Role-Playing: Gig or Game?
Read the rules, roam the boards, visit the games and it's all the same: Acting has replaced gaming in RPGs. Players are discouraged from studying the gamebooks; knowing about common monsters or enemies is disparaged under the derogatory term of "meta-gaming." Instead, characters should stare in wonder at the story and atmosphere that the Gamemaster creates, then blunder and stumble through the adventure. As long as they blunder and stumble using flowery language, Gamemasters reward them. I'm disgusted. I'm sick. How has it gotten this bad?
Read the rules, roam the boards, visit the games and it's all the same: Acting has replaced gaming in RPGs. Players are discouraged from studying the gamebooks; knowing about common monsters or enemies is disparaged under the derogatory term of "meta-gaming." Instead, characters should stare in wonder at the story and atmosphere that the Gamemaster creates, then blunder and stumble through the adventure. As long as they blunder and stumble using flowery language, Gamemasters reward them. I'm disgusted. I'm sick. How has it gotten this bad?
Even D&D 3rd Edition has gotten into the act by having a non-weapon proficiency called "Knowledge: Creatures". So, now, all the experienced players pretend not know what a troll is or how to kill it while some newbie makes a proficiency roll to find out if they know! If he fails his proficiency check, watch out because players now make dumb decisions so they can role-play not knowing!
And, Gamemasters! Gamemasters then reward the "good" role-playing with treasure and experience points, even if half the party gets wiped out and the Gamemaster fudges all his rolls. He rewards the players for pretending not know something. And everybody backslaps each other for being good actors and feeling oh-so-superior. That's crazy.
But, suppose that an experienced player speaks up (assuming that he has not been brainwashed into doing all this acting). He knows what a troll is and rallies the party to defeat it. If he's unlucky, he has a Nazi Gamemaster who punishes him for ruining the game for the newbie players. The newbie players don't know what a troll is and somehow it is better for the party to fail than for an experienced player's knowledge and strategy to influence it.
But, wait, that's just the beginning. Role-playing has become the new excuse for every gaming sin. Don't figure out the riddle. Don't defeat the monster. Don't win. Just say, "Oh, my character has a low intelligence. I'm just role-playing him." This instantly wipes away all blame. Do you betray the party? Or are you just lazy and sloppy? Do you have no strategy at all? It is all justifiable by saying that you are role-playing.
No, I do not suggest a return to powergaming, munchkinism and Monty Haul. Instead, players should role-play "in town" but play to win when "on adventure" and during combat. Role-playing should never be an excuse to sabotage or compromise the the party's opportunities. Role-playing is not an excuse to act cowardly, be lazy, be incompetent or to fail. Role-playing should be added on top. When you are succeeding and have figured out all the riddles and cleaned out the dungeon, then role-play. It's the icing, not the cake.
Gamemasters, you can change, too. Liberate your game. Throw out all those subjective role-playing rewards that encourage your players to focus microscopes on their characters; they are already brainwashed by the industry to role-play. Stop scripting all those stories. Start giving the players honest challenges and redeveloping their tactical and strategic skills (stories can still develop without all your artificial machinations). Stop handing out rewards to the players in your group who flub the adventure in spite of their virtuoso performances. Stop railing against meta-gaming. Let players enjoy the game by benefitting from their game knowledge and using it to strategize. Hey, you're the Gamemaster; you can invent new skills, creatures and traps to invalidate that knowledge if need be. Let the balance of power shift, from sissified actors back to competitive gamers.
Push the pendulum back. Don't abandon role-playing, just mix it with a big portion of gaming. It's not an acting gig; it's a game.
- Login to post comments
You know, I think the thing that got people irritated by the article wasn't the point in itself, which essentially boils down to "Don't let OOC/IC knowledge mixups slow down your game, and don't worry too much about inconsequential things". The problem I had with it was the title, and the sentence at the end: "It's not an acting gig; it's a game."
I view acting as one of the biggest parts of the game, myself, if not THE biggest part.
"I have not had the kinds of problems that all these recent posts speak of. Players buying every magazine and dungeon, angling to get an advantage by owning the next adventure? Players who lie? Players create these sophisticated schemes to defraud and hide their advance knowledge?"
There's a reason why Teflon Billy of KOTD strikes such a chord with DM's & gamers. It's because most of us have met his second cousin (usually only once removed) at a gaming table at some point.
Some of them do lie. Not many, but some. Others just hyper-prepare, making sure that they know every single possible rulebook off by heart. Others just want to push the boundaries a little. To see how far the DM will give before pushing back.
Now, the pushing isn't a bad thing in itself. However, Caliban made a good point (and better than I think I could have made it) when he said
"because you have made it clear that in your mind it is a game, a competitive activity, and that the players seem to be 'up aganst' the GM. "
Your response was:
"Unlike other games which have direct competition, a GM provides the obstacles but is not the opponent. "
I disagree. In a direct competition RPG scenario, which seems to be what you're setting up, the players can't help but see the DM as the opponent. He's the one who rolls dice against them, after all. He planned the setting. He chose the monsters. When that minotaur crits and takes out the strongest party fighter, it was the DM who rolled that crit and the damage that went with it.
That's just if the game is proceeding normally, with all dice out in the open. If there's any hint of secrecy, if dice are rolled behind screens, if there's the slightest rumor going around that maybe that llama which gored El Ravager wasn't 100% kosher, then the DM has real trouble. Even if he's as pure as the driven snow and innocent as a babe in arms. The players aren't going to blame the scenario or the monster. They're going to blame the DM, because in their eyes they've been playing against him from the get-go and now he's gone that step too far.
Which is all the more reason to defuse that time bomb from the start. Make it clear that the DM doesn't compete against the players, that grudge monsters are not on the menu.
If players think that they need to 'win the game' and know that they're allowed to use OOC knowledge like cheat codes to help them win, then they're going to compete to the best of their ability. In some cases competition is good and healthy. In others, and I think in your preferred use of OOC knowledge, it isn't. Compete in character by all means. Not out of it.
From what I've seen, Telfon Billy is an anachronism. In the past, that used to happen all the time but I haven't met anybody like that in the last 10 years. Not even once. Even newbies have all these role-playing ideals pounded into them from day one.
If you do happen to have one of these rare antique individuals, why change your game to accomodate only him? In my experience, any RPGer that can roleplay (even poorly) can understand what I'm talking about in my rant. They can understand the difference between rules lawyering and using a little metagame information that that they may have.
Maybe it is a subtle difference: I am not advocating that players become rules lawyers. They may use some metagame knowledge to make decisions and to play well but I'm not giving any guarantee that I am playing stock rules, stock monsters and no fudging.
We seem to be off-topic here, though. I intend to write another rant (or merely an article) encouraging GMs to liberate their game and stop putting all their energy into being cops. That is, showing a little trust and a little faith in players to take responsibility for keeping the game enjoyable and spending more time creativity. Rather than putting all this effort into codifying rules and patrolling their players for infractions.
But, as I see it, those are player issues, not playing issues. Don't fix out-of-game problems with in-game solutions. Especially for an individual who (apparently) cannot be reasoned with.
Believe me, I understand the fear. The fear that a well-regulated group of RPGers will suddenly devolve into a pack of RPG hedonists, hacking and slashing, lying and cheating, intent on the destruction of a well-thought-out campaign. Trust me, though, it won't happen.
"We seem to be off-topic here, though."
SEEM being the operative word. You want to discuss something. It's only natural that you'd not want to waste any time discussing how you're wrong, when you could be putting forth more of them [fallible points].
"I intend to write another rant (or merely an article) encouraging GMs to liberate their game and stop putting all their energy into being cops."
I must wonder if you are the player or the GM in your game. Combined, those two articles would seem to be giving the greater inclination towards players to metagame [because, really, where DO you draw the line], and their GM's to ignore them, allowing anything that might come about to happen.
"That is, showing a little trust and a little faith in players to take responsibility for keeping the game enjoyable and spending more time creativity."
I for one, find that it is more enjoyable to play when none of the players around me are using out-of-game knowledge, and my creativity is stimulated when I do not have all the answers right off the bat.
"Rather than putting all this effort into codifying rules and patrolling their players for infractions."
Codifying them is precisely what you would have to do, in order to define the boundaries between what is encouraged by your rant, and what is rules-lawyering [something you claim not to endorse]. Who will make those decisions, without you to sit there and preside over their every game? Not the GM's, certainly - for remember, they are to sit back and be lax in their vigilance. Each player will make their own decision, based on their own opinions, about it. Then get as close to that line as possible [maybe even step a little over it].
That is where your method can apply only to the remotest of campaigns. For only in the very few will all the players have such a close idea of exactly where that subtle difference may lie, and enough self-control over themselves to not cross the line. For the majority of campaigns, and for the majority of players, it is far more efficient [there we go with that word again. I wonder what it could mean? Everyone around here seems to think it's so important] to abide by the most restrictive of all their definitions ["better safe than sorry"?], and keep from heading down that steep road of temptation.
-Coilean mac Caiside
"Well met, brash party of adventurers. I am The Mysterious Old Guy, and 'tis fortunate that I have found you, for the journey you have embarked upon will only lead to your doom. However, I will [for reasons detailed only in my own mind] deign to come with you, and help you . . . "
. . . by ensuring you never get to thy destination.
If you reach the final baddie, you WILL die. Therefore, it is in your best interests to not meet him. To this end, I will be delaying you at every turn, directing you away from the clues, and involving you in Quests completely unrelated to your current goal. Because I could not do this well if you did not trust me, I shall guarantee my continued trustworthiness, by doing these so subtly that I am never caught. The real reason I am with you is because I think I will be mightily entertained by your merry antics along the way, and it's so hard to find a good laugh like that at my age. Since keeping you away from the final baddie will only prolong my pleasure, it is in MY own best interests to keep you occupied with the journey for as long as possible, and incidentally give you a lot more chances to gain experience so that, if you ever do get past my well-intended blunders, and find the final baddie, you may last long enough to realize the errors of your ways and run away.
But isn't it the player's responsibility to KNOW how tough things are along the way, so they are not sending themselves into a death trap? Or is it the GM's responsibility to keep things "balanced"? What if the "old man" is the method of doing this? And what if the old man only THINKS the final baddie is way too powerful for the party, and is doing that nasty "roleplaying" thing where he acts against the party based on information that he shouldn't be using because it serves no purpose?
What if nobody knows?
-Coilean mac Caiside
I GM regularly and play when I can.
Wow. I am astounded at how poorly understood and badly misrepresented dwhoward's rant has been and continues to be. Some of you clearly decided immediately that dwhoward is the spawn of Satan and must be utterly crushed, and are not capable of considering anything he's said in a reasonable manner. Fortunately, he's having none of that.
"From what I've seen, Telfon Billy is an anachronism. In the past, that used to happen all the time "
If Teflon was an anachronism KODT wouldn't sell. [neither would Hackmaster, come to that] It's comedy after all, and comedy doesn't usually age very well. There are exceptions to that rule, (I'm a big Looney Tunes fan myself), but you only have to look at a favorite sitcom from days gone by, (anyone else remember the Jeffersons?), to realize that those jokes just ain't getting any younger. The KODT crew are on record as saying that one of the most frequent comments from their readers is 'wow, I know a group / play in a group that's JUST like the Knights . . .' That suggests that the Teflon breed is alive & well. Heck, there's a group I know that's got a genuine Teflon clone as a player, (he prefers archer-template elves, for the firepower, and there were some nasty Mystic Archer rules published a while ago now), and used to have an even bigger Teflon, until the day came when the guy moved on to other gaming tables.
"Some of you clearly decided immediately that dwhoward is the spawn of Satan and must be utterly crushed"
Nonsense. I'm firmly of the opinion that dhoward is the spawn of Fuzzy & Fluffy Cuddlebunny and must be hugged. Frequently. Preferably by small and disgustingly cute five-year-olds.
:-)
c ya
Adam
Ok, so now, the argument over Teflon Billy. At first glance, this argument seems compelling. At least one fact is correct: KODT *does* say that readers do say that they know a player like those in the comic strips.
But, first, I disagree that anachronisms can be funny and sell. I enjoy KODT and I don't know anybody (anymore) that plays that way. So, I'm not convinced by the argument that "KODT is accurate because it sells well." (Not to mention that we haven't presented any evidence that KODT sells well.)
Second, it is a comic book and people like to exaggerate their friends' foibles. Letters to the editor to a comic book is not the same as a Gallup poll. It might be an indication but is really no more anecdote (in the same way that I use my personal experience).
And, third and most importantly, the readers who write in often point to one friend who plays that way. They don't say that all or even most of their friends play that way. It is usually just one guy among all their friends (which may be 5, 10, 20 or 30 people).
I'll agree that there are a small percentage of individuals that play that way. After all, I said earlier that these people are "rare [and] antique", not "extinct". I haven't met any in the past 10 years but that is not to say that they don't exist. And, like I said before, even if you are a GM and have one of these players, I would advise against running your game to cater to this single individual.
What if that single individual IS the GameMaster?
