My character is a level 9 cleric, Daniel's is level 10 rogue or so, earned all the way from level 1. Mathew, Daniels younger brother, is GM. Close friends of mine.

The game is from a recent issue of dungeon, I think. No idea of what it's called.

Okay, so we start in the tower our characters have claimed and been refurbishing. And it starts off with a merchant coming by and…

"He wants to hire you to escort him to a festival, do you take the job? He offers 650 in gold", said a little more elaborately, but you get the jist.

I've become sick to death of this question…of course were going to take it, nothings going to happen if we don't! Actually the problem isn't that we have to take it, but that we have to engage with it. There's the hello's on both sides, the statements of intent, the questions that I at least ask in case our having a chance to ask them is important in some latter challenge. And it goes on and on, unless you stop it (which is hard to do, if you think your supposed to work out some clue from this process).

"Okay, now, what's the first conflict we run into?", I try asking, after that. An almost explicit request for scene framing.

There's a sort of blank response. I think he tries to digest it and the eventual response is 'Okay, so you head off…what was the time of year again? And your traveling below these mountains (points to home made map. Daniel assists with the mountains name)". And so on, for several minutes.

Now Matthew looks to us and there's probably a blank response from us. He's finished his description and is looking for what that prompts in us. I'm almost bouncing up and down in my seat, like I'm waiting through a video games opening scene, but pressing the button doesn't end it early.

Sim Vs gamism. Even the payment was in gems, which the value of was almost incidentally mentioned after their offering. Don't think about rewards, think about how those gems must look!

Nothing happens. Mathew declares we find a bow in the middle of the road (actually, we are asked to roll spot checks to find it...I don't know why) and the battle mat is pulled out. At this point Chris gets home from work and his character joins the party (he was sleeping in the merchants cart). Thinking gamist, I say I'm spotting for snipers (in case the bows a trap), and roll the dice so as to further get that SIS action into motion. There aren't any, but there are two spiders in a nearby tree. Combat ensues and I get webbed. One runs up to me and bites me, doing little real damage, but lowering my strength score as I fail the save. Daniel makes a derogatory noise about that and makes a quip about a cleric with no neutralise poison memorised (to which I say it's a waste of space normally). I feel slightly pissed about being stirred on this and start looking for my options to beat this now or in future. In other words, I'm told I've lost (lost a small challenge) and I get pissed and look to win over it now (preferably) or next time. My gamist pride forces me to mention here that I have +8 fort save and +5 heal…I found in the rules that I roll heal after a failed check, so with two rolls I was pretty safe from the second poison save I'd have to make.

Speaking of which, I try and remain quiet about that second save you should do (it's even safer if you don't do a roll at all). I don't know if it's hard core gamist, but I started playing a memory game with Mathew/the GM, seeing if he'd remember to apply it latter. If he failed his memory test, then I win! Then bloody Chris reminds him "Shouldn't Callan being doing a second poison save now?" "Thanks for that, Chris!". He does this…like's to get authoritarian about the rules for the meta game power it gives him briefly. He will say its for something that sounds like simulationist reasons, but it isn't IMO.

Anyway, we wack the spiders (Daniel moving to flank when the one that bit me got close) and then the GM calls for wilderness checks. This leads us to notice a scuffle happened here and further in is a guard with two spiders ready to eat him. They die even quicker (I'm chasing after my 5yo son who is present, during this mostly, so don't quite see what happens).

Okay, he's a guard for this festival and got surprised here or something. Okay, I didn't pay much attention. On a side note, the arrangements for how this guard comes along happen with Daniel saying the guard can ride behind my character on my horse. I don't like my resources being volunteered for me (thinking about it, it's like them starting to play my part of the game for me), but I know saying 'nuh uh' will get me a 'why are you making a fuss' thing. So I ignore it, as no one actually asked me if that's what happens and without my credibility granted for him being on my horse, he's in the merchants cart if anyone actually asks me latter on. I note this because I see a dynamic here but can't quite name it and would like help.

So, we travel futher and discover a big rock on the side of the road. Chris's PC detects magic on it and reads it. It's something about monsters being kept below. Interestingly Mathew just says its about drow, after reading it's inscription to us. And then he notes the spider/drow connection. Then someone spots an owlbear.

Okay, I guesstimate our proximity to our goal, which I also estimate to be a safe area (a festival). So I drop flame strike on the thing for 37 damage! YAY! My most potent spell, but I'm guessing I'm not going to need it for anything else, today. On a side note; I do this from my horse because I think that'll look cool. I think that's enjoying a bit of sim. The owlbear comes at me and when I attack, Chris again notes how I'll have to do a horsemanship roll. For some reason Danial chimes in on this vehemently too, talking about how certain feats are for that sort of thing (the same ones no one uses). Okay, so I was, after releasing holy fire on the thing, going to casually smack it from my horse. I thought it'd look cool, but now I'm carefully getting off my horse and hitting it while just standing there. BTW, this is where Mathew goes "Your on your horse" having taken Daniels previous comments even futher and assuming I'd let the soldier we found, ride it alone. As I planned, I said no, Daniel just said that and the soldier dude is in the cart. Sigh, such mechanations.

