I played in my regular D&D 3.5 game last week. We had a lot of fun, but it also gave me a lot to think about.
First off, we had a nice beefy combat, which is heartening as it may indicate that the GM is in fact listening to people's input regarding what they'd like to see more of in the game (which has been an issue in the past). My brother and I had both requested "more fighting" (well, to be precise, it was more like "in the absence of engaging player-empowered story, more fighting"), and Joe delivered. Cool. At first I thought we were in for another limp session, retrieving an item from a friendly wizard. But then a bunch of evil magical creatures attacked the wizard's tower, and it was ON!
There was a Succubus, who set an Ettin (two-headed giant) on us, and then when we killed the Ettin and pursued her, she summoned a Vrock, which is a big vulture Demon. And we kicked their asses.
In ons sense, the fight was pretty tough. Both the Succubus and Vrock have hella resistances and immunities, and were shrugging off a lot of what we threw at 'em. On the other hand, all the monsters dropped pretty easily, if sometimes slowly, and I didn't really feel properly challenged.
Our party's big, seven total, all level 6, consisting of a Warforged [mechanical golem] Barbarian, Changeling Ranger, Human Fighter/Mageslayer, monkey-man Scout, Human Cleric/Stormlord, Human something-or-other (she won't tell anyone; seems to have rogue-like abilities with some spellcasting power), and Human Warmage [focused carpet-bombing type spellcaster](that's me). But it was more than that. The demons in question are higher Challenge Rating than our level, and should have had us jumping. But the DM just didn't utilize them very well. The Ettin charged straight at us, we hit it a b unch, it fell down. Later the demons stood in place and attacked until beaten. The Monster Manual entries even have a wealth of tactics info to be mined, none of which was used and most of which flatly contradicted by Joe's tactics. Things like, "Ettins prefer to ambush their victims rather than charge into a straight fight." The Succubus is supposed to be cowardly and underhanded, and try to embrace enemies to drain energy. Nothing like that happened. Hell, I even forgot the Vrock had wings. An Aerial charge with Power Attack could have really fucked us up. It would've been awesome.
I also caught a weird vibe amongst my teammates, too. Everyone in our group likes to talk big about balls-to-the-wall combat, playing smart and kicking ass. But when we finally do get a nice challenge to sink our teeth into, everyone's playing sort of obliviously and simply, with no thought to teamwork or anything. Like, when the Ettin charged, it caught our Ranger off by himself. As we ran up to help him, I cast a Fireball at the giant and used Bracers of Entangling Blast for less damage, but an Entangling effect (half speed, penalty to attack and defense) so the Ranger could get away before the Ettin clobbered him. And he did, but then two other guys ran right up to the range of the Ettin's clubs. They didn't even get to attack; they spent all their turn running. All they did was set themselves up to be pounded, harder than if they'd hung back and let the Ettin close to them, and so my Entangling Blast was kinda wasted. Sure, it got a good reaction around the room as my first time using it, lots of "cool!" and "good one, Joel." But it was kinda hollow, since it didn't really help.
There was stuff like that throughout the session. Like, I had my guy call out to the Ranger for info on the Ettin (i.e. Have him make a Knowledge: Nature check for strengths and weaknesses). Not only did the Ranger not have any ranks in Knowledge: Nature (!) but everyone was just kinda like, "it's an Ettin, just hit it." Well excuse me, but I don't know an Ettin from Adam, and my reading of D&D is that without K: Nature I'm supposed to assume my character doesn't either.
The most awkward tactical moment came when I cast a Flaming Sphere and rolled it into the Vrock's space. Flaming Sphere rolls around and deals 2d6 damage every turn, for 6 turns. That wasn't always enough to overcome the Vrock's Fire Resistance, but I was dealing a bit of damage most turns, in addition to pounding it with more spells. Sound strategy, right? Well, the DM ruled that the sphere was abstructing view of the Vrock. So ranged attackers had to move to one side in order to shoot it. And everyone started complaining that my sphere wasn't doing any good and was in fact hampering us and I should dispell it. I was like, "hell, no, we need all the damage we can get." I eventually managed to convince the group that no, the Sphere wasn't actually hindering us, since the shooters were able to get clear shots from the side (at no time had the sphere prevented a shot or caused it to miss), and it was doing a small amount of damage. So the Sphere was publically filed under "useful, but annoying."
The whole evening was some kind of Bizarro experience. These guys all talk tough about tactics and action, and I always felt like the odd man out, creating friction on the game with my desire for Story, Story, Story. But once I relaxed and decided to embrace the action-fest, it was like I was almost the only tactically-thinking player in the whole room, GM included. Nobody was going "hey! Stop thinking tactically!" but everyone kinda seemed like like tactics were a new, strange and confusing idea that they weren't quite sure how to deal with.
I'm ripping on the players pretty hard, so let me take time out and stress that I did have fun, moreso than I have in a long time in that campaign. It was just kinda. . .lacking, like a friendly basketball game that your team played shit on. . .you go home having enjoyed yourself, but the back of your mind all the shit that should have gone down better is nagging at you.
Also, full disclosure: I myself got a total pass from the GM, when I was contemplating using Shocking grasp just moments after establishing through my Knowledge: Planes check that the demons were immune to Electricity. He warned me and I changed my tactic. So it wasn't a case of "everyone's dumb, I'm smart". . .it was more like tactics in general weren't rewarded around the table, through positive or negative reinforcement. The only exception I can think of is maybe sending our Ranger to the tower when we spotted the Demons, to warn the Wizard of the attack. Which took him out of the fight for several rounds, but brought with him the firepower of the Wizard. So there was a nice cause and effect thing there. But I'm not convinced anyone was thinking, "hey, let's sacrifice several rounds of Ranger power to gain a couple of rounds of Wizard power!" or that the GM was thinking in terms of "reward decision with tactical benefits." It almost seems incidental that the action helped us in the fight.
So I dunno. I'm not sure if I'm mistaken about the players wanting tactical challenges, or if they need some time to adjust to the possibilities now that we're finally pouring on the action, or what. All comments/questions welcome. At the base of it I'm just wanting to reflect on the experience and see what I can come up with to apply to future games with this group.
Peace,
-Joel
At the very least, your write-up of the battle was very engaging--I think because it accurately captures some my own experiences playing D&D from both sides of the screen. It's a positive sign that your DM seems willing to adjust in order to give the players more of what they want. So as you communicate a desire for more tactical flexibility and challenges, perhaps you'll see it. One of the hardest things for me in DMing is setting appropriately challenging encounters for the PCs. Lucky dice rolls, innovative magic-item use, etc., frequently turn an encounter I thought would be a central fight into a sideshow, so it may just be a matter of experience for your DM. I've found that because D&D has so many official combat tactics and combat feats, DMs may be reluctant to provide a mechanical benefit for innovation, especially if the DM has to decide on the fly. The apparent solution would be to develop individual and team 'tricks' in advance, with the DM's knowledge so that he or she knows what to expect. The drawback is that if the trick is going to become a standard part of the party's arsenal, then it really should be a feat or skill or something.
Similarly, if the party develops in advance of a battle the benefits of team-work even using standard spells and abilities, both the players and the DM will be more comfortable actually putting those tactics into play. The DM may even create situations requiring the new tactics! (Or thwarting them.)
The key, I think, for the party to start using innovative tactics in battles is that the opponents must be tough enough in some way that innovative tactics are required to defeat it. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' and all that...
Mel
Hi Joel,
This is really the fulcrum of gamist D&D- system mastery and teamwork. It makes this kind of play hard for both players and GMs, in general.
On the player side you have to learn tons of rules and how the combinations of rules work together, and hopefully you have teammates who are on the same page and you can coordinate tactics with. Though there's obvious tactics and common optimized ones, the hardcore team will sit down and develop specific combinations of spells and tactics for their party build, even going as far as writing down specific tactics for the first couple of rounds. Or, for the truly hardcore, they map out their character builds together, and consider how choosing later feats and spells will keep them an effective party from level 1 to level 20.
And if you don't have that... well, you're as strong as your weakest link very often.
On the GM side, you're trying to prep a challenge for the players which is tactically interesting, challenging enough to take up your game time, but not so hard you're seriously in danger of PC death (for most games anyway, because getting a player to spend more time building a new character is disengaging, rather than engaging). Naturally, this magical difficulty level completely depends on the group playing and how hardcore they are as well.
This is why a lair of kobolds either is a nice introduction to hack and slash or your worst nightmare of guerilla warfare depending on how the GM plays them. As a GM, it's also tough because you're usually prepping at least 3 encounters per session, and you have to gauge it against your players, not just by their numbers, stats, etc. but by their teamwork and mastery of the system.
And, as an individual, you're also having to gauge the teamwork and such of your team as well, to decide on your character build and tactics. On one end, you could be like the hardcore team and choosing tactics and spells which work with specific tactics and feats, etc. of theirs, and on the other end, you're building self sufficient characters because you know the team will go through PCs as the tactically challenged keep trying to charge things which you shouldn't charge.
And the other problem is that because it's so team based, the viability of your (or anyone's) tactics will not show through unless there's actual teamwork to make it happen. If they can't already see why charging might not be a good idea compared to readying an action and taking a 5 foot step, then they're not going to give up the round or two it would take to try out anyone's specific recommendations.
An interesting hurdle is that there's tons of advice available on character builds, and very little on teamwork and tactics and utilzing the system choices to the best. In some part, I think it is because character build rules tend to be enforced pretty solidly in all D&D games, but actual rules in play tend to drift a lot based on the individual group. So an equally important factor is if anyone else in your group has actually played with AoO's or had the GM utilzed them intelligently against them, etc. If not, they probably think the rules are neat add-ons and not crucial information, compared to it being a key component of driving manuevering and tactics in D&D 3.0+.
Chris
Hi Joel,
Basically there's no point to tactics if you can't lose. If just rolling attack after attack will beat the monster, there's no point in flanking for example. In fact, to flank is losing - it's wasted effort for no gain - your going to win anyway, why fuck around?
I think rather than 'Why aren't they doing fancy tactics', the question might be 'Why was there very little chance of losing?'. Err, assuming there was little chance of losing - what's your estimate?
Quote from: Mel White on October 27, 2007, 10:26:13 AM
At the very least, your write-up of the battle was very engaging--I think because it accurately captures some my own experiences playing D&D from both sides of the screen.
Thanks, Mel; it's always gratifying when folks find my play reports appealing and not just a rambling mess. :)
Quote from: Mel White on October 27, 2007, 10:26:13 AM
It's a positive sign that your DM seems willing to adjust in order to give the players more of what they want. So as you communicate a desire for more tactical flexibility and challenges, perhaps you'll see it.
I heartily agree--I hope this trend only grows in the future, and I want to do everything I can to foster that.
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 27, 2007, 12:50:50 PM
On the player side you have to learn tons of rules and how the combinations of rules work together, and hopefully you have teammates who are on the same page and you can coordinate tactics with. Though there's obvious tactics and common optimized ones, the hardcore team will sit down and develop specific combinations of spells and tactics for their party build, even going as far as writing down specific tactics for the first couple of rounds. Or, for the truly hardcore, they map out their character builds together, and consider how choosing later feats and spells will keep them an effective party from level 1 to level 20.
And if you don't have that... well, you're as strong as your weakest link very often.
I guess we're not hardore,then. . .developing tactics beforehand doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. We're kind of haphazard and individual (remember one player hasn't even told anyone what her character class IS), then combat begins and we try to make it all come together. If I were to introduce this kind of planning I'd start small, like one little combo at a time: "Hey, Mister Ranger, how about when combat begins you close on my and let me cast Flame Arrow on all your ammunition?" If players see it in action they might go "hey! That's some cool shit! What else can we come up with?"