If a GM follows the Teflon Billy gaming style, I imagine that there would be little that you can do. GMs have powerful control and even wider influence on their own games. In the context of the game, he may give you some leeway in how you play but he may not. If not, you'll either have to conform to his style to get what enjoyment that you can or find another game.
So, you acknowledge that the existence of such people can actually create more of them, even after their decline?
I humbly submit that having an individual with enough power to PERMIT their excesses, would encourage players to develop them, moreso than a fellow player.
It seems wildly off-topic and irrelevant to the original rant. But...
No. A GM is powerful and influential inside his own game but, outside the game, other influences have powerful effects, too, such as other players, other GMs and magazine articles. By joining in a game, a player submits himself to conform to the game style and play under the GM during game time. But players still have and choose their own opinions and styles of play, outside the game. Players may conform for the game but, in the end, they choose their own opinions and are responsible for them.
After re-reading the first paragraph (second if you count the intro on the main page) of dwhowards above rant, I am going to agree that theres a problem, but disagree on the solution:
"Read the rules, roam the boards, visit the games and it's all the same: Acting has replaced gaming in RPGs. "
I wouldn't say replaced, but YES, it certainly has taken a much larger portion of the gaming environment then previously. This in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.
"Players are discouraged from studying the gamebooks; knowing about common monsters or enemies is disparaged under the derogatory term of "meta-gaming." Instead, characters should stare in wonder at the story and atmosphere that the Gamemaster creates, then blunder and stumble through the adventure. As long as they blunder and stumble using flowery language, Gamemasters reward them. I'm disgusted. I'm sick. How has it gotten this bad""
Now, when I re-read this, ignoring the rest of the article, I realised that it probably isn't the fact that people are gaming 'badly' that is the major problem. It's the fact that people are bad actors. Bare with me on this one.
I mean, EVERYONE should be able to game reasonably well, right? Chuck in a bit of OOC knowledge, a good deal of experience in the rule system, and basic knowledge of High School level statistics and you should be able to play the game well, get good mileage out of the rules, etc.
However, as the 'acting' aspect of roleplaying has become more popular, viewed at large by the 'people who should know' as the gem in the roleplaying crown, it has become the fashionable thing to do.
Even for those people who aren't actors, who have never trained or read up on acting, and are quite likely not to have the right sort of personality, let alone self confidence, to make great actors. After all, if they did they would probably have fallen into a Drama group rather than a roleplaying group right?
So what we are left with is an ideal "The great ROLEPLAYER", the old norm; "The great GAMING roleplayer" and the new norm; "The not so great ROLEPLAYING gamer (More often than not).".
And THAT'S where the problem lies.
I admit that great gaming in and of itself is an entertaining past time. Many people I know pick up books and deliberately try and munch them beyond recognition, just for the sake of seeing how far the system can be bent or broken. They are just exercising their right to find they bounds of the system, and I'd only class them as munchkins if they PLAYED to those bounds during games. This can be quite complex and to be the best at it requires a special sort of person.
However, good gaming is achievable by all but the least tactically and mathematically minded. And frankly, those sorts of people are usually too put off by the sight of tables, algebraic looking equations, and a dice with more than six sides to EVER even try a roleplaying game, so we you've probably never seen them at your gaming table.
Everyone else either comes in from a suitable background to pick it up quickly (Did well in school, discovered cardgaming or wargaming and moved on to roleplaying, discovered roleplaying as an extension of their interest in the history/mythology which the games draw from etc.) or are put into such an environment that they'll simply havt to learn how to be a good gamer VERY quickly. After all, if every group at some point has had a Teflon Billy of their own, undoubtably all the players would have seen an example of a great GAMER, someone capable of bending the game rules to their will like they were putty. The new gamer will at least hear the anecdotes and been given examples of how they used and abused the rules to all extremes.
From there they should be able to quickly pick up those same skills and create a character likely to survive more than one encounter. After all, having your character killed to a Kobold is a pretty quick lesson in what NOT to do, so it shouldn't take anybody long to figure out what went wrong.
Meanwhile, truely great ROLEplayers (i.e. actors) are a relatively rare thing. Sure, there might be those who CLAIM to be, and are into LARPing and stuff, but if they aren't in front of a camera every day, appear on stage for a living or are professional fraudsters chances are they aren't really that good at it, because good acting is HARD. It's much harder than gaming, requires MUCH more practice and is a lot more intuitive and dependant on the individuals personality.
So it's less common for people to know a great Roleplayer, let alone be one, than a great Gamer.
So, in the scenario dwhoward put forward, we have a bunch of good gamers sitting around, BADLY acting, at the cost of the good gaming they are capable of, and often complementing or rewarding each other for it.
He's right, that does suck.
And one solution is to go back to what they are good at, gaming.
Another solution, and the one I prefer, is for people to only reward GOOD acting, just as game mechanics reward GOOD gaming (through survival, and often, experience). For people to actually take a good look at what they are doing, and realise if they are really any good at acting out their characters, if they are at all convincing, if they are at all comfortable doing it or it's merely just a bad accent and feined ignorance they throw on when they are expected to roleplay.
And if they find that they are lacking, stop rewarding each other just for TRYING, only reward each other for SUCCESS.
Because as soon as you stop rewarding them for bad acting, one of two things will happen. Either they'll realise they need to get better at it, and strive to improve, or they'll go back to good gaming.
Either way, they'll be doing what they want to, rather than what the current wave of gaming has deemed fashionable.
Hooray for your post Caliban! I agree totally.
Hiya
Just a quickie.
Caliban, I agree.
"So, I'm not convinced by the argument that "KODT is accurate because it sells well." (Not to mention that we haven't presented any evidence that KODT sells well.)"
Not so much that KODT is accurate because it sells well. KODT is probably accurate because it is satire, and satire has to be pretty accurate to remain funny. Irrelevant or innacurate satire is just about as funny as a corpse. As for the sales, given the market that they're in, (magazines in this field tend to have the lifespan of a snowball in hell), it's a pretty safe bet that their longevity, plus the fact that they've built a small publishing group on the back of it, indicates good sales.
Mind you, I think we've pretty much exhausted the argument. Good talking with you all!
c ya
Adam
Caliban's post is well written and is thought-provoking. It made me look at some things in a new light. Although it is very insightful, I'm not sure that it would cure the problems that I speak of. Something for me to think about further.
A condition might be added that certain PC personas would generally not be appropriate choices for players. Those personas would be those that tend to break down party unity or cause players to do things that are very ignorant or foolhardy.
I do not object to acting per se, as long as it doesn't sabotage the party. My rant is about the sabotage and using acting as a cover story, not so much the acting itself.
"A condition might be added that certain PC personas would generally not be appropriate choices for players. Those personas would be those that tend to break down party unity or cause players to do things that are very ignorant or foolhardy.
I do not object to acting per se, as long as it doesn't sabotage the party. My rant is about the sabotage and using acting as a cover story, not so much the acting itself."
I would say that you don't have a problem with the roleplaying, per se, but the particular players who should not be allowed a chance to play themselves. But you seem to be saying that you only play a certain range of characters, and noone else should play the rest either. How realistic is roleplaying then? How restricted would you have us be in characters? By saying that "I do not object to acting per se, as long as it doesn't sabotage the party.", the natural extension of my hypothesis would be that someone doing so, can ONLY be doing so, BECAUSE they are such a type of player.
If you never fail, how precious is success? Your ideal of a party that always has exactly the same goals, placed above all others to the extent of cooperating to achieve that goal, seems rather selfish. However much you would LIKE things to all work out [you have enough trouble with accidents happening], players who work at cross-purposes will not necessarily "break down party unity"; for one thing, there might not have ever been any. Not everyone NEEDS to feel they belong to a group. Maybe "party unity" isn't that important to everyone, or maybe they're not so overly sensitive that they allow one little side-trip [I watched "The Musketeer" today. God damn that bastard D'artagnan for taking a little side-trip to escort the Queen, and not helping rescue his fellow Musketeers from the prison - and letting that "vow of silence" get in the way of letting the rest of the party know where he was going, and what he was up to - why, that just PROVES that this whole "roleplaying" thing cannot be afforded!] to become a full-blown "betrayal" in their minds; in fact, maybe they'll even accept it and wait, plotting, for their chance to enact a little comeuppance [ala The Dying Earth].
What kind of Flaws/Disadvantages do you take, Dhoward? What kind do you let your players take? Do you expect them to roleplay the flaws, or is that why some were disallowed? How well do you think you've handled your own Flaws? Would you condemn Feng Shui for encouraging the very type of behavior you seem to despise? In the very beginning of the rulebook, it offers you the chance to lower any stats of your character - but you don't get anything in return. It's just an option for making your character fit the concept you had better. Are you the kind of player that would froth at the mouth and spit at them in rage if they shaved off as much as a single skill point using this method? Don't forget - by reducing their own efficiency, behavior which can only be possibly excused under the argument "it gave me more points to buy what we'll really need for survival", they have weakened the entire party, thereby hurting their chances to win.
As a GM, I reward good roleplaying by enforcing a sort of "idealogical resonance" in the universe; if you do things which are ignorant/foolhardy in-character, you are still rewarded for taking risks, because that's the kind of behavior which the universe appreciates. If nothing else, you'll go out in a bang. But if you do it based on your own foolish notions as a player, it might turn out to be the right thing to do, and build strength with repetition. You must know a great deal about all those game systems to maintain such arrogance you will always know better than your character - which wouldn't be hard, if he was stupid. But if you never roleplay deeply enough to risk finding out, I guess you'll never know.
-Coilean mac Caiside
A few questions about your group, Dhoward - do they have com-links internal to the helmets, a mental connection, some other way of keeping instantaneously in touch? In combat, are the tactically sound moves REALLY "planned out in advance", or is that just an excuse?
And a warning: don't let anything we try, including "common sense", stop you now! You're -so- close... the only threat left to your carefully laid plans now, is the other players who might someday come in, and [unaccustomed to your precise control of every detail] in not doing everything in their power, both in and out of character, to ensure success, mark themselves eternally as a malevolent force in opposition, plotting to overthrow the party! Or... err... some such nonsense. Seriously, Dhoward, you can play your own friggin' game however the hell you want, but don't tell the rest of us we have to go with your flow, or be trying to ruin everything. Maybe where you live everything is so black-and-white. But where many of us are, there's plenty of middle ground.
-Coilean mac Caiside
NPCs can provide the full range of personas needed to keep the world realistic. Inside the party, playability is more important than realism. Most RPGs are, by design, group games which assume a certain amount of cooperation amongst PCs; playing style or concerns about realism should not be so extreme as to turn the group into a liability, rather than a benefit, to each PC. Yet, many players use role-playing as an excuse to do exactly that.
A PC can have flaws but they should not be such that the PC's player decides that he will not do his best to help the team (party). A flaw such as "drinks too much while in town" would be acceptable; a flaw such as "too lazy to check for traps in an adventure" would not be.
If party unity is not important or there is no party unity, the game should be a one-on-one game or should be 100% "in town". If it starts as a group game that has an "on adventure" part, it will break apart into a bunch of one-on-ones (and an overworked GM). Or, the adventure will fizzle as some players connive, meander or indulge personal whims while other players attempt and probably fail to herd the party towards the adventure.
Those that connive, meander or indulge personal whims (which may use the role-playing excuse) are putting their own enjoyment before the rest of the group. They want to take a portion of the GM's time and the other players' time to cater directly to their PC. A one-on-one game is appropriate for these PCs, not a group game. A PC whose persona is a distraction or a liability to a party should not be introduced out of consideration of the other players and the expressed goal of the game (to work as a group to complete an adventure).
I agree to a certain level with dwhowards comment about party members who are in direct conflict with their own group.
If it's a continual thing, if they are simply dead weight along for the ride, then the game is going to be bad.
However, I have played evil characters in an effectively good guys campaign before, but the extenet of my evil was just the one big alterior motive. I NEEDED to co-operate with the party so I could get to turn on them at the end. If I was constantly foilng their plans, either by purposeful sabotage or plain ineptitude, why they hell would I remain part of their party? They'd just sneak out at an Inn at night and leave me with no knowledge of where they are, or kill me in my sleep (or if they were REALLY goodie goodie, tie me up with a note to the Authorities or something).
Basically, if a character is constantly being simply inept, the GM shouldn't have to do anything about it, the players will probably take care of it if it's a real problem.
Again, either they will sit the character down and try and teach them, or they will just kick the character out of the group.
Now, obviously for the player, that's not such a great thing, but they made the choice to play that character. If the GM has done his/her work and looked into their back knowledge and skills at the begining of the game, and roleplayed how they met up, then hopefully all the players should know to EXPECT that character to be inept, unless they are a purposeful fraudster, in which case the GM will have to figure out a way to deal with it.
After all, how many of YOU would walk into a life threatening situation with a total stranger with no idea of their ability? I know in this world, if I was a cop, or a soldier, or even a hunter or something I know I wouldn't, so your adventurers shouldn't either.
