So, there's Daniel, Chris and Bourke. Chris and Daniel are old friends, Bourke is from Chris's work. Chris is GM. Were all around age thirty mark. Characters are level 3 in this game. I have trouble remembering the session - I even think during it 'I know I'm not going to remember this for latter'. It's kind of how play and out of game topics start to blend into each other alot. Also after sitting down at the play table, pre game chatter and GM screen placements take long enough that I've finished my first beer. Oh, I think around this time we poked fun at old D&D giving xp for gold. Then I mention a Dave Arneston rule I heard about, where you get XP for gold spent on what your character cares about. Daniel says cool in a genuinely appreciative way, but then Chris goes 'Oh, but you'd have to have those things defined in advance'. I think I said no and said it wouldn't be like buying +5 swords. Then he started saying oh yeah, but you could buy chickens with it then make money off that and so on. For fucks sake - It's all 'players cannot be in control for a goddamn second, their always out to betray the game' (betray their own fun as well, apparently).

Last game I wasn't there and some powerful wizard name Yaztromo (yes, I know) had sent 'us' to go kill a hag for the greater good. Daniel says we head straight there but Chris says it'd be easier to head through town then go there. I was about to write here how odd that is, but it clicks now that the encounter we have after leaving town was part of that (why it would matter to have us run into the encounter instead of making it run into us? Dunno). At the time I was thinking 'You know, if heading there through town is an option, why are you telling us it's the best?'

It's a group of hill goblins! Their formation gets spread out and its sort of hinted they are in oblivious mode. Can anyone speak goblin? Well, I can and their going to town to beat them up, with orders just to attack humans - but that orders just there so they don't fight with the other groups heading to town. Side chatter: Chris described the enemy coming but that we can duck down, to which Daniel takes the piss on that a bit by our cart ducks down as well - I add in some stuff about a cart that's like one of those pimped up suspension cars (yeah, I add to this side chatter - when it's one of the main thing, what else do you do). Bourke suggests running in and distracting. Then we sort of ditch that since then they wont be flat footed and my ninja (yes, I know), wont get sudden strike. Anyway, I'm weighing up whether to fight the big guy at the back or one of the smaller ones when Daniel moves my figure behind the big one (combat hasn't started yet, it's still set up). Since I was in two minds I let it stay there, but on reflection now I'm thinking I didn't percieve the shepherding that was intended.

Okay, fight starts - I miss my big opening attack. The ninja has turned out to be pretty weak sauce the last few games - he can only get sudden strike bonus damage when their flat footed, and can't get that from flanking (nerfed rogue backstab, basically). Daniel sleep spells a bunch and Bourke wanders in and smashes some. At some point here Daniels brother, Matt, arrives. And since we left his character with the cart - apparently he wont be included the battle. So he sits eating a kebab during the rest of the time it takes to run this battle. Latter the big guy is sort of retreating/stepping away and I say 'Oh, towards the cart!' hopefully - it'd seem to fit. No, I'm quite wrong, Chris and Dan emphasize that the cart is definately the other way. Why put effort into emphasizing something that adds absolutely nothing?

I think I ended up doing 13 and 14 damage, in the end, due to beating his initiative and using my once per day vanish ability. Okay in the end, I suppose - but the number of misses just seems to stack up. In one of the side chatters Bourke brought up rogues in warcraft and I added how their stun lock methods basically mean your not playing the game for the next 20 seconds or so. Missing attacks are the same - you've chosen to do an activity rather than sit idle - then the activity makes you sit idle. Well, you roll but it adds as much as if you had elected to pass on your turn. Oh, and the big guy turned around and took 90% of my hitpoints in one hit. Meanwhile Dan kills two goblins in one spellcast of magic missile.

Anyway, this big guy heals himself. And I'm sitting there thinking how this is one of the most pointless powers ever - unless he has an escape path, it's not going to do anything but make it take longer to kill him. Bourkes on him now and I withdraw and shoot some arrows. Yes, he dies...eventually.

So, we wrap up. Daniel decides to search the bodies for gold and gets about fifty. I think we go back to town - Chris hints we should go to a druid friend to get heals and I say I thought she was way out of town. No, apparently. Again if it's an option, why are you telling us it's the best? We go there and she heals us and I don't hear this properly, but Daniel goes and spends all the money he found on buying healing potions from her. About this time I've realised that A: D&D is gear-centric, B: My ninja could do with some magic clothing to give armour and C: I have four silver to my name (everyone else has a few hundred gold). So I'm a bit changrined over it not being split. But latter in the session I find it doesn't matter - Chris doesn't like you just being able to buy magic armour, including the stuff under two thousand gold which your supposed to be able to buy. For fucks sake. So I'm going to sit behind everyone else until I'm such a charity case I'm given magic cloth.