Daniel tumbles under the cart to get over to the owlbear and eventually flanks the thing. Here Chris presses in and asserts Daniels sneak attack damage doesn't apply, as the monster was waiting for us and wouldn't be flat footed. Weve been through this before, in an adventure GM'ed by Chris. Chris basically asserts that it just wouldn't suffer the flat footed status. This goes on for awhile with Daniel saying he'd never get sneak attack damage if it's like this. I'm surprised when Chris stops after I say "Well, if he ignores flat footed status, why does he have to roll initiative…why doesn't he just win that automatically as well?". This stuns him, I think as there are some tricky game world logics involved, that he can't draw an answer from in time. Really, next time I'm just going to explicitly remove my cred from him and place it on the GM…and if Mathew goes "Aww, I just want to have a good game (/I don't want to make a ruling that might involve me in a conflict)" I dunno.

The sneak attack damage is done. Eventually with a lot of muck around, the thing is killed. We are asked to roll heal checks. Daniel repeats it back to Mathew as a question, twice "Make a heal check?", as if to ask "Isn't a heal check something we decide to do, like deciding when we swing a sword? I don't mind, but I'm confused as to what you mean". The heal checks are to find out that the owlbear was poisoned by some really big spider recently.

That's what we were supposed to care about…the poisoned owlbear. About thirty minutes of combat, but it's a poisoned owlbear is what were supposed to care about. Gah! That's thirty minutes of my effort and concentration for no freaking point, if no one cares about the fight or if no one is supposed to care about that. What about my real life effort put into this fight? Yeah, so it's only thirty minutes…so what, I'm real and it's not, so why should an imaginary object get focus for just being there, while I get nothing for my thirty minutes put in? Man, it's like the bloody imaginary thing outranks me, a player! The fuck!?

Okay, cathartic rant aside there is some substance there. You can't ask for effort by players, and then try and make the efforts of the system or module, more important. Well, not for gamism. These little tid bits that tie the story together can be entirely forgotten about in the rush to ensure care is given to the players efforts (care can even be given in a "You lost way"…cruel to be kind is just another type of caring about someone's efforts).

But were not talking about gamism. Were talking about straight illusionist simulationism. We got to the festival, with a small, quickly hand drawn map. My son kept trying to grab the map, to look at it, which irritated Mathew, but was somewhat of a relief to me as I really didn't care about the layout of the place and didn't feel like feigning it for social reasons.

At about this time I let the beer take me to the toilet a few extra times and I chased after my son a few more times than required (he was playing with figures outside on castle scenery in excited tones…which sadly seemed alluring to me at the time). Daniel was cooking dinner himself, while trying to climb one of the sentry trees that grew around the festival. First off Mathew says he can't, to which Daniel notes his boots of spider climb (damn those boots have been handy for him). Then the guards don't want him in the tree and tell him to go off and enjoy the festival. Daniel's rogue says he's too worried about the spiders to enjoy it and wants to come up. And so on…but none of it works.

About this time I say it's a school night for my son and I have to go. Mathew postulates to everyone that it's a good time to wrap up since they'd gotten to the festival. Another indicator of what was achievement in this game, after nearly three hours of gaming.

It's probably sad, but this being a module makes me feel that at some point I can talk with Mathew about the game style without it entering prickly 'You don't like my art? But you know…this stuff is good(/if you don't confirm it's good, it'll be a blow to my ego on the matter, rather than finding out what you like in a game)'. BTW, this is how I am too, with no solid social contract around for such discussions.

On another matter…how did we get to this point? I'm pretty sure some of my own games enter illusionist simulationism, but usually the players break out at certain points (usually combat). It sort of works and can be refined to something far more effective ( ). But why did myself, and basically my whole group, end up there? Now with some of us wanting simulationism rather than just having some to buffer between conflicts?

Noon wrote: On a side note, the arrangements for how this guard comes along happen with Daniel saying the guard can ride behind my character on my horse. I don't like my resources being volunteered for me (thinking about it, it's like them starting to play my part of the game for me), but I know saying 'nuh uh' will get me a 'why are you making a fuss' thing. So I ignore it, as no one actually asked me if that's what happens and without my credibility granted for him being on my horse, he's in the merchants cart if anyone actually asks me latter on. I note this because I see a dynamic here but can't quite name it and would like help.

