[D&D 3.5] "I don't play for endings" (way too long)
David B. Goode:
Sorry, it looks like I posted in mid-post somehow. Here's what I actually wrote in full:
Callan,
That sounds so freaking frustrating. Sadly, I know in my gaming life I've both been one of those GMs whose word is law and who has his players on the tracks - and pretty much the same tracks over and over.
It was how my first GM ran his games, and honestly just the way I thought rpgs were supposed to be. I began to become aware of the problem in college when I noticed an increase in my old GMs tendency to say "your character wouldn't do that."
"How do you know?" I finally manned up and asked.
"He's a [insert stereotypical class]."
Our GM moved away eventually. I became the new regular GM. Years passed. All of us remembered how amazing this guys games were - and they were. Great semi-stories [no ends, really, but hell, we didn't know any better]. He came back in town and we had one night to play again. By now I was married, and my wife was in the group. They'd never really met. She started to describe the kind of character she wanted to play. Then, he started telling her about the kind of character she was going to play. (I had really hoped they would get along. They did not.) It was a second murmur in my gamer's heart that maybe the GM didn't have to be the absolute authority. I still couldn't conceive of another way to do it, I just didn't like the way it was.
Now, in my late thirties, I've been blessed with the best gaming group I've ever had. But a year ago, we were still sitting in a very similar place that you describe. We were 1) playing a game that couldn't be won or lost, where 2) the GM alone guided the semi-story until it fizzled out, and 3) the players (not characters) with the highest charisma called the shots.
I wasn't aware of the Forge (in fact I'm still very new here), and most other sights I was familiar with had a pretty old-school mentality. But I started listening to gaming podcasts like "Theory from the Closet", "Master Plan", "2d6 Feet in a Random Direction" and many, many others. I started picking up on the notion of player control. I caught a few ideas of how to introduce it. I tried them out. I talked to the players before games and when we were hanging out, kinda testing the waters.
And now? Well, now we still play games with a centralized GM, but with a helluva lot more player control. We've integrated social mechanics, so even the old min/maxer has decided charisma isn't a dump-stat. Our stories have endings, even if we pick up those old characters again for a sequel. And, there are so many consequences beyond gold and magic items, it seems like we all win and lose every game.
Now, I'm not sure this would have been possible with any group, and I'd still like to see us try out some things. Some players want to just "kill more monsters and get better loot". And as much as that makes me shiver, I think its a legitimate form of play. But then, half of my group started out that way a few years back, and now generally expect a deeper story with more input and equality.
What you did by asking Chris some solid questions about the type of game he was running, and the great point you made with Bourke, could be the first steps toward more enjoyable games, not just for you, but for the group.
You know, monarchs often have a much easier time of instituting democracies than do rebellions.
Just curious, but do you GM?
~David
Callan S.:
Erk, awkward sentence in my post. Bourke was going to run a starwars game, not Chris
Quote
That's the end of that game. Poor Bourke though - Chris brought up that he wanted to run a game of star wars.
Chris brought the subject up, but Bourke was going to run the game - that's why I was aiming questions at him (I wouldn't have otherwise - it'd be a bit in your face to hit him with those questions if he's just another player, unless we had talked about that stuff for awhile). Basically while I'll deal with Chris's campaign, that doesn't mean I'll join with any old campaign like that (old friend = I'll give your campaign a shot. New aquaintance = I'll find out if the games actually fun, first). It also says something about presumed social arrangement that Chris brought it up, not Bourke. But nothing that's a big deal as far as I can see. Just clearing that up.
Hi Ron,
It's great to see some parralel thought here, with Joel too! But I have to nit pick about it being and great to give - giving the account is like describing how the balls fell in a pachinko machine (8 left, 2 right, one bounced then went right...). It's all just random trivia, dull as dishwater. Now yeah, it's not random, there are reasons and it's interesting to figure those reasons out. But before then it's random bits of trivia. Dat no fun 2 write!
And in terms of coming up with insightful responces, that's mostly a reflection of my time at the forge. :)
I've read some of your Exalted posts. I found much of it could have been speaking about Rifts or D&D play as I've experienced it. My experience of play is kind of like Joel described, except he seems to describe more cool locations and being somewhat hearded through them. I think keeping the trappings of gamism in my campaign is to help hide that, as if yeah, it's about the fight and yeah, now the fights over you head to here to recuperate, of course...