We get attacked by hill goblins at some point, then in the night by fat demons things. Can't remember the fight much - there wasn't much to it, except the demons explode acid on death and my +6 reflex of course failed and I got chewed up by that. OH, and I think it was here we got an invocation of 'the golden rule'. My initiative apparently equaled the goblins, so we attacked 'simultanously'. In other words, when I actually killed one, instead of feeling the reward of a threat removed, he gets one more attack on me. That annoyed me too - even that petty sense of satisfaction from getting rid of another monster, just fucked with. The rules don't work that way and...did I say that? Can't remember, but Chris announced he can do that because of the golden rule. These words, these fucking words are like the tip of an iceberg. You could engage the words, but that's missing the real bulk that lies under the murky water - and that stuff will rip your hull open if you run into it. The first thing I think of is asking 'Well, who decides when that rule is used' so as to point out there's a rule above the golden rule and that it's just the GM who decides it. But I think that wont hit the mark. Then I think to say 'Well, only if I agreed you can use the golden rule to begin with'. Then I think that's conflicting to say. Then I say nothing - yay, Callan, you add to the murk by leaving the impression you agreed to the golden rule! Well done, Cal! But what am I supposed to do, I say to my own sarcasm - it's a fucking iceberg! I have micro seconds to respond and a behemoth to dismantle. I didn't consent! I lacked the skill to deal with it!! But my sarcasm says 'And how are you going to explain that to anyone when it comes down to it? You don't have the skill to describe that! And since you don't, and since they think you consented, just accept it. If you can't make a case your just the same as someone who is weaseling out of somthing they agreed to'.

Enough self pitying crap. We encounter a floating eyeball thing latter that observes us. After awhile I suggest talking to it, but Matt and Dan remind me it's just an eyeball, it doesn't have a mouth! Their very certain. I note how that doesn't need to matter in this world, but meh. Anyway, they sling spears and spells at it when it follows us. It runs away, but comes back latter - can't remember what happened in between. Chris takes Matt to the kitchen to talk and when Matt comes back he suggests we talk to it. Oh, really? We do and it speaks telepathically (god, as if lacking a mouth is a barrier in a magic world). Reflecting on it now, there's no brief 'Oh, you were right, Cal'. All too ready to assert their right, but no recognition when their wrong.

The eyeball offers us a proposition from the big bad guy (BBG). He wants us to join his side, with all sorts of offerings made. Bourkes character is neutral evil and is interested straight away. Again here alot of stuff happens that's hard to remember. Basically Daniel and (I think) Matt are going to go over to the BBG. I ask, as my character, why they are accepting a master - we had no master before. But it seems to be some diabolical Dan plan to screw the BBG over for his stuff. Really there is no big question, it's just more micro managing in a game set up where you can't lose anyway. I thought some question of real allegence had come up, but it got taken as just another thing to do petty manouvering over. I say petty, because when your not going to lose or win, what the hell are you trying to avoid or gain? In the past such manouvering might have made me think you could win - now I just don't care either way. Someone can come and explicitly tell me the stakes if they really care about winning, none of this inferred shit.

Anyway, I think the debate goes on for a bit - it's almost interesting but now I can see its undercut by 'clever manouvering plans'. God, I'm gamist inclined and yet I'm giving shit to clever manouvering? But as said, it's all ass without win/lose. Eventually we go with it, which involves meeting the hag we were going to kill. She's on some mountain with about 500 bug bears. Hmm, and if we had declined the BBG's offer - hardly an option, really. So we go up and...it's more GM stalling, as we get nothing from her but some info guys she hates that we can kill for treasure. And we get one bug bear scout when we were offered minions - and he dies in the first round of combat latter, Bourke saying what everyone knew, that that he'd die that quick. So in yet another way there's no big question, because the GM is only offering breadcrumbs to string out play - there's no change in dynamic, we may as well have been sent by Yaztromo to beat these guys and get exactly the same stuff.