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 27, 2007, 12:50:50 PM
On the GM side, you're trying to prep a challenge for the players which is tactically interesting, challenging enough to take up your game time, but not so hard you're seriously in danger of PC death (for most games anyway, because getting a player to spend more time building a new character is disengaging, rather than engaging). Naturally, this magical difficulty level completely depends on the group playing and how hardcore they are as well.
I am aware of how tough this task is. I've found it a bit tricky even GMing at 2nd and 3d level. I guess I still kind of feel like employing
no tactics at all is pretty shoddy, especially when the first sentence of each creature's Combat entry contains a great and simple way to spice it up. But I'm wanting to tackle this pretty gently; it would be pretty crummy of me to ask for more of X in the game, get it, then rant and rave that X wasn't good enough (that's what forums are for, right? ;).
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 27, 2007, 12:50:50 PM
An interesting hurdle is that there's tons of advice available on character builds, and very little on teamwork and tactics and utilzing the system choices to the best. In some part, I think it is because character build rules tend to be enforced pretty solidly in all D&D games, but actual rules in play tend to drift a lot based on the individual group. So an equally important factor is if anyone else in your group has actually played with AoO's or had the GM utilzed them intelligently against them, etc. If not, they probably think the rules are neat add-ons and not crucial information, compared to it being a key component of driving manuevering and tactics in D&D 3.0+.
Word. One thing in this game that makes tactics difficult is that the rules are pretty shifty under Joe's jurisdiction. AoO's are applied kinda haphazardly, and he adds in (but not all the time) factors like Facing that have no place in D&D combat mechanics. And stuff like allowing Flanking "whenever it seems like the monster has a lot to worry about," or my Flaming Sphere granting the demon cover (which makes some sense but ain't covered in the spell).
So it's hard to gain any traction for the intelligent application of tactics. but again, I don't want to deluge the GM with cries of "you're doing everything
WRONG!" I did stand up for the correct application of Spell Resistance, since it affected an awesome and pivotal move by the Cleric. Joe had said the Vrock had "made his spell resistance roll" and I consulted the book quickly and spoke up, "Um, actually, the caster rolls to overcome the resistance." Joe told Matt, "Uh, OK, roll then." Matt did, succeeded, and fiished off the demom with a Holy Smite. Huzzah!
Quote from: Mel White on October 27, 2007, 10:26:13 AM
The key, I think, for the party to start using innovative tactics in battles is that the opponents must be tough enough in some way that innovative tactics are required to defeat it. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' and all that...
Quote from: Callan S. on October 28, 2007, 04:20:20 AM
Basically there's no point to tactics if you can't lose. If just rolling attack after attack will beat the monster, there's no point in flanking for example. In fact, to flank is losing - it's wasted effort for no gain - your going to win anyway, why fuck around?
I think rather than 'Why aren't they doing fancy tactics', the question might be 'Why was there very little chance of losing?'. Err, assuming there was little chance of losing - what's your estimate?
It's interesting that two people brought this up. In short, I agree. This has been one of the disappointing factors in the sporadic combat we've had so far. I was heartened when I saw some pretty tough opponents show up (though I'd have guessed the Ettin was higher; it's only CR 6), but the "monsters just stand there" deal kinda killed that, like I said. If the Vrock for example was flying around divebombing with his claws, we'd have had to think twice, especially our melee attackers. Oh, and my estimate: little chance, as played. One PC was fairly close to KO, but that's it. If the demons were played more to the hilt, there'd be a very real chance.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. This is great fodder for refining my houghts and grasping the issues involved. I just need to figure out constructive ways to take this know-how back to my group.
Peace,
-Joel
Hi Joel,
Shifty mechanics is death to tactical choice. Tactics are based on optimal choices, which in turn, only develop when there's a consistency to the options you have. If things shift under your feet constantly, "optimal choices" in one situation might become completely useless in the next, even identical situation. Like everyone has pointed out, fudgy stuff like "calling" a monster has made an SR roll means stuff like magic might work in one situation and not at all in another based on nothing more than whim.
At which point the tactics stop being how you use your character and instead how well you win favor with the GM.
Chris
Chris is right on here! If your DM doesn't know and apply the rules in the same fashion as everyone else at the table, tactics cannot function.
On lethality, I have this question: how many fighters per in game day happen in your campaign?
Finally, have you clarified with your DM that you seek a "tactical" game? It could be that your GM thinks you wants lots of exciting action, but doesn't want to get bogged down in trivia like attacks of opportunity or (apparently) spell resistance.
-Robert
Hi!
The last D&D that I played was AD&D 2d edition, so I am not sure that this is still the case in the following editions, but I remember that a very big reason people didn't like very tactical playing was the fact that the very best tactics, game-wise, didn't make any sense in the "shared imagined space". I mean, for example, the very good tactic of putting the party member with expendable hit points in the front of the group to be hit, with him risking nothing until the hp were lowered enough
So, if you "played very well AD&D", in the tactical sense, you destroyed the believability of the situation for other players.
The usual solution was the use of "rule zero" and having the GM disallows the most unbelievable results, and that discoraged the use of tactics.
In my experience, really tactical-inclined players didn't stay with D&D for long before changing game.
The plethora of special powers and funky tactics acts against real tactical play. Real tactics are called into being when people do NOT have a special attack that suits the situation, and instead have to manipulate the situation itself to their advantage. Characters with all these whizz-bang special powers and whatnot against similarly equipped monsters have little ability to predict their opponents actions, or deceive or mislead or conceal. Such characters also need specific opportunities to deliver their niche-signature attack, which is absolutely not tactics.
Try playing a simpler game, a game in which the playing field is more level, in which the opponents are more comprehensible. Under those circumstances actual tactical play will be both more important and more rewarding.
You know what games do the D&D-esque carefully orchestrated special-power-combo stuff really well? MMORPGs.
That's pretty much ALL they are. Makes accessibility pretty low...I can't hang with them at all...but for the devoted those games are all about skillful manipulation of all the resources at hand and exactly how and when to apply DOTs, HOTs, and all manner of other such stuff. And the rules only "shift" when there's an update and otherwise are quite consistently applied.
D&D's combat and feat system is like that...but it will never be able to do it as well.
Which is why I think D&D 4.0 and its move to be more MMORPG-like is rather doomed...going head to head in an area you can't hope to compete in.
I think your big problem is expecting gamist play when it looks like the group is after Sim.
As Callan said "I think rather than 'Why aren't they doing fancy tactics', the question might be 'Why was there very little chance of losing?'. Err, assuming there was little chance of losing - what's your estimate?"
Your group, including the GM dont look to be focusing on the 'step on up' as Ron put it, instead they are living the dream. They dont want their tactical choices to be a big determiner of what happens, they want an experience of battling against demons and Ettins that gives them a vicarious thrill. They want to charge into battle and slash away and for it to feel dangerous but not actually be dangerous. They're going to win, and though their may be some consequence to the combat it's not going to affect the outcome.
I'd suggest that the GM isnt all that interested or possibly capable of turning it into the real tactical challenge you seem to be looking for. You also hint that you've been frustrated in your attempts to turn the game towards "story, story, story". I think you may have to accept that you are the only member of the group in this game that is looking for these things. You seem to have a stable group that is enjoying the game as it is. Is this the case or do you see more signs of unhappiness?
If they are stable then you have to either learn to enjoy the game as it is or move on and start your own game that will give you what you are looking for. Possibly with a different system but I dont think it's impossible to do with D&D.
So how to keep a sim game fun for you? I find it's all about long term goals. Developing your character, where they are heading what they hope to obtain. These are all things that keep sim games going for me with D&D or Gurps or several others.
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 28, 2007, 01:00:41 PM
Shifty mechanics is death to tactical choice. Tactics are based on optimal choices, which in turn, only develop when there's a consistency to the options you have.
Wholeheartedly agreed. I've actually had issues in the past with this GM over consistency, and now I'm trying to take things reeeeal nice and slow and tactful-like, 'cause the way I previously addressed those issues was pretty ugly.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: Precious Villain on October 28, 2007, 01:43:06 PM
On lethality, I have this question: how many fighters per in game day happen in your campaign?
I'm tempted to say, "we've only had one Fighter the whole
campaign, plus one Barbarian." ;) But to answer your actual question, we average about one
fight a day, if that. And yes, that's totally broken RE D&D's expectations of resource management and such. I'm actually
longing for the day when I'll go, "Crap! I'm running out of spells!"
Quote from: Precious Villain on October 28, 2007, 01:43:06 PMFinally, have you clarified with your DM that you seek a "tactical" game? It could be that your GM thinks you wants lots of exciting action, but doesn't want to get bogged down in trivia like attacks of opportunity or (apparently) spell resistance.
Nope, I haven't. Like I've said above, I had assumed by everyone's talk that they were all into tactics. But the point's wel taken.
Peace,
-Joel
Moreno, all I can say is that 3.5 is a much more tactical beast than AD&D.
Quote from: Melinglor on October 30, 2007, 02:10:38 PM
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 28, 2007, 01:00:41 PM
Shifty mechanics is death to tactical choice. Tactics are based on optimal choices, which in turn, only develop when there's a consistency to the options you have.
Wholeheartedly agreed. I've actually had issues in the past with this GM over consistency, and now I'm trying to take things reeeeal nice and slow and tactful-like, 'cause the way I previously addressed those issues was pretty ugly.
I'd like to say, I used to think it was shifty mechanics that were death to tactical choice. I think I've got some posts on the forge about it.
But really when someone shifts the mechanics, without any note of a care or concern, it shows they don't give a crap about your step on up. They're screwing with your step on up, but it doesn't register to them that that matters in any way. Sadly this shows that to begin with, they didn't give a crap about your step on up. It's a bit hard, because in a game like chess the two players can be quite calm and collected
and yet you know they care about the step up. So when a roleplay GM is calm and collected, you could think he also cares about step on up.
Further in terms of shifty mechanics being a non issue - if a GM goes shifty on the mechanics, then says 'I just went shifty on the mechanics, I
know this is going to make it so much harder. Can you beat it? Can you do it!? I gotta know!' and he's like on the edge of his seat and almost looks like he's hurting to know, I'd say gamism is in full session. The shifty mechanics don't mean anything by themselves - it's the recognition that's key. But when you get shifty mechanics and no recognition, damn, bad sign!
Note: And to make things even more complex, some GM's ARE gamist, but don't realise that being shifty on the mechanics makes things harder, so they grant no further recognition for that significant rise in difficulty. But this is a matter of gamist honour, rather than lack of gamism.
Quote from: Callan S. on October 30, 2007, 07:24:06 PM
But really when someone shifts the mechanics, without any note of a care or concern, it shows they don't give a crap about your step on up. They're screwing with your step on up, but it doesn't register to them that that matters in any way.
Yeah.
YEAH. That's exactly what it feels like. I find the GM inscrutable and often seemingly apathetic, and completely out of touch with what I (and I had assumed, many of my fellows) are trying to do. Like having an NPC jump in and save our asses from some dungeon monster when we're
barely getting warmed up. Or sending us to places where there's frikkin
nothing happening. And then, of course, screwing with us when we
do have a cool challenge going on. Oy.
Peace,
-Joel
OK, now I've got time to answer the rest of the recent posts:
Hi, Gareth!
Quote from: contracycle on October 29, 2007, 05:55:07 AM
The plethora of special powers and funky tactics acts against real tactical play. Real tactics are called into being when people do NOT have a special attack that suits the situation, and instead have to manipulate the situation itself to their advantage.
