Challenging Players Notions

[prophet118]

lately i have found myself wondering exactly how and what i should do to challenge the players preconceived notions of what a game should be..

that basically means that i take them out of their element.. (white wolf, or D&D).. some do fairly well in other game systems, though some flounder like fish out of water, trying to grasp the game system, even though they dont really want to

now, preconceived notions... i play a lot of different kinds of game, and lately, one of the ones i have been doing, is Rune... it is a viking fantasy game, set in an obvious mythical version of our own world, during the time of the vikings.. however some of the players i have played with (who havent played Rune) assume that there is no RP, and has very little redeeming qaulities, after hours of assuring them that this is wrong, and that i have made every effort to make it a total success on the RP front, i still find people unwilling to step into the role of a viking warrior... there are no classes, and the only race you play, are vikings... you play a viking warrior..thats as simple as it gets... and games can general get as simple as "go slay the goblins" to as complex as "solve this problem".... or whatever... but yet, a preconceived notion cast into everyones brain, is that vikings were stupid thick headed fools who dragged their knuckles...

i know i harp on some things, and i tend to talk about otgher systems more than TROS... but this is just my background..

from a TROs standpoint, i find it difficult to pull players away from their stereotypical D&D approach to RP.. "hey dm how many hit points does this thing have "... questions as simple as that, irritate me

i never wanna know how many hit points the creature has, nor do i wanna know what its AC is... though after a while i can easily figure out what it likely is.. "ok a 19 didnt hit him, but a 21 did... so somewhere in there.."... thats just habit i suppose..

what i find hardest to do, is pull players out of their shells... some players hide behind the rules, some their sworxds in game, saying and doing things they never would, and then some players are more like their characters than anything else...

when i play a character, i play a concept, i know what i want to do, and i make my character around that, and honestly thats no different than TROs, you know your concept, and you build from that... whether it be by random die rolls (or point buy system) or by doing TROS style..

i guess in closing im simply saying that if i could open just one persons eyes to something new, id feel that i had really and truely accomplished something........

course in a way i have, a friend of mind just ordered the TROS main book, and we'll be starting a saturday afternoon game around the first of the year... so my advertising is already paying off......lol

[Bankuei]

Um, I'm not quite sure what the thrust of this thread is, but I'd thought I'd comment on it since I believe that preconceptions and conditioning are one of the worst things to have to deal with in anybody, in any activity.

First, on note of your problems with your players...
Not everyone wants to "roleplay".  Some people honestly do want Diablo with minatures, and in fact, it can be fun at times.  If this is what your players want, then there's no changing that, and you should think about finding players who want what you want.

I've said it before, if you play TROS as D&D, you'll get D&D with more gore.   That's it.  The mentality is no longer, "Who do I kill next?", but "What's worth killing for? Does this person have to die?  What will the consequences be?"  As you can see, this is some complicated stuff to think about when we're talking about killing things.  Your players may simply not want that.  Instead of trying to change people, or tell them what's fun, find folks who want the same kind of experience you want.

My highest recommendation is finding folks who aren't hardcore gamers, with years of experience(conditioning, preconceptions, unwillingness to change), but instead people who have just started, are looking for something different, or who have never rp'ed before.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

TROS probably has too many similarities to the games that they are used to to really challenge their paradigms. If you really want to shake their world, try InSpectres from Memento-Mori, SOAP (can be found on the resources page), or, if they insist on fantasy, Donjon from Anvilwerks.

Any of these games will make players take a second look at the ways you can play RPGs.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I wrote kind of a biggish essay about this whole issue. Check out GNS and other matters of role-playing design if you'd like. Contrary to the title, it's really about role-playing as an activity.

Best,
Ron

[Mokkurkalfe]

I think it'll come gradually. It did to my players, or rather, it's coming right now. Behold the evolution from D&D to TROS:

* First, there was basically hack&slash with tros rules. Arms flew, legs where chopped of two at a time and the description "surface organs destroyed" caused much player moaning and laughter. I couldn't make them use the SA system, due to complete apathy and uninterest in the inventing of SA's.

* Due to many high level wounds(only one fight that lead to a death, though), the players start to play more tactically and get more cautious and "realistic" in their playing. The fighting gets more and more varied.

* After much threats and pleading, I finally made them use the SA's. These where mostly "hate Gols", "kill a dragon" and similar "munchkin" SA's. Pretty soon they realized who incredible useful just two or three extra dice can be.

* SA's is now the preferred method, as it should be, and as soon as they are used, it's really just a matter of time until the players donate their reward to the rebuilding of the village that the Gols just razed(Said they had no use for the money, and besides, they got a Conscience point).

* The latest sessions was a major breaktrough, as one player commented "that was great fun!" on a piece of play with no combat at all. Combat is still very fun, of course, but the game is much more varied than before.