I once had a talk with Dan about Chris's GM'ing, I think it started from talking about the time he'd run a game where all the events from one of the Trollslayer novels happened (as an odd aside, I'd read a preview of one book he thought I hadn't read at all. During play I joked about invading skaven coming up, not realising that that was exactly what was going to happen, while he looked flustered but went with the books events anyway). Anyway, at one point I was giving Chris's GM'ing a bit of a laying into and Dan was agreeing and adding anecdotes (like the one above) - I described Chris's GM'ing as "It's like the rules are just there to give players something to do while the GM tells his story" and there was this pregnant pause from Dan. Some time latter it clicked that I'd described it just as he saw it. Except as a flaw, not a feature.
Quote
Why bother to take the guy into the kitchen? Clearly it's all about how the BBG is getting Matt's character on his side for the Secret Party Betrayal Character Story (tm). So your desire to talk to it has to get shut down - the plan is for you all to talk to it, but not until Matt gets to in private, so anything you say about talking to it before that can't be permitted to enter the SIS. But again, why bother? Can't we ... you know ... participate in the "Matt's gonna betray us!" storyline?
Man, I must be getting rusty!! Totally didn't think of a betrayal! I'd suppose that again, it'd be keeping it secret to keep the trappings of gamism. You wouldn't get 'surprised'. Also it means portioning out some trust and power to players if they know there's a betrayal, because then they're in charge of managing character and player knowledge (at the very least). Remember Chris was going on before (when I mentioned the Dave Arneston XP rule) about how players would buy chickens with their gold, to get xp from the gold, then gold from the chickens. Clearly players will just abuse the system! (As I side idea I wonder if he actually finds some sort of gamist thrill about 'predicting' player abuse and supposedly countering it).
Quote
Again, this isn't about ripping on people for being stupid role-players, it's about looking at a true mental tangle. It's about keeping the trappings of Gamism without any of its guts. It's about wanting a "story" and being willing to step all over people's actual engagement in play in order to promote yet another repetition of a boring, hackneyed, well-known, and predictable semi-story. It's about constantly looking up the rules and yet maintaining a weird social space in which disallowing various rules is a particular person's purview. The question is why any of this stuff is perceived as how we do things, and why it continues to be done, repetitively. I am convinced it has everything to do with the same fallacies that govern gambling: Whoa! This time, it was almost fun! OK, OK, here it comes, I'll try it again, just like last time .... damn! Almost fun, again! Well, I'm not giving up. I'm all about fun. Here we go, here it comes, gonna get ready, OK, OK, almost there ...
Yes, quite the opposite of stupid role-players - I'd say it's actually very, very smart play. It's like Ralph's old design example, where players would take flaws for their characters for the points, then whine when the GM tried to introduce them. And that's because whining had a small chance of avoiding the application of the flaw, and thus was rewarded. That's smart play (I say, whilst grinding my teeth). Everything in my account is in some sort of context, smart play. Otherwise my friends wouldn't do it - no one deliberately decides to do dumb play (except as a trick, which still makes it smart play).
In the same way I'd say gambling is smart play too. It's endorsed by society in general, since society gives it's blessings to use it's backbone - money - in gambling. That blessing shouldn't be underestimated - it's made ideas like conscription work, and that involves more than bankruptcy. Further, gambling never ends your play/kicks you out - it's always losing 'just this time' but having another chance to play. It's encouraged, the choices you can make wont end up ejecting you from play (though you may pause to gather more cash). The gambling pattern you describe is smart play (I say, whilst grinding my teeth).
From the players perspective if what he's doing is so bad, why is someone/a number of other people advocating the activity? If it's bad, why doesn't the design kick him out of play? That it doesn't stop him, further advocates what he's doing.
But I don't think it's just designers irresponsibly advocating certain activities. Thinking on it for some time, it's a sort of common habit to miss-associate authority or power with responsibility. It's a video game example, but on RPG.nets video games forum a fairly common thread type is the 'Why do gankers do it?'. Gank being to kill another player of considerably lower level than you, then kill him again when he revives, then again, and so on. These threads posts gain some length as people go on and on trying to make some sort of moral code about the whole thing, usually going 'Well, THIS is being an asshole, while THIS is being alright'. I bring up a video game, because it's incredibly clear cut - the designers put that option in there - they are responsible for the events, not the person who 'ganked'. But rather than re-evaluate the product these designers made, the thread is devoted to evaluating the other player/ganker.
In fact, on reflection I'm doing that here. One example is; Chris says you can't buy magic armour and I go 'For fucks sake'. I strongly associate the call with him. And with it, responsiblity. The book has rules like 'The GM decides what's on sale' or even some 'golden rule' style BS in the GM's handbook. If it were chess and he moved his knight to take my rook, it'd be a clear execution of the rules. But deciding we can't buy armour 'cause he doesn't like that' is so organic, and even Chris would assert he's doing his own thing. If you think he's doing his own thing, and he thinks that, isn't he? Well yeah, he is - but that still doesn't mean he's responsible for his own actions.