I can see where you're coming from here. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though. toned down fantasy elements? No fantasy elements at all? Or is it more about how the system models actions, with too much focus on specific feat- and spell-based options? I can buy that, except that if it's a fantasy game with combat magic you're going to have to account for that magic in some meaningful way; it really is going to be a "special attack that suits the situation" or else it's going to gyp the magic-using player something fierce.
Peace,
-Joel
Oops,forgot this part of the above post:
Quote from: contracycle on October 29, 2007, 05:55:07 AM
Try playing a simpler game, a game in which the playing field is more level, in which the opponents are more comprehensible. Under those circumstances actual tactical play will be both more important and more rewarding.
Any reccommendations? I've played Beast Hunters and loved it. What other streamlined, gamist-facilitating games are out there?
Quote from: Valamir on October 29, 2007, 10:35:09 AM
You know what games do the D&D-esque carefully orchestrated special-power-combo stuff really well? MMORPGs.
That's pretty much ALL they are. Makes accessibility pretty low...I can't hang with them at all...but for the devoted those games are all about skillful manipulation of all the resources at hand and exactly how and when to apply DOTs, HOTs, and all manner of other such stuff. And the rules only "shift" when there's an update and otherwise are quite consistently applied.
That's a good observation, Ralph. I can only say that for
me, I've found MMORPG play rather dissatisfying. I think it's the real-time nature of the affair; it tends to be a chaotic mess of graphics and sound that's over in a flash, no time to savor the moment and no chance to transform the application of mechanics into a satisfying and cool action scene. I like turn-based strategy like the various Tactics computer games, but there's not really a multiplayer version of that and I'm not sure how that helps scratch the itch in a face to face setting.
Peace,
-Joel
Hi, Callan,
Quote from: Caldis on October 29, 2007, 01:45:36 PM
I think your big problem is expecting gamist play when it looks like the group is after Sim.
[SNIP]
I'd suggest that the GM isnt all that interested or possibly capable of turning it into the real tactical challenge you seem to be looking for. You also hint that you've been frustrated in your attempts to turn the game towards "story, story, story". I think you may have to accept that you are the only member of the group in this game that is looking for these things. You seem to have a stable group that is enjoying the game as it is. Is this the case or do you see more signs of unhappiness?
First, I'd say you're probably right, inasmuch as the group knows what they want. What individual palyers SAY they want, and what they actually DO, both shift around a bit and it often seems like folk want to have kind of. . .
everything, in varying degree.
In this particular campaign (Joe rotates time with myself and another DM in the group), there's some unrest from a minority including me, but most of the group seems to enjoy themselves just fine. In other campaigns, the unrest seems greater.
Quote from: Caldis on October 29, 2007, 01:45:36 PM
So how to keep a sim game fun for you? I find it's all about long term goals. Developing your character, where they are heading what they hope to obtain. These are all things that keep sim games going for me with D&D or Gurps or several others.
I'm down with that. Actually, that's a lot of what I look for in a game in general--it keeps Sim interesting, and is a good foundation for Nar play. Problem is, I
have tried that in this campaign, and been rebuffed:
Me, after asking for chargen guidance and being told to "make anything": "So I've got a Warmage who was a thrall to the Red Wizards of Thay who razed his village; he's deserted and now wants to gather support to topple the Red Wizards."
Joe: "You're recruited [as are all the PCs] by an organization which tells you you're the chosen ones who must save the Universe from destruction, somehow, someday."
Me: "I tell 'em I'll be happy to help them out if they hellp me topple the Wizards."
Joe, as the organization leader: "We won't be doing that, the universe thing is more important."
Me: "OK, on my downtime I hit the streets to find pockets of support for bringing down the Wizards."
Joe, following a pretty good Gather Information roll: "You find nothing."
Me: "........"
At that early point, I decided, OK, the GM's told me that my personal goals are
outsiode the scope of the campaign. So I figured I'd just focus on the combat challenges, only to find that was a bust too. And here I sit.
Thing is, at least one other player is successfully pursuing goals. His Mageslayer PC is a psycho serial killer who stalks and kills spellcasters of all kinds, and would dearly love to off all the casters in the party. He's had
something cooking where he goes off on his own and plays with the GM in secret. I've talked to him about it, and whatever it is, he's excited about it and can't wait for it to come to light before the group, but doesn't want it to get out too soon. On a gather info roll, Joe fed me a rumor that I think MIGHT have related to the PC's plan; at least it was the grisly murder in of a spellcaster in town. But when I recruited a couple of PCs to investigate, we spent the whole night making Gather Infor and Search checks (good ones, too!) only tin find that there were no clues to lead back to the perpetrator. I smell a rat.
Nobody else is really pursuing any goals, beyond "hobbies": the Barbarian's an alchemist, and the Ranger is intent on hunting every rare beast he can find. Aside from that,everyone's just goin' along, with one PC hatching plans and being shut down, and one other hatching them and being rewarded.
So yeah, I don't really know
where to look for enjoyment in this game.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: Melinglor on October 31, 2007, 01:49:58 AM
Any reccommendations? I've played Beast Hunters and loved it. What other streamlined, gamist-facilitating games are out there?
Well, I'm not sure you have to go that far. Rather, restrict your focus. IME all the articulation of special powers is kinda paralysing; you think, you tend to think in terms of having X power, or not, and not being able to act effectively if you do not. You don;t necessarily need to switch systems so much as make the use of the system, rather than character definition, important. A game with your existing rules, but with fewer options may prompt more creative problem solving etc. Specify a culture or area from which all characters must come; abandon the idea that your game-at-the-table can incorporate any character in the world. Limit the choices available and I expect you will see more attempts to achieve success by Doing Things, by manipulating the situation, rather than being the solution personified.
Quote from: Melinglor on October 31, 2007, 01:52:52 AM
At that early point, I decided, OK, the GM's told me that my personal goals are outsiode the scope of the campaign. So I figured I'd just focus on the combat challenges, only to find that was a bust too. And here I sit.
Again it looks like CA conflict to me. You are being stymied when you look for either gamist or narrativist gameplay. In sim what is important is things that define what the character is or has. So I'd look for things like gaining spells, building a wizards tower to do research, gaining followers. Things like that, not goals that define who your characters is but things that define what he has and what he is capable of. For some people that's rewarding, Valamir mentioned MMO's and I think this is a big reward for most of those games.
QuoteThing is, at least one other player is successfully pursuing goals. His Mageslayer PC is a psycho serial killer who stalks and kills spellcasters of all kinds, and would dearly love to off all the casters in the party. He's had something cooking where he goes off on his own and plays with the GM in secret. I've talked to him about it, and whatever it is, he's excited about it and can't wait for it to come to light before the group, but doesn't want it to get out too soon. On a gather info roll, Joe fed me a rumor that I think MIGHT have related to the PC's plan; at least it was the grisly murder in of a spellcaster in town. But when I recruited a couple of PCs to investigate, we spent the whole night making Gather Infor and Search checks (good ones, too!) only tin find that there were no clues to lead back to the perpetrator. I smell a rat.
With the limited information you've given here it's hard to say what is going on. I'd guess it's a little side adventure, much like when your group enters combat it's not a question of how the scenario turns out rather an opportunity to showcase his role as a psycho killer. Why he allows this side quest and not yours, I cant say for sure, my best guess would be that your idea doesnt fit in with his world view but it could also be a personality thing (favoring a buddy).
I'm sure the gm and the player think this is a really cool idea and are having fun with it. However meshing it with the rest of the group is going to be a tricky situation. I've seen several of these things that hint at intraparty conflict not turn out well. So you could have some problems in the future regardless of your lack of interest in what's being provided.
QuoteSo yeah, I don't really know where to look for enjoyment in this game.
That's the tough part and the answer easily could be this game isnt for you. You might have to move on to something else with a different group or at least with you running the game rather than playing.
If you do want to change the game in a more tactful manner this time I think your first step is finding out if anyone else really wants change. As you've already noticed what people say and what they actually want can sometimes be different things. I really doubt you'll be able to interest the gm in more tactical play because it sounds like he's interested in other things.
You might have more luck if you try and get something going like the side bit the mageslayer is doing. It might not be taking down the Red Wizards like you originally intended but maybe you can discuss some other possibilites with him.
Joel, why are you playing in this game?
I don't think there's a CA conflict, because it seems like most players in your group are not playing with a purpose. Instead, I think you're bumping up against two related issues here: your group seems to play a lot more casually, and certainly without reflection of their own play styles.
I don't think casual play is tied to Sim at all, like other comments have indicated. I think that many players in your group put their social agenda first: they're there to hang out with friends and roll some dice, put some creativity in here and a bit of effort in there. But I don't see, from your account, anyone but you actually being focused on a creative or technical agenda. The common symptoms of this casual attitude toward play are lack of real threats to the characters (so you can just keep on going without being worried), fudging to keep the game flowing without a bump, waiving of rules for the same reason, lots of reliance on the GM providing the content of the SIS, and so on. That's why you haven't encountered many combats before, because the group is more into "let's hang out a bit and talk a little" mode, and combat is stressful unless you make it flat and fudge a lot.
I had a casual player in my AD&D 2e group. He usually came to the game not quite remembering where we were. He never learned the rules much. He didn't pay that much attention, either. It's a miracle, with the old-school Gamist GM we had, that his character survived for as long as he did. They're still playing together.
Secondly, it seems as though the GM, who you said is acting without regard to what it's doing to your play style, is not in that mindset of fulfilling player goals. He's in the mindset of playing "properly," in whichever way he's learned to do that. I've bumped up against this so many fucking times, it annoys me to no end. But it's not the fault of the players involved. There's just a plethora of preconceived notions about how RPGs should be played, and they are often contradictory and don't serve especially well to make the game fun for the players.
Now, what to do about all this? The first concern, casual versus focused play, is tough. If people's input to the game is casual whereas you'd really like to get into it, there's going to be friction or else the GM will have to somehow balance these out, and that's a lot of stress for the GM, or else frustrating for the players who are now suddenly expected to put effort into what they see as a relaxed leisure activity.
The second one you might be able to address with your GM by elaborating on what you are looking for in the game. You've already tried this, I know, but it takes a while to get a GM from "this is how RPing is supposed to go" to "this is how I can make this the most fun for my players."
So I wish you good luck, and hopefully all the feedback in this thread will help you in the end to work things out with the group (or find other players :).
Quote from: contracycle on October 31, 2007, 08:04:53 AM
Well, I'm not sure you have to go that far. Rather, restrict your focus. IME all the articulation of special powers is kinda paralysing; you think, you tend to think in terms of having X power, or not, and not being able to act effectively if you do not. You don;t necessarily need to switch systems so much as make the use of the system, rather than character definition, important. A game with your existing rules, but with fewer options may prompt more creative problem solving etc. Specify a culture or area from which all characters must come; abandon the idea that your game-at-the-table can incorporate any character in the world. Limit the choices available and I expect you will see more attempts to achieve success by Doing Things, by manipulating the situation, rather than being the solution personified.
OK, I misunderstood you I guess. Honestly, I'm not sure how effective (or even possible) it would be to move D&D away from the "articulation of special powers." It's pretty hard-wired into the system. You wanna trip your opponent? Then Combat Expertise and Improved Trip. You wanna fake out your opponent? Then Improved Feint. And so on and so on.
Doesn't seem to me that restricting region is going to solve much. D&D largely doesn't
care where a person comes from, except for the nod to Species background. A Spiked-chain-wielding fighter or Evocation-specializing Wizard are gonna be the same no matter where they grew up.
I like the cut of your jib. But I don't think D&D is really the place to put that jib into practice.