So really, unless a player is OVERPLAYING their ineptitude in the eyes of the GM (who should know, after all he was there to discuss character creation, and allowed the character in etc.) which IS bad roleplaying, and should be immediately fixable by simply explaining to the roleplayer the problem, and then if they continue to play overly inept simply not rewarding them in game (while everyone else DOES get rewarded, so it's effectively a punishment), their shouldn't be a problem.
Eventually the party will get sick of the inept no hoper and toss them, unless they could give a real good reason not to, and the game will continue from there.
And there is nothing wrong with that, I mean, that's life. The player's characters will simply have to shape up, or ship out.
Oh, just as an example of hte above, think of the inept/bad character as Paul Reiser's character in Aliens, either that or the Commander who didn't have very much experience.
I mean, both were great characters, and vital to the story. Now, it might be better if they are played by NPCS, who often the PC's will have no qualms in turning on, but they can be equally well played by a good player.
Of course, that player should EXPECT to die, or to be found out, because ultimately we are talking about heroic stories here, and that's what happens in these sorts of stories.
But more power to them if they manage NOT to get found out, if they manage TO turn on the group. Of course, then they should probably hand over their character to the GM to become the bad guy for the next campaign and so on. Because ultimately, somewhere along the line, traitors/self-serving cowards ALWAYS get what's coming to them in a good tale. It's the pay off audiences expect, and your players will expect it too.
"If party unity is not important or there is no party unity, the game should be a one-on-one game or should be 100% "in town". If it starts as a group game that has an "on adventure" part, it will break apart into a bunch of one-on-ones (and an overworked GM). Or, the adventure will fizzle as some players connive, meander or indulge personal whims while other players attempt and probably fail to herd the party towards the adventure."
-laughs- You've never played The Dying Earth, have you, Dhoward? No, don't look - it'll probably just give you apoplexy with the fundamentals alone. You seem overly obsessed with control, and I love being the one to point this out to you - you can show people that they have a choice, but it's rather hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle after - you can't simply tell people that they don't have even have the rights anymore to choose options which you would have us believe do not exist. How much of this article arose from frustration at being one of those players to "herd the party towards the adventure", Dhoward?
"Those that connive, meander or indulge personal whims (which may use the role-playing excuse) are putting their own enjoyment before the rest of the group. They want to take a portion of the GM's time and the other players' time to cater directly to their PC. A one-on-one game is appropriate for these PCs, not a group game. A PC whose persona is a distraction or a liability to a party should not be introduced out of consideration of the other players and the expressed goal of the game (to work as a group to complete an adventure)."
And this goal has been expressed by whom - yourself? It may surprise you, especially if you were viewing your own participation in the game as more of an "Avatar" style than a "Character" style, but if players can voyeuristically have fun with their own characters, they will actually ENJOY watching other characters! These other players can take NPC's, or simply watch with relish. However inconceivable this is to you, Dhoward, the rest of us may find things other than straight victory to be fun. Do you presume that to be their motives so quickly, because you yourself would do nothing differently in their place?
Caliban:
"Eventually the party will get sick of the inept no hoper and toss them, unless they could give a real good reason not to, and the game will continue from there."
Aargh, screw it! We don't care how much money we're being paid to escort this rich merchant through the mountains, or that the entire country will hunt us down for treason if we abandon their princess to die; we've had it, we're not putting up with this!"
THAT's life, Caliban. Not evaluating everyone you travel with on the sole basis of whether or not they are of any use to you NOW.
"Because ultimately, somewhere along the line, traitors/self-serving cowards ALWAYS get what's coming to them in a good tale. It's the pay off audiences expect, and your players will expect it too."
You've extraordinarily limited yourself in what a "good tale" can be, then; you're not here to write a fairy tale, you're here to entertain your players! And, look at the parties - most groups aren't noble, self-sacrificing, altrustic doers of good deeds who... bleh, I can't write this sick crap any more. Every member of party IS such self-serving, cowardous, bastard. They just happen to be SMART bastards - so, instead of rushing off by themself like some fool hero from the tales, they get together with a bunch of like-minded individuals [no, not the same goals, you can't afford to be picky; not strenuously objecting to them would be fine], and make a pact with them. It's a rather simple deal, really. As old as time itself. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.". Or, as some gangsta might have put it, "You help me out, and I'll help you out.". With the philosophy I'm seeing here, PC's aren't allowed to have lives, PC's aren't allowed to EXIST, outside of the group. Everything that they do, must benefit the group. If their personal fantasy is to get rich, they should be willing to share it with the group. If they want revenge, there should at least be some opportunity for experience along the way. But that isn't realistic. PC's motives are as diverse as they are - and Dhoward, I believe, is underselling and underestimating their complexity, and depth, the richness they're allowed to have.
-Coilean mac Caiside
I have not played the Dying Earth so I cannot comment on it.
Most players come to a game to play, not to watch other people play. A few games may be long lasting in this style but it is not a good general purpose style.
I find Caliban's playing of an evil PC where the "extent of [his] evil was just the one big ulterior motive" very palatable. He's putting in his all during months of play, maybe causing a bit of trouble "in town" but playing his best "on adventure", and the campaign either ends or transforms with a final confrontation between the PCs. Such a style is what my original rant advocated (and a quite skillful implementation of it to boot).
The proper playing of NPC traitors, whether or not PC traitors are acceptable and the game, Paranoia!, are actually huge subtopics unto themselves. I started writing my opinions on them but they are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand so I did not post them. Suffice it to say, being a player and continuously and covertly undermining the rest of the PCs is great fun for the player playing the PC doing the betraying, not the betrayed. Even expertly played, it is basically a sucker punch, a cheap shot.
Coileen, your comments regarding my point the party will take care of the inept player are neither constructive, nor accurate.
I was saying that if someone was of such a bad ability, or disposition, that they would put the QUEST at risk constantly, then the party would chuck them, because it doesn't serve them to have them around.
This might just mean that they shun them completely, which should give the player the message very quickly. THey might actually threaten the character with violence: 'Get out, and if we ever see you again we'll take you out'. etc.
Now, I did mention there MIGHT be a very good reason to keep them around.
But I know if I constantly let down a playing group with my blatant ineptitude they'd do more than complain after the game, they'd take action to either help, or expel my character DURING the game.
Remember, we are not talking about situations where a player is simply not doing the best their stats suggest, not powergaming, but players who are actively putting the players at risk by either overly feigned ignorance or active sabotage.
People are ALWAYS evaluating the people they travel with. You are ALWAYS evaluating those around you, making judgement on them by their action, it's a facet of human behaviour. And if things get to the point where everyone else sees you as a liability, a threat just as great as the monsters you are supposed to be helping them defeat or traps you are supposed to be helping them avoid, then they'll do something about it.
They have a choice of what they do. If you ARE playing a totally naive character, and the characters you are with are compassionate, then they'll probably try and help you out. Such is the case for Pippin in the Lord of the Rings, and in the end he turns out to be an important hero despite his earlier tom foolery. This is good character development, and part of a good story.
Meanwhile, back to my Alien comparisons, Hicks was quite willing to kill the Company man, and if his hand hadn't been stayed by Ripley, quite probably would have been. As it turned out he died shortly after anyway, so the party was rid of him regardless.
The over riding point is that if you aren't helping the party, then there should, and WILL be some consequences. If there WEREN'T then you are just as guilty of roleplaying badly as the person who is overly playing up their weaknesses, if not more so, because you are ignoring group interaction on the premise of "Well, that's just how they are, nothing we can do about it.". Of course there are things you can do about it! What you choose to do depends on your situation and group make up.
For example, in Vampire, where you are almost at risk from those you are with anyway, if you constantly stuffed up you'd need some serious protection from the rest of the party.
If you were playing a gang of criminals, they'd probably just slit your throat and strip your body. Unless of course you were the hopeless second cousin of the gang boss, in which case they might have to think about it a bit more.
At any rate the party make up should have a lot more controlling factors then mere circumstance, and what each player simply 'wants' to be, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
While the GM can fudge things to try and make disparate characters have to work together at the beginning, if they don't adjust to work together, if they don't bond in some way, then sure as hell there is going to be conflict and, unless it's important to the story, the GM should just let it play out.
One outcome of an inept playing (either by true ignorance or through role-playing) is, like Caliban says, the party bands together to get the PC to shape up or ship out. That's the preferred outcome.
Another outcome is that the players follow the inept player's lead and the game spirals into disaster. Seeing disappointment on the horizon, some players may dissociate with their PCs, not wanting to invest effort in a game that looks like a lot of trouble for only a little bit of fun. Others may take to being inept as well, seeing more fun in being a force of frustration rather than the less fun job of construction; it is easier to destroy than to create.
Caliban:
"At any rate the party make up should have a lot more controlling factors then mere circumstance, and what each player simply 'wants' to be, which seems to be what you are suggesting."
When I referred to the philosophy I was seeing here, it was that expressed by Dhoward. After reframing that view, I returned to my own with "But", and so on.
Dhoward:
"Suffice it to say, being a player and continuously and covertly undermining the rest of the PCs is great fun for the player playing the PC doing the betraying, not the betrayed. Even expertly played, it is basically a sucker punch, a cheap shot."
No, I don't believe it is. Again, and put in ALL-CAPS this time for your [very remotely] possible comprehension: THE PLAYERS CAN HAVE FUN ROLEPLAYING. Whether it's a thief playing little pranks [like loose buckles, etcetera] on the party because they wouldn't let him loot some corpses/rooms on the way out, or the paladin refusing to heal some people because they executed some prisoners without need, it is hardly a sucker punch or cheap shot. No, I have to think about how you've been treating the various topics here, and when you say "I started writing my opinions on them but they are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand so I did not post them.", I cannot help but see that as "Well, this rant will actually HURT my points, and anything that doesn't directly contribute to proving my points isn't relevant.".
"Seeing disappointment on the horizon, some players may dissociate with their PCs, not wanting to invest effort in a game that looks like a lot of trouble for only a little bit of fun. Others may take to being inept as well, seeing more fun in being a force of frustration rather than the less fun job of construction; it is easier to destroy than to create."
Again, with the "The only way to have fun is through victory.", disappointment only comes from not getting what you EXPECTED to. And maybe, just maybe, the gamers were in there for the FUN, of which "victory" would have been an acceptable means of stimulating [or not; the METHOD by which it was attained might not make them happy]. How much trouble it is, will depend entirely on how much they even SEE it as trouble. There is no need for the extreme ends of the spectrum to be the only choices, as you postulate; people could simply change their motivations, and "go with the flow" a bit; frankly, the construction/create job that you are suggesting seems to be more destructive than anything else PC's might do on their own; forcing the game world to adapt to a certain reality, aka "the victory". Maybe the PC's could learn to relax a little; no need to be such grim soldiers all the time, when they can HAVE FUN! [What, did you think that was reserved solely for the players? At the expense of the characters?]
Destroy, or create? Bah, humbug! That sounds remarkably like the "If you're not with us, you're against us." motto of an evil warlord. You're just mixed up; it is always more fun to create than destroy, so long as it's YOUR CHOICE to do so.
-Coilean mac Caiside
I agree: players can have fun role-playing. But not all role-playing is fun and constructive.
Pranks are not sabotage or betrayal. Disagreements (either IC or OCC) are not sabotage or betrayal. If a paladin refuses to heal another PC at an inn and the other PC must find a local healer, that is not sabotage or betrayal. If a paladin refuses to heal another PC during combat in order to cause the death of that PC, that would be both sabotage and betrayal (not to mention that it would also be an evil act).
I meant that a *sudden and unexpected* betrayal is a cheap shot.
"If a paladin refuses to heal another PC at an inn and the other PC must find a local healer, that is not sabotage or betrayal. If a paladin refuses to heal another PC during combat in order to cause the death of that PC, that would be both sabotage and betrayal (not to mention that it would also be an evil act)."
Post after post, Dhoward, I see the same thing - refusal to acknowledge a middle ground.
The group has finished their first encounter with the band of orcs they are here to hunt down - a minor skirmish, but before chasing down those who ran away [and might be heading straight for reinforcements], they need to re-optimize themselves. "Too bad our clerics died in the fight, they still had a few healing spells left; but it's okay, the paladin hasn't Laid On Hands today." But the paladin refuses to do so; still a sudden and unexpected [unannounced beforehand] act, but not one which is evil [ooh, what is he doing, making it more difficult for the party to kill MORE orcs?], but simply forcing the group to take a few days of rest and recuperation, healing up normally, instead of chasing right after them.
-Coilean mac Caiside
If a paladin refused to heal in this situation, I would not criticize him. It is not a betrayal; it is a disagreement.
The player is not using role-playing to justify poor tactics or to flub the adventure. My rant is not against all role-playing; it is against using role-playing to justify poor tactics or to flub the adventure. Since that is not happening in this case, I do not criticize the paladin in this example. Neither my original rant or my subsequent posts contradict this.
I disagree with your article.
"players should role-play "in town" but play to win when "on adventure" and during combat."
