Alright, after lots of encouraging from a couple of you here I am going to try and write up my RPG experiences at the gaming table. Note that while D&D (and, in the earlier days, AD&D) wasn't the only game I've played (several where ideas of mine which were changed upon playtesting), it has run that gamut of my game experience. Throughout the years, I've been a DM 95% of the time, first introducing my friends to the concept of RPGs, then joining a 3rd Edition group of other friends.
A bit about me as a player. I don't like lots of small rules, so I often don't check the rulebooks, but make stuff up on the go. I'm a very improvisational player in general, having made adventures on the fly and just winging it whenever possible. I also like to construct or make up funny or cool scenes and actions, and whenever the mechanics or the situation gives me a chance to do so, I grab it. I like action, and tense combat and the like, but both through descriptions and mechanics that help by being quick and in the background.

Now, I've had one semi-successful AD&D campaign which lasted for I think two or three years (too far back, and I was too young back then to really care about such things). I first went crazy and invited all my friends, which resulted in a party of 14 players. But as time went by, more and more left, and I then had a core group of maybe six or seven. In the end, most of them left (only two, my brother and one of my friends, stayed), so that campaign ended there.

After a few years, a few friends introduced me to the 3rd edition of D&D, and we've been in a group ever since. Playing sporadically due to lack of time, we tried out several different campaigns, all with breaks in between. However, after we all graduated, I led a full-power campaign with my friends, playing several hours every evening until well past midnight. And it's probably been those sessions that really made me think about what I want from the game, and why it seemed to lack something.

I discovered that my friends and I had different views on RPing. They were mostly interested in rolling dice, while I was interested in creating a story and bringing a world to life. Which doesn't mean that they didn't roleplay, but it was still a noticeable gap.

I'll post some examples of what actually happened next time. For now, you can just tell me whether I'm doing this right, or how I can do this better. Or just ask questions.

Qi

Hi Qi, I guess the first question is: what would you like to get out of this thread?  There's a fairly standard set of questions asked around here, but you should feel free to steer this in whatever direction you'd like.

One place to start: can you tell us a little bit about the social circumstances of your games these days?  How long have you known these people, various social dynamics, etc.  There's no need to go into great detail, but the social circumstances of a game are every bit as important as the content. 

Another thing to think about: what's a typical game session like?  What kind of stuff gets done, both in the game and socially?  What purpose does a game session serve?

And: looking over the last couple of months, or years, or whatever timeframe you please: what have been the biggest rewards, and biggest frustrations, for you?

Thanks for the questions. What I would like to achieve with this is give both you guys and me a better idea of what kind of a gamer I am. Of course this is accomplished by me posting stuff from our gaming sessions and reflecting upon them/, but maybe you guys also discover things that eluded me.

I've only been gaming with good friends. I'm a bit hesitant to introduce others to this hobby (probably a bit intimidated, because I'm so much of a freak and so into it that I might drown them out right at the start, though I am thinking about showing my girlfriend this type of game). This means that I know all the people I play with well (High School class mates), so gaming sessions tend to be very open and we can make fun of each other without there being too big of a consequence. We basically treat each other as we would in any other social situation (in school during breaks, when we hang out together, and such), especially with the second group.

For me, the greatest reward in playing RPGs all this time is simply being able to play RPGs with my friends. They are my greatest hobby, and I spend a huge amount of time on them (that need not be a good thing, but I still do). My greatest frustration must be that I don't get to play often enough, and that there always seemed to be something missing, until I found out more about RPG theory (something that was utterly alien to me no more than a year ago), and being able to talk with my friends about what we each get out of gaming.

My friends tend towards the "Kick in the Door" style of play, while I prefer the deep "Create a Story and bring the world to life". Not that gaming hasn't been fun or fulfilling, it's still great to hang out with friends and play something we all enjoy together, but I tend to get caught up on things that they brush over. It hasn't affected us socially in any way, as friendship comes before ways of playing RPGs, but I'm still hoping to find a group that shares my view on playing RPGs.

Qi

Hello! Great start! I'm eagerly waiting for the examples you mentioned in the first post.

Is Qi Chin your real name? How should we call you? You mentioned living in Taipei, why not fill us in on some details? This could be very important for us to understand your roleplaying environment better. I only "know" European and American gamers for instance.

Qi, I have a couple questions about the other players, but in order to ask those questions, I'd like to ask these first:

* How often do player-characters die?  D&D 3.5, as written, assumes that heroes die: it's pretty good odds that someone's going to die over 3-4 adventures.  But this is one of those things that varies a lot depending on the GM and the players' expectations.  Has a PC died in one of your games?  How was the situation handled?  How often does this happen?