Peace,
-Joel
Basically Joel, you can't make someone challenge you. If they have a challenge in mind for you, asking for it will work. But you can't make them challenge you. You can only ever wait passively for the challenge to come. And it aint gunna come. Or you can run your own games and throw down challenges, daring people to even try, until they decide you deserve to have yourself face a gauntlet or two.
Same goes for 'story', if I'm not way off in thinking its nar. You can't make someone challenge you narrativistically, nar challenge being like 'Hey, would your character do X to avenge the death of his sister!??? Would he go that far?'. You can't force them, you can't do anything, only passively wait. And it aint gunna come. Or again, run your own games full of that nar throw down.
I know the group is a community full of life and that seems like it has the potential to do the above at some point. But does it?
Quote from: Caldis on October 31, 2007, 10:22:27 AM
Again it looks like CA conflict to me. You are being stymied when you look for either gamist or narrativist gameplay. In sim what is important is things that define what the character is or has. So I'd look for things like gaining spells, building a wizards tower to do research, gaining followers. Things like that, not goals that define who your characters is but things that define what he has and what he is capable of. For some people that's rewarding, Valamir mentioned MMO's and I think this is a big reward for most of those games.
Hmm. Seems like it's an unwarranted knock against Sim to say it's only good for exploring what you have and not who you are. it may not go to the depths of Nar in really hammering the "what would you do to get what you want?" (the good ol' "even now? even
now?") But surely Sim is just fine with characters
wanting something, and pursuing it. And that something can be "revenge on those who killed my parents" just as easily as "Get my own stronghold, or better spells, or a +3 Vorpal weapon."
Now whether more grandiose goals are possible in
this game, is another matter. I tend to think it depends on the goal, and possibly a bit on how much the GM likes you. The Mageslayer guy is doing just great pursuing pretty ambitious plans (the GM keeps lamenting how he's "screwing everything up" while chuckling appreciatively), while my plans just have no traction. I do have a plan hatching that's more in line with what you're talking about (gaining new spells, etc) which involves my PC having an epiphany regarding the nature of Magic and seeking a different breed of spells via a prestige class. I think Joe might go for that more, and I plan to bring it up with him next time we play his game.
Peace,
-Joel
Hi, Christian!
Quote from: xenopulse on October 31, 2007, 02:01:03 PM
I don't think there's a CA conflict, because it seems like most players in your group are not playing with a purpose. Instead, I think you're bumping up against two related issues here: your group seems to play a lot more casually, and certainly without reflection of their own play styles.
[SNIP]
Secondly, it seems as though the GM, who you said is acting without regard to what it's doing to your play style, is not in that mindset of fulfilling player goals. He's in the mindset of playing "properly," in whichever way he's learned to do that. I've bumped up against this so many fucking times, it annoys me to no end. But it's not the fault of the players involved. There's just a plethora of preconceived notions about how RPGs should be played, and they are often contradictory and don't serve especially well to make the game fun for the players.
These are both really insightful observations. When I had a big game-dissatisfaction powwow recently (which went reasonably well), that was one issue that was brought up--that we game to hang out, and the socialization is at least as important as the game. My own feeling is that yes, the socialization is absolutely vitally important to me, but I also want the game to be awesome. Ihaving gamed together several times ourselves, Christian, I believe you'd join me in attesting that this is eminently possible. :)
And it's not like nobody ever shows any interest in having an awesome game. It just seems that their stated desire doesn't always match up with the effort to make aweslome happen.
And, leading into your second observation, not everyone has the same standards of awesome. There's a lot of "how you roleplay" assumptions flying around the room largely unstated, and occasionally conflicting. I often get a vibe off this GM of "it's not me, it's the world." Not ever quite stated outright like that, but an underlying implication that that's just "the way things are," divorced from any real-world responsibility of the participants. Like, "No, it was't
me who refused to let you have your Red Wizards quest, it's just this NPC, see. . ." or "It's not my fault that the first dungeon on the map that you visited was, like, two rooms and had nothing in it, it's just a fact about the world." Any time I raise an issue like "this wasn't so much fun for me because. . ." the answer is invariably "well, it HAD to be this way because. . ." So ugh.
I do see this session as a baby step toward providing what I'm asking for. SO Things may be looking up, and what I;m seeing is more an excercising of atrophied muscles than a sign that they just can't or won't provide what I want. We'll see. But the more I examine the game the more negative things seem. That's the curse of these kinds of threads sometimes.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: James_Nostack on October 31, 2007, 11:11:59 AM
Joel, why are you playing in this game?
Well, that's the 64 thousand dollar question, isn't it?
A lot of the answer lies in what I just said to Christian: it's social. These are people who by and large I like and want to hang out with, and this is the setting where we all have the time carved out of our schedules to do that. A lot of them are casual acquaintances, but a couple of them are closer than that and for that reason this time means a lot to me.
Another reason: there are a few people in the group that I have enjoyed gaming with and wish to continue to do so. The frequency of that enjoyment varies with the game and from person to person, but there's gaming gold there, and I'd be sad to give it up. And unfortunately the group kind of comes in a package--no one else is willing to quit, and they don't really have time to set up another game for me without the folks I don't enjoy playing with. in particular, this GM I'm so frustrated with is a close, close friend of one of my favorite players and closest friends.
And final reason: this isn't the only campaign. He rotates time with myself and another GM (the "closest friend" I just mentioned). I have dissatisfaction issues with all the campaigns, but I'm working toward inproving that in both playing and GMing techniques, and this campaign is easily my l\east favorite and therefore not a representative sample. As for why I don't just drop out of that one and keep the others, I'm seriously considering it. I'm giving it a bit of time to see if my dissatisfaction can be addressed before closing the book on it.
So it's not an ideal situation by any means, but I'm examining that and trying to improve things in a non-pushy way. I wrote about my frustrations here (http://www.i-would-knife-fight-a-man.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2075&page=1#Comment_36780), in fact, which includes chronicling a mostly positive bull session addressing my frustration. I think my main avenue for change is wrapping up my current campaign and starting something new like TSoY which would show, not tell, what I'm looking for in gaming. And I've actually got several people excited about the prospect of
ending a campaign deliberately and satisfyingly--they're like, "wow, we've never seen an RPG campaign
do that before!" :)
Peace,
-Joel
QuoteSo it's not an ideal situation by any means, but I'm examining that and trying to improve things in a non-pushy way. I wrote about my frustrations here, in fact, which includes chronicling a mostly positive bull session addressing my frustration. I think my main avenue for change is wrapping up my current campaign and starting something new like TSoY which would show, not tell, what I'm looking for in gaming. And I've actually got several people excited about the prospect of ending a campaign deliberately and satisfyingly--they're like, "wow, we've never seen an RPG campaign do that before!" :)
I think that you are onto something here -- you're in a diverse group of people who want different things from a roleplaying session. You could be a positive factor for change and/or awareness by running a campaign the 'right way' and explaining
why you do some things differently from as usual, and what you hope to accomplish by doing these things differently.
TSoY would be good for this, as would Reign -- it has a very nice combat system, and deliberately breaks some entrenched D&D-isms. If D&D -- or any of its clones -- is the system of choice, I suggest axing the raise dead spells; knowing you can always come back from the dead, cheapens life.
Quote from: Grex on November 01, 2007, 07:34:54 AM
You could be a positive factor for change and/or awareness by running a campaign the 'right way'
Well, I'd replace "right way" with "the way I like," but pretty much.
I'm not familiar with Reign. If it makes a good "gateway game" for D&D players I'minterested in hearing more, but I think TSoY will probably do fine for me as I already own it (and harbor a great throbbing sweaty man-love for it). But then again,if Reign is more tactical, then that could be good for scratching
that itch.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: Melinglor on November 01, 2007, 01:09:25 AM
Hmm. Seems like it's an unwarranted knock against Sim to say it's only good for exploring what you have and not who you are. it may not go to the depths of Nar in really hammering the "what would you do to get what you want?" (the good ol' "even now? even now?") But surely Sim is just fine with characters wanting something, and pursuing it. And that something can be "revenge on those who killed my parents" just as easily as "Get my own stronghold, or better spells, or a +3 Vorpal weapon."
Yes Sim can handle a character wanting to get revenge or take down the Red Wizards but the point is that's not the focus of the game. With Sim that stuff can be put off till far in the future when it makes sense given the game world, in D&D that would likely mean once you reach epic levels. Until then you need the shorter term goals like I mentioned developing spells or gaining power or as others have done persuing hobbies. You are looking for a quicker return on investment then what the sim game is providing (if it is sim, it's possible Xeno is right but your talk of different assumptions of play sounds spot on CA to me).
I think you are on the right track with developing your own game in a satisfying manner, that sounds fully plausible and possible. This game sounds like it wont be easy to change, you have at least an Agenda problem if not conflict. You are trying to achieve one in play and your efforts arent being hampered by others, either actively or passively. I would suspect they will be resistant to change within this game, especially the gm and the player with the secret they are enjoying what is going on.
Your options are either to sit back and relax, do what the others are doing and enjoy the social environment if not the gameplay and save that for when you run games, or to bow out of the game and focus your efforts elsewhere. This self questioning process may have brought up all the negatives and makes the game seem worse than it is right now so I'd suggest you dont run into anything. Try it out, see if you can play the game the way it is without any changes and if not try to bow out gracefully.
Yep Joel--I'd be right there with you in focusing on the game and putting lots of effort into it, while at the same time enjoying the social aspect. I can't afford casual gaming anymore, because my time is so damn precious.
If you can step back and be more casual about the game, that might be the way to save it for you. It's not a bad thing to play casually if people enjoy that enough. You'd just have to change your expectations.
Just a quick note to clarify a misunderstanding about Sim play...
I've struggled with the concepts of GNS for a good while, and while my understandings are not 100%, I've boiled down Simulationist pretty well, as every indicator points toward it being my preferred agenda of play. In general, while Narrativist and Gamist play usually strongly include exploration, Simulationist's hallmark is that it makes exploration the main point. Exploration does not, by any means, refer only to setting or story, however. Simulationist exploration may, and frequently does, include any or all of the following elements: Setting, Color, Story, Situation, Character and System.
So it can be a strong simulationist agenda to pursue the Red Wizards, or it can be narrativist. What determines which one it falls under is the reason behind the pursuit. Are you doing it because your character was wronged, and you want him to get vengeance? Probably sim. Are you doing it to explore the themes of vengeance, hatred and redemption? Probably nar.
The sheer wide-openness of Simulationist play is the main reason, I think, that so many people have tried to say that it's not even a Creative Agenda unto itself.
Anyhow, off that topic...
Joel,
Something I'm also noting is that the lack of direction/responsibility isn't necessarily all the GM's fault. The same assumptions on the part of the GM (it's just part of the world) are probably well set into most of your fellow players, as well. They accept that the dungeon wasn't a puddle of awesome, because the world just has some boring dungeons. They accept that their plot ideas aren't a big deal because they aren't a big deal in the world. So basically, the GM is running it the way he knows how, and the other players are reinforcing his belief that it's the only way.
Your ideas put forth earlier in the thread, about encouraging tactics in combat, are a good start. Another thing you may try is taking interest in your fellow players' ideas for story. If someone else has an interesting backstory element going ignored, get interested in play. If someone else has an idea that sounds cool or fun, get behind it 100%. Then it'll be more than just one player pushing the story, and the GM may take notice. Also, it'll help encourage the idea that player investment in other people's characters is acceptable and fun, so next time you want to push something forward, you'll have some support.