That sounds very boring and monotonous. Obviously an experienced player will have more OOC knowledge than a newbie... but should they play with that knowledge? I don't think so. Using OOC knowledge in-game is just going to succeed in making the game less and less fun each time you play; the DM will have to keep creating brand new stuff beforehand just to keep things interesting (Ironically, I see a DM who introduces brand new creatures and stuff to actually be very unimaginative. A truely creative DM can use old stuff in ways that make it seem new... likewise, a truely creative player should be able to do similar.) But if you act your character all the time, even the oldest challenge will be something new with every new character you do it with.
Just because something might be tactically inefficient doesn't mean it's less fun. More often than not, getting your character screwed over is MORE fun.
It's not about winning, it's about adventuring. And AMEN to that, because while you can't always win, anything can become an adventure. Even having your character go pee in the bushes can turn into a crazy adventure. And if your whole team dies because of poor judgement, they're death can be used as fuel for the next campaign.
"It's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game."
...and your logic is flawed. The point of a "Role-playing game" is to pretend your a fantasy character, it... doesn't... make... sense... to throw 'role-playing' aside (in a, repeat, "role-playing game") in order to win.
Your talkin' squaresville, maaan.
What the hell? All this time I thought I was playing a ROLE PLAYING GAME! Now I'm told that ROLE PLAYING is only *part* (and a small part at that) of the game? That the meat of the game is finding out which player has the best head for rules minutia?
Furthermore, I was under the impression that there were no "winners" or "losers" in RPGs. Maybe it's just my senility, but I seem to remember reading this in the first few pages of many systems in the obligatory "What is an RPG?" section.
Everybody dies. Weather a group of characters dies on their first adventure or the last one before they were to be retired to a musty binder on a shelf doesn't matter (if it does, you need a new GM and possibly a new group). The game's the thing, dwhoward. What happens between a character's first actions under your control and his last breaths is the meat of the game. I call that meat "role playing" (It is a sweet, succulent meat that when cooked to perfection falls off the bone and melts in your mouth like ice cream!).
Before you launch into an ad hominem diatribe, I will point out that I am not some pretentious black-clad LARP snob with surgically implanted fangs. In fact I enjoy a strong dose of tactics in my RPGs. I love it when a plan comes together and I'm delighted when the group manages to scrabble together some duct tape covered hack to save the day at the last minute MacGuyver style.
But I never forget what game I'm playing. I'm playing a ROLE PLAYING game. And if my fresh off of 2062 Seattle's streets ganger doesn't know the German government's structure then he simply doesn't -- no matter what I myself read in the Germany sourcebook. This isn't called being a snob, this is called game balance.
But since you seem determined to not understand that perhaps you should be playing Diablo or some other CRPG where all that matters is which "character" has the biggest penis^H^H^H^H stat numbers.
I posted the above after reading the story, but now that I've read and skimmed some of these comments I'm seeing that I may need to elaborate.
Just like when arguing with a rules lawyer, it's pretty much impossible to win a debate with dwhoward on this topic because every time you nail him on an inconsistancy or a other problem with his rant he backpeddles or otherwise weasles out of his previous statements. He seems too used to being able to say "Oh wait, I didn't mean to say THAT!" whenever his character springs a trap or gets within the fireball's damage radius. Just smooth talk the DM and you too can "win", right?
My advice: Re-write the frigging article and this time say what you mean and mean what you say. Otherwise quit wasting everyone's time with these sensationalist troll-like antics.
"Just like when arguing with a rules lawyer, it's pretty much impossible to win a debate with dwhoward on this topic because every time you nail him on an inconsistancy or a other problem with his rant he backpeddles or otherwise weasles out of his previous statements."
My impression has been more that he ignores the point, and doesn't say anything about it for a few posts; then resumes, as if presuming that we will have forgotten about it. To be honest, I haven't done much to belie that appearance; I don't even address certain points of his because I've already refuted them above.
I still have the impression, however, that he only considers the "this is what I mean and it's cool" example, and one other example - a "this is the alternative, and it obviously sucks" - but portrays those as being the only two. Then, when middle ground is pointed out, he grudgingly says "Yeah, I didn't mean that.", but fails to realize such "in-between" examples are in fact the rule, not the exception. It strikes me as a particularly suspicious tactic, especially in light of the refutations I've made earlier [you may want to check the All-Post link].
-Coilean mac Caiside
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.. you said: "I understand how people can say, "It's a ROLEPLAYING game." And, I say in response, "It's a roleplaying GAME." A game implies competition and scoring. It implies striving to be the best by using all your own skills and wits in the competition. Be it D&D or golf."
As long as something is amusing and challenging it is a 'game'. You don't need to keep score, or even have a direct opponent. Solitaire is a game; scoring and who my opponent is are irrelevant to me when I'm playing. Acting in character is also a game... because it offers a challenge. The type of game we are discussing is a 'role-playing game'; the term 'role-playing' describes what kind of 'game' it is.
It is therefor logical and correct to assume that, in a game which is described by the term 'role-playing', role-playing is indeed the main point and 'score' is really just the topper... no matter which word is emphasized.
I normally try not to mention names in order to avoid beating up on anybody in particular. But I will address Mallrat's post directly to explain why I do not respond directly to some statements.
He writes, "Using OOC knowledge in-game is just going to succeed in making the game less and less fun each time you play..." That has not been my experience. But, Mallrat gives no evidence or explanation backing up that statement. Since he gives no evidence or support for his statement, I can only say that I disagree; there is no evidence or support for me to argue against. Then, later, he writes, "But if you act your character all the time, even the oldest challenge will be something new with every new character you do it with." How? Again, that has not been my experience. But, Mallrat does not provide any explanation or rationale about how it makes it new or how he has fun doing this. All that is needed to refute the statement is for me to write, "I disagree."
As flat unsupported statements, either the reader already agrees with it or not. I happen not to already agree so I dismiss it.
So, I'll take some time out to address me.
In spite of the accusations of several posters, I have argued in good faith. I do my best to address those arguments that I can understand and have an element of logic in them. I admit, I do collect several posts, glean what I consider the best arguments among them and address those. I also admit that I ignore posts that seem irrational, overly emotional or simply reiterate some argument that has been thoroughly vetted and argued in previous posts.
Why am I not convinced by your arguments? Why do I seem to have a response to every argument? Well, I've seen my method work. Further, I believe that it can help a lot of games. Since I believe in this idea and have seen it work, I merely take what I have seen and find the reason why a particular argument or disaster did not occur in my game. Then, I guess whether that reason is universal or not. So far, with all the arguments, I have not seen those horrible things happen, I've determined the reason and then determined that my experience was not unique and seemed universally applicable. Then, I posted all that here in the simplest form that I could.
I do not hate any of you. Obviously I frustrate some of you. Some of you may think that, if I disagree with you, I am attacking you personally and you must exact revenge. I explained why the rant was written in its style and the definition of a rant. I am not your personal Antichrist. I'm not trying to "beat" you or hurt you but I do believe in my opinion. I approach your posts honestly; I do not try to intentionally distort or misinterpret your writing. If you present a conflicting opinion, I do not hate you for disagreeing with me, I acknowledge good points (even if they are not airtight and I disagree with them) and am perfectly content to say, "We agree to disagree."
I am arguing in good faith with no personal vendettas attached.
Arguing over definitions and the names of things is not a very compelling argument. Many things, besides games, are misnamed; words can be ambiguous. (Dictionary.com has *both* your and my definitions of a game.)
I could say that the most popular RPG is Dungeons and Dragons and, with the word, "Dungeons", in the title, that means dungeons are super-important. That is a good argument using the names and definitions style of debating. Are you convinced? Probably not.
"I acknowledge good points (even if they are not airtight and I disagree with them)"
Yet above, you announce that you:
"ignore posts that seem irrational, overly emotional or simply reiterate some argument that has been thoroughly vetted and argued in previous posts."
How do we tell the difference? When are you simply quieting down to acknowledge a point, and when are you ignoring them because YOU -FEEL- that they are irrational/emotional/repetitive? Since you have continued to use logic I refuted in earlier posts, I must conclude that you were ignoring them. Yet, I gave evidence - proof to support my position. By failing to address those, are you not, by the logic you have described just above, NOT done what is required to refute them?
As for the entire paragraph full of anti-christ crap, I will point out that the SOLE poster to bring this up was "Philos", who seemed to be portraying the whole situation with a reversal of roles; though probably unintentionally. Since he gave no example of what he thought the rant meant or was about, well, his post is obviously a "flat unsupported statement".
Here is his post, made on June 17, 11:14 PM:
"Wow. I am astounded at how poorly understood and badly misrepresented dwhoward's rant has been and continues to be. Some of you clearly decided immediately that dwhoward is the spawn of Satan and must be utterly crushed, and are not capable of considering anything he's said in a reasonable manner. Fortunately, he's having none of that."
Hmm, comparing to the posts made before that, I can't see what he's talking about. So, I would classify his post as "irrational AND overly emotional". Nice of you to spend an entire paragraph "ignoring" that sole poster, though.
You're using logic that varies according to the situation, and trying to base future points off of bases we refuted a few pages up [but then again, if you can't see them, we won't either, right? I wonder if you've completely forgotten, or just presume we will instead], fortunately, we're having none of that.
-Coilean mac Caiside
If you are a reader who feels that I am arguing in bad faith, I suggest that you discontinue posting. To continue to respond to a writer who posts in bad faith, merely gives that writer legitimacy and attention that he does not deserve. As an author, I feel a personal obligation to address legitimate reader questions and discussions; as the person responding, I get to choose which are legitimate. But, as a reader, you should feel no such obligation.
As an example of my good faith, I have acknowledged some good points that Caliban has made as good points, even though I did not find them compelling enough to change my opinion.
I have no intention of responding to personal attacks that spew bile and hatred, no matter how legitimate their author may think they are. I will respond to those posts that *I* determine have logic and evidence.
"If you are a reader who feels that I am arguing in bad faith, I suggest that you discontinue posting. To continue to respond to a writer who posts in bad faith, merely gives that writer legitimacy and attention that he does not deserve."
Yet to not refute fallible points, merely implies agreement with their writer. I do not see how I am granting you legitimacy; by allowing you to illustrate your own failings, I am enhancing the ability of readers to see for themself what is going on.
"As an author, I feel a personal obligation to address legitimate reader questions and discussions; as the person responding, I get to choose which are legitimate. But, as a reader, you should feel no such obligation."
Translation: as the person debating your side, you have the right to choose which debates to ignore, and other readers, well they should just assume that your negligence in responding to them proves their illegitimacy.
"As an example of my good faith, I have acknowledged some good points that Caliban has made as good points, even though I did not find them compelling enough to change my opinion."
My, what a -marvellous- example. Agree with them where you can afford to do so without compromising your position, it makes you look good ;)
Is the best way to avoid acknowledging points that might prove compelling enough to change your opinion, ignoring those points in the first place?
"I have no intention of responding to personal attacks that spew bile and hatred, no matter how legitimate their author may think they are."
It's too bad that we have nothing other than your word there have BEEN any such attacks. Perhaps if you quoted the "bile and hatred" which has [allegedly] been going on, or indicate the time/date of posts which did so? But wait, maybe then people would actually be able to -judge for themselves- instead of take your word for it.
"I will respond to those posts that *I* determine have logic and evidence."
That's not saying much, when your past posts have shown that you're not very good at doing so.
-Coilean mac Caiside, who has made many points, the better of which were ignored
Coilean mac Caiside: By this point, your posts have been numerous and lengthy. You have certainly had your say. If a person wishes to find out more, they can e-mail you. As for me, I am content merely to agree to disagree with you. Long ago, your posts ceased to have any value or relevance for me. Feel free to continue to post but I will not read or respond to them.
I would like to encourage other posters to submit comments and opinions relevant to the original rant. I will do my best to respond to any such posters.
I've read most of this debate (and it has turned into quite a debate) and I'll readily admit that I haven't poured over every word.
That said, I'll simply put this in -
agree or not, I can say that I've left more games because they reduced to simple puzzle and kill dice rolling instead of sculpting any kind of story.
It's not wrong to dissagree. I'm just saying, Roleplaying isn't empirically one way or the other. Opinion is the final line. You want rules? By Wizards of the Coast. You want story? Buy White Wolf. You wanna play one way or the other in a system that doesn't support it? Get good at MS Works and paint cherself a character sheet you want to use.
Game or Play, RPG's are for the imagination. I'd like to see more publishers produce games that support both the actors and the gamers to varied degrees.
To paraphrase a point from one of my earlier posts:
My posts are of no value to you because they are of no use in proving your points [i.e., you can’t think of a decent argument against them - perhaps because there isn’t one?], and since you are only here to PROVE you’re right, my posts become irrelevant to you.
Maybe I should create a compilation of all my points that you haven’t addressed, so readers later on can see that without having to check out ALL the posts?
They are available without E-mail. Right after the rant, and before the comments begin, the declaration becomes “Displaying the Last 50 of “ and then it links to the total number of articles.
-Coilean mac Caiside
Posts, not articles. But another point arises; why would you rather that the new readers decide whether or not they want to risk giving me their E-mail address, if they have one, to accept information which may have been edited, when with little trouble or time they can simply read everything for themselves, on the original forums? I don't see an "Edit Post" button - I think they are relatively tamper-proof.
