Morphine: Easing the Pain of Playing D&D
Callan S.:
David, I still don't really know what tactical combat is, or what good character development and interaction is. Links to your old accounts are perfect, perhaps with a note as to the good bit?
Rustin:
David, let me offer a roleplay theory based on Dwight Swain’s notions of the Objective and Feeling Minds.
The objectivist goes for the analytical. They want facts. They distrust feelings. This creates mechanical game play. This mechanical play relies on recorded past performance, and the expectation that future play should be predicted by those past performances.
When an objectivist player tries to be creative, they mistakenly go for the facts, they want histories, they want source material. From this they attempt to deduce rules, and then they try to write pre-established stories that fit to those rules.
What they really needed was Feeling. A feeling is not a fact, but a driving force and potential. Feelings are infinitely unpredictable, and because of this they can fuel stories. It is what makes a story pop.
Maybe ask your GM, if he games so he can answer the many “what if” questions spawned by feelings, or does he think the perfect story is hidden with those game supplements and histories, and given enough analysis he can make a story out of things that have already happened, already written and already played?
David C:
Callan, good tactical combat is basically what D&D tries to do well. You have some monsters that have some abilities and you have some players that have some abilities. The players try to work as a team so that their abilities can counter and trump the abilities of the monsters. This isn't very important, though. As I've said, I can enjoy 1 or 2 of these, but a whole day of doing them? Not so much.
From my play history, here's a part that SoundMasterJ particularly thought enlightening.
Quote
Later, after I went to a different college, I only gamed during summer breaks. We played D&D, but never again did we actually "follow the rules", nor was I the GM. When we got into combat, we'd often solve it in a creative manner. For example, at one point we found ourselves in Skullport with a dragon bearing down on us. The GM had placed a "ticket machine" in the area that accepted any object as currency. I ended up casting Wall of Force in a sphere, enclosing the dragon (without a save, mind you) and then Wall of Iron with half the wall resting on the ground and the other half ontop of the sphere, which forced it to roll into the ticket machine, dragon and all. If you know the rules of D&D, you can understand what a violation this was...
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26963.msg256324#msg256324
For me, what I mean by "good character development and interaction" is when you see a character take on a life of its own. For example, one time (with a different group) we were playing a game where our characters were "evil." At one point, my character decided to he needed to kill a woman because she knew too much! This woman was an NPC that I personally really liked, but I knew it was the decision my character would make. She had power over him, and he had his goals. Later on, he mourned the loss, and I think he actually would have stopped his evil crusade, but we never played much further. As far as my limited understanding goes, this is Narr play.
Abkajud
Yeah, it's such a tough situation to be in. I've had friends that I basically don't talk to anymore because I don't game with them anymore. Yeah, occasionally we'll get together and see a movie or something, but it's like they've been downgraded and we both know it. I wish you the best of luck!
Rustin
Your post is so uncanny. Logic and Objectiveness are cornerstones of Nick's personality. At one point, he tried to argue with me that I was a fool for being religious, because of the Occam's Razor argument. Basically, he didn't get my reasons for being spiritual, it was simply alien. Anyways, to get to what you were saying... I'm finding it kind of incoherent, can you rephrase it?
Quote
Maybe ask your GM, if he games so he can answer the many “what if” questions spawned by feelings, or does he think the perfect story is hidden with those game supplements and histories, and given enough analysis he can make a story out of things that have already happened, already written and already played?
Patrice:
From what I read it sounds like you're a bit over-reacting. Sounds like all Nick wants is actually to run a powerplay campaign. He's hiding it under the cover of fascinating situations and colorful NPC but hey, look at his post, all he's talking about is more power. Your campaign is fine, really fine, but it's low magic, low power. Nick likes powerplay, it's maybe his feeling or his way to get it with the game.
Now. What can you do? You could consider implementing a major change to your Plotus campaign, like a cataclysmic surge of magic, and turn it into a powerplay campaign or you could offer everyone to go for the 4th Edition, which would undoubtedly provide Nick the feeling he's looking for. Or you could let him do his campaign, why not?
Except if you don't want to play this way. This is a question you should ask yourself beforehand, because that would spare you a lot of frustration. If you don't want, say it. They are your friends, right? So you are their friend too, there's no reason why they wouldn't take into consideration your own gaming needs and agenda.
Rustin:
David,
Let me try to rephrase.
Dwain, in a text about how to write, describes the Snare of the Objective.
Those who have been grabbed by that snare: Depend on facts and distrust feelings.
Good writing, according to Dwain, comes from feeling. So, those caught in the objective snare go about writing in a restrained, confused mechanical way. Similarly, one could say Roleplayers caught in the snare of the objective game in a restrained, confused mechanical way.
I think this approach is slightly different from the GNS/Big Model theory, in that Dwain, up front claims mechanical writing doesn't get the job done. It does not create stories other people want to read. He makes more of a value judgment than GNS/Big Model theory likes to make. I'd say GNS would first and foremost say "know your purpose and then pick rules and methods that jive and help that purpose." Suggesting that mechanical play could be a valuable purpose and if you really want mechanical play, then find the right rules and have fun with it.
Whereas the Swain theory would say, get to the feelings, because that's where good stories are, and if you distrust feelings you're not going to make a good story. Get to the feelings or give up. How he measures good is the ability for others to read and get that emotive charge from the writing, and maybe the ability to sell a book or two.
Now to port this over to Roleplay, rather than look at Nar play or Gam play or any of that, just look at the situation with a simple perspective: Is your GM trying to create a story based on feeling or on facts?
So where your GM has given you extra feats and HP and stuff is a round about way to eliminate one distraction to play, it does not necessarily get to the feeling of playing a character or theme. Is he still relying on supplements, pre-written modules and other facts?
Ask him point blank, how is he going to help you with the inspiration and feeling of playing a character?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page