Unless everyone else in the game is utterly content with how things are going, and are resistant to trying new ideas, you've still got hope. I've been in both kinds of groups.. In some, I was able to increase the awesome, in others, I only increased my own, and everyone else's, frustration.
Good luck, either way.
Quote from: Caldis on November 01, 2007, 11:38:21 AM
Yes Sim can handle a character wanting to get revenge or take down the Red Wizards but the point is that's not the focus of the game. With Sim that stuff can be put off till far in the future when it makes sense given the game world, in D&D that would likely mean once you reach epic levels. Until then you need the shorter term goals like I mentioned developing spells or gaining power or as others have done persuing hobbies. You are looking for a quicker return on investment then what the sim game is providing (if it is sim, it's possible Xeno is right but your talk of different assumptions of play sounds spot on CA to me).
OK, Short term/Long term I get. In fact, I'm not asking to take down the Red Wizards overnight; I'm assuming that it would be a pretty ambitious project; all I'm asking for is to get started. In fact, I tackled it right out of the gate
because I assumed it would be a difficult, long-range goal--all the more reason to start early!
But short-term/long-term doesn't equate to a What You're Capable of/Who You Are divide. plenty of capability-gaining goals are long-term: "I want to attract followers." "Wait 'til Level 6 and take Leadership." "I want to learn the rarest of 9th-level Spells." "OK, wait 'til you're level 17 and we'll talk." I think duration of goal is a total red herring here.
The only application I can think of for my situation is that maybe the GM mistook my overtures for a demand for immediate resolution? Perhaps
he thought I was saying, "OK, I'd like to topple Thay, then have a nice brunch at a cute bistro I spotted last week." So it could be a communication thing. I could always make a fresh overture with a new plan and see what he does with it.Or ask him what his thoughts are on the whole thing.
Peace,
-Joel
I dont want to derail the thread or turn this into a debate so i'll make this last posting and move on.
Quote from: Wolfen on November 01, 2007, 12:40:50 PM
So it can be a strong simulationist agenda to pursue the Red Wizards, or it can be narrativist. What determines which one it falls under is the reason behind the pursuit. Are you doing it because your character was wronged, and you want him to get vengeance? Probably sim. Are you doing it to explore the themes of vengeance, hatred and redemption? Probably nar.
One thing I want to clarify about CA is that it isnt about the reasons behind actions, that is to say someone trying to play narrativist doesnt think to themselves that they are trying to explore themes. So what makes play narrativist is having an issue, vengeance in this case, and having the player take actions that address the issue. If play is about persuing vengeance and the player is making decisions on how to go about it then play has become narrativist, any action the character takes is making a thematic statement.
It's about what is happening in the game and it involves not just the player and his character but also the GM and how and where he takes events in play.
With sim play you can have someone who is seeking vengeance but it's not the point of play. It's part of who the character is but resolving that issue isnt the primary focus of play there is something else that keeps play moving, maybe an understanding that the group fights crime or undertakes adventures or something similar.
Oh and Joel, the long term divide in this case is likely a case of putting it off until he can figure out a way to deal with it. He has no idea so he doesnt know how to proceed or he may not have a good grasp on what you want out of it. I think you are right and asking his thoughts, getting clarification on when or if your issue will come into play.
Hi, Lance,
Quote from: Wolfen on November 01, 2007, 12:40:50 PM
Your ideas put forth earlier in the thread, about encouraging tactics in combat, are a good start. Another thing you may try is taking interest in your fellow players' ideas for story. If someone else has an interesting backstory element going ignored, get interested in play. If someone else has an idea that sounds cool or fun, get behind it 100%. Then it'll be more than just one player pushing the story, and the GM may take notice. Also, it'll help encourage the idea that player investment in other people's characters is acceptable and fun, so next time you want to push something forward, you'll have some support.
It's hard when everyone plays their backstory so close to the vest. The Warforged Barbarian won't eventell anyone his
name. Exactly one PC knows he's a Warforged, because his illusionary disguise dropped in an antimagic field.. I did try pretty strongly to cozy up to the Mageslayer, since we had similar background (family killed by wizards), but he won't really talk about it in character. And of course now he's got his secret thing going, which I really want in on, to expose him or oppose him or whatever (nobody knows he's a psycho-killer in character). I can try to draw some personal detail out of some other PCs, but it's an uphill battle.
Peace,
-Joel
Hmm, well that sounds pretty grim. I think players keeping that kind of secret is a serious problem. It all smacks of play being actually so unsatisfying that the only thing they can do is amuse themselves running private conspiracies. The fact that there appears to be a private two-party parallel game going on sorta reinforces this suspicion.
Quote
OK, I misunderstood you I guess. Honestly, I'm not sure how effective (or even possible) it would be to move D&D away from the "articulation of special powers." It's pretty hard-wired into the system. You wanna trip your opponent? Then Combat Expertise and Improved Trip. You wanna fake out your opponent? Then Improved Feint. And so on and so on.
Doesn't seem to me that restricting region is going to solve much. D&D largely doesn't care where a person comes from, except for the nod to Species background. A Spiked-chain-wielding fighter or Evocation-specializing Wizard are gonna be the same no matter where they grew up.
I like the cut of your jib. But I don't think D&D is really the place to put that jib into practice.
Well I was trying to offer a suggestion a bit more constructive than just "play something else". There is no particular reason you couldn't do this in D&D; precisely because it doesn't care where you come from the default/implied setting is not obligatory. Neither are the class selections etc. You don't have to use all the available options. In fact once you sort the wood from the trees its quite suitable for this sort of manipulation.
You could play a game in which all the characters must be fighters in a particular army from a particular place. That can itself be quite an interesting experiment in how to express character differentiation through different builds of the same class. Build encounters and experiences that can be solved by a one class-party; use the common origin for motivation and exposition. THAT would be a very different game, even if within the same actual rules. Very different from a wandering team of misfit superheroes who are not even on first name terms! Also seeing as things like healing magic will be simply unavailable to an all-fighter party some of the conventions of how play goes will start to break down.
I once ran a game set in a thieves guild in Waterdeep and all the PC's had to be thieves, assassins or fighters. Just establishing that association broke down some of the "why should I care" stuff. The parameters of the problem could be more easily discerned; they could reasonably expect I wouldn't be siccing a dragon on them for example (although I did use some undead). In a sense, this afforded them a space in which to concentrate on how to use this particular set of tools effectively, rather than trying to be prepared for every eventuality. The denial of illusionary and invisibility magics etc forced them to plan their jobs quite carefully, which they enjoyed. They had to keep a cleric sweet for emergency healing, or they just had to (horror) walk around with a limp for bit.
So thats the kind of thing I mean, restricting the scope so that you are not bombarded by the vast array of possibilities all the time, so that some of the conventional solutions are not available and have to be worked around, so that the group is identified as a group rather than a miscellany of individuals, so that you have a better idea of what kind of problems you can expect to have to deal with. You can do all that within the rules with which your group is comfortable.
Since so many other people have talked about the CA angle of your question, (and done so quite well) and other systems that may suit your needs better. I don't feel there's anything new I can add on that note. Instead I'll go to something that's been touched on less-
The game you've described has some problems that are common to many Gamist games (DnD 3.5 being the most notable example.) In my opinion it comes down to a GM who doesn't know much about tactics trying to put together a tactical scenario. The players don't have to get creative at all, because the situation doesn't warrant it.
He's using his challenges (the monsters) all wrong, as you've mentioned. Based on what you've described, he seems to rely on straight forward "hit-you-in-the-face" style encounters. Demons and spellcasters are not cut out for that. They're "bag-of-trickes" monsters. (this has also been mentioned.) You might tell your GM that Golems, Undead, Beasts and Magical Beasts are probably more along the lines of what he's looking for.
Also, keep in mind that the CR system is balanced against a party of 4 players. You have 7. An Ettin isn't going to challenge your group at all. 2 Ettins would be a lot better.
The best way I've ever found of training a GM how to make encounters interesting was to sit down with the group, and instead of gaming, watch a couple of good adventure movies. (not action movies) Star Wars, Indiana Jones, even cheesy ones like Van Helsing or Army of Darkness. Take notes during the action sequences and talk about which ones were your favorites, and why. The things that make them exciting are often more a product of "where" than of "why" or "how". Environmental hazards are great for forcing tactical game play. The GM will get excited by the discussion, and may give him what he needs to spice up your games. It's been my experience that when people ask for "more tactical gameplay" What they really mean is "give me a situation to think my way out of". This very often leads to Adventure Movie style scenes.
Take your example combat, now put it on top of the tower, and give the Ettin a pair of clubs that cause knockback when they hit (or just house-rule that all giants initiate Bull Rushes when they hit creatures smaller than them with blunt weapons.) All of a sudden the GM knows exactly what his goal is (knock a PC off the roof) and the PC's figure out real quickly taht they have to change their game plan or someone's going to be lawn art. All because of where the fight is. Toss in a flying sorcerer with Grease and Ray of Enfeeblement... cool.
The trick is to find one ability to showcase in an encounter, and maybe one or two others that compliment it. Put the creature with the ability in a location that will make it's ability catastrophic to the party, and then watch them think their way out. The always do.
As for Teamwork, if the GM doesn't reward it, it will almost never happen. Take a look in "Heroes of Battle". There are a couple teamwork feats and abilities that make things a lot more interesting. The best part about them is that they have requirements, but do not actually take a feat themselves. All the characters have to do is meet the Prereqs and train together. Then all of a sudden, the players want to work together to gain the benefit o their new ability.
Hope that helps.
Maybe it's system and not a lack of gamist fire, so it would be a waste to give up the group when its actually system that matters in this case - I'm suggesting this as a means of testing that ground.
This is inspired by the computer game 'Puzzle quest', but you could have a memory game that's in charge of primary currencies. Just the classic style memory game - a deck of cards each with a duplicate. Shuffle, lay them all face down, then take turns flipping two, then flipping them back over if their not the same. Getting pairs gets you some significant advantage in the D&D game.
The thing about this design is that the GM and you are both working with the same materials. This puts you into direct competition on exactly the same problem - I think this is somewhat what Gareth/Contracycle is refering too by having similar resources. The great thing about that is that someone else can potentially do better at the same thing that your doing. Bam, it's on! Well, its set to be on - if there's no gamist competative fire in them, nothing will happen and it's literally game over man, game over!
Alot of roleplay design that's supposedly gamist has the GM and players playing two different games. They use entirely different resources, so there is no comparison to make in terms of "I'm doing better than you, heh!". GM's rustle up resources out of thin air while adhering to some world paradigm, but do players do that? Nah, they used this rigid as hell, points all the way. They're not doing the same game, so no "Hey, I'm doing better!" comparision can be made. It'd be like someone saying cause their good at cricket, they're ahead of someone who's plays basketball. It doesn't even make sense to say. Competition comes from doing better or worse than someone on the same job as them.
Callan, not that your idea doesn't sound like fun, but your proposal sounds like the exact opposite of what he wants for his group. Mainly, because he want's teamwork, and a group puzzle-solving experience (players vs. DM). I can't think of a way to turn a memory game into a team sport.
It seems you're thinking of Gamism as a competition between players to control resources, which it can be. DnD style Gamism is more of a competition in who can crunch the numbers the best to hit the bad guys (or each other) with the most math. You're right in thinking that all the players are using a different rules set. The real gamist challenge in DnD (IMO) is to make all the various rules sets behave in a complimentary fashion. (a guy with improved bull rush pushing a bad guy through his friends with combat reflexes and reach weapons' threat zones, or something)
The real problem is, most classes are designed to be able to stand alone. Classes like the Marshal and the Dragon Shaman (who really shine in groups) are relatively new, and not played often. Bards are the classic "I help the party" class, and not only do they just get to do it basically all the time, in a vast area of effect (which makes tactical choice irrelivent) but as a class, they pretty much suck.