We go to them, they are slavers. We pretend to be friendly at first. Bourke shows his evil side and whips a elf chick chained to the wall. I try to bluff a guard into watching then sap him, collapsing him into the alcove where the others wont notice, but my rolls fail at the sap of course. Everyone else was just talking at the time. Standard fight breaks out, some fiddleyness with getting around monster reach, but then it finishes. We take their gold and stuff - at this point I decide to gather some gold just for myself. I get 250. I get a look from Dan. I just make my move, just as much as his move wasn't to split the gold before. That is manouvering. So they tally up the rest, and I expect to be kept out of it and probably miss out on more - I dunno, maybe they forget and I get an even split, taking me to about 1500 gold in total. It was about this time that I asked for the GM book, Chris asks why, I say I want to look at the magic items you can buy and he drops that I can't be buying the low level magic armour. For fucks stake. About the only reward cycle I was looking ahead to and it's neutered.

Oh, and there's this last bit where Dan and Bourke are saying they are the leaders of the party to each other in a hur hur way. Okay, whatever, I'll plan around that. Then Dan goes 'Especially with Callans rolling problems tonight'. It's like, goes completely out from their PC's being in charge to our own social hierarchy and who's in charge of that. "I thought you were talking about your characters", I say. He says something I can't remember, and I repeat my line. You know, when I thought there was actually a difficulty involved, just during the game session I would pay that to someone who had done better - they get to stand on the higher part of the winners podium, so to speak. But this isn't the same - it's like the power play against the BBG, but here it's a power play in our social hierachy in order to consolidate power to...fucking what? Ah, found it. This is like I see in my sons school playground, where they supposedly play games with each other but it's a thin pretense for social position jockeying. Man, that's why I avoided sports in school - I couldn't articulate it back then, but I could sense what was really on the line. Is this what drives this petty manouvering when there is no win or lose in their game? You know, I'm pretty sure I can find the words which will shank this, while not leaving a ripple at the social politeness level. Or I'll just not play those games. Either's good.

That's the end of that game. Poor Bourke though - Chris brought up that he wanted to run a game of star wars. I say poor Bourke, because while my friends games slip through the net, I don't really know him and I'm not actually as willing as I seem to jump into any old game, so I asked questions about what'd it be like. You know, actually finding out whether something will be fun before jumping in. He went through some responces that made me feel I was at RPG.net, like saying "You wont die...unless you do something stupid". I couldn't help but say "If someone does something, they do it cause they think it's good". He was confused, as gamers seem to be, with me asking about roughly how it would end. I'm getting this revelation now, that gamers just don't 'get' an ending, even though every fucking medium they are exposed to, every book, movie, show, comic, has a fucking ending. Chris at one point said 'I don't play for endings'. WTF? It's yet another iceburg, but this time it doesn't matter to me because I'm asking about what I find fun. Anyway, eventually Bourke articulates a surprising clear case for participationism, where I'd been asking about the end and whether you can change it, he said 'Well, as characters in the heat of the moment you might think it'll change the ending, but you can't be sure' and 'I'll seem important, but it might not change the end that much'. Okay, participationism! You can socialise over coffee, beer, or participationism. Okay, I get that! Though I asked how damn serious it was going to be taken - I said I didn't want to be thinking on each move like it's chess, when the ending wont change anyway. I think he got me on that, which is good mutual ground.

Wow, what a long post of trivial details. See why I don't give AP accounts often - they're boring to write up! I haven't got any questions, maybe I'll think of some latter.

'I'll seem important, but it might not change the end that much'

Blink. You call that a non-engaging play account? Callan, it's a gold mine. The terrible thing is trying to come up with insightful responses, when you provided so many of them.

The thing I like best is that you're not posting merely to bitch and rip on your friends. You're talking about how (a) you were able to dope out what they wanted, and (b) how they in fact did a number of things that were counter to what they wanted, or related to it in an interesting way.

You've read my and others' posts about Exalted, right? This is exactly the same stuff. The GM "has a story" which is allegedly pretty damned brilliant, even if it's mostly composed of visiting places and seeing yet another "thing" in each one (a hag? cool. a high mountain? cool. goblin bandits? cool. a donkey? cool?). I think you posted about that before, something about griffins and other monsters just sort of nestled in prep-space for the player-characters to see, one after the other. Meanwhile, the players are engaged in a sort of trivial semi-Gamism, which as you say becomes more about minor I-shoved-you rights, based on meaningless crap like dice outcomes (especially with a high Whiff Factor), rather than any kind of actual or consequential challenge. Each unit of such play is effectively independent and bobs, inconsequentially, on the sea of the aforementioned "story." However, everyone pretends it's real Gamism and that that's the point of play; to do this, their prioritized moments and minor rewards become more and more juvenile.