Noon wrote: "He wants to hire you to escort him to a festival, do you take the job? He offers 650 in gold", said a little more elaborately, but you get the jist.

I've become sick to death of this question…of course were going to take it, nothings going to happen if we don't! Actually the problem isn't that we have to take it, but that we have to engage with it.

"Okay, now, what's the first conflict we run into?", I try asking, after that. An almost explicit request for scene framing.

I'm almost bouncing up and down in my seat, like I'm waiting through a video games opening scene, but pressing the button doesn't end it early.

Okay, cathartic rant aside there is some substance there. You can't ask for effort by players, and then try and make the efforts of the system or module, more important. Well, not for gamism.

On another matter…how did we get to this point? I'm pretty sure some of my own games enter illusionist simulationism, but usually the players break out at certain points (usually combat).

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Did you feel that the DM ignored the fact that the owlbear was almost burned to a crisp by your PC and hence noting that it had been poisoned was very unlikely?

Dunno. It's a slippery slope, which often begins with a player signaling that he doesn't want his PC to die and Could you please fudge but keep up appearances? But judging from your other posts, that doesn't seem to be the problem, so I am at a loss.

(Quoting out of context:)

Noon wrote: On another matter…how did we get to this point?

Okay, so we start in the tower our characters have claimed and been refurbishing. And it starts off with a merchant coming by and…

"He wants to hire you to escort him to a festival, do you take the job? He offers 650 in gold", said a little more elaborately, but you get the jist.

"Okay, now, what's the first conflict we run into?", I try asking, after that. An almost explicit request for scene framing.

There's a sort of blank response. I think he tries to digest it and the eventual response is 'Okay, so you head off…what was the time of year again? ...

And your traveling below these mountains (points to home made map. Daniel assists with the mountains name)". And so on, for several minutes.

Now Matthew looks to us and there's probably a blank response from us. He's finished his description and is looking for what that prompts in us.

Sim Vs gamism. Even the payment was in gems, which the value of was almost incidentally mentioned after their offering. Don't think about rewards, think about how those gems must look!

Nothing happens. Mathew declares we find a bow in the middle of the road (actually, we are asked to roll spot checks to find it...I don't know why) and the battle mat is pulled out.

Thinking gamist, I say I'm spotting for snipers (in case the bows a trap), and roll the dice so as to further get that SIS action into motion. There aren't any, but there are two spiders in a nearby tree.

Daniel makes a derogatory noise about that and makes a quip about a cleric with no neutralise poison memorised (to which I say it's a waste of space normally).

Speaking of which, I try and remain quiet about that second save you should do (it's even safer if you don't do a roll at all). I don't know if it's hard core gamist, but I started playing a memory game with Mathew/the GM, seeing if he'd remember to apply it latter. If he failed his memory test, then I win! Then bloody Chris reminds him "Shouldn't Callan being doing a second poison save now?" "Thanks for that, Chris!". He does this…like's to get authoritarian about the rules for the meta game power it gives him briefly. He will say its for something that sounds like simulationist reasons, but it isn't IMO.

So I ignore it, as no one actually asked me if that's what happens and without my credibility granted for him being on my horse, he's in the merchants cart if anyone actually asks me latter on. I note this because I see a dynamic here but can't quite name it and would like help.

Interestingly Mathew just says its about drow, after reading it's inscription to us. And then he notes the spider/drow connection.

On a side note; I do this from my horse because I think that'll look cool. I think that's enjoying a bit of sim. The owlbear comes at me and when I attack, Chris again notes how I'll have to do a horsemanship roll. For some reason Danial chimes in on this vehemently too, talking about how certain feats are for that sort of thing (the same ones no one uses). Okay, so I was, after releasing holy fire on the thing, going to casually smack it from my horse. I thought it'd look cool, but now I'm carefully getting off my horse and hitting it while just standing there.

Here Chris presses in and asserts Daniels sneak attack damage doesn't apply, as the monster was waiting for us and wouldn't be flat footed. Weve been through this before, in an adventure GM'ed by Chris. Chris basically asserts that it just wouldn't suffer the flat footed status. This goes on for awhile...

Really, next time I'm just going to explicitly remove my cred from him and place it on the GM…and if Mathew goes "Aww, I just want to have a good game (/I don't want to make a ruling that might involve me in a conflict)" I dunno.

We are asked to roll heal checks. Daniel repeats it back to Mathew as a question, twice "Make a heal check?", as if to ask "Isn't a heal check something we decide to do, like deciding when we swing a sword? I don't mind, but I'm confused as to what you mean". The heal checks are to find out that the owlbear was poisoned by some really big spider recently.

