How competitive?

[matthijs]

Just ran my first Donjon game last night. Not terribly well prepared; it was a spur-of-the-moment thing, my wife was the only player, and we just played 2 scenes to try out the rules. (I'm terrible at learning rules...)

We had a situation where her character (a Xena-like fighter) was trapped under a fallen tree. She tried to push the tree away, but failed, and got even more severely trapped. Rolled again, failed again. This brings me to my first question: How often should a player be allowed to roll in the same situation?

My second question is: How much competition should there be between player(s) and GM? While the player has more power than in other games, the GM still has control over scenes, when monsters appear etc. The rules seem to encourage a slightly competitive style of play (I'm thinking especially of the GM twisting the players' facts). Doesn't this create an uncomfortable atmosphere?

Hehe, after years of role-playing I find myself asking very newbie-style questions :) oh well...

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Hehe, after years of role-playing I find myself asking very newbie-style questions :) oh well...

Good. I'd hoped Donjon would do that to someone.

This brings me to my first question: How often should a player be allowed to roll in the same situation?

My second question is: How much competition should there be between player(s) and GM? While the player has more power than in other games, the GM still has control over scenes, when monsters appear etc. The rules seem to encourage a slightly competitive style of play (I'm thinking especially of the GM twisting the players' facts). Doesn't this create an uncomfortable atmosphere?

I wouldn't let a player roll more than once for the exact same situation. With that said, the player's failure on a roll means they get to narrate, with the GM's facts, so they could twist the situation in their favor quite a bit. This ties into the second question well.

When designing Donjon, I made the decision early on that this would definitely be a competitive game. Discomfort with it is discomfort with competition - which a lot of people have, and isn't wrong, but does mean Donjon's not going to always be your cup of tea. In play, I have found that the GM's level of competition should be well metered. The GM should harass the players up until the point that they're not enjoying it anymore, and then ease up a bit. By doing this, you get to play against them all game instead of beating them down early on and losing the fun of the game.

[Rich Forest]

Hi Matt (correct me if you don't go by Matt),

I'm a bit confused by the idea that competition should necessarily lead to an uncomfortable atmosphere.  Ever played chess?  Monopoly?  Basketball?  Those games are all competitive.  Even strangers can play these games without the situation being particularly uncomfortable.  And if you're playing with friends (and none of your friends is a dick), an uncomfortable atmosphere isn't likely to be a problem.  

Why should an RPG be an exception?

I guess it depends on how you play the "competition."  To me, actually, Clinton's version sounds a bit much—my group tends toward gamism, but pushing it to the point where people aren't having fun and then letting up seems a bit, I don't know, "unfair" to me.  Like "illusionism for the gamist."  Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you Clinton.  

It's always fun to disagree with the game's designer on how to play his game :-)

I think the key to Donjon is in Clinton's comment about how facts work.  

With that said, the player's failure on a roll means they get to narrate, with the GM's facts, so they could twist the situation in their favor quite a bit.

The players state facts when they succeed, and the GM twists the situation to keep things interesting and keep them in trouble.  The GM states facts when the players fail rolls.  Now the players can twist the unstated bits to their advantage, to reduce the trouble their in.  Depending on how much the GM is empowered as traditional for the role to make the final decision on these things, a good deal of creative problem solving can be the focus of these "failures" and "successes" on the rolls.  Given that the players will often be causing problems for themselves ("Mosters attack!") with successes, perhaps its important to rethink how you interpret what "successful" and "failed" rolls really mean in this game.

Now, if the GM is the classic powerhouse that he's always been, I think competition in this game could become a real problem, just like in any RPG.  Because let's face it.  The GM can always win, if he wants to be hardcore about it.  In this respect, you're not playing chess here.  The GM is in a different power position from the beginning of the game to the end.  If he wants to "win," he can "win."  But in this situation, really, nobody wins.  

In my group's play, the focus of the gamism in Donjon has actually been in the players getting themselves into trouble and seeing if they can get out of it.  It's been a kind of "how far do we dare to go?" gamism.  There is a lot of potential for major escalation in chance taking as players state facts.  Here's an example from an actual game we played.  The player rolled three successes on a notice check of some kind.  

So what did he notice?  First Fact: "Drums of war echoing through the hills."  Other players, at this point, start to look around at each other.  Fact stating player pauses for effect.  

Second Fact: "A hobgoblin with a massive spiked morning star comes into view over the rise of the hill."  Other players look confident, ready to go.  Fact stating player takes a longer pause for effect.  

Third fact: "As he rises above the hill, it becomes apparent that he is riding upon a hobgoblin war machine pulled by dozens of mighty hobgoblin warriors."  Other players (and me as GM), look at fact-stating player with a "you crazy sunovabitch" look, smile, and get ready to throw down.  

We had another one of these situations where the player had the group stumble across, I shit you not, a dragon's lair.  And stumble in blind.  They're in there, in the dark, and can't see anything.  I had no intention of it being a dragon's lair, but one of the player's decided to make some kind of notice check.  What does the player narrate into the cave?  Stench of brimstone, a flame lighting up and causing the glittering coins to shine, and then everyone noticing where that flame is coming from--those are licking flames around the dragon's mouth.  

And sometimes, people die.  But usually not everybody, and it isn't hard to make a new character.

It's a similar principle to what is at work in how magic items are "found" by players.  You can try to find the Hand of Vecna on that goblin you just killed, sure.  But wouldn't your chances be better if you tried for something a little more... reasonable?  Yes.  Sometimes players narrate encounters that way.  Other times they push their luck.  

What?  You say you really want the hand of Vecna?  Better just narrate some facts to have his bony ass show up.  Then kill him and take it.

If you dare.

Rich

[matthijs]

Thanks for your replies, Clinton and Rich!

Due to oversight on my part, we actually didn't play it with one side stating facts and the other side narrating. I can see how that will make a lot of difference, and look forward to trying the game again!

I agree that competition doesn't have to cause an uncomfortable atmosphere. I guess what happened when we tested the game was that none of us were really aware that the game was competitive at all. I don't think this is because the rules don't say so - I guess I just focused on the "player narration" part and thought that meant cooperation without competition.

As long as the whole group is aware that there will be a bit of competition, I don't think it has to be uncomfortable. However, this also assumes that all players & the GM know the rules pretty well. Otherwise, having the GM as both Rules Judge and Narrative Competitor isn't a good thing; it'll make the game a bit unfair. But that's easily solved by playing a scene or two to learn the rules...

Seems like there's a lot of different playing styles wrt how much info you can put into a fact. I see there's been discussion on this before... this is definitely a thing that the whole group must agree on. Not so much a problem if you have players that'll introduce dragon lairs and Hobgoblin war machines, though :)

(BTW: I prefer Matthijs, not Matt).