The combat's really the giveaway: you guys have fights in order to ... um, well, because you're supposed to have fights. Losing hit points is exciting, right? But you know you can grind down the foes' points eventually, and you know you aren't going to get killed by anyone or anything.

Here's the weird thing to me: if Participationism is the desired process, why bother with all that silly low-level competitive noise? Why keep pushing the buttons which, in a lot of D&D play, do a fine job of prompting intra-party conflict and thus provide a valuable nuance to the genuine Gamism? (example: my guy is evil so he whips the elf chick; who's gonna try to stop me, and how is that gonna affect our team tactics in the next fight or the treasure-divvying after it?) Whereas here, it's merely distracting, at most the opportunity to grin 'round the table about being sooo evil.

Why bother to take the guy into the kitchen? Clearly it's all about how the BBG is getting Matt's character on his side for the Secret Party Betrayal Character Story (tm). So your desire to talk to it has to get shut down - the plan is for you all to talk to it, but not until Matt gets to in private, so anything you say about talking to it before that can't be permitted to enter the SIS. But again, why bother? Can't we ... you know ... participate in the "Matt's gonna betray us!" storyline?

Again, this isn't about ripping on people for being stupid role-players, it's about looking at a true mental tangle. It's about keeping the trappings of Gamism without any of its guts. It's about wanting a "story" and being willing to step all over people's actual engagement in play in order to promote yet another repetition of a boring, hackneyed, well-known, and predictable semi-story. It's about constantly looking up the rules and yet maintaining a weird social space in which disallowing various rules is a particular person's purview. The question is why any of this stuff is perceived as how we do things, and why it continues to be done, repetitively. I am convinced it has everything to do with the same fallacies that govern gambling: Whoa! This time, it was almost fun! OK, OK, here it comes, I'll try it again, just like last time .... damn! Almost fun, again! Well, I'm not giving up. I'm all about fun. Here we go, here it comes, gonna get ready, OK, OK, almost there ...

One last thing: geez, that ninja really blows. Is it really that bad a rules combo? Or were you pretty much just screwed by the whiff?

One really last thing: you know that play of this kind almost always requires a butt person at the table, right? As in, the butt of the joke?

Best, Ron

A-Fucking-Men, Ron. Callan, this shit is hot.

Ron wrote:
The GM "has a story" which is allegedly pretty damned brilliant, even if it's mostly composed of visiting places and seeing yet another "thing" in each one (a hag? cool. a high mountain? cool. goblin bandits? cool. a donkey? cool?). I think you posted about that before, something about griffins and other monsters just sort of nestled in prep-space for the player-characters to see, one after the other. Meanwhile, the players are engaged in a sort of trivial semi-Gamism, which as you say becomes more about minor I-shoved-you rights, based on meaningless crap like dice outcomes (especially with a high Whiff Factor), rather than any kind of actual or consequential challenge. Each unit of such play is effectively independent and bobs, inconsequentially, on the sea of the aforementioned "story." However, everyone pretends it's real Gamism and that that's the point of play; to do this, their prioritized moments and minor rewards become more and more juvenile.

Ron wrote:
Here's the weird thing to me: if Participationism is the desired process, why bother with all that silly low-level competitive noise? Why keep pushing the buttons which, in a lot of D&D play, do a fine job of prompting intra-party conflict and thus provide a valuable nuance to the genuine Gamism? (example: my guy is evil so he whips the elf chick; who's gonna try to stop me, and how is that gonna affect our team tactics in the next fight or the treasure-divvying after it?) Whereas here, it's merely distracting, at most the opportunity to grin 'round the table about being sooo evil.

Callan wrote:
So in yet another way there's no big question, because the GM is only offering breadcrumbs to string out play - there's no change in dynamic, we may as well have been sent by Yaztromo to beat these guys and get exactly the same stuff.

Callan wrote:
Is this what drives this petty manouvering when there is no win or lose in their game? You know, I'm pretty sure I can find the words which will shank this, while not leaving a ripple at the social politeness level. Or I'll just not play those games. Either's good.

Callan,

That sounds so freaking frustrating. Sadly, I know in my gaming life I've both been one of those GMs whose word is law and who has his players on the tracks - and pretty much the same tracks over and over.

It was how my first GM ran his games, and honestly just the way I thought rpgs were supposed to be. I began to become aware of the problem

Sorry, it looks like I posted in mid-post somehow. Here's what I actually wrote in full:

Callan,

That sounds so freaking frustrating. Sadly, I know in my gaming life I've both been one of those GMs whose word is law and who has his players on the tracks - and pretty much the same tracks over and over.