That's what we were supposed to care about…the poisoned owlbear. About thirty minutes of combat, but it's a poisoned owlbear is what were supposed to care about. Gah! That's thirty minutes of my effort and concentration for no freaking point, if no one cares about the fight or if no one is supposed to care about that.

Man, it's like the bloody imaginary thing outranks me, a player! The fuck!?

Okay, cathartic rant aside there is some substance there. You can't ask for effort by players, and then try and make the efforts of the system or module, more important. Well, not for gamism.

But were not talking about gamism. Were talking about straight illusionist simulationism.

My son kept trying to grab the map, to look at it, which irritated Mathew, but was somewhat of a relief to me as I really didn't care about the layout of the place and didn't feel like feigning it for social reasons.

Daniel was cooking dinner himself, while trying to climb one of the sentry trees that grew around the festival. First off Mathew says he can't, to which Daniel notes his boots of spider climb (damn those boots have been handy for him). Then the guards don't want him in the tree and tell him to go off and enjoy the festival. Daniel's rogue says he's too worried about the spiders to enjoy it and wants to come up. And so on…but none of it works.

Mathew postulates to everyone that it's a good time to wrap up since they'd gotten to the festival.

Another indicator of what was achievement in this game, after nearly three hours of gaming.

It's probably sad, but this being a module makes me feel that at some point I can talk with Mathew about the game style without it entering prickly 'You don't like my art? But you know…this stuff is good(/if you don't confirm it's good, it'll be a blow to my ego on the matter, rather than finding out what you like in a game)'.

Noon wrote: No, it was that we won...we spent 30 minutes on this challenge and we won.

And it didn't matter to him. Only the poisoned owlbear being shown mattered. A few seconds of material that we had absolutely no input on, was more important than the last thirty minutes of effort. It's basically saying 'Even this tiny clue is above what you did, in value'.

He was pleased then and latter something made Daniel mention it again. Mathew said "Oh, so you really did take that owlbear feather?". When Daniel replied positively, I actually heard Mathew say "Yesssssss!!" under his breath, it was that important to him.

Why couldn't he do that when we won the fight!?

Okay, I already know I suppose. It's because my attempts at gamist drift are just ending as an attempt to sneak up on mode.

Well, he did die. It's just that we don't need PC death, to indicate a loss? Do we guys? Do we?

Perhaps these are questions I need to actually ask outloud.

I said to him that he could always be raised and he actually got defensive "Look, I don't want him to come back" and I'm sure was about to say something along the lines of "I have director stance over this, don't try and take that away from me".

StalkingBlue wrote:
I don't know why your other games might have gone a similar route, but the overall picture I'm getting from your description is of an inexperienced or un-confident GM (a player's younger brother: how much younger?) who's keeping to his pre-written script because he's trusting in the scenario authors (being vastly more experienced than him), and who's protected by the group playing along with his inexpert effort.

Not sure what your problem is here. Why should you care about what the fight is about if you're wanting to playing gamist? It's a fight, it means XP. No loot, ok, that's a drawback; but if you get a clue out of it (pointing to spiders and again, drow), there's loot and more fighting and XP in the offing, isn't there?

Cross-posted with you, above. But I'm still not getting it. What you achieved in a gamist sense was beating the challenge. The challenge wasn't killing the owlbear, or not just that - it was also you finding the "poison" clue. It'll sure be important for something later.

Hi Kirstin,

Mathew is the younger brother of Daniel. He's actually expressed hesitation about GM'ing us before, but not in very exacting words. Until he moved up to the city recently, he's actually been playing the most, GM'ing for his own circle of friends. I get the feeling it may be a very simulationist game, as Daniel played with them once and said 'It was different' with a raised octive on the last word. Two of Mathews friends are in the army and I get the feeling their recreation of army tactics pushes a sim agenda pretty strongly. They are probably exploring in game what they have learned in RL.

On scene framing, I don’t think Mathew knows about the idea. That's why I tried to gently push the idea with 'What conflict comes next?'.

I wrote: Now Matthew looks to us and there's probably a blank response from us. He's finished his description and is looking for what that prompts in us.

GM looking to players for help in general. "I've done what I was told to do, now are you having fun?"

So he didn't ask for an Appraise check? That would have made sense in the context of the system (and in a gamist context), and would have given the rogue a chance to shine (or bumble if he forgot to take ranks in it). Do you know whether the gems were written into the scenario? Or were they the GM's addition?

Sure you weren't rolling spot checks to notice the spiders (and failing)? It's not uncommon to be asked to spot (for something) and when you fail the roll, be told you notice another thing. This could be either the GM having no clue how to use Spot (poor command of rules again), or a misunderstanding.
*snipping out me*
Player looking around for enemies specifically, getting a reroll and succeeding the second time round. The DC would have been lower than before.

