[D&D 3.5] Gamist Non-Affirmation

[Bjorn]

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

[Peter Nordstrand]

I 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.

[Bjorn]

I 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

[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

[Larry L.]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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
Robin's Laws? (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 (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), 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

[Joel P. Shempert]

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

[Joel P. Shempert]

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 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 (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

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Settled: this thread is finished. Discussions are encouraged in new threads.

Best, Ron