In the meantime, I shall consider what you have done nothing more than a cheap cop-out - an "I can't refute anything you say, and that includes what you did after I tried to intimidate you into withdrawing or insult you into making a flaming fool of yourself, so I'll just declare you beneath me".
-Coilean mac Caiside
Postscript: Yes, I think I -will- create such a compilation.
"...there is no evidence or support for me to argue against."
I apologize, I wasn't under the impression that common sense had to be explained.
When one plays a game, any game, the same way over and over they will get bored... providing their intelligence level is capable of boredom. To continue to make things interesting, one must eventually start to add brand new things to the game. While changing the game world is perfectly fine, changing the players perspective is as effective and easier to do. Because similar things are always a little different when viewed through another's eyes, obviously successfully putting yourself into the mindset of your character will change the situation and how it's dealt with (depending on how different your character is from you).
While the ideas you brought up in your rant are not 'wrong', they are less efficient and provide more oppurtunity of error. So, role-playing your character all the time would make the DM able to spend less time preparing and able to continue using classic, tried and true, ideas as opposed to constantly experimenting with new ones.
"Many things, besides games, are misnamed; words can be ambiguous."
"...with the word, "Dungeons", in the title, that means dungeons are super-important."
Indeed words are quite often ambiguous, but the context of the word usually clarifies it's meaning. And besides that, "role-playing game" is a classification not a direct name. If someone asked for a quick answer to what kind of game 'D&D' is, no one would reply, "It's a score game." They would say, "It's a role-playing game", because role-playing is the most important part of it's classification. While the word 'game' can be a bit ambiguous, 'role-playing' is quite blatantly the key defining word and has a direct effect on 'game'.
Calling a game a 'first-person shooter video game' gives a direct explination of the most significant gameplay factors... you would not expect it to be in 3rd-person, driving an unarmed car.
I hope this was clear enough.
and, as for the name "Dungeons and Dragons", I assume they chose that name because "Magical Medieval Pretend Adventure" doesn't have that same ring to it.
Everybody would agree, I think, that better RPGs would be a good thing.
Whether successfully putting yourself in another's mindset and viewing familiar material through another's eyes makes a session worth playing (or not) is a matter of opinion. I contend that it does not; you contend that it does. I readily admit that a GM may make compromises with his game in the name of expediency; this is certainly an option. Of course, further, I contend that it is a compromise; you probably do not.
Using a mere classification to makes something one dimensional is uncompelling. I contend that it is oversimplifying the matter; you contend that it is not.
In both these cases, the arguments only convince people who already agree with the given point of view. Nobody would be dissuaded from trying my ideas by these arguments. If people choose to believe these arguments, they would not have tried my ideas, anyway.
"In both these cases, the arguments only convince people who already agree with the given point of view. Nobody would be dissuaded from trying my ideas by these arguments. If people choose to believe these arguments, they would not have tried my ideas, anyway."
*raises an eyebrow* . . . oh?
You don't see a compelling argument in what Mallrat22 is saying, henceforth anyone who agrees with him has never done it your way?
This statement doesn't make me wish I had never wasted the time doing things 'your way', or ashamed of the time I did spend already . . . it only makes me regret having to share this practice with such an individual as yourself. Your prejudice (given above) and intolerance (common sense, as Mallrat22 said, with you certainly lacking it nor minding in the least to 'prove' your points) are what gives us a bad name.
If a person is looking for a reason to reject my argument, they have over 100+ comments to find one.
The argument goes: It is a *role-playing* game. Game is ambiguous. Role-playing is not. Therefore, role-playing must be the single most important, everpresent and enjoyable activity in the game.
And, yes, that is an argument. Some readers (only a very few, I suspect) will think, "That proves it. Dictionaries and classifications prove what is fun and what is not fun for me." And, I'm willing to concede those readers to you. Any reader who accepts this argument should ignore my rant.
But, if you don't need a dictionary or a classification determine what is fun, consider my rant. I'm not trying to prove my point; I just want people to understand and consider my point of view. There is no irrefutable proof on either side. Some may agree; some disagree; some not care.
Hey, you are not going to convince me that I'm wrong. At best, you can shout me down or out-post me. But I've seen my rant make my own game better. I believe that it can help many games.
These issues are not such that lend themselves to mathematical-style proofs. They are a matter of opinion. I just happen to have a different opinion than you. That does not make me your enemy; it does not make me a scummy person; I just disagree.
At best, you can say that I am a bad debater. I'm not unethical, just unconvincing. And, fine, if you are not convinced by my arguments, don't believe them. I'm not trying to force somebody to do something that they don't want to do or prove (force them to believe) something that, in their gut, they just don't believe. If you feel that I am wrong in your gut, I don't want you to try my ideas. Don't risk your game just because somebody "proved" something that your gut rejects. I want to reach the people who are open to my ideas, who want to try it out but want more details and rationale and explanation of lingering doubts.
"The argument goes: It is a *role-playing* game. Game is ambiguous. Role-playing is not. Therefore, role-playing must be the single most important, everpresent and enjoyable activity in the game."
From what I can tell, the argument is that, with roleplaying being unambiguous, you can't decide to define it like 'game' is. And as a 'role-playing game', it isn't two activities tied up in one bundle! It's a *combination* of them!
Your overall insistence that ALL the emphasis be placed on the LATTER half of that phrase, is mainly what has caused such a debate. NEITHER are to be emphasized. You can define game however you want to, but just don't let it take over the ROLE-PLAYING GAME.
If all I wanted to do was win, I'd buy a product which only charged me for effort in creating challenges towards that goal and a balanced environment for them. If all I wanted was a GAME, I wouldn't be playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME.
You guys are mean to each other. I'm gonna go read that article about Sexism again. later.
Maybe you've misunderstood my emphasis. I have always advocated role-playing "in town" and playing tactically "on adventure". So, I have always advocated a combination. Do you merely object to a single-minded focus to win or do you say that winning should never be part of enjoying RPGs? I object to a single-minded focus on winning but I advocate a combination.
Good god, is this argument not over yet, people? I don't think there's a single spot on this poor dead horse that we haven't flagellated pretty seriously by now. Can't we just agree to disagree on this and leave it at that? Hell, I still think dwhoward is dead wrong, but I'm more than willing to allow him to BE wrong and run games in a way that he and his like-minded gamers find entertaining. At least that has some enjoyment value for someone, whereas this discussion no longer has any for anyone.
I just found this thing a few days ago, so I guess I just felt compelled to 'kick the corpse a few times'. :P
Basically my arguement is just that, based on the technical definition of a "role-playing game", the rant attacks everything that a 'role-playing game' is supposed to be.
Also, I have reason to think that it is less efficient to change the world to give the players new challenges, rather than just change the characters (by that I refer to new character personalities).
Aside from that I say, "To each their own." I have no problem with how other people choose to play their games. I just felt the rant wasn't very good at saying what it was trying to say.
When I wrote this article, I knew that I was attacking a "sacred cow" of RPGs and most people weren't going to like it. People are accustomed to playing in a certain way and have become quite proud of their refined skills at playing in that way. With all the effort and time that they have put into refining those skills, it is very offensive for somebody to come along and say, "Hey, I don't think that your way is worth that much. I have a different idea." Especially when that idea involves some old ways that he's discarded as unrefined or even prides himself on not considering. When you tell somebody that what he thinks of as high art is not valuable to you, he's got to hate you.
I never expected this rant to change the world or to really change anybody's mind. The current RPG playing style is very well entrenched. But, the rant does keep the door open; that is, people will think critically about playing and not automatically accept that there is "one true way".
I got a great e-mail from one guy. He said that he didn't agree with me but he was happy that somebody was doing some critical thinking about the nature of the game, not just writing new content. He told me to ignore the viciousness and closemindedness that was bound to be dumped upon me because (he felt that) the industry needs more than new prestige classes, new monsters and new modules.
"When you tell somebody that what he thinks of as high art is not valuable to you, he's got to hate you."
In short, you're expecting complaints from people who are upset for the reasons you just mentioned, ergo, anyone who DOES object to you MUST be doing so for those reasons.
You need a logic check, Dhoward.
-Coilean mac Caiside
Maybe you've misunderstood my emphasis. I have always advocated role-playing "in town" and playing tactically "on adventure". So, I have always advocated a combination. Do you merely object to a single-minded focus to win or do you say that winning should never be part of enjoying RPGs? I object to a single-minded focus on winning but I advocate a combination.
No, I entirely understand your emphasis. But you've missed my point. Putting emphasis on EITHER is a tragic mistake. Be cunning, plot ahead, and act decisively in town. Allow every facet of a character's personality and mind to manifest while 'on adventure'. Roleplaying is meant, as a couple of previous posts expressed, to cover ALL those; not as a *deliberate* combination, as this implies the whole can be split 'again', but a wide-spanning activity, which covers every aspect of the character's existence.
What you're advocating isn't a combination. It is the performance of two activities in sequence, though alternating. Turning each into a meta-game of the other is really only one more step (since you're not roleplaying again until you get back in town). One may as well run two games each week, one with the group that likes to strategize, and the other with the group that likes to roleplay; first group hears 'Okay, this is your mission for this week, and these are your resources.', second group hears 'You returned from the dungeon successfully, three orcs were killed, this is what you learned.'.
School is for learning. While there, people should be focused entirely upon the learning. By your reasoning, they should also be NOT learning whenever elsewhere, because they need to focus upon those skills which will get them through elsewhere.
In real life, things don't work as you are postulating, dwhoward; people ARE themselves, at all times, regardless of situation. They may put on a mask, one face they show to others at work, on the street, at home, etcetera, but that is just roleplaying (in a literal fashion). Roleplaying is to simulate someone else's life. How well are we going to simulate it if we solve all THEIR problems with OUR resources?
How many 'history' movies will you find, that change the outcome of a major battle, simply on the account of 'Well, I can see where he made his mistake, and if he does THIS, he wins.'?
I've been watching an interesting parallel to this article over at RPG.NET:
http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=93&i=143&t=143
How comforting it must feel to have someone else out there backing up your inner confidence; that security of knowing anyone who disagrees with you, must also be acting from hatred towards you.
Strike "logic", you need a -reality- check, pal. People just aren't like that [barring the minority you ever hear from], and I am certainly not. Literally. You CAN'T get me mad, or to hate you. Both are emotions. So is pity, which in itself IS a pity, because you [if anyone] deserve it. But even if I could, I sincerely doubt you would have managed to raise enough anything with your rant, to elicit response from me. You just don't put a point together well enough. The entire theme of your rant depends upon GM's running railroading campaigns where the plots are forced forward because the characters aren't motivated enough to do so on their own. What about the players out there who DO actively further their own destinies, and by taking the SITUATION the Gamemaster has surrounded them with, they CREATE a "plot"? Your rant may certainly be of use to those players who are so weak-willed and lacking of all volition, that they need a kick in the pants to get moving, but shifting awareness away from character and towards the accomplishment of mission would scarcely be of any good unless they could FIND their motivation to do anything, which, you barely implied in the original rant itself as 'use what the player knows'. And yet, your rant would still be quite misdirected, because it presumes the PLAYERS are befuddled, not their characters. Whatever your intent was with that rant, Dhoward, it cannot have succeeded [unless that intent was to greatly raise an eyebrow on the collective faces of all those players out there who HAVE taken control, or to instigate a lot of comments on the boards].
But wait, you're not reading my posts anymore. I began to, horror of horrors, prove certain points to the extent where you could no longer conveniently ignore them, and it became necessary to declare ALL of me... unable to contribute any more useful commentary. In short, ignore ME, and if the problem doesn't go away, well, at least your own arguments no longer stand a chance of becoming less cogent.
-Coilean mac Caiside
From up above, in the rant:
"That's crazy."
Well, the only "crazy" thing I see here, is you presenting a worst-case scenario and then claiming it applies to ALL scenarios. The least you could do is indicate how the crossover between worst-case and better games could influence them for the worse.
"The newbie players don't know what a troll is and somehow it is better for the party to fail than for an experienced player's knowledge and strategy to influence it."
Somehow. I will clarify that into one word. Just one word [and yes, role-playing is two words].
"But, wait, that's just the beginning. Role-playing has become the new excuse for every gaming sin. Don't figure out the riddle. Don't defeat the monster. Don't win."
If not winning is a sin, then the explicit POINT of the entire game, must be... to win? Yet, we've covered this point [exhaustively] before. It's not just a game. It's a ROLE-PLAYING game.
How many RPG's have you played, Dhoward? In your rant, and the letter of the player who contacted you, only D&D is mentioned. That's odd.
Considering there are a lot more RPG's than D&D.
Not all of them were born from a wargame, either. For some, the "game" meant something different:
It meant FUN.
Fun, Dhoward. There's your one word. Think "wargame"; they're reproducing a war, and yet, at the same time... what is different? They're simulating, possibly predicting, future combats. What effect does tacking on the word "game" have?
"This instantly wipes away all blame. Do you betray the party? Or are you just lazy and sloppy? Do you have no strategy at all? It is all justifiable by saying that you are role-playing."