It was how my first GM ran his games, and honestly just the way I thought rpgs were supposed to be. I began to become aware of the problem in college when I noticed an increase in my old GMs tendency to say "your character wouldn't do that."

"How do you know?" I finally manned up and asked.

"He's a [insert stereotypical class]."

Our GM moved away eventually. I became the new regular GM. Years passed. All of us remembered how amazing this guys games were - and they were. Great semi-stories [no ends, really, but hell, we didn't know any better]. He came back in town and we had one night to play again. By now I was married, and my wife was in the group. They'd never really met. She started to describe the kind of character she wanted to play. Then, he started telling her about the kind of character she was going to play. (I had really hoped they would get along. They did not.) It was a second murmur in my gamer's heart that maybe the GM didn't have to be the absolute authority. I still couldn't conceive of another way to do it, I just didn't like the way it was.

Now, in my late thirties, I've been blessed with the best gaming group I've ever had. But a year ago, we were still sitting in a very similar place that you describe. We were 1) playing a game that couldn't be won or lost, where 2) the GM alone guided the semi-story until it fizzled out, and 3) the players (not characters) with the highest charisma called the shots.

I wasn't aware of the Forge (in fact I'm still very new here), and most other sights I was familiar with had a pretty old-school mentality. But I started listening to gaming podcasts like "Theory from the Closet", "Master Plan", "2d6 Feet in a Random Direction" and many, many others. I started picking up on the notion of player control. I caught a few ideas of how to introduce it. I tried them out. I talked to the players before games and when we were hanging out, kinda testing the waters.

And now? Well, now we still play games with a centralized GM, but with a helluva lot more player control. We've integrated social mechanics, so even the old min/maxer has decided charisma isn't a dump-stat. Our stories have endings, even if we pick up those old characters again for a sequel. And, there are so many consequences beyond gold and magic items, it seems like we all win and lose every game.

Now, I'm not sure this would have been possible with any group, and I'd still like to see us try out some things. Some players want to just "kill more monsters and get better loot". And as much as that makes me shiver, I think its a legitimate form of play. But then, half of my group started out that way a few years back, and now generally expect a deeper story with more input and equality.

What you did by asking Chris some solid questions about the type of game he was running, and the great point you made with Bourke, could be the first steps toward more enjoyable games, not just for you, but for the group.

You know, monarchs often have a much easier time of instituting democracies than do rebellions.

Just curious, but do you GM?

~David

Erk, awkward sentence in my post. Bourke was going to run a starwars game, not Chris

That's the end of that game. Poor Bourke though - Chris brought up that he wanted to run a game of star wars.

Why bother to take the guy into the kitchen? Clearly it's all about how the BBG is getting Matt's character on his side for the Secret Party Betrayal Character Story (tm). So your desire to talk to it has to get shut down - the plan is for you all to talk to it, but not until Matt gets to in private, so anything you say about talking to it before that can't be permitted to enter the SIS. But again, why bother? Can't we ... you know ... participate in the "Matt's gonna betray us!" storyline?

Again, this isn't about ripping on people for being stupid role-players, it's about looking at a true mental tangle. It's about keeping the trappings of Gamism without any of its guts. It's about wanting a "story" and being willing to step all over people's actual engagement in play in order to promote yet another repetition of a boring, hackneyed, well-known, and predictable semi-story. It's about constantly looking up the rules and yet maintaining a weird social space in which disallowing various rules is a particular person's purview. The question is why any of this stuff is perceived as how we do things, and why it continues to be done, repetitively. I am convinced it has everything to do with the same fallacies that govern gambling: Whoa! This time, it was almost fun! OK, OK, here it comes, I'll try it again, just like last time .... damn! Almost fun, again! Well, I'm not giving up. I'm all about fun. Here we go, here it comes, gonna get ready, OK, OK, almost there ...

One last thing: geez, that ninja really blows. Is it really that bad a rules combo? Or were you pretty much just screwed by the whiff?

One really last thing: you know that play of this kind almost always requires a butt person at the table, right? As in, the butt of the joke?

This intrigues me on a very practical level. What sorts of things do you imagine you'll say to "shank" the petty playground maneuvering without making a scene? 'Cause I certainly haven't figured that one out. . .your little sarcastic dialogue with yourself as the opportunity to speak up passes you by is a frequent and familiar one. Anyway, the stuff you did say sounded right on the money, and the "who decides when the rule is used?"

