[D&D] Roger's Group

[Roger]

This is about the third D&D session I've run with this group.  The group consists of:

1.  Tammy, my wife.  Complete newcomer to RPGs.

2.  Kari, my wife's friend.  Almost a complete newcomer to RPGs.

3.  Mike, Kari's wife and also my friend.  Fairly experienced in old-school AD&D; no RPG experience outside of AD&D that I'm aware of.

4.  Roger, being me.  Started cutting my teeth on AD&D about twenty years ago.  The DM.

Before I get into the session itself, I should really provide some context.

About a year ago, Tammy and Kari came to me and said they really wanted to learn how to play that cool Dungeons and Dragons game.  They didn't really know what it was, but they knew they wanted to try it.

I'm still not entirely sure where this D&D cachet comes from or where they caught it.  It still drives the group to a large extent, even now.

I prepared an adventure for the group.  In the course of it, I finally realized something which had been lurking around the back of my head for some time:

Character hooks suck.

For the non-D&D folks, published adventures commonly have a section near the front called 'character hooks', which presumably serve as in-character motivation.  They're generally things like 'The dwarf grew up in the mining town now under attack' or 'The bard has heard legends of a sack of treasure buried under the great oak tree.'

In contrast, what I've realized is this:

Player hooks are solid gold.

By player hooks, what I mean is out-of-character motivation for the players.  The concrete example in this case was with my player Mike.  He's quite the beer aficionado.  Loves it, brews his own, has a real passion for it.

So I sent the party after the secrets of a dwarven master brewer.  And it worked great.  Mike eagerly led the group, and the others were happy enough to follow.

I'm chagrined that it took me so very long to realize something so self-evident.  But there it is.

In retrospect, D&D isn't particularly good in letting the players express their own interests within the system, especially compared to some other systems.  On the other hand, Mike's character sheet listed his character's religion as 'beer', so there were definitely some hints.  Still, it's a bit disappointing that I needed to sleuth it out.

So Mike, playing a straightforward dwarven fighter, was happy.  His wife, Kari, was playing a halfling rogue, and I think generally enjoyed herself.  My wife, Tammy, was also playing a halfling rogue.

Interestingly enough, there didn't seem to be any concerns about the well-known "niche protection" issue.  It just didn't come up.  Perhaps in time it would, but I still think it's kind of interesting.

Tammy is still wrapping her head around the game.  When a trap goes off and her character takes damage, she tends to take it very personally.  The other two players have been (more or less gently) admonishing her.

In the main, that's been my plan -- letting them discover on their own, as much as possible, what this whole role-playing thing is all about.  There are still times when they all say "Well, what do we do?" but they are getting fewer and farther between.

On the other hand, Tammy also has a much more intuitive grasp of the degree of narrative freedom that I'm giving them.  When she says, "alright, I walk into the woods and find the druids," I'm more than happy to let that happen.  There was initially a slight sense from the other players that this was "cheating" somehow, but I think they're starting to take the cue from me.

In general, I'm trying to play the game largely as written.  Unfortunately, I've run into exactly what Russell describes: it often feels like I'm just running rats through a maze.  At this point, however, the rats seem to be thoroughly enjoying it, so I don't want to deviate too terribly radically.  But I am planning on giving them a go with a few different systems, to give them an idea of what is out there these days.

As written, the game revolves largely around combat.  This has had a fairly significant deprotagonizing effect on Tammy and, to a lesser degree, Kari.  Their characters are not as combat effective as Mike's, and they're just not as interested, I believe, in the hacking and slashing. 

A couple of times I had the sense that they were getting frustrated in that they knew what they wanted to try to accomplish, but they didn't really know how to translate that into character actions.  I'm tempted to write that off as a classic failing of task-based resolution, though I should probably take some responsibility myself as well.

Although I'm complaining a fair bit, I think the players generally had fun and look forward to the next session.  I feel it's a bit of a case of "30 minutes of fun crammed into five hours of playing" but that may be an exaggeration.  I personally found the experience a bit dull, but as the experienced RPGer, that's something I need to work on myself.  After all, I've got the raw clay of players here, ready to be molded into whatever game we can all find enjoyable.  A rare and precious thing.

If anyone has any specific game suggestions that sound like they may fit with our group -- "like D&D, but better" -- I'd be happy to hear them.