Well, I ran that past my partner, and she didn't buy into it! Heh. She thought the 'let you buy/won't let you buy' was a really broad choice and he's responsible for it. While the chess example is following a certain path, as she put it. Hmm, there's something here and it's hard to articulate. It might be to do with how in chess the other player is affecting his own path when he affects yours. While with this gear example and in the ganking example, the other person is just deciding your path and not their own. In society when someone weilds that sort of power over an individual, people en mass call for them to have moral constraint (otherwise the people group up and take out that power). Perhaps here, that reflex distracts from who gave him power in the first place. The designers and myself for agreeing to play. I was definately distracted from that fact.
Have I made yet another of those posts that makes no sense, writing this stuff? I think I've used establishment and support, but if it seems oddball can you tell me where it goes from 'Yeah, I can see what your establishing' to 'But where are you going with that??'.
Quote
One last thing: geez, that ninja really blows. Is it really that bad a rules combo? Or were you pretty much just screwed by the whiff?
I think it's partly both - basically the D&D system relies on averaged out results. Say a rogue misses his sneak attacks, he can then flank and keep doing it, eventually getting his specialty niche backstab in. The ninja gets one shot at it, two if he beat their initiative, then that's it unless he uses his (currently), once per day vanish ability, which gives one more shot at it (I can bluff and get another go, but that uses up a whole round without the feat for it). He can't ride the averaging train, you have to roll good at the right times, I didn't, and bar cheating there's nothing to do but ride the suck. I have to say, with his low HP he's almost been killed a few times so far - that's been exciting and if he dies, I'm done with him. But he hasn't died, and he hasn't done much. I also looked up poisons, as he gets poison use - I thought it might be some way of making him a glass cannon. But the prices are prohibitive - around 300gp for one dose. Maybe the ninja's an in joke the designers made up?
Quote
One really last thing: you know that play of this kind almost always requires a butt person at the table, right? As in, the butt of the joke?
Really? I'll ask them next time. Whether they need that to have any fun at all.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the kind words!
Quote
This intrigues me on a very practical level. What sorts of things do you imagine you'll say to "shank" the petty playground maneuvering without making a scene? 'Cause I certainly haven't figured that one out. . .your little sarcastic dialogue with yourself as the opportunity to speak up passes you by is a frequent and familiar one. Anyway, the stuff you did say sounded right on the money, and the "who decides when the rule is used?"
"who decides when the rule is used?" doesn't really cut to the bone, even if I said it. Because any old answer could be given and if I stop playing - there's no logical connection there as to why I stopped. Perhaps a moral code thing, but no logical connection.
However, politely asking "Oh, so method X is part of this game? Ah, didn't realise, sorry about that, my mistake I didn't mean to join a game with that. I'll just head out and watch some DVD's". No judgement, no accusation, simply apologetic. It shanks as much as it allows the other person to choose exactly what they want - without you. It's not a bluff, just genuine acceptance of them taking a path that goes in a seperate direction from you. What hurts is that acceptance and supports of anyones personal preferences/choices is such a rare quality, it hurts to leave that behind. Mind you, some will go a seperate way - which is good too, since they must find it really important.
Then again, perhaps I read too many of the 'Prince of nothing' novels! LOL!
Hi David,
I GM, but not for awhile now. We have another party of characters of around 10th level, which basically got started off because I'd just started reading the D&D3.0 books and GM'ed alot. Mind you, I used a random map generator from the web, altered some details, made up a story introduction to get them into it (usually the monsters of the random dungeon would inspire something) and proceed from there. But...after awhile D&D offers no more material that's new and surprising. I guess I'd say it offers no more reward for GM'ing (buying new books doesn't make sense to me - the original books should contain a reward still). And I find prep lothesome - writing even a town and dungeon while warping it in the interests of 'a better story/roleplay session' just dries up my inspiration and desire. Haven't GM'ed for awhile except for an off the cuff warhammer game.
Anyway, as I said it was Bourke who was going to run the starwars games, that's why I directed questions to him.
Vulpinoid:
At the risk of sounding off topic, I don't want to derail the thread so I'm referencing some ideas that I'm working on at the moment for a collaborative role-playing game with a de-centralised plot development mechanism.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25591.0
I've been getting the same sorts of issues in a number of groups and I'm trying to find some ways to resolve them...so if you've got any input it would be much appreciated.
V
Jasper Flick:
Callan, I actually understood just fine that it was Bourke who wanted to GM and Chris who brought it up. So no terrible sentence as far as I can tell.
I think the whole deal with the Golden Rule is that it simply isn't something you can agree with if you want a solid ruleset to support any contract. Nothing matters if "I can do anything whenever I want" is an option.