At the risk of sounding off topic, I don't want to derail the thread so I'm referencing some ideas that I'm working on at the moment for a collaborative role-playing game with a de-centralised plot development mechanism.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25591.0

I've been getting the same sorts of issues in a number of groups and I'm trying to find some ways to resolve them...so if you've got any input it would be much appreciated.

V

Callan, I actually understood just fine that it was Bourke who wanted to GM and Chris who brought it up. So no terrible sentence as far as I can tell.

I think the whole deal with the Golden Rule is that it simply isn't something you can agree with if you want a solid ruleset to support any contract. Nothing matters if "I can do anything whenever I want" is an option.

Chris can run a game where you won't gain any gear, but it isn't the default assumption when playing D&D. If you want gear out, state it up front and figure out how it's going to change the game (casters rule even more). You want to play gear-less D&D? Tell the players it's gonna be gear-less D&D and not default D&D!

As for the ninja... I think your analysis is quite on target. It's a rogue-monk hybrid and inferior to both; only the opening move of the rogue and the AC mechanic of the monk but none of its specialist tricks and without its mobility.
If you want to keep him: I would stick to ranged attacks, focus on improving attack modifiers and initiative and disregard AC. Use the rest of your money to get cheap poison that has paralyzation or uncounsciousness as initial damage because half measures and secondary effects are worthless in combat. Drow poison is perfect, otherwise Carrion crawler brain juice. Or even better: use Craft (poisonmaking) to make it yourself. Of course the big problem is that whether you can get poison is completely up to the GM.
Your niches?
1) Opening-turn killer - though not really at low level.
2) Low-fortitude-opponent (mage) disabler (if you've got poison), which would actually work quite well at low level.
3) Possibly scout.
The rest of the combat is staying out of harm's way and shooting arrows for slow damage.

Hi Jasper,

I there's an essential illusionism to rule zero - it's put there as if for the GM to add cool stuff. But adding can also be taking away (Eg, 'add' to shops that they don't sell magic cloth). It's ability to not only remove rules, but all rules, is hidden. Not to mention it's usually tucked away in some relatively obscure spot.

Chris can run a game where you won't gain any gear, but it isn't the default assumption when playing D&D. If you want gear out, state it up front and figure out how it's going to change the game (casters rule even more). You want to play gear-less D&D? Tell the players it's gonna be gear-less D&D and not default D&D!

Use the rest of your money to get cheap poison that has paralyzation or uncounsciousness as initial damage because half measures and secondary effects are worthless in combat. Drow poison is perfect, otherwise Carrion crawler brain juice. Or even better: use Craft (poisonmaking) to make it yourself.

Oh, ho, MAN; have I ever got to say something here. Callan, dude... how could you even stand 'playing' like this for as long as you did? That takes some real fortitude, though not the kind I'd envy having.

I think I ran into a GM trying to run a game this way one time in all of ever (of course, now that I think about it, I usually wind-up being the GM... and I'm pretty sure this was also the only time I was going to sit down and play a GM'd RPG where I wasn't the GM. Which I now scratch my head at, but anyway...). It wasn't even that long ago - about three years, I believe (I'd just turned 20, moved to the city and started poking around for RPG groups in local stores). The GM's name was Sean, and I didn't know him or his play group very well (we'd more or less just met the night prior to the game being run). He was going to kick-off a d20 Modern campaign.

It began as the very same idea as what's been said here; GM has us following a pre-planned, completely linear plot (actually, since I hadn't encountered this before, I thought it was kind of fun at first. Though the novelty quickly began to wane...), he invoked 'special GM privileges' if we did something that he felt would knock us off track or if he got frustrated at how easily we dispatched certain minions (this normally frustrates me immediately to the point of finding something else to do - but, in this case, I thought it was tolerable for the 'greater sake' of the linear plot - the story of which was at least interesting. A benefit that Callan wasn't even afforded), and finally - the real deal-breaker for me - when I requested the rulebook (if I recall correctly, it was to read-up on some of the firearm combat rule intracacies), Sean said 'no'.

Now, this is part of my personality: I don't just sit around doing boring things, even if that means I have to be a party-pooper. I also don't just take insults (and I felt pretty insulted by Sean's response) without saying something, even if that means there's going to be an uncomfortable moment.

I didn't lose my temper, start an argument or otherwise create a confrontation. I just told Sean the truth. "Man, I've got to be honest - I'm not having any fun." I think that those were, perhaps, the wisest words to ever come out of my mouth.

Now, I didn't know Sean, and I pretty much just assumed he was some asshat, 'I don't want you messing with none of my things' power-tripping geek. So, as I said that stuff, I just began grabbing my die, rolling-up my sheet and pushing-out my chair...