Or, if you [perhaps] are not an expert tactician in real life, do not care to spend every iota of a given moment in the game session, exclusively concentrating on one task... role-playing is, in a sense, what allows ANY person to come and participate in this activity. You don't have to be ranked according to your real-life strategic mastery. You would say that this is what a "game" is all about. But you protest that you have been advocating for their -combination- all along?
Well, let's take a look.
[Again, words from the original rant, mind you.]
"Role-playing should be added on top. When you are succeeding and have figured out all the riddles and cleaned out the dungeon, then role-play. It's the icing, not the cake."
No, this quite clearly shows that you are viewing the main purpose of a role-playing game as "figure out the riddles, clean out the dungeon, succeed". To you, it's primarily a "game" [by your own definition of it], and anyone who doesn't follow your way, IS in that worse-case scenario.
Another quote:
"Start giving the players honest challenges and redeveloping their tactical and strategic skills (stories can still develop without all your artificial machinations)."
What's an "honest" challenge? Since I've been told that you won't read my posts, I have to try and theorize for this on my own - after all, what hope have I of receiving any answer?
Well, working from your basis of rusty and forgotten tactical/strategic skills ["redeveloping"; ring a bell?], I would probably say that it entails a challenge to the PLAYER's skills, not the character. But wait - the character's skills are the only ones which apply, right? [What are you going to ask for next, that trained SEALs can play wizards which still beat up on 15th-level fighters?] You have the mental skills of you - but everything else is the character. [Which means, essentially, that the character's abilities are then nothing more than your resources, as you, the player, move through that challenge.
What if the players NEVER had that focus on the tactical/strategic skills, Dhoward? What if... wonder of wonders... they actually came into this game, meaning to have FUN?
The incitement to rant for you, is fairly obvious; near the end of the rant, we find:
"Let the balance of power shift, from sissified actors back to competitive gamers."
You can't find anyone to game with who shares your views of gaming; keep to D&D, buy more issues of Dragon Magazine [they'll teach you how to optimize your character for success, and so long as you share with the other players, who would complain?], that's where you have the best chance of finding them. After all, it's still a derivative [albeit many generations removed] from Chainmail, and wargames. Just don't go to the other games, and tell them they need to revert to the predecessor of something which, at best, inspired them.
-Coilean mac Caiside
This is a very interesting discussion, and a common one, and if you people could refrain from attacking DMhoward personally for his well-reasoned posts, then we could get back to exploring the nuances of our positions. Engage the discussion on the page. Shrill speculations about the character of the poster is fruitless, and make you look foolish.
Based on my 20 years of experience with playing and GMing about 10 RPGs, I’ve seen the full range of characterizations and playing styles we’ve talked about on this board. From what I’ve seen, good and bad, I support DMhoward’s point of view.
Even a basic improv theater student will tell you that role-playing improv does not take place in a vacuum, unless it is a one-man show. Any ensemble improv performance must take into account the context of the story and the performance of the other players. It must acknowledge the reason for the performance. Is this comedy? Drama? Tragedy? His performance must somehow add to and build up the work of the performance as a whole. If the improvist goes in a radically different direction, it selfishly steals the spotlight, he forces the other players to work twice as hard to make the story coherent again.
It is so with role-playing games. When a player (and I mean player, not character) undluly steals the spotlight away from the story that the other players have agreed to play, then most of the time, it is a selfish act. I am flexible on this, to a degree.
For instance, I’ve seen characters that are “headstrong” that look before they leap. This has worked to a certain extent because it prevented people from analysis-paralysis, killing the pace of the activity. But they tempered their zeal to behave in only one way.
At the ugly end of that stick are the blood and thunder role-players, crashing through the door every time, rendering the contributions of the thief moot, denying the players the choice of how they will respond to the scenario. This is rude, selfish, and in any other game, would be like taking another player’s turn. While it is fun for the offending player, the other players pay for it. And, like the harried improvists, the other players must figure out why on earth they would ride around with such a liability. In such a case, the so-called “role-player” does his best to undermine the fundamental premise of a group of people riding out to work together to overcome a challenge. He makes it the other player’s problem to figure out a story reason why they would stay together. Though he claims to be an artistic purist, this kind of role-player succeeds in bleeding away the fragile plausibility, the consensuality of the activity. This kind of player doesn’t care for consensus.
Which brings me to the next point, closely related: Some people mistake role-playing for being an asshole. These are often people who seem to uphold the stereotype of the socially awkward geek gamer.
For a game to be fun, players must recognize that this is a real-life social situation, friends sitting at a table eating Cheezies and choosing to spend time with each other. For most people, it is escapist fare, and in the big picture, the lasting impression should be a good time. For that, there needs to be an element of cooperation and agreement with the DM and the other players about the kind of game that will be played. When one player, under the auspice of an evil character, decides to pick on another character, the result has always been a train wreck, in my experience.
-it hijacks the game, making it into a character fight, which is boring, rather than whatever the original story was (which would allow the players to interact with a scenario on their terms, rather than forcing them to deal with a character)
-it splits the party. How do you proceed when the fight is over?
-it makes players upset at being bullied
-it removes the ability of the DM to moderate or facilitate a fair conflict or a reasonable challenge
-it damages the cooperative aspect of the game
It's like having a guest pick fights at the dinner table. Everyone gets this "deer-caught-in-headlights" look on their face as they make jokes and try to defuse the personal hurt or anger that comes from someone hijacking an evening in such a way.
DMs must take care with this as well. *Players* should be expected to use their heads to avoid situations that seem dangerous or stupid. The inexperienced thief shouldn’t have to role-play getting his head chopped off by a guillotine blade if he spots the slot in the wall. The players should reasonably expect to avoid lifelike and sinister statues in a dungeon, even if they haven’t yet come to life in the past. Deny players these choices, however “true to role” they might be, and you remove the game from the activity. At that point, you are reciting a novel, forcing the players to be passive witnesses to the DMs construct. It may or may not be entertaining, but it isn’t interactive and it certainly has no game element. 8 hours may be a reasonable time to sit through a game, but it’s a long time to endure a performance.
There is a middle road in this debate, and that's what I like to take. Before the "role-player" camp dismisses me as unimaginative, do check out my contribution to the "Art, Sport, or Religion?" thread, where I outline more effective ways to include role-playing in these games.
Very true, Nephandus. I've seen plenty of players behave like total dicks under the aegis of "role-playing" - but I've seen at least the same amount, if not more, misbehave because they wanted so badly to "win the game." The middle road is good for me, too, though some of the combatants on this thread may not believe it. (c:
So I agree with what you were saying entirely, that players need to take the rest of the group into account before they take actions that they know will probably stall out the game. A friend of mine calls this "benign metagaming" - the understanding that a certain amount of cooperation is needed to make a game work, even when it goes against what your character would REALLY do in the situation. I.e., even if your character is a loner, you don't go splitting the party at every opportunity, because it's annoying and keeps the GM from moving the story along. This is basic etiquette for most gamers, and I support it fully.
However, your intelligent post didn't address the more prickly issues of dwhoward's rant - namely, that more extensive metagaming beyond what is needed to promote party unity is appropriate in nearly any given situation and that it is possible and necessary to win at RPGs. I disagree with those points, and will continue to do so unless some really amazing bit of evidence comes along (and in almost 200 posts, it hasn't). I'd be interested to hear what you think of those elements of the rant, if only because this thread desperately needs some new ideas if we're going to continue mucking around in it...
Thanks Gamerchick. From what I read, your analysis (and others) is a binary reductionist take on what dmhoward said. Plainly, dmhoward said, "I object to a single-minded focus on winning but I advocate a combination." I do not see anyone advocating an absolutist viewpoint, except those saying that one cannot win an RPG, and perhaps, if anyone is advocating that a DM has no place in setting limits on the kind of character or behavior that will be acceptable in the game.
It might help if we define “winning.” Is it possible to win and RPG? Yes and no.
The activity of an RPG is just that – a role-playing/game. We have aspects of role-assumption, and aspects of game. Remove the game, and we are left with theater sports (though poorly done and often cliche). Remove the elements of story, and we are left with a chess game. So I can assume that if we are playing an RPG, we have elements of game and story. If we lack either aspect, then it doesn’t matter what handbook you refer to, you are not playing a role-playing game.
So, what is a game? Here are 3 reasonable and relevant interpretations from Websters:
1. A calculated strategy or approach; a scheme
2. An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules:
3. A competitive activity or sport in which participants contend with each other according to a set of rules
In an RPG, or even in a story for that matter, there are a set of goals that must be achieved for the hero to be successful. Kirk must defeat Kahn. The One Ring must be thrown into the Crack of Doom. The Death Star must be destroyed. If these things occur, then it is reasonable to see that the hero has “won,” even if the story continues into a sequel. So, from a story standpoint, a hero can win, or fail.
By the same token, most major plotpoints and puzzles within an individual RPG involve a tactical approach, which will either succeed or fail. Do you reduce the Big Bad to 0 hitpoints? If you do, you win, at least for THIS day.
There are other more nuanced positions in which an individual character can sacrifice himself, while helping the party achieve victory. In one 2nd edition scenario, a DM had hopelessly and ridiculously overmatched our party, and due to a blunder in his description, did not allow us to properly prepare a spell sequence to protect ourselves. When we were out of magic and near death with no hope of withdrawal or quarter, I used a particular spell sequence (minor globe of invulnerability, phase door, and fireball), to incinerate the Big Bad along with myself. My character was dead, but as a player, I was pleased that the party lived, and moreover, that we had achieved an impossible task. The DM, realizing his mistake partway through the encounter, was trying to figure out a way to save us without being obvious. When the party lived AND we took out the bad guy, it was the sweetest victory I’ve ever had in the game, even though my character died. We surprised even the DM.
Can people win in pure role-playing? Well, it isn’t really a game, and as such, it is its own reward. But it is hard to apply terms such as “victory” to whether someone is able to express a rounded character to the rest of the knights of the dinner table. Even in much more free-form games, such as Vamp LARP, it is challenging to distinguish victory, because there are rarely any major plot arcs. In activities such as LARP, it is entirely appropriate and expected for the characters to generate their own stories as the result of their decisions or actions. Very little external plot is used.
This kind of play isn’t as successful in D&D though. You can play this way with D&D characters. Hell, you can even LARP them, but in doing so, you are not playing D&D, no matter how fun it is. You are using your D&D materials to do another kind of activity. D&D is characterized by a relatively unified party interacting with a plot and environment that is facilitated by the DM. When one player decides to grab the Mike and generate divergent plots that force the other players into his new game, then that player invalidates the DM's contribution. In all my years of playing, I've never seen that kind of player introduce a plot point that was MORE interesting than the one the ref already had going.
It's just basic courtesy. In a group creative venture, there will be a number of good ideas all around, but they won't all be compatible. To play anything, players and DMs must temper their zeal to stretch that group tether too far.
Moreover, even if one player feels it would take the evening to Shakespearean heights if his fighter "doesn't believe in magic," it doesn't mean that his wonderful character trait is more fun for everyone than a fighter who doesn't suffer this craziness. I'm not clear on what I mean there. Let me put it this way. If you are at a comedy club and you feel compelled to steal the mic from the entertainer, you'd better come up with something that is good for everyone. It's best to be mindful of the context. Use roleplaying to add flavour to the game, but don't use it to introduce drastic changes in plot, or to become another challenge that the players must solve. That role belongs to the DM, and there it should stay.
"Use roleplaying to add flavour to the game, but don't use it to introduce drastic changes in plot, or to become another challenge that the players must solve. That role belongs to the DM, and there it should stay."
I'll underline that point. In 3e, the game mechanics and probability curves are carefully designed so that a DM can gear a story's challenge level to a particular party's ability to meet that level. Besides making a kick ass story, the goal is to make sure it is challenging enough without overpowering. Player plots - the assholish kind, can degenerate into party fights. If characters don't die, at least the party will be depleted by the time they bother to do the DM the courtesy of engaging the exterior plot again.
For some reason, certain people just aren't interested in the adventures presented by their DM. They'd rather do some kind of free-form stream of consciousness thing where the adventure is secondary to the scheming. If even one player decides to go this route, the old game is over, and everyone will be forced to play the free-former's game. In such a case, you really don't need a DM for much, nor a story.
Personally, I've played it that way many times, and I don't care for it. But LARPERS love it. I was once bored to tears while a LARPer explained ad nauseum how her character had done this thing to the other person, and that she was like this or that. No matter how hard I tried to get "the story" or the plot from her, she was clueless. There was no story. There was no plot. There was no game, and what's more, she didn't even understand what I was asking for. She had a good time, but the experience was as personal and indulgent as a toddler's game of House. This was demonstrated even further when I eventually started LARPing. (I don't now).
Nephandus,
"Use roleplaying to add flavour to the game, but don't use it to introduce drastic changes in plot, or to become another challenge that the players must solve. That role belongs to the DM, and there it should stay."