Nah. Chris is supporting Matthew, who needs all the help he can get. His command of the rules isn't all that good in the first place apparently, and he's struggling to deliver a satisfying game to you bunch. He's obviously not gonna be able to remember about second poison saves.

What this looks like to me is that your unspoken contract says that players should support the GM, even over another player. Playing memory games with the GM is a fine tactic when the contract says that you can,

Does interesting mean good or bad? To me it sounds as if Matthew might have realised at this point that you were lacking information you'd need to deal with the owlbear challenge the way you were supposed to, so he was dropping info over and above what was written on the stone.

You're playing incoherently here btw, first playing gamist "memory games" with Matthew and now "enjoying sim" and getting all worked up over rules being applied stringently.

None of it works in the sense that Daniel's PC couldn't get into the tree? Did he get to roll Bluff or Diplomacy checks, or did Matthew just state that he couldn't go up?

I don't see sim (except in your "cast from horse" stunt that you gave up on), certainly not from the other non-GM players. Matthew's input looks like he simply doesn't know what to do, so he drags himself and you along from world detail to world detail, to try and keep the game going. That's not sim though. It's just not-knowing-what-to-do-to-get-to-the-next-clue/fight.

Cross-posted with you, above. But I'm still not getting it. What you achieved in a gamist sense was beating the challenge. The challenge wasn't killing the owlbear, or not just that - it was also you finding the "poison" clue. It'll sure be important for something later.

Not sure what your problem is here. Why should you care about what the fight is about if you're wanting to playing gamist? It's a fight, it means XP. No loot, ok, that's a drawback; but if you get a clue out of it (pointing to spiders and again, drow), there's loot and more fighting and XP in the offing, isn't there?

Why would he have been happy, after all that quibbling about rules throughout the combat? He'd have been stressed and glad the horror was over, more likely.

Once Matthew learns that fast-forwarding to the next challenge is permitted and actually more fun than not, and you guys stop worrying about looking stylish and caring about things other than XP and loot you'll be fine.

John wrote: For me, finding a clue I don't want is never the challenge. Nothing can be a challenge unless it is possible to accept it. Succeeding at something I'm not attempting is just an event.

My experience with illusionism was caused by passive players waiting for the GM to set up the action combined with the avoidance of overt force.

StalkingBlue wrote: (Quoting out of context:)

Noon wrote:
It should be a concentration check, shouldn't it?

No, he was trying to fight from horseback rather than cast from horseback. Fighting from horseback requires Ride checks; the mounted combat feats either reduce or eliminate those (can't remember which).

I once played a fighter with lots and lots of mounted combat feats ... and then spent all my time in dungeons. Oh well.

As for the owlbear thing ... I can understand being frustrated, but expecting the GM to go No Myth gamist out of a clear sky seems unlikely.

Hi Callan,


We agree of course that you were there and I wasn't. I operate on the limited detail you give here (limited by the nature of this discussion), in the context of other games I've been in, not yours.

Also we agree that the session you report sounded like a classic frustration-builder from a low-skills GM. I'd have hated every minute of the stuff you describe.

Noon wrote: I get the feeling it may be a very simulationist game, as Daniel played with them once and said 'It was different' with a raised octive on the last word. Two of Mathews friends are in the army and I get the feeling their recreation of army tactics pushes a sim agenda pretty strongly. They are probably exploring in game what they have learned in RL.

On scene framing, I don’t think Mathew knows about the idea. That's why I tried to gently push the idea with 'What conflict comes next?'.

Yes, he asked for them. But there wasn't any air of 'will the rogue get this right!?', it was just what comes up with gems. No idea if the gems were written in. I'm guessing they are, as I suspect the scenario is pretty sim orientated.

Sure you weren't rolling spot checks to notice the spiders (and failing)? ...

Nope, it was for the bow. Looking on it, it was a method of underlining the object for the players. If the GM describes a tree, it's just a tree. When he asks for a spot roll and declares you notice a tree, that tree has been underlined in the SIS.

My spot roll for snipers specifically ended up showing me the spiders. There were no behind the scenes gamism going on here that I didn't detect. Because gamism is more forefront than that…forget to say 'strike mighty blow' in warhammer, and you'll know it from the other players that you’re a dunce. Same here…do another spot roll when you should and a gamist GM will say something about it explicitly.

No, Chris is supporting Chris. How does reminding Mathew about a poison save help Mathew give me a better game? That's like walking up to one chess player and suggesting moves to him.

No, I could ask Daniel and even Mathew and they'd say Chris was on a power bent. I know Daniel wouldn't actually approve of me being quiet about the poison save…what would he do? Avow to never forget when he GM's, to beat me on that. Gamist.