Cheers,
Roger

[Mike Holmes]

About a year ago, Tammy and Kari came to me and said they really wanted to learn how to play that cool Dungeons and Dragons game.  They didn't really know what it was, but they knew they wanted to try it.

I'm still not entirely sure where this D&D cachet comes from or where they caught it.  It still drives the group to a large extent, even now.

<Boggled>

Uh, could you find out? This is the first time I've ever heard of two women approaching men to play D&D because they heard it was cool. My world is turned upside down. You must find out how they got this impression, and we have to give money to whomever it is that caused it! ;-)

Interestingly enough, there didn't seem to be any concerns about the well-known "niche protection" issue.  It just didn't come up.  Perhaps in time it would, but I still think it's kind of interesting.

Nope. "Niche Protection" is what you need to have when you use Character Hooks. That is, when not hooking the player by what interests them about the character, you're relegated to the player's input being having their character shine in terms of effectiveness by turns. If, in fact, you use Player Hooks, then what interests them about play is, instead, how their character interacts with those hooks. Which can be different between even similar characters. Unlike Character Hooks which present Hobson's Choice.

Tammy is still wrapping her head around the game.  When a trap goes off and her character takes damage, she tends to take it very personally.  The other two players have been (more or less gently) admonishing her.

Huh. Why? Are they trying to create player-character separation? Or is it that Tammy is seeing traps as somehow arbitrary? I suspect the latter.

See, what's going on here is that you're getting Narrativism-Gamism incoherence. That is, Player Hooks are a narrativism tool, so she probably thinks that play is not about the competition (makes sense with what you say later about her intuitively grasping the "narrative freedom") - that the role of a "rogue" is to look for traps every ten feet. This is the problem to shifting to a more narrativism presentation, while using gamism prep materials. This is why the other players feel she's "cheating." Very standard incoherence.

In the main, that's been my plan -- letting them discover on their own, as much as possible, what this whole role-playing thing is all about.  There are still times when they all say "Well, what do we do?" but they are getting fewer and farther between.

Well, this has the potential to lead to lots of incoherence. That is, it's OK for them to try out different modes and such. But at some point you want to get everyone on the same sheet of music.

But I am planning on giving them a go with a few different systems, to give them an idea of what is out there these days.

An easy shift, that's free to try out, would be to use The Shadow of Yesterday. Check it out.

A couple of times I had the sense that they were getting frustrated in that they knew what they wanted to try to accomplish, but they didn't really know how to translate that into character actions.  I'm tempted to write that off as a classic failing of task-based resolution, though I should probably take some responsibility myself as well.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt seeing as the hundreds of pages of D&D rules strongly militate against where you're trying to go. I don't blame your play. Instead I blame you for system choice. :-)

Although I'm complaining a fair bit, I think the players generally had fun and look forward to the next session.  I feel it's a bit of a case of "30 minutes of fun crammed into five hours of playing" but that may be an exaggeration.

Now I'm convinced. Move immediately to TSOY, or Hero Quest, or something else. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Mike may have about half a session worth of doubts, but ignore him, and let the enthusiasm of you and the other two players carry him along.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

100% agreement with Mike. It's very rare that I'll advise someone, in Actual Play, to switch systems as opposed to people or behavior, but this is one of those cases. The Shadow of Yesterday.

Best,
Ron

[MetalBard]

This is really interesting, because my group just recently (well, like six months ago) switched from D&D to Burning Wheel for almost the same reasons.  Now, I'm not recommending Burning Wheel to people just starting out on RPing (my group definitely wasn't that), but how would you guys compare Burning Wheel and The Shadow of Yesterday in the context of switching to either because of the above-mentioned problems in D&D?

[Mike Holmes]

Very different switches. I wouldn't say that BW wouldn't work for a starting group, but I could see how it might not work for a group like the one in this case. That is, BW is still for people who want a lot of crunch in their play. I'm sensing that the group in this case will take to TSOY's lighter, and far more focused system. BW does a ton of things really well, and that's great if you want all of those things. TSOY does just a couple of things nigh perfectly. And those things are what I think the group above wants.