...But my assumption, as it turns-out, was dead wrong.

"Oh. I'm really sorry. Is there something you usually do that makes the game more fun for you?"

So I pull my chair back in, smooth my sheet out, get the die out of my pocket, and talk. And TALK. It turns-out that nobody else was having fun either (Sean least of all, since his story that he worked so hard on wasn't delivering on the level he wanted it to - he wanted to use it to 'show-off' to me, the new guy) because we all sort-of 'assumed' a social contract was in place... but, I mean, of COURSE there wasn't, because not a single one of us bothered to mention what we would be doing to make the game fun. We were too busy making uber l33t robo-gangsters to discuss something so trivial as 'fun'.

Sean is actually a really fantastic human being and roleplayer. We just had to communicate properly. After we'd done that, the campaign actually kicked-off again with a lot of enthusiasm and wound-up being very memorable.

I know the situations are different, Callan, and maybe Chris (I assume you know him better than I knew Sean at the time) really IS just an asshat... but it doesn't look like you tried to communicate with him. It's great that you kept your hostile thoughts in your head, but you really should've said SOMETHING. Something polite and something even-toned, yes - but Chris can't read your mind, and he can't know for sure that you aren't having fun if you don't say so. Next time - be honest with them. Tell them you're not having fun.

Maybe they'll just flip you off, sure. Then you might want to consider why you bother hanging with them in the first place (they clearly aren't worth your time). Or, maybe they'll discuss the matter with you, and it'll make future sessions better for everybody.

Hi, Callan!

Callan wrote:
"who decides when the rule is used?" doesn't really cut to the bone, even if I said it. Because any old answer could be given and if I stop playing - there's no logical connection there as to why I stopped. Perhaps a moral code thing, but no logical connection.

Callan wrote:
However, politely asking "Oh, so method X is part of this game? Ah, didn't realise, sorry about that, my mistake I didn't mean to join a game with that. I'll just head out and watch some DVD's"

Hi Grinning Moon,

Hooo, let me cast back, back through the mysts of time. I could say it's the gaps between games that make me forget, or the art of illusionism adding one just sucky thing at a time so as not to break the camels back. Or the going there for the social catch up. Or a bunch of other trivia.

But what's sad is it's trust - not in Chris or anyone else, but in that games are actually fun. Just as an idea - one pretty well supported by chess, or frisbee, or monopo...well, frisbee and snakes and ladders and shoot 'em up video games, and so on.

Do you remember the fable of stone soup? Where the guy basically cons everyone into adding an ingrediant - and the soups fantastic in the end, but only cause they thought stone soup by itself was going to be great?

I do not want to have a chat with everyone to make it a really fun game - I want the soup I paid for. The soup I trusted was there. The basic unit of trust that you give money, you get some sort of product. So I say FUCK making this stone soup good! I have sat and I have waited patiently for the product to pay, and it kept acting like it would. But it is flawed. What's worse is that if I waved the companies responsibility to actually earn their money and we had a good old chat to get some fun, those flaws would still freaking undermine the work we could do, until every one of them is ironed OUT. Not only do they not provide a product, if you accept that you still have to fight to get their monkey off your back!

I've spoken with Daniel about making a whole new game (though that's fallen to the back burner, but simply because he didn't want the gamism I thought he did all these years). I'm fine with talking about how to get our fun in a game...that were making. Of course when it comes to design, I absolutely agree alot of talk is needed. But a purchased product is another matter.

I know alot of people take it as 'yeah, of course you do that' these days that everyone has to have a big creative chat before you can play, including at the forge. It's simply not true, unless the instructions say 'Sit around and have a big creative chat'. If the instructions don't tell you you need to do this, but you need to do it to play, the game is flawed. It doesn't matter how much fun you have, it's treating a flawed product as if its a good one. That wont be healthy.

Oh, and I'm a sucker - see up above where I say I broke open the books looking for the poison rules. I'm just a bit of a sucker. Also Chris didn't ask for any advice (in your example, Sean basically did). Honestly, alot of advice material at the forge will burn a mans cherised RP ideals to the ground. But that can't happen unless he asks first - I've learnt that from forge threads - people will only absorb something related to their question. Until they ask, it's water off a ducks back.

That's a strong, thought-provoking post, Callan. I think I agree with a lot of it.

One thing that strikes me is the "big creative chat" criticism. My thinking is that a pre-game conversation does best to serve the same purpose it does for any other activity, whether it's formal or informal. That purpose is best described as getting on the same page.