I'm not so sure what Mathew would do…it'd be interesting to ask.

Your miss reading any protectiveness of Mathew in this account. People played as normal.

Any stuff about rules and such is protectiveness, but it is on something other than Mat GM'ing.

It was interesting that he was so explicit in meta game terms, rather than keeping it all an in game exploration.

You're playing incoherently here btw, first playing gamist "memory games" with Matthew and now "enjoying sim" and getting all worked up over rules being applied stringently.

Yes, I was playing incoherantly. Incoherance is actually a nuetral term and drift is common occurance in play. It would have been disfunctional if I'd pressed further on the horse matter rather than saying 'Okay, I use one action to get off my horse and the other to hit'. My drift didn't stick here and I gave up on it.

Though interestingly it wasn't Mathew that withdrew credibility from this…I wonder what he would have done if left to his own word.

None of it works in the sense that Daniel's PC couldn't get into the tree? Did he get to roll Bluff or Diplomacy checks, or did Matthew just state that he couldn't go up?

No checks asked for. It doesn't work.

What matters here is what Mathew was really interested in. He was really interested in that next clue, not the fight it leads to. He might be doing sim badly, but when he's interested primarily in how the world is going, he's doing sim no matter how much it limps. Do you see him getting excited about the fights, or sweating the game world details, in my account?

This is where I think your working from a sim preference. Umm, why can't our fight, rather than the module material, be important latter?

To be precise, yes, this clue can lead to other conflicts. But there is no fun in them if someone at the table is all ho hum about how they resolve.

Why would he have been happy, after all that quibbling about rules throughout the combat? He'd have been stressed and glad the horror was over, more likely.

Dude, skip the RPG guilt trip. Too many threads here (recently, even) how guilt trips pass for actual discussion in RP culture. Ask me how much 'quibbling' there was, because your looking at the highlights/lowlights of play, not the rounds that just happened without any notable stuff. Your taking the account too literally.

Side note: Jeez man, you don't have much of an opinion of gamism if you don't think you can win with style and it's all just this piddly XP and loot stuff.

Thing is, we don't do much more force than that (I've done some scene framing recently (You were exploring and found a mysterious ruin, your there right now) and I think there's been some shocked "Is he going to do that to us through the whole adventure?" looks)

Hi folks,

There is too much line-by-line exchange happening in this thread. Take my word for it; it's hampering the discussion even if you don't feel like it is.

Callan, I'm fascinated by a few things, in the sense of rubbernecking at a car accident.

1. You do realize that your legitimate desire for feedback for successful fights and similar stuff is 100% not going to get met?

2. And similarly, that your (by and large successful) attempts to mess with the SIS, in order to get your way later, are probably being perceived as deliberately obstructive, asshole play?

3. Is it possible to consider that using your son as a means of allocating attention to the other people is way past the tolerance level of most people, outside of gaming? (As you accurately state, attention is a big part of a reward system.) It seems to me that you have very clearly stated that you used him as a excuse to pay attention or not.

4. Have you graded into the Hard Core without realizing it - specifically, Breakin' the Game? I think you have.

5. Am I correct in reading your first post, that both you and Daniel have played this game with Matthew for your characters to make it to levels 9 and 10? And you guys have been playing like this for the whole time?

Best,
Ron

P.S. Adding Color is not Simulationist play. You are falling prey to the pernicious confusion between Simulationism and basic Exploration, as well as the "atomist" fallacy, looking at individual moments rather than cycles of reward.

1. Not really. The feedback comes in dribs and drabs. Mostly it comes from not screwing up...ie, forget to say 'strike mighty blow' in warhammer and someone will note you forgetting. Outside of play we'll talk about how you've always got to remember it.

But by and large, between the rare dribs and drabs, I think that I've been thinking my efforts have been taken into account even if that hasn't been expressed. Looking at my log here, I think I've been deluding myself on that. Damn.

2. I don't quite see this one. You mean with the soldier and whether he's on my horse or not? Without my credibility granted for Daniel volunteering my resources for that, how does that effect the SIS? The other option is to say 'Ah, no, he doesn't' straight off, which would be responded to with 'Ah, don't make a fuss'. Ie, peer pressue to just do it...I did a passive agressive dodge on that one.

3. Given our social contract seems to include Chris taking a phone call or two during other games (even when GM'ing), people doing other activities like cooking, people talking to other people in the house for awhile (after getting a beer or toilet brake) before coming back to game, people looking through books and not paying much attention for awhile, people ordering, paying for and eating home delivery, stories about unrelated stuff (movies, etc) occuring multiple times and going on for minutes at a time (engaging everyone)...I don't think I was stretching it much.