Now, we're casual gamers, and pretty young besides, so we haven't got some 10-20 years of gaming behind us like most people here seem to have. Still, you'll probably just have to keep on for a little longer.

[Mike Holmes]

Now, we're casual gamers, and pretty young besides, so we haven't got some 10-20 years of gaming behind us like most people here seem to have. Still, you'll probably just have to keep on for a little longer.

That's a fairly astute observation. Long time gamers often do get into the habit of "knowing" how to play, and not being open to other options. And, besides, who wants to wait for people to come around? Especially when they might never do so (better to know now...)?

So, that said, my POV is that you have to use a bit more direct methods than the ones you have M. Discussion is first on my list. Ron will be the first to tell you not to use Forge terminology, and I'd state the same thing (Forge terminology is best restricted to The Forge). But just discuss some of the general ideas in plain english (Swedish, whathaveyou). Sometimes discussion is all you need to get people to understand.

The other option is the shock version, which works better for people who learn by doing. I feel that this method is best accomplished by playing one of the games I mentioned (or even Ron's Elfs if you want a really demented session). Because they only work at all if you break the paradigms and play them as written.

The first time you're playing SOAP, and a player looks at you like you're the GM (the game has no player assigned to that position) and asks "So what happens?" and you respond "I dunno, what?" they'll suddenly see how things can be drastically different. Same thing in InSpectres. "I rolled a succeess, what happens now?" and you respond as GM "I dunno, what?". The first perception roll in Donjon, "What do I find with my two successes?" and you say, "I dunno, what?"  It's like a lightbulb going on as suddenly the player gets it.

Now, the paradigm that gets shattered with these particular games isn't actually the one that Prophet needs shattered, really. What he needs to break is the idea that the players should only be making decisions based on their perception of striving well as a player against the game. As such, a game like The Pool might be more appropriate, or, possibly Zak Arneston's Shadows.

All you need is a one-shot of these games, BTW. SOAP is good because it only takes an hour or so to play (including teaching the rules, chargen, and play). As such, you can play it after a short session, or before everyone arrives, etc.

BTW, Prophet, I forgot to mention previously that I think you're using Rune totally inappropriately. There should be little to no Role-Playing in Rune. That's not at all what it's designed for. To use the Forge terminiology, it's a Gamist game, and well designed as one. To use it to play in any othe manner is to change the thrust of the game hard from it's design. A design that I think even the designers (who were basing it off the video game, after all) intended to have little roleplaying. Rune is really more like the game Frag. Just a tabletop excercise in tactics.

IOW, your players are correct in their assumption that they should play Rune as they claim. This is what GNS is all about (and why Ron is refering you to the essay). The fact is that certain systems support certain styles of play better than others. What you're looking for is the Simulationist mode of play from your players (probably). And that's just not going to come from Rune, easily. It can come from D&D, but in a lousy sorta mixed up way, usually. It can definitely come from TROS. Your players are twisting TROS in a manner that's not intended. Mokkurkalfe's players were doing it even more extremely.

All they have to do is play by the rules of TROS, and the intent behind them, and you'll get the sort of play you're looking for. But getting them to buy into that, if they're entrenched may take some talk or demonstration. And as Chris warns, somtimes it's imposssible.

Mike

[Jaeger]

The biggest thing I notice in playing TROS is that it is hard for some to get away from the "high fantasy" style magic style of play.

 D&D and nearly every fantasy book currently out there portrays magic spells and items as an everyday thing...  And some TROS players/GMs seem to think they must have magic items or deal with magical things constantly in order to be playing a fantasy RPG.

 What originally drew me to TROS was that you can have a fun campaign with little or no magic. That's the way I runthings in my campaigns - no magical players, NO magical items, virtually all human opponents. Yes an instance of fighting Gol and one encounter with a wizard might happen, but that's it for the rest of the campaign, and it's made clear to the players that thier charactors just had a once in a lifetime experience.

 But in other campaigns that I've played in it seems there is this need to constantly make magic a major factor in play. Instead of doing what I like best - gritty adventures in an alternate medieval setting.

 Yes a hint of legend and magic can add spice to things, but I feel that most do such things in overkill, and are missing a chance at some really good (and different from the norm) rolepaying.

[Jake Norwood]

Couldn't agree more.

Jake

[prophet118]

[quote="Mike Holmes
BTW, Prophet, I forgot to mention previously that I think you're using Rune totally inappropriately. There should be little to no Role-Playing in Rune. That's not at all what it's designed for. To use the Forge terminiology, it's a Gamist game, and well designed as one. To use it to play in any othe manner is to change the thrust of the game hard from it's design. A design that I think even the designers (who were basing it off the video game, after all) intended to have little roleplaying. Rune is really more like the game Frag. Just a tabletop excercise in tactics.

