk will probably be necessary. To take a board game example: I love A Game of Thrones by Fantasy Flight. Its a solid game and there's never any confusion over the rules of play that can't be found in the rule book, but oh man, have I seen the way that various people approach playing that game dramatically effect the feel and out come of play.
Extreme A) No one talks about what is happening in play, everyone plays the game without in put, advice or deal brokering between players.
Extreme B) Every action take part by any player comes after long negotiations with the other players.
I find both methods to be fun and enjoyable, and I like in-between play as well, but some people hate A and hate B, though both are perfectly allowable within the rules... thus, discussions is necessary.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page