* How interested are the players in tactics?  D&D 3.5 rewards careful management of resources (spells, potions, scrolls), positioning (attacks of opportunity), and strategic thinking.  Does your group spend a lot of time thinking about these things, planning it out in great detail?  Or do you decide these things "on the run" as the play happens?

best,
James

Woot, replies :D

Qi Chin is not my real name, I just came up with it one day and used it as an internet name ever since. You can call me Qi if you want, or by my real name, Sascha (or Sa for short). And just so nobody gets confused, I'm a guy.

James, to answer your questions, so far, not a single PC has died. We've come close to it because another friend is a bit sadistic as a DM (My gnome got his Constitution reduced to 1 at some point, for instance), or because we do funny and/or stupid things, but nobody actually died. For us, everybody has their character they are happy with, and we play with a very humorous attitude, including plenty of party bickering.
And yes, even though D&D favors and supports tactical combat, we use the system because it's the only system all of us are familiar with. So we don't tend to get tactical unless it's in special combats (like big enemies or bosses). We don't play with a battle map or miniatures to begin with, so a lot of it is making stuff up as we go. Again, we play the game mostly to have fun by telling jokes, see characters stumble into cool yet somewhat funny situations, and so on.
In fact, now that I'm writing this, our PCs often tend to be something like in Order of the Stick, just with a bit less joking.

Qi

Christoph wrote:
I only "know" European and American gamers for instance.

Qi, how important is the "story" in all of this?  When I ran D&D years and years ago, I always had this big epic story in the back of my mind.  The players could influence it slightly by their adventures, but if something went too far off track, between sessions I'd invent a reason why the epic story wasn't changed very much. 

Does any of that sound familiar, or are you guys mostly involved with, "Hey, it's this week's dungeon!  Let's have fun overcoming these challenges" ?

Hi Qi! Do you have a lot of those moment where you step away from the strict D&D rules and just do what's most fun or seems most appropriate? Your examples seem mostly about that. Do they coincide with the moment that the other players had the most fun?

Considering the critical fumbles, was that something from AD&D? Standard D&D 3.x doesn't have them.

There is an overarching story behind all this, and I as a DM lead the players along with clues and slowly revealing more and more of the running background. It's their decision what to do, so some action (like killing an important plot character) can indeed drastically change what will happen. But then again, I often improvise, and only have the general background planned out in broad strokes.

And yes, we usually go for fun rather than rules. If the rules augment the fun, then sure, but we often don't look up a small or rare rule, but just improvise and go on with playing. And the critical fumbles thing is probably a relic from AD&D times.

Qi

What I would like to achieve with this is give both you guys and me a better idea of what kind of a gamer I am. Of course this is accomplished by me posting stuff from our gaming sessions and reflecting upon them, but maybe you guys also discover things that eluded me.

Hi Sascha!  What I'm seeing is a fairly happy group that's having a good time playing a game together, and figuring out funny/creative/innovative ways to solve problems.  It doesn't sound like there are any major social problems or tensions within the group.

It also sounds like you all are comfortable using D&D as a point of common reference without using it to guide every decision.  It sounds like everyone knows what to expect, and what to contribute.

From what you've told us, this is a pretty happy situation.  Good for you!

1.  You mentioned that you might spend too much time on this hobby.  What does that mean?

2.  Where does that time go?  Playing with friends?  Reading the rule books?  Creating the world?

3.  What setting do you use: a published setting, or one you made?

4.  How deeply involved is the group (including you), about this setting?  (I.e., does everyone own a copy of the book, or contribute new material, or what?)

Hi Sascha, thanks for clarifying that.  So it sounds like play goes like this:

* Everyone enjoys hanging out.  It's a relaxed atmosphere, and if a few rules get broken by accident, that's fine.

* The players especially enjoy solving problems in funny or unique ways.  While you don't enjoy this quite as much as they do, it's fun for you too: your friends keep you entertained.

* You enjoy working on the setting and putting a story together.  Your friends aren't as passionate about this as you are, but they appreciate your effort and go along gracefully: you're entertaining them too, though in a different way.

This is a very, very common way to play D&D, particularly the earlier versions of the game: it reminds me of the way my high school friends and I used to play in the early 1990's.  In Forge jargon, this is a very "functional" way to play: the rules don't interfere with what you're doing at the table, and what happens at the table doesn't interfere with your real-world relationships.  That's a good thing.