IOW, your players are correct in their assumption that they should play Rune as they claim. This is what GNS is all about (and why Ron is refering you to the essay). The fact is that certain systems support certain styles of play better than others. What you're looking for is the Simulationist mode of play from your players (probably). And that's just not going to come from Rune, easily. It can come from D&D, but in a lousy sorta mixed up way, usually. It can definitely come from TROS. Your players are twisting TROS in a manner that's not intended. Mokkurkalfe's players were doing it even more extremely.

All they have to do is play by the rules of TROS, and the intent behind them, and you'll get the sort of play you're looking for. But getting them to buy into that, if they're entrenched may take some talk or demonstration. And as Chris warns, somtimes it's imposssible.

Mike[/quote]

ahh yes, rune meant as hack and slash, yes it still is, however since it was meant to be a pick up game, i didnt see the logic of making the players a.) bring premade encounters that they made, b.) screw over anyone not using melee weapons, c.) make everyone round robin gm encounters..

now what i did do was alter it so that it became more fair to other weapons,  and made a single gm, whos job it is to run the game, and keep people happy........damn straight its brutal as hell, its one of the most hack and slash games ive ever ran, however that doesnt mean that there shouldnt be a story... even conan movies had a damn plot... albiet a weak one...

i mean come on, can you really abide by a system that tells you to screw over anyone using missile weapons, it says to put any and everything in their way so that they cannot use missile weapons... this isnt mentioned in jest, this is mentioned in the encounter making sections...

thats a load of crap, so i altered the system, customizing it to the group of people i run it for..

[prophet118]

on occasion i feel as though bringing a new game into a group isnt worth it... mainly due to the lack of the fantasy element... but keep in mind that i actually have 4 different groups i play with, and in my game, i have recruited the players from those other games that i feel will grasp the system and bring something to it...

maybe thats wrong, but my friday mage game is running very smoothly, and with very little trouble, whereas the wednesday D&D group i play in sees our actions from tonight as cowardly...

ok the set up, we are playing in the world of Shannara, and we have to get the heir (a pc) to some stronghold to get the sword that is supposed to beat the bad guy.... ok so its been a crapload of violence, with me usually away from it, im playing a basic fighter/rogue, who specializes in trinkets (greek fire, stuff of that nature), well we come up against a small band of trolls (from what i understand, not the same as the standard troll), and the party majority vote was to kill them, not just kill them, but go in, swords whirling, and slaughter them, why not, 8 of them, 10 of us... well i had a different idea, i had already used my disguise skill numerous times, and had even dressed up similiar to the bad guy (and freaked out some of his cohorts), so my plan was to go to them posing as the bad guys men, that way we avoid a fight, and can get to the stronghold relatively in one peice... the plan works, and had some minor trouble when we got to the superiors tent, nothing serious though, as mine and the other guys quick thinking got us out of being slaughtered ourselves...

all this time the other less sneaky little bastards are saying "let me kill it, please i must kill it, this stupid plan will never work, we'll need to kill them".......so thanks to some great rolls, we managed to actually pull off our charade (wont know how successful til next week though).... the point was that we took 8 trolls with us, and had them convinced that we  were on their side, we strode into a camp of 40 trolls, and managed to convince their leader of the same thing...

now that took alot of effort on our parts, and skill (honestly, my perform and bluff abilities are fairly high)...

the thing that ended up irking me about the whole thing, was the amazingly small amount of XP, though it doesnt shock me, as we all know D&D xp is based on how much crap you kill..

i thought that our plan was brillant, and very very cool, unfortunately as we were leaving the game, we got to hear how the majority of the players hated the idea, and thought that the trolls should have been slaughtered from the get go....

what leads people to think this way?..
lately i have become less and less anxious to play D&D... its all one big hack fest... and god forbid that you have an idea that keeps you out of combat.

[prophet118]

The biggest thing I notice in playing TROS is that it is hard for some to get away from the "high fantasy" style magic style of play.

 D&D and nearly every fantasy book currently out there portrays magic spells and items as an everyday thing...  And some TROS players/GMs seem to think they must have magic items or deal with magical things constantly in order to be playing a fantasy RPG.

 What originally drew me to TROS was that you can have a fun campaign with little or no magic. That's the way I runthings in my campaigns - no magical players, NO magical items, virtually all human opponents. Yes an instance of fighting Gol and one encounter with a wizard might happen, but that's it for the rest of the campaign, and it's made clear to the players that thier charactors just had a once in a lifetime experience.

 But in other campaigns that I've played in it seems there is this need to constantly make magic a major factor in play. Instead of doing what I like best - gritty adventures in an alternate medieval setting.