Chris can run a game where you won't gain any gear, but it isn't the default assumption when playing D&D. If you want gear out, state it up front and figure out how it's going to change the game (casters rule even more). You want to play gear-less D&D? Tell the players it's gonna be gear-less D&D and not default D&D!
As for the ninja... I think your analysis is quite on target. It's a rogue-monk hybrid and inferior to both; only the opening move of the rogue and the AC mechanic of the monk but none of its specialist tricks and without its mobility.
If you want to keep him: I would stick to ranged attacks, focus on improving attack modifiers and initiative and disregard AC. Use the rest of your money to get cheap poison that has paralyzation or uncounsciousness as initial damage because half measures and secondary effects are worthless in combat. Drow poison is perfect, otherwise Carrion crawler brain juice. Or even better: use Craft (poisonmaking) to make it yourself. Of course the big problem is that whether you can get poison is completely up to the GM.
Your niches?
1) Opening-turn killer - though not really at low level.
2) Low-fortitude-opponent (mage) disabler (if you've got poison), which would actually work quite well at low level.
3) Possibly scout.
The rest of the combat is staying out of harm's way and shooting arrows for slow damage.
Callan S.:
Hi Jasper,
I there's an essential illusionism to rule zero - it's put there as if for the GM to add cool stuff. But adding can also be taking away (Eg, 'add' to shops that they don't sell magic cloth). It's ability to not only remove rules, but all rules, is hidden. Not to mention it's usually tucked away in some relatively obscure spot.
Quote
Chris can run a game where you won't gain any gear, but it isn't the default assumption when playing D&D. If you want gear out, state it up front and figure out how it's going to change the game (casters rule even more). You want to play gear-less D&D? Tell the players it's gonna be gear-less D&D and not default D&D!
I've said things like that - particularly in going 'For fucks sake'. And in relation to that, I think I just have to let go of Chris's role in this. Essentially the golden rule negates every other rule - imagine one page with the golden rule and several hundred blank pages - that's D&D as much as you definiately know what it is (again, those hundreds of pages hide the golden rule). And Chris followed that rule perfectly. Sure I had to run into his power trip, but I'm sure there's parts of my personality he wouldn't want to face full bore. Were all like this.
In fact, since he followed the rule perfectly, I think I have been practicing illusionism to say it isn't the default, when factually it is. My intuition tells me that's the source of murk, when defensive illusionism on the players part clashes with the illusionism of the golden rule (I don't have a technical explaination, just a hunch).
But historically I don't think the golden rule has been actually mentioned in our group before this instance. Instead a number of other, almost identical variations have been (usually nameless, more like assumptions or reflexes). Like the GM decides what skill roll you make (hidden: Which means he can decide when you don't get to make a skill roll at all). Personally I saw them as filling in gaps in the games rules. I think at a time it was like that, but then it somehow became procedural within the group. That's an even more hidden version of the golden rule - atleast when it's printed, it's there in ink somewhere.
On a lighter note...
Quote
Use the rest of your money to get cheap poison that has paralyzation or uncounsciousness as initial damage because half measures and secondary effects are worthless in combat. Drow poison is perfect, otherwise Carrion crawler brain juice. Or even better: use Craft (poisonmaking) to make it yourself.
Stop it! Stop it! ;) I'm trying to look at how the game wasn't an activity I enjoyed, but I've already looked at the poisons page and you had me at the comp, GM's handbook open yet again! I didn't have fun, really, but I have this urge which thinks 'Well, maybe I didn't play it right'. That urge has been right in some computer games. There was this game that was really easy and dull - but then I found if you keep to a certain timer you get huge amounts of points - and that was hard and really engaging. I think what mitigates it in that circumstance is that the comp game was atleast mildly amusing, so the activity was valid to a certain extent anyway. I think with D&D, rather than working out new strategies, I have to consider whether it was even mildly amusing.
I should have said this in the main post, but after Chris's game we all headed out to get some food and stuff - during the walk Chris offered, perhaps slightly shyly, that I could 'respec' if I want. He couched it in mmorpg terms, oddly - but what he went on to say is I could just change my character to a full on rogue, or something else in that theme. He said he thought I probably wasn't enjoying the class. I appreciate it, but at the time felt it was just letting go of another choice to GM fudging 'in the interests of a better game'. I said I'd think about it.
Really, there are board games out there that suck - and you should just play them and find they suck, rather than someone trying to rearrange all the rules mid play to keep you playing. But Chris is invested in what parts of the world he's plotted out - he's also on the sharp end of these crappy rules, not just me. He's got something to lose if I find the rules just suck and walk away. Well, actually I guess he's rounded up Bourke, Dan and Matt before - that's a few players even without me. Perhaps he was just trying to look after me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page