That said, who knows. If, in fact, they complain that there's not enough meat to bite into system-wise, it may turn out that BW is precisely what the doctor ordered. Might be right up Mike's alley (check out the Nog rules that play right to his dwarf character's religion).

For you, Andrew, TSOY might be good. But hard to say. What was it that didn't suit you about both D&D and TSOY? With systems that diverse, it should be pretty easy to determine your needs accurately from what you dislike about both.

Mike

[Roger]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.  I'll give The Shadows of Yesterday another look -- I read over it when it was first published. 

I'm responding to Mike's points as they were the most extensive, but I appreciate everyone who responded.

[On the girls' interest in D&D]

<Boggled>

Uh, could you find out? This is the first time I've ever heard of two women approaching men to play D&D because they heard it was cool. My world is turned upside down. You must find out how they got this impression, and we have to give money to whomever it is that caused it!

It seems to have largely stemmed from that Dead Alewives' sketch on Dungeons & Dragons.  The "I'm attacking the darkness!" one.  That and the background noise of their husbands occasionally talking about it.

Nope. "Niche Protection" is what you need to have when you use Character Hooks.

Interesting -- I hadn't looked at it quite that way before.  Makes sense to me.

[On Tammy's irritation over traps]

Huh. Why? Are they trying to create player-character separation? Or is it that Tammy is seeing traps as somehow arbitrary? I suspect the latter.

It could be.  I think she might see her character taking damage as some sort of passive-aggressive attack against her as a player.

See, what's going on here is that you're getting Narrativism-Gamism incoherence.

Makes sense to me.

I'll let the gang know how my next session with the group using TSoY goes. 



Cheers,
Roger

[MetalBard]

For you, Andrew, TSOY might be good. But hard to say. What was it that didn't suit you about both D&D and TSOY? With systems that diverse, it should be pretty easy to determine your needs accurately from what you dislike about both.

Actually, I've never played the Shadow of Yesterday, but I've been looking at it as an alternative to Burning Wheel if some of our group gets too down about the "crunchiness" of Burning Wheel (the scripting and character generation come to mind).  I love the system and I was the one who introduced and ran our first Burning Wheel game as an alternative when it was apparent that most people were unhappy or worn-out on D&D, but there were and are a few hiccups.  For some of my group, it seems that something like Keys might be more easily played to since some of the players seem to get lost in all their BITs (Beliefs, Instincts and Traits) in Burning Wheel.  The whole group digs the character-driven and narrative nature of Burning Wheel, though.

I'm essentially looking at TSOY as a possible alternate that I could run every now and then to give those who are on board with BW's concepts a break from the mechanical parts they find arduous, but maintain the character-driven and narrative focus.

Sorry to interject, Roger, but I found your situation similar to my group's.

[Mike Holmes]

It seems to have largely stemmed from that Dead Alewives' sketch on Dungeons & Dragons.  The "I'm attacking the darkness!" one.  That and the background noise of their husbands occasionally talking about it.

Uh, OK, it seems that somehow we've reached some sort of Dorkiness Event Horizon where the mass of dorkiness has become so heavy that it's caused the entire universe to invert. By which I mean to say that the sketch in question is actually gamers bashing other gamers really hard. How that makes it cool, I haven't a clue. Self-deprecation?

I still don't get it. <me with face all scrunchy>

Interesting -- I hadn't looked at it quite that way before.  Makes sense to me.

I think she might see her character taking damage as some sort of passive-aggressive attack against her as a player.

Right, that's what happens with this sort of incoherence. The player says something like, "I dash down the corridor after the image of my love!" and then the system punishes her in a seemingly arbitrary fashion for not checking for traps. Almost like you put that trap there to tell her that she's playing incorrectly. It's like you telling her, "Your urge to play your character's issues out is bad play!" The gamism player expects damage as a measure if how well they're measuring up. Unless it makes the character's issue relevant somehow, the narrativism playing player will not understand the point.

Has Mike ever said to her something like, "Well, dungeons are dangerous places, and you can't just run off like that and not expect the character to avoid getting hurt!" This is a really bad statement because it can be interpreted thematically ("We only play themes about getting hurt in dungeons.") Wheras what he really is doing is trying to perpetuate the gam-sim dysfunctional hybrid. 

I'll let the gang know how my next session with the group using TSoY goes.

Do.

And you, too, Andrew.

Mike