[D&D] Clash of Gamism and Illusionism

[Halzebier]

Hi there!

Despite some nice hack & slash, I found yesterday's game session in our regular D&D group quite frustrating and indicating that there's trouble ahead.

*-*-*

The gaming group:
We're five men in our thirties. We have been playing D&D together for several years and we are friends outside the game.

We rotate DM duties and this time, it was Jack's turn. However, he's never DM'ed D&D before (but plenty of other games with another group).

*-*-*

The characters:
D&D 3.5e, level 6.

Individual character wealth is approximately in keeping with the values suggested in the DMG, i.e. we use the table which says, for instance, that a 6h-level PC should have gear worth 19,000 gp.

I should mention that we have elaborate systems for splitting and selling the loot. Also, the GM is expected to put appropriate treasure within reach of the PCs, but if they mess up (e.g. fail their search checks, let monsters get away etc.), they will end up poorer than by the book.

*-*-*

The adventure was a standard dungeon crawl ... right up until we got back to town to identify the magic items we'd looted. Turns out that one item had two awesome powers – plus further "unidentifiable" ones.

The value of the first power alone is worth 81,000 gp by the book... PCs can expect to own that kind of stuff at about 14th level. The value of the second power is hard to gauge because it's not even in the DMG. In any case, it's something even a 20th-level spellcaster would salivate over. Ignoring possible drawbacks – unidentifiable powers, remember? -, I'd conservatively put its market price at 150,000 gp.

The players' reactions were quite different: Two players went "Wow!" and I and another player immediately went "That's too good to be true."

*-*-*

So how is the situation going to develop from here on?

(a) We get to keep the item or to sell it for what it is worth (i.e., half its market price).

This would completely mess up game balance and would violate our game contract: Because we have rotating DMs and use a lot of modules, DMs are implicitly required to hand over the party and game-world in good working condition to the next DM. You couldn't just wipe out a city for your homebrew storyline because it might be needed for the next module.

(b) We do not get to keep the item.

This would entail serious deprotagonization. I have no doubt that this is what's going to happen. Either we'll be morally obliged to destroy the artifact or it will be unfairly taken from us in a fight or situation where the cards are stacked against us and/or the DM fudges.

*-*-*

I suggested that we sell the item immediately for *whatever* sum we could get, even if that meant selling it for a fraction of its market value. Several grand would have been fine with me. The suspicious player concurred.

Naturally, we haven't been able to find a buyer. The adventure will continue next week.

*-*-*

As far as I can see, we're experiencing a clash of gamist and simulationist-illusionist sensibilities. From the DM's perspective, I and the other suspicious player are probably exhibiting poor role-play (And he's right – our decision to sell is entirely metagame!) and poor cooperation (Unidentifiable powers? There's a storyline coming up.)

I'm not sure what to do about this mess, not least because I have found talking about our preferences very difficult in the past. I've been trying to nudge our game towards gamism at every turn as a DM. However, I do not think of this as "sneaking up on mode" (as Mike put it), but as "purifying mode": Most of us definitely enjoy gamism and it seems to be the prevailing agenda, if not the only one.

Regards

Hal

[Walt Freitag]

I'm not sure your problem amounts to egregious illusionism -- yet. I think, rather, that you're being teased and it's making you uncomfortable, but the harm might be small. Let me try to explain what I mean.

Since you describe your adventures as modules, and you've generally painted a very consistently Gamist creative agenda just as you said, I imagine that you find yourself drawn consensually into pre-planned adventures at the beginning of each new chapter. There's a princess to rescue, or some evil cultists up in the hills that the local lord sends you to investigate, or a map leading to a dungeon that you found in the treasure horde of your last dungeon. Am I right?

And I suspect you normally wouldn't think of having your characters say, "What's the princess ever done for us? Let's go fishing instead." That would be "poor cooperation," would it not? What you have, then, looks like completely functional participationism with respect to plot-episode framing, which supports Gamism expressed by fairly beating the prescribed challenges within the episode. (Sounds like fun to me!)

What I think has happened with this item is that, exactly as you suspect, the item is not a piece of treasure, it's a plot device. It's just like the treasure map or the captured princess or the local lord who sends you after the cultists. By suggesting to sell it off, you're pushing on boundaries you normally don't mess with. You're doing the equivalent of saying "forget the princess, let's go fishing."

But why are you doing that? You're doing that because the GM pushed on a boundary first. He shoved a plot device into what was supposed to be your reward mechanism! You can't help looking at the item as a could-be should-be reward. You can't help but think, "if only this were a real reward, think how well-rewarded we'd be!" Because you, sir, are greedy! That is to say, you're human. That's the sense in which I think you're being, perhaps inadvertently, teased.

When you suggest "let's just sell it for peanuts" (I might also suggest dropping it quietly into the alms box of the local temple, or into the hands of the local taxman), you're teasing back.