Looking at it now, that SC is a mess. It's a reflection of gaming history which just isn't that compelling (go on, ask why we play then!? :) ). These things had to be allowed in, because people just couldn't sit still if their being bored, for that long. I'm probably not even stretching SC, when I do this. Shocking, eh?

To give some idea of how it works, it seems to drift into people doing shifts of gaming, while others drift away doing other stuff. The people on shift get the excitement of focus and spotlight (even from people wandering arround). If we try and spread that spotlight/work around, everyone doesn't get enough for it to be worth it. So people drift around, until their shift comes up. When I walk off to look after my son/whatever, I'm indicating I'm off shift. Hell, if I'm doing nothing, the GM's already shown me I'm off shift anyway. We explicitly shout for someone, when we need them. I think that's indicative of our SC acceptance of how it all works and how we manage it. No one shouted for me.

4. I'm not sure of that. I remember some of Ralphs posts about character weaknesses. How they reward players to argue about whether the weakness applies, since there's a slim chance they can argue that penalty away. Ralph suggested players getting rewards for when their weaknesses apply...players will try and get their weakness into each scene, then.

Here, that second poison save rewards me for keeping my trap firmly shut, just like the above rewards arguing. I think that's just 'system does matter', because it it promotes a little mind/memory game.

Was there some other point, like judging when to bust off my flame strike, that was hard core. I thought you were supposed to judge the best release time.

I just looked at the gamism essay on breaking the game. I don't see it...atleast in this play instance. Where am I repeating one strategy and getting something out of it, over and over?

I'm pretty sure if I was at this level, I wouldn't have bothered with ranks in brewing. It never comes up in game and it's merely there to ammuse me with the idea of my character brewing between games, or retiring to own a brewery, or to add color in game when near a tavern. It's a waste if I want pure efficiency...but it isn't a waste, it's like my little signature in a corner of a painting. I'm not to keen on brew potion now and wonder if I'm weaker for it, but it ties in with that skill and I'm not certainly not ditching my character just to change it. If it is a handicap, I do look at it in a 'Hey, if I win with a handicap, I'm really cool' way, I freely admit. Indeed, all the other players characters were made with a modified stat rolling system, where you re-rolled ones. My character isn't (used the usual dice system)...I only realised I'd done it differently a few levels into play. And I'm still with him at level 9...I admit I try and boast, saying if I can keep up with my lower stats, well... (implying I must be a good player, but not quite this bluntly).

Before re-reading the gamist essay, I was more open to the idea I was breaking the game, but I'm less so now I've read it. Ummm, the D20 modern forum boards where they talk about how you can kick a tank to death in two rounds just leave me wondering "Why are you doing this?". Surely I'd lap that up, if I wanted to break the game?

5. Damn, should have noted this. No, weve gotten to around level 10 by round robin GM'ing, by whoever feels like GM'ing. Myself, Daniel, Mathew, Chris and Anton have GM'ed at times. Myself and Daniel the most. This game was not the best quality example of our play, or Mathews GM'ing.


On the PS, I dunno...my sitting on a horse, gesturing while holy fire drops down, is the sort of thing I'd be inclined to draw so as to savour the moment latter. It wasn't just a 'putting go fast stripes on the side' moment. I've lost my sense of what sim is now, if they don't actually feel anything like this. They have no 'Cool, that was movie worthy' moments??

Hi Kerstin,

Yeah, Mathew was in a game I recently scene framed in. Actually two, both in a Rifts campaign. In one, I simply stated they have been exploring and found the entrance of a old alien tomb (actually, this wasn't scene framing right to a conflict, but it was atleast dodging some pointless 'I want to hire you to explore an old tomb' thing). The other was in the follow up, where I said they were back at the remains of the battle scene that happened after the tomb. Mat didn't quite take it in, assuming they were still in town to repair "What, were there right now?", to which I responded yes and explained that him and Daniel should just think about anything they got in town, as we got down to exploring now. So we could play and think of resources they'd have gotten in town (ie, that "reasonably have had with them" thing you mentioned), at the same time, rather than seperating them needlessly.

Apart from some brief surprise, I don't think the scene framing was really noted by either. Ideal, really.

Quoting myself:

It was interesting that he was so explicit in meta game terms, rather than keeping it all an in game exploration.

Style in D&D ... for me that's all about having the right feats and using the right tactics. Exploiting the system in a stylish way, not trying to look stylish in the game world, for no numerical advantage.

Noon wrote:
2. I don't quite see this one. You mean with the soldier and whether he's on my horse or not? Without my credibility granted for Daniel volunteering my resources for that, how does that effect the SIS? The other option is to say 'Ah, no, he doesn't' straight off, which would be responded to with 'Ah, don't make a fuss'. Ie, peer pressue to just do it...I did a passive agressive dodge on that one.