The only class that has tactical teamwork built into it's rules set is the rogue. They basically need to be flanking to take advantage of their main class ability. Either that or sink vast amounts of feats and skills (resources) into elaborate ability chains. The rest of the classes *can* be tactical and team oriented, but it really isn't necessary, which is why it takes a creative GM to get the lazy players to step up and use their brains.
I'm all for using different systems, but one of the things that aggravates me is when we forge-ites toss out changing systems as a way of fixing problems within someone's game. (I catch myself doing it from time to time.) If system matters (which it does) then to change the system is to *change the game itself.* As long as the game is still mostly fun, it has value. Fixing the existing game seems like a better alternative than starting a new one.
Hope that didn't come across as too aggressive or inflammatory.
Hi Jasper,
There's nothing to salvage, if a challenge has failed to be delivered. Even if the rest is still mostly fun somehow. It doesn't matter how much you fiddle with all the other parts, that wont make a challenge spring out of nothing. Someone (designer or end user) has to have issued a challenge. And from this account it appears they have failed to do so, or failed to communicate it. And if someone does issue a clear challenge now, just as you note, it will be a change that actually starts a whole new game anyway. Even if they make clear the challenge they tried and failed to comminicate before, everyone will have to shift from what they perceived the challenge to this - that'll be a change that starts a new game. Even if what you insist is true, that crunching the numbers the best is the challenge. That it wasn't communicated before means to introduce it now will start a new game.
My suggestion for a challenge was to work parralel with the groups regular play, but controlling major resources. This is so it can't be waved off as non relevant to the point of play. Also I think it can be remade into other challenges - all the players Vs the GM in a memory game, for example (though if he faced say three players, perhaps along with his turn he can look at an extra card for free, without showing it - so as to lessne the predictability that comes with ganging up).
Callan S: What I'd recommend is if its D&D play it the D&D way. Maybe reroll your Warmage to a straight Wizard and get a lot of buff, debuff, illusion and crowd control spells (grease, cause fear, color spray, ray of enfeeblement, enlarge person, jump, glitterdust, web, hideous laughter, mirror image, scare, alter self and spider climb are good standbys for the first two levels get similar spells at higher levels). Don't try to destroy the opposition or steal the show, just completely unbalance the battlefield in ways that help your allies destroy the opposition themselves. Your allies will love you while they're tearing apart the monsters that you made helpless or getting free AoOs against monsters that you forced to run away and they'll see a good bit of how D&D teamwork SHOULD work, right now as a warmage you have one of the least teamwork friendly classes...
Maybe be a specialist wizard and ban evocation.
Callan: When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense. The main trouble seems to be that they never firmly established the challenge itself. (I.E. why they're playing at all) Sounds like a problem with the social contract. It's amazing how much can go wrong without that little pre-game discussion, and how many groups don't even do it at all. I still think that the game is fine as it is written, as long as everyone is clear about what they want and why they are playing.
Datzur: You, sir, are a wizard after my own heart. Most people think of wizards as a heavy damage classes. They aren't. (That would be the Rogue, Scout and a couple of Fighter builds) A decently played wizard doesn't really do much damage at all. It's all be Failed Save= Removed from Combat. Whether the enemy is unconscious, dead or just screwed over somehow, an arcane caster should be able to take at least one enemy out of the fight every round. There's very few things a person can play in DnD that are more fun than a good Battlefield Controller. War Mage is an interesting idea, but I find it to be a frustrating class, because it isn't very friendly to other players, and doesn't quite seem to behave the way it's intended to. Might be a flaw in the design of the class itself, or maybe I just haven't figured out how to make it do what I want it to do yet. (that being, Blow Up Everything.)
Melinglor, I think Datzur might be on to something. You may find yourself having more fun if you fill your bag of tricks with spells that force creativity. (Stone Shape is my favorite example.) To me "I throw another fireball" gets a little old. Don't know if your attention span is as short as mine is, though.
Quote from: Jasper the Mimbo on November 06, 2007, 02:41:06 AM
Melinglor, I think Datzur might be on to something. You may find yourself having more fun if you fill your bag of tricks with spells that force creativity. (Stone Shape is my favorite example.) To me "I throw another fireball" gets a little old. Don't know if your attention span is as short as mine is, though.
I think you guys missed the part where he did use a spell to do just that and the rest of the group thought it was cool but didnt use it to their advantage. It's not a question of the characters working together it's the players, they arent playing the same game.
Jasper: nah, I don't play casters much. I'm more of a barbarian player (with a bit of multiclassing or a few powergamer tricks to bring up the will save), being able to do irrational shit for RP reasons and have enough HPs and good enough saves to survive is damn fun and in any case wands of cure light wounds are cheap :)
Quote from: Caldis on November 06, 2007, 10:02:02 AM
Quote from: Jasper the Mimbo on November 06, 2007, 02:41:06 AM
Melinglor, I think Datzur might be on to something. You may find yourself having more fun if you fill your bag of tricks with spells that force creativity. (Stone Shape is my favorite example.) To me "I throw another fireball" gets a little old. Don't know if your attention span is as short as mine is, though.
I think you guys missed the part where he did use a spell to do just that and the rest of the group thought it was cool but didnt use it to their advantage. It's not a question of the characters working together it's the players, they arent playing the same game.
Well in MMORPG terms what you did was root the mob and then the dumb noob went and broke the root. Damage dealers breaking crowd control is probably the most common newbie mistake in MMORPGs, so that's pretty much par for the course.
Maybe choose spells that help the group that have uses that are more foolproof? Like casting a spell that makes the monster run away for a bit while the meelers are next to it and remind them that they get AoOs.
OK, I have some new developments in the game to post about but first I want to take care of the old business that's been piling up. Could I ask everyone to lay off posting until I've done both of those (addressed current posts AND posted about my new game session)?
I feel like the thread's running away a bit, getting into all this "what you COULD do in SOME game of D&D" and drifting from addressing THIS game of D&D. A lot of interesting stuff to think about, but none of the "start again from scratch, only like
this" are very applicable, you know? And the array of information to digest is becoming bewildering.
A little background on the Warmage choice: it was my way of getting my feet wet playing a spellcaster. Very simple, front-loaded choice: here's your spells, you can cast any of 'em, they all do damage, go! no worry about what spells to pick per level, or learning a lot of different kind of spell descriptions, no memorizing, etc. As I've played him and gotten used to him, I've supplemented his limited repetoire with items and oddball spells (you can pick a spell outside the list to learn every few levels). Like the Engtangling blast, which suddenly turns my repetoire into more than a menu of damage rolls, or comboing up Whirling Blades with a Flame Burst Sickle.
If I were starting a new character, yeah, I'd probably go with Sorceror and focus on more nuanced spells with lots of, as you guys say, "battlefield control" effects. But right now, I got what I got. That said, I am taking him in a new direction in the near future through multiclassing. More on that when I post about the game session.
By the way, Daztur, there's something wierd going on with your posts--you're saying things that are obviously directed at me, but addressing them to others, first to Callan, then to Caldis. It's rather jarring, so just a heads up. In case there's any confusion, I, Joel ("Melinglor"), am the player of the Warmage from the original post. Everyone else here is commenting on my game, not players themselves.
Quote from: Jasper the Mimbo on November 06, 2007, 02:41:06 AM
Callan: When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense. The main trouble seems to be that they never firmly established the challenge itself. (I.E. why they're playing at all) Sounds like a problem with the social contract. It's amazing how much can go wrong without that little pre-game discussion, and how many groups don't even do it at all. I still think that the game is fine as it is written, as long as everyone is clear about what they want and why they are playing.
Yeah, I too think Callan raised a good point here. Social Contract and clear communication can go a long way here, and that's one thing our group is weak in (never really occurred to us all these years to actually talk about expectations and preferences, or even establish what we mean by a "fun game" or "good roleplaying"). I think I might be able to make some headway as we go along with nonthreatening discussion of how a particular game session went. I'm wanting to
ask, more than
tell, like: "How'd you like it when the Ettin got to clobber you both before you even got to attack it? What would you do differently?" Hmm, even that seems a bit too leading. Perhaps in more nuanced situations I can pharase questions better to elicit honest impressions from folks. But anyway, we'll see how that goes.
Peace,
-Joel
QuoteBy the way, Daztur, there's something wierd going on with your posts--you're saying things that are obviously directed at me, but addressing them to others, first to Callan, then to Caldis. It's rather jarring, so just a heads up.
Good point, pronouns are HARD.
:)
Yeah, no big, just wanted to straighten it out.
So! We played again last Friday, and I talked to the GM about my idea for a character goal: following Telar's epiphany about the nature of magic (i.e. Creation instead of Destruction, with a healthy dose of Obi-Wan's explanation of the Force) with a quest for knowledge, seizing the secrets of the universe and gaining a new and startling grasp of magic's power.
The nuts 'n bolts component ot this is pursuing a Prestige Classin a couple of levels, Mage of the Arcane Order, which advances your own spellcasting ability while letting you pull other spells (i.e. not on the Warmage list) from a Spellpool a certain amount per day, though you have to "pay back" the pool in Spell power within a week or so. My idea is that instead of belonging to a guild of Mages who share the Pool, I'd be drawing directly on the fabric of the Universe, while "paying back" the energy I use to maintain cosmic balance.
Joe was pretty into this (I thought he would be, he loves exploring D&D magic), and said he'd be willing to tweak things a bit for me, like with some shitty prerequisites. When we started play, I had Telar approach his mouthpiece-NPC, the guy who gives us orders, and tell him about his epiphany and lament the fact that they'd be leaving this magic-rich age too soon for him to explore it (the group was sent back in time by accident, to before the Fracturing of Magic, and were now soon to return to our own time). The NPC responded that there was also magical power in our era, and some few still wield Whole Magic, if they can be found. I was angling for "give me a quest for new magic power quick,before we return home from the age of more potent magic!" But instead he gave me "don't worry, you can still find what you're looking for after the return." This is good 'cause it relaxes pacing (I can't get into MotAO until level 8 anyway) and presumably gives Joe a chance to come up with good stuff for the quest.And it sounds like (especially with another player going "NOOO! Bad idea!" the whole time and likened Whole Magic to possessing a nuclear bomb) Joe's setting me up for an even greater power than just the Prestige Class. I'll have to see what he cooks up. So yeah, a nice initial success on the Character Goal front. (I'm planning to also broach the whole Red Wizards thing again after we return to our own time, with the angle of opposing them using my new freaky powers from the Golden Age of Magic. We'll see how that goes.)
* * *
On the tactical side of things, we had an interesting fight with a young White Dragon. First, lemme say that just having a combat two sessions in a row is a resounding improvement! And also, the fight had some interesting elements that I think bode well for future tactical play (though some good Social-contract negotiation is still in order). We were sent after the dragon to obtain its blood for the ritual to return us home. We jumped it in its cave (first using my Third Eye Crystal to magically recon) and wailed on it with arrows and fire attacks--and it flew out of the cave and retreated aver the mountaintops! Shit! There goes our precious blood!
So while Joe softballed us a little bit (he had an NPC suggest ambushing the dragon etherially via an established item combo, and didn't bother to let the dragon make a spot/listen check), he actually played on our expectations by having the dragon do the unexpected, but perfectly reasonable thing--get the hell out of that mess of Fireballs and pointy things!