Whether this is (or turns into) dysfunctional Illusionism depends on how things proceed from here. You've suggested several likely possibilities, but some of those possibilities appear to me way more objectionable than others. Having the GM rig a lopsided combat or even fudge rolls to make sure the item gets taken away from you would be a serious social contract breach, because it messes with your core Gamist creative agenda. But finding out that the damn thing will destroy the world unless you go on a quest to get rid of it sounds like no more or less than a typical module plot set-up (it has a certain familiar ring to it, does it not?) framing the next set of challenges. Maybe there's even something a bit more original in store. However, it's also possible that the kind of drift toward Sim-illusionism you're concerned about might be happening; you'll know it if the subsequent adventure becomes all about the "story of the item" instead of all about how you (the players) deal with whatever problem it turns out to present to your characters.

For now, I'd suggest rolling with it until you see where it's going. Treat it as a plot device that just happened to accidentally trespass on your reward system, stop pushing back on it, and see what happens. If it does become a problem, it'll be easier to discuss after the fact, rather than to try to intervene now based on what you suspect might be about to happen.

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Sometimes it's fun just to stick one's fingers into one's ears, and use one's nose to push the big red button.

Two whacked-out items? Dunno just what they'll do? Don't know what the DM has in mind? ... Maybe pat the character on the head, handle the sheet for what might be the last time ... and point the freakin' item at the next handy foe and push the button.

What's the worst that could happen? Lose the character? Nope! The worst things that could happen would be that whatever the DM has planned is (a) lame or (b) unprepared after all.

I guess I'm suggesting turning up the trust-meter on those possible lame outcomes, and to hope that the DM is ready for it, now that he's given you these things. And be ready for your character to become a very light grey cinder, floating on the breeze, or perhaps get transformed into a two-necked hugglewump, whatever that might be.

One way to look at it, anyway. I learned this mainly from Tunnels & Trolls.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

(a) We get to keep the item or to sell it for what it is worth (i.e., half its market price).

This would completely mess up game balance and would violate our game contract: Because we have rotating DMs and use a lot of modules, DMs are implicitly required to hand over the party and game-world in good working condition to the next DM. You couldn't just wipe out a city for your homebrew storyline because it might be needed for the next module.

Suggestion: The item fluctuates in functionality. Sometimes it works, sometimes its an ornament. Magic is like that.

At the meta game level, it entirely serves the purpose that this item is out of play, when other GM's are in the seat (unless they decide otherwise). The PC's carry it, but it's inert and useless.

Somehow establish this as a group. I think how the GM who added it reacts, will indicate his motives. Hopefully you'll see him nod and smile and wish he'd thought of this neat way of chucking in big stuff without putting a load on his friends shoulders.

Note: This isn't anything like turning up the trust level, like Ron suggests. However, sometimes when it comes to communal material, particular people decide they are going to take it to a whole, strange new level. And asking for permission on every step of the way to that would impede their vision.

Your going to have to decide if you want to follow this person, because they are suddenly stepping up and leading you all, with this bombshell they're adding. If you don't, my suggestion is there for you. Their leading might possibly be very exciting...but it also ends up closer to the same old power structure of there only being one GM, in whom we trust. It's just my personal opinion, that letting him lead this way will result in short term gain only.

[Halzebier]

There's a princess to rescue, or some evil cultists up in the hills that the local lord sends you to investigate, or a map leading to a dungeon that you found in the treasure horde of your last dungeon. Am I right?

And I suspect you normally wouldn't think of having your characters say, "What's the princess ever done for us? Let's go fishing instead." That would be "poor cooperation," would it not?

You're dead on.

What I think has happened with this item is that, exactly as you suspect, the item is not a piece of treasure, it's a plot device.

[...]

[The DM] shoved a plot device into what was supposed to be your reward mechanism! You can't help looking at the item as a could-be should-be reward. You can't help but think, "if only this were a real reward, think how well-rewarded we'd be!" Because you, sir, are greedy!

Damn straight, I am. =)

Greed is good, at least in a proper gamist context.

(Y'know, I've been saving up for this nifty item from that one book... Overlooked by all, but a perfect fit for my barbarian build.)

For now, I'd suggest rolling with it until you see where it's going. Treat it as a plot device that just happened to accidentally trespass on your reward system, stop pushing back on it, and see what happens. If it does become a problem, it'll be easier to discuss after the fact, rather than to try to intervene now based on what you suspect might be about to happen.

Wow...

In a way, I knew much of this, but you spelled it out clearly and put everything into perspective.

Thank you, Walt - I feel that this has been a very helpful post, not to mention a good read. I think we will be moving into illusionist territory (there are some other clues), but it might not be as extreme as I fear and rolling with it for now is good advice.

Regards

Hal
--
@Ron: I do feel tempted to push The Big Red Button ostensibly offered by the DM, but I think this would be a serious breach of social contract. And that's just the crux of our inability to openly identify and discuss our desires: Maybe it'd be fun to push things and maybe we'd all be golden with that - and maybe not. My fear is that pushing things will just lead to open or veiled deprotagonization (e.g. "You can't find a buyer.", "Its world-destroying powers only work for its creator's descendants." etc.). This would strain SOD,  take up valuable game time (which could be spent hacking ,-) and be just lame and frustrating.

@Noon: Your suggestion would allow the DM to hand over the game in good working condition, but I'd still be unhappy about the differences in power level from DM to DM. If the game moves into Monty Haul territory, it will be frustrating to go back to 'normal' because we are suckers for D&D's many toys. We realize that sometimes 'less is more', but parting with privilege is harder than never tasting it.