 Yes a hint of legend and magic can add spice to things, but I feel that most do such things in overkill, and are missing a chance at some really good (and different from the norm) rolepaying.

i myself love doing hardcore style games, basically giving players just enough rope to hang themselves, and seeing what they will do with it...but the idea in my games is that the players own skill and knowledge must get them out... yes that can be hzardous, as some players play their character with knowledge they shouldnt have....

magic in many game worlds i run are general fairly low...but people quickly get tired of this...

hell i remember playing in a game with my friends in florida... if we got a +2 magic sword, we were about to get our asses kicked

[ShaneNINE]

Instead of doing what I like best - gritty adventures in an alternate medieval setting.

You wouldn't happen to play Hârn, would you?

[Bob Richter]

i thought that our plan was brillant, and very very cool, unfortunately as we were leaving the game, we got to hear how the majority of the players hated the idea, and thought that the trolls should have been slaughtered from the get go....

what leads people to think this way?..
lately i have become less and less anxious to play D&D... its all one big hack fest... and god forbid that you have an idea that keeps you out of combat.

D&Ders are a unique-- and disturbingly large-- group in roleplaying.

They can be distinguished (in any game) by behaviors which derive from what D&D has traditionally rewarded, i.e.:
1) Killing anything in sight.
2) Grabbing as much loot as they can carry.

I've tried explaining that this turns them into murderers and brigands, but such explanations fall on deaf ears.

Nevertheless, there's nothing ACTUALLY wrong with D&D 3rd Edition in this respect. It allows for abnormally large XP awards for creative solutions. It uses the term "defeat" rather than "kill." I would have ruled that your group had bloodlessly defeated some 40 or 50 Trolls, which would have been an impressive XP haul, I'm sure. I might also have given you a little bonus for your innovative solution.

Even better are "story" awards. :)

My objections to D&D are entirely tied up in the system's construction. D20s (which I detest, especially used singly as the means of all conflict resolution,) hitpoints (gaagh!) levels, and classes.

They're also so essentially D&D that I don't see how that PARTICULAR game could ever be improved. You could always build another game system for any of D&D's worlds. I might even suggest adapting TRoS (but only 'cause I love it so much.)

[Mike Holmes]

thats a load of crap, so i altered the system, customizing it to the group of people i run it for..

It's not a load of crap. Read the essay, yet?

Do you play chess? Do you ever modify it so that it's more of a "proper" RPG? The Dungeon Boardgame? Rune is designed to be played like chess, or a boardgame, or wargame. You are out to beat the other players, and win the game. You do this by selecting the best armor and weapons as the game says they exist, and putting forth your best tactical effort.

I'm not just saying that Rune should be "Hack n' Slash". I'm saying that anyone who attempts to say anything in-character while playing Rune is missing the point of the game. It is, in no way, shape, or form about making a story. It's about winning, plain and simple.

You are making the same mistake that your players are making. To you, this sort of play "isn't role-playing". But that's just not true. Some people, including the designers of Rune, I'll wager, think this is a valid and time honored style of play. It's just one that you don't like, or understand. Big difference. Not all role-playing has to be about story.

So you're taking a game designed for people who are not like you, and trying to make it fit your style. This is a big waste of effort, IMO. Why not just play a game that does support the style that you're interested in? Like TROS? Interestingly, your player's style may be one that's more supported by Rune. Are you sure that you're doing them a favor by changing it?

Your players are doing the same thing with TROS from the other side of the table. They are assuming that their style of play is the "one true way" to play RPGs. And you want to shake that up. Fine. First I suggest casting off some of your presuppositions on what an RPG is, or is not.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Hi Bob,

Nevertheless, there's nothing ACTUALLY wrong with D&D 3rd Edition in this respect. It allows for abnormally large XP awards for creative solutions. It uses the term "defeat" rather than "kill." I would have ruled that your group had bloodlessly defeated some 40 or 50 Trolls, which would have been an impressive XP haul, I'm sure. I might also have given you a little bonus for your innovative solution.

Hmm. You are correct that the reward system, in and of itself, does not promote hack n' slash. But that's only a part of the picture. When the only abilities that my charcter are enumerated with are in terms of how good I am at killing creatures, does the game not inform me that this is the way to go in handling encounters? Where's the Diplomat Class with all the abilities to bloodlessly get out of encounters.

Nope, D&D3E, though better in this respect, is still all focused on the killing, and the looting.

Which is fine, BTW. Once again we see the anti-gamist bias here. Know what? I don't like playing that way either. But that doesn't invalidate all those other D&D player's enjoyment of that form of play. IOW, you can't convince them that they are wrong. And it's wrong to do so.

What you can do, however, is display your mode of play as an attractive alternative. Convert with carrots, not sticks. The stick method has proven so disasterous in the past that I reckon that it may be the leading cause of group dissolution, across all RPG play. If the player's don't see why it's fun, then they won't enjoy play. Threatening their characters is the last way to change their minds.

Mike