The players' actions were still kinda dippy. When the Dragon flew out of the cave, everyone hunkered at the cave mouth and
readied actions. The two party archers (one of which is a Scout, with mad skirmish damage,and the other a ranger with some kind of uberbow who can shoot accurately at an insane distance) could easily have shot at the thing, which was at most 60 feet away. Which is what I did, running to the entrance and nailing it with a Fireball, which is when Joe said it was getting wise and flat-out retreating. And looking up the Dragon's entry afterward, I saw that those attacks could probably have brought the beast down and then some. :(
We called it quits there. Everyone's fairly unconcerned about it, thinking they've probably got enough blood on the Barbarian's weapon blade from his successfulattack on the Dragon (I decided now was not the time for a discussion on the abstract nature of Hitpoints).. I guess we're going to head back to base, turn in our sample,and see what they say. Personally I hope we're SOL on the blood. If we get a pass on it, then then the encounter was no real challenge, and the dragon fleeing was no setback at all. If we're empty-handed, then we actually
failed a mission,and have to get our blood another way, either a different mission or going back for this one. Who's ready for us. And maybe has some relatives handy. THAT would be cool.
It's funny, pre-game chitchat was as usual all about badass feats/items/spells and killer combos and what works best when and stuff. The Ranger player was even bragging about his 5-football field range and all the tricks he'd soon be able to do with it as an Arcane Archer. But in play, he's got a great opportunity (he was even standing
outside when the dragon flew out) to show his stuff and he just turtles up. I don't get it.
There's still a lot of loosey-goosey rules arbitration. Like Joe kept describing the Dragon as "between Medium and Large sized." So I assumed, it must count as Large (meaning a higher CR, among other things),but when the fight was on, Joe said no, it counted as medium. In retrospect, he may have been hinting that it has extra hit dice for its age category (which is good,but honestly he can afford to hit us with a higher dragon category altogether!). Also, he gave us all a pass on Knowledge checks for data on the monster, saying everyone in the world knows dragons,and just gave us the info. Stuff like that makes me wonder why I even HAVE Knowledge scores trained up. And most importantly, I'm not at all sure that he was tracking my extra damage from the dragon's Fire Vulnerability. I reported my damage rolls and he marked them down, but post-game examination suggests that if he'd applied the +50% the thing would have died already. I'm nevery quite sure where the authority and responsibility lines are drawn on that sort of thing in play--am I responsibile for tracking my own bonus damage (which includes looking up Vulnerability), or or is that overstepping the DM's bounds. I'm getting a lot of mixed signals on stuff like that.
In any case, I think there's at least a kernel of tactical bent ther to at least hang a discussion on--a foothold to get a dialogue going about what everyone's looking for from the experience and what we can do to get it.
Peace,
-Joel
Quoteall the tricks he'd soon be able to do with it as an Arcane Archer
Aaaah, here we have a case of the incompetant powergamer. Arcane archer is right up there with monkey grip :) There's nothing quite as funny as munckins who end up nerfing their own characters.
It sounds like you have at least a limited success there Joel. My personal guess is that you will have enough blood to do the ritual and that you may end up meeting the white dragon again later, a much larger and more powerful one with all the time that will have passed.
Is there anything left you wish to discuss? It seems like you've worked out the problems you were having, at least for now, probably need more data (playtime) to make any further conclusions.
Caldis: Uh, where do you see Joel having worked out his problem?
Joel: Are you seeing the absence of social reactions, like I am? Like, the dragons flown away and everyones quite unconcerned - the blood on the sword will be enough, apparently. I have to admit, in reading your account I thought 'Hey, it must have bled, it might be enough' - but emphasis on the 'might', not casual certainty. I'm not reading any sense of uncertainty from other players in your account about whether they win or lose.
I wonder what their expressions would have been, if you had wondered loudly about whether this would be enough blood? I suspect the same expression they had when you used that flaming sphere in the last game and the GM ruled it as cover against their shots "Don't goddamn give the GM ammunition against us!". One group model I'm thinking of is a group who, in the past, has been repeatedly scorched by their contributions to the imagined space. Now they avoid it, except at a mostly mechanical level (roll to hit). If they never touch the SIS, they can't be told they lost at the competition held in it. You can't lose a race you never entered. But this whole "were trapped in time and need dragon blood to get back" is firmly rooted in the imaginary space. I'd watch the GM's face next session, you might see him trying to carefully read the group, whether they'll pay the idea that there isn't enough blood. While he's doing that, note what he talks about and the groups reaction. I suspect he'll veer off, making the return ritual work, but go wrong somehow - but from the groups reaction, he'll do that as if it was just going to be part of the story anyway - ie, it's not cause anyone lost. Well see what happens, hey?
With the ranger, I think it's pretty obvious he's looking for cues from the GM for what to do. "The dragon is leaving now", so he sits there so as not to interupt the dragon leaving. I'd be interested to know his play history - he might be happy he even engaged a dragon, perhaps having played in the past with zero structure and never having left the village in the first place, as the group milled about. Or from my group model before, he's following instructions cause then he can't lose "I was just doing what you said, GM!"
Quote from: Callan S. on November 07, 2007, 07:09:41 PM
Caldis: Uh, where do you see Joel having worked out his problem?
Well, actually, I was about ready to put this to bed. Not because it was all "worked out," but because I felt I was at the point of "nothing more to hash out without further experimentation and observation."
But that was barring anything insightful from others. Like this:
Quote from: Callan S. on November 07, 2007, 07:09:41 PM
Are you seeing the absence of social reactions, like I am? Like, the dragons flown away and everyones quite unconcerned - the blood on the sword will be enough, apparently. I have to admit, in reading your account I thought 'Hey, it must have bled, it might be enough' - but emphasis on the 'might', not casual certainty. I'm not reading any sense of uncertainty from other players in your account about whether they win or lose.
Yeah, that hits it on the nose. Complete unconcern. Maybe a
liiiittle doubt that the blood on the sword would work, but even that was kind of a "*shrug* we can just go back for the dragon again if we need to" kind of thing.
This does contrast with some reactions in the past. There's one guy in particular (the Barbarian player) who tends to be all dire and counsel inaction constantly (in an angry way that's hard to chart across the IC/OOC line, like "No, you idiot! Don't explore that random room or touch that random object, you'll get us all
killed!" type stuff). He's best buds with the GM, and it often feels like a "I
know the GM, he's a real killer!" kind of thing. Which is one reason I came to this campaign having high expectations of crunchy, unforgiving challenge in the first place. Aside from being just pessimistic, this player gives off a really strong "I know the right way to do this, stick with me and keep your head down" vibe. Not sure what to make of that in relation to this issue, but I thought I'd highlight it as it forms an interesting dichotomy with the "eh, it'll all work out" attitude that's also prevalent.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 07, 2007, 07:09:41 PM
I wonder what their expressions would have been, if you had wondered loudly about whether this would be enough blood? I suspect the same expression they had when you used that flaming sphere in the last game and the GM ruled it as cover against their shots "Don't goddamn give the GM ammunition against us!"
Yeah, there's a strong group attitude of "Don't
ever suggest nasty things to the GM, or correct his ruling errors in our favor!" It's usually spoken good-naturedly, but I often wonder just how much strain that maxim can take in our group. In fact, I didn't really speak up much in the session
precisely because I didn't want to rock the boat too much. I'm kind of sensitive to the danger of being the shrill corrective voice. And in retrospect, I probably felt a little vulnerable with the two players most likely to support me absent from the session.
Regarding your speculations on Joe's future actions: It probably will take a while to tell, since the ritual isn't actually happening until we complete a few more errands, but my guess is that he'll just make the dragon blood work just fine. He just
might have us go back for more. He's a pretty illusionist GM, but his slight of hand isn't quite as subtle as you're describing. And he certainly doesn't seem to hedge his bets to feel out the group reaction.Rather he just barrels along with the group accepting any old thing that he tells them happens, for whatever old reason. I don't see him tiptoing around anything.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 07, 2007, 07:09:41 PM
With the ranger, I think it's pretty obvious he's looking for cues from the GM for what to do. "The dragon is leaving now", so he sits there so as not to interupt the dragon leaving. I'd be interested to know his play history - he might be happy he even engaged a dragon, perhaps having played in the past with zero structure and never having left the village in the first place, as the group milled about. Or from my group model before, he's following instructions cause then he can't lose "I was just doing what you said, GM!"
Well, this guy's our newest player, and he's never roleplayed with anyone else. Though it's been like, what? 2 years? I don't quite remember. He's the most casual gamer of the group, as far as playing in character, developing a backstory and motivation,etc. He tends toward one-note joke concepts--his ranger's a Changeling, who takes the form of Alec Baldwin from the Edge and speaks in the third person: "Alec Baldwin needs fresh game!" "Alec Baldwin has no time for your foolishness!" In our anime-flavored campaign he plays a blockheaded narcississtic surfer dude and a goth kid who tries to talk everyone into killing themselves, and possesses giant-razorblade telekinesis. And so on.
He's an archer and bowhunter in real life, so he really digs the archery thing, pursuing that character path toward greater and greater "shoot-the-eyeteeth-off-a-gnat" powers. Other than that, I'm not sure
what his play goals are. I haven't specifically noticed that "wait for the GM to cue you" thing with him or anyone else, at least not in combat. And actually everyone's assumption was that the Dragon would be coming back. When I fireballed it the GM said "he changes his tactics and leaves." So I'm not sure how that all maps to your theory. I suspect it bears a lot more observation to spot the patterns.Any which way, I'm rather surprised that the player would have an Archer with ungodly range
standing outside, and when the dragon flew out,
not shoot at it. The only thing I can think is that Joe was rather vague about where exactly the dragon was,so the players may not have been thinking that it was in range or line of sight or whatever.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: Callan S. on November 07, 2007, 07:09:41 PM
Caldis: Uh, where do you see Joel having worked out his problem?
I think he's solved what is solvable. He's found an interesting manner to more fully integrate his character in the game world. That is an achievable goal in this game.
What isnt solvable is the lack of challenge. The rest of the players show little interest and the GM shows no desire to make the game challenging. It's clearly players with a different agenda. I dont hold out any hope that he'll be able to get them to change their current agenda.
If Joel is interested in a challenging game it sounds like he has other options, a couple other games run by different people. This game however will never become that. The gm including more combat is about as far as this game is going to move in that direction. Of course the way combats work in this game they dont actually add challenge so it's not a great success, another sign that the gm doesnt know how or want to provide challenge.
So all we have left to talk about is different signs of lack of interest in challenge. I dont see that in any way being helpful to Joel, we can find more symptoms but we already know the disease here. I'm still interested in hearing if this game can develop into something enjoyable but we'll have to wait for more play to see if that happens.
Yeah, your right. I missread Joels last comment as wanting more discussion here and I didn't really see even limited success - can't really win with a bunch of simulationists around you (which they might be). But you meant this and I acknowledge you were and are right. Now I just hope I'm not the last post in a D&D thread...again!
Another idea (partly to keep Callan from being the last post):
Don't make the GM have to watch your reactions (even though you say that's not his style). Make 'em larger than life, but couched in good terms.
Bad: Bullshit! A little blood on a sword isn't enough! We need to lure that dragon back here so we can get enough!
Good: Man, we almost had that dragon! I almost hope there's not enough blood, so we can come get another shot at him!
It's a suggestion to the GM, but it looks like you're just raring for a fight, rather than "giving the GM ammo to use against you".
Quote from: Wolfen on November 08, 2007, 07:42:28 PM
Don't make the GM have to watch your reactions (even though you say that's not his style). Make 'em larger than life, but couched in good terms.
Bad: Bullshit! A little blood on a sword isn't enough! We need to lure that dragon back here so we can get enough!
Good: Man, we almost had that dragon! I almost hope there's not enough blood, so we can come get another shot at him!