The "bad" news is that your tastes, and your players', may not be fully compatible.  What if these people weren't close friends, but behaved this way?  You spend a lot of time creating this world, and thinking up plots--and although these acquaintances are polite about your contribution, the big fun for them is goofing around.  Aside from "Well, at least I'm gaming," how would that make you feel?

D&D 3.5 is a pretty good tool for the gaming your group does, but it may not be perfect.  Creating NPC's is a pain, and what's the point of having 1,000+ pages of rules if you never use more than 50?  Obviously D&D is working pretty well for you; I'm not suggesting that you change games.  But you might want to be aware that other games might deliver the same amount of fun with less effort.

[uBecause you enjoy designing games, I'll point you at a few Forge-style games you might find interesting:

* Donjon by Clinton R. Nixon.  The players roll to earn "facts" about the dungeon, which they can then declare to the GM.  "Fact: the ogre has a heart attack and dies!" etc.  This sounds like something your players would enjoy, but it's hard to build a detailed setting.  The rules are available for free, if you poke around on the website long enough.

* The Shadow of Yesterday, also by Mr. Nixon.  Less radical than Donjon, it's still a pretty loose fantasy game that gives the players a lot of rope.  It's pretty easy to build a setting here too.  I think the rules are available for free on the website.

* Capes by Tony Lower-Basch.  There is no GM in this game, and every player can play anyone else's character.  It is assumed that people will use it for superhero games, but it runs fantasy games pretty well too.  I think this might be fun for you guys, because it allows everyone to come up with crazy (or silly) stunts, while everyone collaborates to create a setting.

* The Pool by James V. West.  This is presented solely for the sake of history.  If you haven't seen rules like this before, it is pretty mind-blowing.

Again--I'm not saying you should change games or anything.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  But based on what you've described, your group might enjoy these too.

James_Nostack wrote:
The "bad" news is that your tastes, and your players', may not be fully compatible.  What if these people weren't close friends, but behaved this way?  You spend a lot of time creating this world, and thinking up plots--and although these acquaintances are polite about your contribution, the big fun for them is goofing around.  Aside from "Well, at least I'm gaming," how would that make you feel?

Alright, this time, I'll post some more (and bigger) pieces of actual play. In all of these, I'm DM.

1. The party has just cleared out a room in a dungeon, and saved a captured gnome. They ask him of why he was in the dungeon, and he said it's because he was looking for some special components to build a machine back home. I was thinking of making this guy a recurring character whom the party will then meet later on when he's got his fancy machine, and wants to help them. But because he can't really answer (or I don't want him to) what it actually is he was looking for, and what he was working on (the gnome kept saying it's a secret), the party just goes ahead and kills him. So there went my recurring character... I just went along and let him die, vowing to myself that his kin will then hunt down the party when they find out. Different adventure hook, but it still works.

2. The party mage wants to know what kind of ingredients are needed to make a potion of cure light wounds. So i just told him that I'll make something up, look down on my dungeon magazine and see an advert for some "Game Trade" thing. So I come up with a Metra (gaME TRAde) herb that he needs, plus troll's blood or so. During this process of coming up with a recipe, he actually helped me out reasonably by suggesting it should need about two easy herbs or plants, and one "harder to find" ingredient (the troll's blood). So instead of just asking me for information, the player helped me out, and afterwards accepted the list of ingredients without questions. RPGs should always run so smoothly...

3. During a talk with one of my players, he mentioned that another player (who was absent at that time) didn't quite like that the party was able to rest after pretty much every encounter (something I had failed to notice as a DM), not only taking out a lot of the challenge of D&D, but also destroying realism. This was particularly refreshing to know, as it shows that not only are the players paying attention to things happening outside mindless monster bashing, but are willing to talk about it and suggest changes to how I might run the game.

More when I can remember them, or if you think examples on specific areas would help.

Qi

Hello,

Still reading and interested!

Could you also give us an example of a larger cycle yet?
For example, how did the story with the gnome play out?
What about the cure potion? How was it for the player when he got to use it the first time? Does he still use it?
Did you change things regarding the easy resting? (For what it's worth, I hate random encounters while the party is sleeping, so I just give an arbitrary XP bonus if the party can finish the adventure without resting more than a fixed number of times, which I communicate in advance. The players get to make a new decision: is it worth the risk for the bonus xp?)

Well, cycles don't go a lot bigger, because the campaign was cut short with everybody leaving after graduation. The gnome thing didn't have a chance to come up again, the player never got to make a potion, and the thing with the easy resting was brought up after the very last time we every played D&D together.
Nothing got resolved or enhanced, and I'll have to really dig up memories to try and find something big to tell.

Qi