I have to disagree. Allowing each individual player's plot to impact the main one, if the best reward for them trying hard. Some of the major plot twists, in fact, were brought about by one particular thief [whose name I shall not mention here, lest her spirit be summoned again], who, with a spirit of mischief [and greed], freed a time-travelling witch... and an ancient goddess of Pain. I think it was the party as a whole who freed the lich [and I don't imagine the cleric's player was very happy about it, when he tried to turn and had the holy symbol melt in his hands]. All of this was perfectly realistic; the GM knew in advance exactly what would be there, and from where they were, once the thief decided to swim the bay [and succeeded], she was permitted to interact with the locations/events there. It wasn't INTENDED per se, by the GM; who just had to know what was surrounding the players, and fill in the blanks [of perception] when they arrived.
As a GM, I don't mind players adding to the plot. In fact, I encourage it. There's a wonderful mix of intentions out there, and mine isn't to let the players walk through a gilded stage of my own design. If their plots can't impact the main storyline, I may as well run them with another character/game, because it's not going to matter there.
"I'll underline that point. In 3e, the game mechanics and probability curves are carefully designed so that a DM can gear a story's challenge level to a particular party's ability to meet that level."
I'd like to underline "3e", but this post mechanic won't accept HTML. All the examples I have seen, are of D&D. Perhaps this rant might benefit from an added "This is addressed to D&D."? I will allow as how these statements might be true in D&D; I've certainly seen nothing good about it. But D&D is not the sole game in existence, nor does everyone out there exclusively play D&D.
-Coilean mac Caiside
Coilean, as I indicated earlier in this thread, I've played over 10 different RPGs. I used D&D as an example in this case -one that is less successful, as opposed to Vamp LARP, where your form of play tends to be more successful. I did mention to reference that discussion earlier in the thread, but it was a long post. I'll clip my discussion of free-form playing after this thread, so you can see what I'm talking about.
The example you cited really isn't what I'm talking about. Your thief may have done something unexpected, but not entirely so, as your DM was Johnny-on-the-spot with ready knowledge of the consequences. I'm talking about the players who introduce a "plotpoint" in which their thief steals critical items from other party members. Or perhaps where, for no apparent reason, someone just decides to slaughter the innkeeper. These kinds of things hijack the story. It may be a somewhat entertaining story to focus on this, but is it really more interesting than the adventure the DM has prepared? I recall one frustrated DM for a group of "cowardly characters". He couldn't get them to accept the challenge! At some point, players need to acknowledge that no game will occur if they do not come to play it. Sitting at the dinner table and acting "in character" is not playing an RPG. The example of your thief seems to be well "within bounds." But if your thief "hated horses" for example, and killed them all, preventing the party from reaching an objective, then the player has actively chosen to become a liability.
"As a GM, I don't mind players adding to the plot. In fact, I encourage it. There's a wonderful mix of intentions out there, and mine isn't to let the players walk through a gilded stage of my own design. If their plots can't impact the main storyline, I may as well run them with another character/game, because it's not going to matter there."
Coilean, are you seriously trying to say that I've posited that players should not affect the plot?
Player decisions build the plot. The DM's enironment is the powder keg, the player actions are the match.
I actually quit playing when a particular DM constantly overruled even our tactical decisions. We basically had no contribution to offer the plot at all. In contrast, my games may have wonderfully guilded stages, but the players are the star.
Players should always engage the plot. But they should not knowingly and intentionally distract everyone from it. For example, one character decided to go exploring while he was "on watch." This delayed a routine rest session for nearly a real-time hour. One player went solo while the rest of the players doodled. Fully in character, and absolutely rude to the other players. The pace and fun of the game picked up when he got eaten on his wanderings, and thereafter, more people had more fun.
On player-generated plots in role-playing activities - I don't know if I'd class them as games. LARP, for instance fits here.
In most RPGs, there are moments where the odd player will exceed the internal assumption of their role, and elevate their participation to the level of performance, but these are somewhat rare.
I recall wonderful evenings of this in Mage, where rather than having players tell others who they were, we all gathered comfortably in a room without a table, and incorporated theater-games. As GM, familiar with their characters, I told them that over the course of the week, they had engaged in many conversations, and that we were about to give each other the highlights of those conversations. To do this, I facilitated an improv session where players acted out brief scenes from their character's childhoods (sometimes I participated in them).
We started with the "I am" game, where players adopted personas of people significant to their characters, and acted brief snapshots. I played too, showing them people important to the story. "I am Porthos, thundering down the hall in a pink bathrobe, my hair electric, my eyes arcing!"
I directed them with premise that they were waiting in a room talking (just as the players were), and then gave them relevant (to the plot) topics to talk about, as their characters. These conversations would never develop on their own, but with just enough direction, we hit all the important exposition points for each character, while each player introduced further elements of their characters. Some adopted accents. They moved differently. We experienced something very different from the normal game experience of "...so you're all in a tavern..."
These sessions were the only times I've played a tabletop where the backstories of the characters actually reached the level of an improv performance.
The thing is, non of what we did had anything to do with the rules of the game system - Mage. We did it to enhance our experience. It was part of the evening, but at that moment, we were doing more story than game. At points, participants were moved genuinely.
In either case, those performances informed our characters as we eventually got down to lighter fare, which was playing the RPG, engaging the prepared plot and game.
Then there is LARP. A lot of people love it. Not my cup of tea, but I can't begrudge the people who dig it. In this activity, there is virtually no exterior plot at all. Just a bunch of characters plotting against each other and "being." In this kind of activity, I think it would be quite challenging to successfully foist an exterior plot onto the action.
When we engage in these activities, we are perhaps all these things at one time or another. We come to them for different reasons, and do different things, even within the context of a single session. I'd say the activity is a constant negotiation between craft, art, performance, and game.
"Your thief may have done something unexpected, but not entirely so, as your DM was Johnny-on-the-spot with ready knowledge of the consequences."
It wasn't my thief, though :)
And the GM shouldn't be Tyrannical "You Can't Go There / Do This" because he hasn't planned ahead for it; it's called "improvise". Or just place the time on hold until you can figure out what happens next [deal with the other players for as long as you can, to buy yourself time; at the last, announce your game is being put off until next week, to give yourself time to build what's there. Make it clear who and why, then players should eventually restrict their meanderings to less extravagant or sudden means, if they want to contine playing again soon at any rate].
"I'm talking about the players who introduce a "plotpoint" in which their thief steals critical items from other party members."
It happened. My thief wasn't too thrilled about it, and suspected the other thief [who was living with her], but couldn't prove a thing [for politeness]. The stories I heard afterward, about her attempts to get in, made me laugh. And since the item still did remain within the party, and I had a chance to steal it back [to be fair, things were a lot more dangerous when she had it in her posession], it was all right.
"Or perhaps where, for no apparent reason, someone just decides to slaughter the innkeeper. These kinds of things hijack the story."
"for no APPARENT reason" It's mystery, and can be a PART of the plot. Realistically, through roleplaying, the other players/characters should be investigating this unexpected death ["He was poisoning our wine.", "I recognized him as a spy from earlier - by the way, his head and bounty belong entirely to me.", "He was undead. Look how his corpse is deteriorating?"].
"It may be a somewhat entertaining story to focus on this, but is it really more interesting than the adventure the DM has prepared?"
As a temporary diversion, these things work wonders. The GM just tells the player to pick an appropriate[ly entertaining] moment, and take a certain action.
"I recall one frustrated DM for a group of "cowardly characters"."
I gleefully recall the tale of the time this GM had a party with four thieves in it, all pretending to be fighters. They figured that, when they faced a true fight, they would kind of... "hang back"... and let the REAL fighters do all of the work ;)
"Coilean, are you seriously trying to say that I've posited that players should not affect the plot?"
Affecting it [moving it forward] is one thing. Adding to it [changing the plot itself] is quite another.
Having only challenges that the GM can think of, puts the entire game, literally, back at that "GM against the players"; by allowing the player's actions to have consequences that interfere with their success as well as aid it, you become more of a facilitator and less of an enemy.
"When one player decides to grab the Mike and generate divergent plots that force the other players into his new game, then that player invalidates the DM's contribution. In all my years of playing, I've never seen that kind of player introduce a plot point that was MORE interesting than the one the ref already had going."
I don't feel that the GM's contribution would be invalidated at all. Quite the opposite, if they handle it right [and there's scarcely any room for handling it -wrong-], to weave the new plot into the old plot even further, so that the other players are a part of it as much as they were ever part of YOUR old plot. It's like what you said about no game occurring with the cowardly characters; if you are a farmer, and sit all day in your rocking chair watching the army march past, can you really say you are not involved in that? It is your farmland they are marching past, after all. Yet, just because you do not go out there and attempt to influence them, or otherwise mingle your respective courses of destiny, will this mean you aren't involved in the plotline? Your average political plot has nothing to do with the man on the street, directly - but this does not mean the raised taxes will not eventually affect him. Ripples from the original stone thrown into the stream; player character's are just given a chance to interact with things, before anyone else does. There's nothing wrong with generating a plot that "forces" other players into itself, so long as you understand the similarity to "forcing" players into your own. The players aren't going to play yours unless they seem interesting; if, on the other hand, you keep everything tied together, you can use their interest's in someone else's plot to draw them into your own.
"I actually quit playing when a particular DM constantly overruled even our tactical decisions. We basically had no contribution to offer the plot at all. In contrast, my games may have wonderfully guilded stages, but the players are the star."
In contrast, don't let the player character's actions BE the story. I believe a GM is needed for what you termed "external" plots; that is, with Secrets which are not known to ANY player. And I really should be quiet here, because I am getting too far into future articles :)
For now, just see:
http://chrysanthemumroad.tripod.com/writing/Writings.htm
-Coilean mac Caiside
I don't think that it is necessary to have two games, one for role-players and one for tacticians. Most players enjoy variety and alternating between role-playing and tactical challenges would seem to be a good way to give it to them.
Later posts touch (but don't go into great detail) on what to do about people who use role-playing to take the spotlight unfairly. Splitting the game into "in-town" and "on adventure" segments is my solution that I believe fits the majority of games but others might have alternatives that they believe fit the majority of games. Some people may believe that most gamers could be made aware of how to role-play on adventure without taking the spotlight and diverting the game unproductively. "Benign metagaming" sounds like another alternative or blend of previous alternatives.
There is a little bit more, too, namely the definition of stealing the spotlight and unproductive role-playing. I would say that spending time to role-play a PC who does not know a troll by a player who has memorized all the statistics of a troll is unproductive. Once or twice in the course of a campaign, role-playing "not knowing" may be of interest. But I discourage gamers from doing that routinely or making the objective of the game. These players are probably not being malacious. (I'd say that) they are making a mistake and, in spite of best intentions, drawing focus away from the GM's challenge. I'd encourage them to find challenge or to push for greater challenge by taking some advantage of that metagame information rather than by seeking challenge through role-playing in that way.
Agreed dmhoward, on roleplaying ignorance. As a participant, as a player, is it more fun to pretend you don't know? Or is it more fun to use what you do know to "win" the challenge?
I like to acknowledge that a good portion of the activity is, in fact, a game - and I have usually found roleplaying ignorance to be less fun than using what I know to solve it. Especially at the "early levels" - do the players really have to "go through the motions" and use tactics they now know won't work, if only to role-play the experience of trying them? What's gained by doing this?
If purity of the story is that important, I'd rather work with the players to devise some device by which the characters may learn some special insight. A bestiary in the treasure for instance, or a gift, or perhaps it is just common knowledge, that a character might have from living in their environment. If I'm dealing with experienced players, I seed the story with various avenues to explain their familiarity, or lack thereof, of the story environment. Sometimes this means working with them on character creation to ensure their character fits with the other characters, and with the story itself.
Introducing a bestiary, a gift or common knowledge to explain away metagame knowledge are excellent ways to rationalize away the problem. With the PCs and the players aligned and having the same knowledge, the issue is moot and made harmless. We might quibble about whether the in-game part is required or is just a nicety but it is a minor point, not even worth the trouble of determining.
You can kill a troll by burying it beneath many tons of rock, but why not simply burn it?
You can kill a troll by burning it, but what if the GM has another special method designed?
You can accomplish any task by a single means, but why bother restricting yourself to only that one method later on? It negates creativity. It sounds like you would rather stick to the tried-and-true ways, not find something better [which may exist, or may not, but you'd never know]. I contend that only using the same basic tactics, over and over again, removes much of the creative aspect from gaming, especially when we are given no motivation, from our characters, to re-calculate a plan.
You have three doors. Behind one of them, lies life, another, death. The third hold great fortune. You've walked through the door that holds life, yet you're not interested in risking the fortune?
Now let's change the room a little bit. The door that formerly led to "life", leads now to... another room, just like the first. You have another chance. It seems to be that second change, the one which directly motivates you to find something -more-, in order to escape, which you are objecting to.
Number-crunching is not educational. Critical problem-solving, does build mental ability. What you encourage will lead straight to the former, while discouraging everyone from the latter.
-Coilean mac Caiside
Deciding on a strategy to tackle a foe (rocks or fire vs the troll), is hardly number crunching. I don't think anyone advocates such a stance.