It's a suggestion to the GM, but it looks like you're just raring for a fight, rather than "giving the GM ammo to use against you".
Good one, Lance. That'sthe kinda mindset i need to cultivate here, I think. Hell, that's a great mindset to employ for voicing
any game dissatisfaction or reservations. Thanks.
And it's actually not too late, since we ended our session right there--I can always open up next session with some comment like that! :)
Quote from: Caldis on November 08, 2007, 02:53:30 PM
So all we have left to talk about is different signs of lack of interest in challenge. I dont see that in any way being helpful to Joel, we can find more symptoms but we already know the disease here. I'm still interested in hearing if this game can develop into something enjoyable but we'll have to wait for more play to see if that happens.
Yeah, you're probably right. It's pretty tempting to blather on and on, complaining about this or that little aspect, wioth lots of back-patting commiseration. Which is probably about all I'm (semi-consciously) at this point.but that way lies madness (or wankery),so I think I'm pretty well done. Still willing, though, to entertain any further comments deemed edifi\ying by the respective poster (I
DARE you to be the last post, Callan!).
Peace,
-Joel
I would go beyond Lance's suggestion and discuss fighting the white dragon again out of character, before play starts:
"Hey people, I thought the white dragon fight was good and I'd like to do it again. Won't it be more fun if we find we DON'T have enough blood?"
You describe so much confusion with messages passed in character, you probably want to make this unambiguous. There's some chance that you'll also get the honest opinions of the other players this way. Of course, you may also find that your GM is sufficiently simulationist that he should dismiss player (not character) opinions as a hazard to the integrity of the game world.
Michael(right?)'s suggestion is also good, and quite possibly better than my own, for the reasons he's mentioned about ambiguity. The only problem I see with it is that the players may just say "yeah, it would/might be fun, but that's up to the GM" basically shutting down any idea of player influence on the narrative. If this happens, the GM may take that as a sign that it IS, in fact, his responsibility, and go against the idea subconsciously or consciously.
His suggestion may be better couched in discussion directly with the GM, rather than with the play group, though with the play group present. If it goes over, then it may help introduce the idea that the players may, in out of character ways, influence the events of the game. Some of this obviously exists already, but it seems limited to stuff related specifically to the player's character, rather than the general arc of the game, as evidenced by your stuff with the MotAO.
I run a very gamist (or try to anyway) DD3E game myself and one practical thing I've noted is that so much of what tactics is in DD3E is centered on exact positioning. It really helps a lot to have good maps availible, preferably with the 5'x5' square grid on them but at least with a nice scale. Maybe this is something you could gently prod your GM into using, perhaps even helping him out with? A lot of the "finesse" of the combat system gets lost if you are just describing things verbaly or even with rough sketces.
As for the other stuff here, it seems that most people in your group seem to enjoy/want more fighting. However two people who like their RPGs combat heavy can still have completly different reasons for doing so. Some people like it because they want to be challenged or to prove (partly to themselves) that they have the optimum superoptimized collections of "crunchy bits" on their characters. Others just want to get stuck in, roll lots of dice, kick ass and kill stuff in situation that if you step back pretty obviously is a cakewalk.
I know that Robin D. Laws isn't that popular in these parts but personaly I think his distinction between "butt-kickers" and the more thoughtful "game" types is quite useful. I have one player that is just like that, often charging into the fray and going by his first instinct. We actually have invented a (swedish) term for it in our group "infallskrigföring" which rougly translates to "hunch warfare". When trying to introduce more tacticaly challenging encounters often the more tacticaly astute players need to restrain these guys long enough for thought and planing to take place.
Hmmm, this seems garbled even to myself. Anyway, my point is that some players want combat to be a tactical challenge against foes using their abilities to the max of their potential testing their wits to the max. Other just want to stand backlit by the glorious sunset, covered in blood with dozens of orcs coming at them an mass so they can clobber them...
/Bjorn
Quote from: Bjorn on November 27, 2007, 09:08:25 AMI know that Robin D. Laws isn't that popular in these parts
Are you joking? The man is a goddamn demigod of roleplaying game design.
Quote from: Peter Nordstrand on November 27, 2007, 01:44:48 PM
Quote from: Bjorn on November 27, 2007, 09:08:25 AMI know that Robin D. Laws isn't that popular in these parts
Are you joking? The man is a goddamn demigod of roleplaying game design.
As is probably (among many things) not clear in my post I'm just refering to Robin Law's contributions to RPG theory and models, mostly from his book "Robin's Laws of good game mastering" and my impression from the various posts I've read when they have come up is that they are considered flawed and/or primitive and/or mostly useless by many/most of the forge comunity.
For instance in this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=5214.0 describes them as "skewers" in a way that at least I interpret in a quite negative way. In a few other post where it's been mentioned it has also been descibed in what in my oppinion is unflatering terms. Though it should be said that as a relative newcomer to the forge the subset of old post I've read is semirandom and maybe I've just manged (by poor luck) to get a bad "sample" in this case.
Maybe I'm wrong? And if so I am glad... For me personaly "Robin's Laws of good game mastering" falls easily into my top 5 "best buys" in twenty years of roleplaying.
I wasn't trying to imply (but probably did) that people at the Forge have anything personaly against mister Laws or that their was a negative judgement on his work on various "normal" (i.e. non theory/model related) game products.
/Bjorn
After reading through my post it seems I missed my "Search-fu" roll and managed to link to the wrong post.
I do however distinctly remember the skewers coment beeing used about the "player types" from Robin's Laws...
/Bjorn
Hi Joel,
Thanks for describing this gameplay. In the majority of my D&D3 play, I've observed a situation very similar to that which you describe. The DM has been playing since the AD&D2 days, and while the group has "upgraded" to the new rulebooks, the DM is still trying to run the same game he's always run in the past. This leads to all sorts of clashing expectations between those who expect to play the game described in the rulebook, and those who assume from prior experience that rules are inherently broken things and therefore the only important rule is DM fiat.
I've seen this in several D&D groups, but for some reason I never see this situation presented in online discussions.
I'm still unclear why you continue to play in this game, since you're obviously pretty frustrated about it.
Hi Bjorn,
The skewers discussion of Robin's ideas was mine, and it was not negative at all. It aimed to integrate his approach, which was basically a matter of social role filtering into system options, with my model, and as far as I'm concerned did so successfully, with no disrespect to him. The word "skewers" is not derogatory and carries no negative connotations. It describes a long, sharp physical object, which pieces a round object. That's how Robin's descriptions relate to the Big Model, as I saw it, with no damage done to either set of thinking.
Types of players (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=5214.0)
Robin's Laws? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12597.0) (this may be the thread you were thinking of; Tor is quite critical of Robin's ideas, but he does not use the skewers as a critique; instead, I use them in order to show value in the "player roles" approach; there is a negative and judgmental set of posts, from someone who felt like bashing the Forge)
I think it's start[ing] to sink in (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10430.0) (this one demonstrates the positive outcome of juxtaposing the two sets of ideas with the skewers concept)
[side note for interested people: the trouble is, we also ended up discussing Creative Agenda as a skewer too (CA kabobs revisited (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12597.0)), and so the point that Bjorn is referring to became more confusing than helpful. If anyone is interested in how I currently think Robin's Laws relate to Creative Agenda, and what that might have to do with skewering if anything, then we can discuss it whenever you'd like. Please begin an Actual Play thread and remember that I am a bit limited on time.]
Furthermore, let's take Tor's negative critique of Robin's ideas - it would still be wrong to characterize the Forge as favoring such views. That presentation would convey the thoughts of person posting, period, and for that matter, at that particular time. And related to that point, although I respect Robin and consider him a colleague, I think it is also valid to present criticisms of anyone's ideas, and that Tor was perfectly reasonable in posting as he did. Doing so does not mean that Robin is unpopular or disliked, or that his ideas aren't valued at all.
Now, instead of actually dealing with your point about how Robin's idea apply to the situation in that D&D game, we get to cope with a few off-topic and probably emotionally-jostled posts that may or may not clarify things for the reader, and which certainly distract from the excellent discussion.
I'll be a little harsh in this paragraph. The reason I'm pushing this so hard is that the problem is both common and anti-intellectual - to characterize a community by the contents of a single contributor (no matter who, including me); to characterize the contents as negative based on some kind of gut feeling or vague memory rather than an explicit statement; and to mention all of the above as if it were established knowledge. I am asking that you examine your knowledge of the Forge for things which might, on reflection, be reactions and gossip. You can check them out by asking people who were there and who can point you to the posts, and to other discussions for context if necessary.
I hope the discussion continues with more about the D&D game, although, Joel, I'm also wondering (entirely independently of the Robin issue) whether you think it's met its natural end. Everyone, if Joel says it's over, then it will be time to move on to other threads.
Best, Ron
Quote from: Bjorn on November 27, 2007, 09:08:25 AM
I run a very gamist (or try to anyway) DD3E game myself and one practical thing I've noted is that so much of what tactics is in DD3E is centered on exact positioning. It really helps a lot to have good maps availible, preferably with the 5'x5' square grid on them but at least with a nice scale. Maybe this is something you could gently prod your GM into using, perhaps even helping him out with? A lot of the "finesse" of the combat system gets lost if you are just describing things verbaly or even with rough sketces
Actually, I pretty much am the "battle map guy" in our group--I own several sets of Wizards' Dungeon Tiles and when a fight starts or the GM starts describing a set-piece location, I'll bust 'em out and lay out the area, with questions about distances, dimensions of chambers, and such. I try to do this with a minimum disruption of game flow so we can jump right to the action.'Cause yeah,those things are absolutely essential to coordinating my spells,especially once I leveled into the big area of effect type shit. And it seems to help in generally making positioning matter for AoE's,ranged attacks, charging, and the like,while simultaneously easing the process of figuring all that among the group,or relying on GM ambiguities like, "hmm, I think you've got a clear shot at this guy,but not that guy" based on some internal model or straight-up guess.So yeah, that's at least a small base to start from in pursuing greater tactical punch.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 27, 2007, 09:34:50 PM
I hope the discussion continues with more about the D&D game, although, Joel, I'm also wondering (entirely independently of the Robin issue) whether you think it's met its natural end. Everyone, if Joel says it's over, then it will be time to move on to other threads.
Well, Ron, at this point I'm kind of done in the sense that I don't personally have any more input as the thread stands,and it seems like we've explored these issues pretty well. But I'm still perfectly cool with anyone's additional contributions or observations, so if the thread still has legs for some folks out there, be my guest. But spawning new threads is also cool, and if anyone's got more of a tangent than a dead-on-topic post, I'd say that's the way to go.
Incidentally, this Actual Play is being explored a bit further over on Levi's Gamecraft forum, where I related my experiences in relation to Mike Holmes' proposal (http://gamecraft.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=579) that some play that looks "Gamist" isn't actually about Challenge but about about "winning" and "kicking butt" for some other reason. I then split a thread (http://gamecraft.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=581) (with quotes from over here) because Levi was interested in specifically exploring my efforts to switch goals around (from "character gets revenge"to "character kicks some butt" to "character gets new spells") to get satisfaction, in relation to Levi's proposal that some modes of play involve heavy GM control with player satisfaction thriving in specifically marked out areas (like "improvement through mechanics and ability/item combination"). There's some fascinating stuff there, and if anyone wants to schlepp on over and contribute, that'd be cool. Or take some ideas back here if they're relevant. But Ron's right, let's either keep this thread focused or put it to bed.
Peace,
-Joel
Hi there,
Settled: this thread is finished. Discussions are encouraged in new threads.
Best, Ron