Hiya,

Callan, this is textbook. It's almost-total denial - and I suspect that denial simply mirrors what you'd tell (or are telling) the other people about how you play.

Let me put it to you this way: I totally don't care whether you think you are or aren't in the Hard Core. I have seen hundreds of players who are doing what you do, especially the point that James emphasized ("no, he's not; he's been doing X all along"). You might want to consider that universally such players are despised and complained about by all Sim-ish-preferring other players.

You are breaking the game, because you're using the rules to find ways to disrupt the others' SIS, as a tactic toward getting what you want. And you're doing it over and over, same thing, different components of the SIS at different times.

As per my essay, you are "lurking like Grendel" in the Sim group, winning in your own mind as you go, and simply being tolerated.

Your comments about how fucked-up the whole group's Social Contract is are the most important substantive responses you've made. "But everyone else does it" is no defense, man. They don't realize what they're doing; you do. Especially because you're using your son - an actual person - as a tool toward this end.

I suggest you stop using line-by-line thinking, re-read some of the recent responses, and see the overall points instead.

Best,
Ron

Callan,

Most of the time I'm an easy-going player. As long as I feel validated, I don't cause problems. I even enjoy extended subplots that don't involve me.

One time we were playing D&D. While travelling, we come across the remains of another group of travellers that were killed. We track down and attack the goblin bandits. In their tunnels we go past the goblin area and find skeletons. My suggestion was to resume our travels. We had dealt with the problem at hand already. One of the other players strongly wanted to press the attack, so I agreed to follow through to the end. At the end of the lair, we're surprised by the necromancer while searching her office. The other players respected the plot aura telling them they mustn't fight. I insisted on attacking no matter how strongly everyone hinted I shouldn't. "You just can't do that" counts as a strong hint. None of the others helped my character.

There's a scene in a comic book where the author wants to introduce a new character. The new character will be a cute, confident girl that the readers will not sympathize with. Her first scene, she's watching the male lead play a video game in an arcade. After he ignores her instructions, she pushes him aside and takes over his game, which she promptly botches. An authors note later in the series mentions how she was more successful than expected in making readers prefer the main character to the game stealer.

That feeling of having my right to play taken will bring out a variety of disruptive behaviors from me, including some associated with hardcore (especially rules lawyer). Also generic sulking behavior like being passive aggressive. I don't want you to think I do those things regularly. When I was about 11, I ruined more than one game by being a classic case of juvenile wimp. I've matured since then. I don't play with people that I don't enjoy. I talk to the ones I do play with. I reached an understanding with GM in the D&D game I just mentioned.

I don't think you are normally a hardcore player. That's a different question than whether you were playing hardcore at the described time. I consider exploiting imperfect rules knowledge, confidence, or concentration to be a strategy one could exploit to break a game.

John

James Holloway wrote: And in particular, if we're talking about players with any kind of commitment to a consistently envisioned SIS,

Noon wrote:
If you'd stop that right there, good for you.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hiya,

Callan, this is textbook. It's almost-total denial - and I suspect that denial simply mirrors what you'd tell (or are telling) the other people about how you play.

Let me put it to you this way: I totally don't care whether you think you are or aren't in the Hard Core. I have seen hundreds of players who are doing what you do, especially the point that James emphasized ("no, he's not; he's been doing X all along"). You might want to consider that universally such players are despised and complained about by all Sim-ish-preferring other players.

You are breaking the game, because you're using the rules to find ways to disrupt the others' SIS, as a tactic toward getting what you want. And you're doing it over and over, same thing, different components of the SIS at different times.

As per my essay, you are "lurking like Grendel" in the Sim group, winning in your own mind as you go, and simply being tolerated.

I suggest you stop using line-by-line thinking, re-read some of the recent responses, and see the overall points instead.

Best,
Ron

Hiya,

I think John puts it a lot better than me. I agree with everything he's posted, so just go with that.

If you consider the Grendel comment to have been helpful, then I figure you and I are in the black.

Best,
Ron

James Holloway wrote: Silence implies consent. You described your own behavior as "passive-aggressive," and it was.

It's clear throughout your description of play that you're angry during much of the game and trying to start something.

Additionally, it's clear throughout your post that you don't give a hang about the adventure as presented. For instance, you regard the owlbear clue as detracting from your victory over the critter, which makes sense only if you already think that the scenario is lame (which it may very well be; it sure doesn't sound like my kind of thing, anyway).

I think your brutally honest depiction of what you were thinking during play is laudable, but it's only the first step.

You can't have written the stuff you did in your first post and think that you were totally in the right.

2) walk.

And, at the risk of sounding doctrinaire, if you find that you can't do 1) with a group, then 2) was probably a good idea anyway.