There is certainly merit to introducing exceptions to surprise expert players, but this must be balanced against the effort involved. Surely a DM's time may be better allocated in developing a great story that will sustain interest for a long time, rather than re-writing the Monster Manual.
What of that virtue of gaming in your own Tao - namely Stability in a setting?
http://chrysanthemumroad.tripod.com/writing/Writings.htm
Most experienced players appreciate putting their knowledge to tactical use, and are intensely frustrated if they are prevented from doing so by their DM. It's a slippery slope too. I was a game in which the ref would not allow us to keep our distance from an obvious encounter site (a strange and malevolent statue) because our characters had not encountered such a thing previously. It was not fun, and while it may have preserved the purity of his narrative, he soon found that the group resented having their choices removed.
To continue your example of a troll encounter, I'd sooner make the obvious tactic more difficult to employ, rather than re-inventing the "constants" of the world.
Perhaps this one troll is immune to fire due to a special circumstance (ie some kind of magic or slime coating, or a water filled home). On the other hand, making all trolls immune to fire simply because you know players will use flame against them isn't really removing metagaming from the scenario. After all, the ref's switcheroo was designed to specifically foil the anticipated player tactic. It has little to do with the narrative. The surprise works only once, and after that, are your new trolls better to play with than the old ones (and are they tested)?
It is an absolute pleasure to bring a group of new players through an adventure, watching them figure out strategies for the critters when they aren't familiar with the source books. It may be possible to act that sense of discovery, but it isn't really that fun, and when I've seen players do it, it wasn't really especially convincing either.
Rather than affecting that troll only, why not affect the characters or the situation? Neither have some special exemption from tinkering. The characters are travelling through a swamp, with every piece of wood too soaked or damp to light in less than half an hour of working. The characters have NO WAY of making fire.
Maybe come up with a monster or two for which there IS no good, clean way of dealing with them, but make sure people can't just walk into every combat like a wargame. They [the players] know how to run fights against, say, a troll, or an ogre, or a dragon. Since they know what the capabilities of the monster are, what [exactly] do they need YOU for?
My point is that, the way you're describing it, there IS no "decision" between strategies - there is The Way to deal with something, which Works, and since it's established as safe, everyone uses that.
Then a group may walk through there WITHOUT the "bare essentials", all supplies and such, that would enable dealing with it... and have to put together their limited resources into a new way. Or die trying. After all, it isn't the GM's responsibility to make sure every problem has a way out - it is up to the PC's to SHOW it can be done.
-Coilean mac Caiside
Coilean, if you think about my post before trying to attack it, you'd find that we essentially agree.
How is the "water-filled home" and slimy environment I proposed even the slightest bit different from your wet "swamp?" in deterring the usual "fire attack"?
We make the same recommendation - rather than rewriting the Monster Manual, be creative in setting up a challenging encounter.
You seem so eager to cast me as a number-cruncher gamer that you are overlooking blatant similarities in our approach. Off the top of my head, I've laid out several ways of handling it, and you've just done shorthand on them in an apparently strenuous effort to disagree.
"Since they know what the capabilities of the monster are, what [exactly] do they need YOU [the ref] for?"
This like saying that once one has learned the permitted movements of each chess piece, he has outlived his use for an opponent.
"Coilean, if you think about my post before trying to attack it, you'd find that we essentially agree."
I noted that at first - however, as they say, it's all in the details.
"How is the "water-filled home" and slimy environment I proposed even the slightest bit different from your wet "swamp?" in deterring the usual "fire attack"?"
To quote you in full:
"To continue your example of a troll encounter, I'd sooner make the obvious tactic more difficult to employ, rather than re-inventing the "constants" of the world.
Perhaps this one troll is immune to fire due to a special circumstance (ie some kind of magic or slime coating, or a water filled home). On the other hand, making all trolls immune to fire simply because you know players will use flame against them isn't really removing metagaming from the scenario. After all, the ref's switcheroo was designed to specifically foil the anticipated player tactic. It has little to do with the narrative. The surprise works only once, and after that, are your new trolls better to play with than the old ones (and are they tested)?"
The first example you mentioned, involved changing the TROLL. After that, you added environment. It seems odd that you would stop so short of being thorough.
Again, the PC's are NOT granted any special exemption from tampering. There's no need to change "single trolls", as [any kind of] an "experiment", you needn't change the trolls, have a special circumstance, nor be designed to foil the metagaming - in fact, it can be worked right into the narrative. Trolls fear fire. Therefore, they naturally settle down in a place which does not have a high likelihood of spontaneous combustions [a troll living in, say, the middle of a very dusty grasslands would be dubious, because of the flash fires]. It is all to sadly [and commonly] a "constant" of the gaming world that PC's are "not to be messed with"; straightforward attacks, like monsters, that can be fought back against, are fine, and I won't go into the tangent of always giving the PC's a chance on this thread, but generally the PC's are allowed to obtain all of their equipment, bring it with them, and use it for the specified purpose without any difficulty.
NPC's are dealt with only once, it's easy to find different ones. Environment is a bit different, you have to deal with it for as long as you stay there [and with adventuring so often taking place in the "uncivilized" lands, where monsters were "displaced" to, they can seldom claim to exert any kind of choice over their surroundings]. But everywhere, EVERY SINGLE PLACE, that the PC's go to, they will have to deal with themselves.
Chess involves the idea that one person will be seeing something the other didn't. In the game, the GM would basically be saying that he was better or more trustworthy at figuring out what the monster's most effective tactic would be, and doing so - but the players can still roll all the dice themselves. If the players keep things as they are simply to minimize the work THEY have to do, that's one thing - but it can't be "please keep their HP's secret", because everyone knows the HP's of a troll [metagaming, remember?], and if they do it because they believe things will be EASIER against the GM, they are only turning it into "GM versus Players" again.
-Coilean mac Caiside
Coilean, I recognize that agreements in a thread can be boring, but so are semantics. It is courteous to assume the most reasonable interpretation of your partner’s point. Straw man arguments are not charitable.
Reading between posts, I’m still not sure what your stance is regarding role-playing ignorance. Looking back, I made the first comment in support of one of dmhoward’s positions, which was that expecting experienced PCs to role-play ignorance about a familiar tactical approach isn’t very fun.
My contribution was that DMs have options to explain metagame knowledge from within the narrative, more closely aligning the PC’s knowledge with that of the players. This skirts the drudgery of role-playing ignorance, while still maintaining the integrity of the narrative. The integrity of the story is as important to me as the game.
You criticized that point with some kind of argument against number-crunching and forcing players into pre-fab strategies.
“You can accomplish any task by a single means, but why bother restricting yourself to only that one method later on? It negates creativity.”
This appears to be a straw man, or perhaps an honest misinterpretation of our point. To my knowledge, no one has offered a point that says, “because a player is able use her metagame knowledge of tactical weaknesses, she should always use the same strategies.” But I’ll grant you, if anyone did make such an asinine argument, I would be pleased with your response to it. My point was not on what players should or must do, but rather, on how DMs should prepare to challenge experienced players.
In the troll examples, my magic and slime are applications, no different than armor on a PC. They are simply more tools in the DM’s kit, along with the environments that I also offered in the troll example. The DM can use them to change things without re-writing the Monster Manual (ie. changing fire-resistance to cold resistance), just to preserve the danger of novelty in an experienced player without meta-gaming much. I've never been keen on the idea of most intelligent monsters storing magic items when they could be using it. Surely, this point is somewhat banal though.
Your next paragraph, which is (once again) about settling your monsters in environments where they can protect their weaknesses, is an excellent point! I've made the same point twice so far, and counting. But it is worth repeating several times to our readers, so keep on, keepin’ on.
Changing the PCs (as you offer), is also another good idea, though I’d be very careful with it. Sometimes this can be an excellent way to throw them a twist – such as in the Tomb of Horrors, which separates players from their gear if they make a certain move. I’ve seen it done well, and I’ve seen it backfire, such as when our clumsy DM tried “depriving our party of spells” through a ham-fisted way of removing them from our spellcaster. Was it challenging? Sure was. Was it fun for the player who was the mage, whose unique contribution was removed as everyone else played on? Not one bit, and it lasted for 2 sessions. The same DM tried to whimsically blind me (as a thief) at the end of an adventure, without any special roll or spell. He thought it would be an interesting thing to play. Nobody else did, and we resented the DM for messing with our characters in such a way. (This was the same tyrannical DM who refused to let us avoid the obvious statue encounter – he was even worse as a player, but that’s another story). So, changing the PCs themselves is a risky venture, but it can be pulled off – though it is often done more successfully through some kind of game mechanic. Players like to keep their characters intact, and often resent DMs affecting them, except through game choices.
---------
Regarding the Chess simile. Your original statement was as follows:
"Since they know what the capabilities of the monster are, what [exactly] do they need YOU [the ref] for?"
To lay it out clear as crystal: in chess, there are relatively few moves that can be done. With very few exceptions, each kind of piece moves in one way. The board is restricted to a small grid. Yet there are nearly infinite permutations.
In the case of our loathesome trolls, they have more options available to them than the typical chess piece. They have fire resistance, reach, strength, and regeneration. The DM controls the environment in which they appear, as well as whatever strategies (ie pummelling with rocks from height) they employ, and even what goals they have. There are far more options available to the typical troll than there are for the typical bishop in a game of chess.
With that in mind, I think it is not accurate to say, as you did:
"Since they [the players] know what the capabilities of the monster are, what (exactly) do they need YOU [the GM] for?"
Even if a player is aware of the unique tactical potential of a troll, or of a bishop, it does not exactly reduce the ensuing tactical scenario to a singular routine strategy. If there are too many choices to predict what the bishop will do with its tiny range, there are certainly a lot more variables in the troll encounter.
Hence, “This like saying that once one has learned the permitted movements of each chess piece, he has outlived his use for an opponent” comes in response to your previous statement, which seems to say that once the players know the specifics of monster stats, there is no longer any game. Am I unfairly misinterpreting your position on the topic? Or do you have one?
Looking back to the original article from dmhoward, I see that we all appear to be in agreement on the basic point:
"Hey, you're the Gamemaster; you can invent new skills, creatures and traps to invalidate that knowledge if need be."
"Don't abandon role-playing, just mix it with a big portion of gaming."
Well said.
I've not read all the post, as they are tiring. For a Character to use what that character doesn’t have at any point in the game, to me is the only way to cheat in a role-playing game. Would you allow a character to use a weapon they do not posse - NO. Why then would you let them use other thing they do not posse. For a character to use intelligence, strength, or anything else they do not posse is cheating. The character is in the game not the player. If you let the player use their intelligence instead of the characters, are you also going to restrict that character to the player’s strength as well. I have had characters die because they used information that was not available to them. If you put all your points in strength and few in intelligence because you get better hits in battle, but then don’t play your characters intelligence you need to get out of role playing because you are a cheat and need to play something you can handle - like shoots and ladders.
View, you couldn't do us the courtesy of reading the posts in which we plumb the depths of this topic? Why join a discussion if you have no interest in seeing what other people think?
View, if any deviance between the player's "performance" and its reflective atttribute is cheating, how would you play a character that is more intelligent or charismatic than you, the player?
If your character has a high intelligence score, and you, as the player, cannot figure out the villian's plan, does that make you a cheater? A poor role-player? What if you have a high charisma, but you can't convince the other players to follow your plan?
Would you prefer a game mechanic to solve the problem for you? Say, roll under your intelligence score to see if you can figure out what the villain's plan is. If you win, then the DM could just tell you enough about the plan - the exact amount of knowledge that would be appropriate for the stat.
That way, you could just skip the contributions of those pesky players entirely, ensuring that each PC's performance reflects its respective statistic. If the player with average intelligence comes up with a brilliant plan that earns the applause of the other players, the DM would then have recourse to roll the dice to see if the player's character could actually come up with an idea like that. If not, then the DM could veto him. Great huh?
It would certainly prevent any cheating, if that is our goal.
Personally though, I think dmhoward and I are prepared to compromise on rigid notions of metagaming, if only to avoid the drudgery that would come from such a meticulous attention to detail. It is partly a GAME after all, and if games are not fun, then why bother?
I skimmed the posts that were so in-depth that they did not have a lot to do with the rant and read those that did.
If we have a player playing a character that has a very high intelligence, the DM does help (by suggestion). It’s a role-playing game. The goal - to role-play. I always believed that I was only playing against myself, can I play this character according to its abilities. I’ve played both brilliant and dumb characters, Characters with 18+ charisma and a 3 charisma.
The rant was in favor of giving characters abilities they did not have. If you want an intelligent character, give that character intelligence, but don’t put your points where it will be a better fighter and then play it intelligent. Those pesky players’ contributions should be to play their character with what they gave them – ROLE-PLAYING.
The fighting and wandering through the pits are great, this is why we play. It’s even greater when we take a group of people and have to work within the means of our characters. Giving a character intelligence that they do not have is the same as putting +5 great axe in their hand that they do not posses.
I’m not saying to play your character stupidly – just play the character within that characters means.