I remember when I played volleyball for fun years ago ... one thing you learned to find out, and it was usually through informal and unconstructed conversations, was how ruthless or violent the game was to be. Once you knew you should find out, then it became clear that everyone expected everyone to find out beforehand, and for groups to coalesce based on shared values about it. I don't know if it's the same for long-term players of card games or anything similar, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Like you, I am suspicious of some of the advice that gets tossed around, less so on the Forge perhaps, that sounds to me more like ... well, like deciding who is going to win, or who is going to look the best, or how it's going to feel to play. I don't think that kind of conversation is useful and I also think it's going to cause more problems than it solves.

It might be a good topic one day to consider the difference between getting on the same page about an activity, versus destroying the activity's content by over-controlling it or being too reassuring beforehand. I've spent a hell of a lot of time setting up successful groups and setting up successful games within those groups. I wonder what I'm doing at the border, or somewhere in the functional zone, of these things?

Best, Ron

I think the volleyball example shows people chosing variations on a game - a more ruthless game, or a more peaceful one. The big creative chats that I see advocated appear to be at the level of 'Well, should we use a ball at all?'. Fundimental elements.

And that's perfectly fine if they had set out to design a whole new game for themselves - if one of the designers doesn't like balls, lets talk and find that out! We don't have to have a game with balls, lets do something different! That's a really healthy process going on in that case, IMO.

That's probably why it seems healthy to choose to buy a game, then go through that level of creative chat. But...it's hard to articulate - I think that level of chat means not facing the result of your own choices. To choose a game that uses a ball, but then have that chat about whether you use a ball...well, lets say your crap with a ball and that's not as fun as being good with it. Either you don't get rid of the ball, which "doesn't make sense" cause surely you don't do things which aren't fun! Or you get rid of the ball and not face the results of your own choice. But what's the point of making choices if you don't see their results? It's a catch 22 situation.

I think that's why I have a stubborn urge to stick with my ninja. Yes, it sucks. But I want to find out the result of my choice, otherwise I wouldn't have made a choice. The game doesn't have an ending/a result, so I'm left to making my own results system - ie, does it suck? The month or two between games probably makes the feeling of suck slowly dissipate, not to mention some GM management of suck in game, means I never rise to a results level of 'this definately sucks'. Kind of a limbo.

To an extent I agree with what your saying. The problem is, IMO, that the way people role play is very different from the way they play Volleyball. Until recently a lot of groups have been playing in isolation, guessing out a lot of what they were doing, with out much contact from the outside. It'd be like if everywhere in the world had a Volleyball League, but they all ran by a different set of rules, a lot of which no one ever bothered to right down. All that local variation is bound to mean confusion for a new player, and talking is the only way to get around it.

For instance, you talk about the DM using is by the text protected prerogative to change the rules of play. The DMG also really stresses explaining the changes to players, explaining why the change was made, and stating it clearly before play begins.

Ninja, by the way, are ridiculously good. At low levels there main role in combat will be defending and drawing opponents off from bigger damage dealers, but their touch AC is going to be really good... which is a major benefit in 3.5. Later, the power array makes up for lost rogue abilities. Also, getting Improved Feint is well worth it. One of the funnest and most frustrating aspects of D&D is how powers combine with one another. Look at the Invisible Blade prestige class for a great pairing for any Ninja, also, multi-classing is always an option.

Hi Nolan,

That's true. Have you read my essay "A hard look at Dungeons & Dragons," in the Articles section? It's aimed at getting out of that isolated, cargo-cult mentality regarding this game in particular.

Best, Ron

Ron: Yeah, I almost referenced it in my post. My point to Callan was just this: that a lot of the time the reason play is bad is because roleplaying or Dungeons & Dragons or whatever have different meanings for everyone at the table, and, as you explain really well in your article, this is the baggage the hobby brings with it, since D&D for a really long time, was the hobby. I think Callan has a good point, and I think the newer editions of D&D are pretty clear about what your suppose to be doing when you play, but... the reality is that most people carried over their habits from 2e, or worse still, learned how to play entirely through guessing it out by example, having never read more of the rules than absolutely neccessary.

And D&D does suggest pre-game discussion. Its in that section in the DMG about the two styles of play, you know, Kick Down the Door or Deep Immersion or whatever they call it.

Hi Nolan,

I don't think that's true. Take your example where everyone has a 'volleyball league'. Why are they all calling it volleyball? That doesn't happen by itself - people invent sports independently all the time, but they name them all sorts of things. For everyone to name their variant the same (volleyball), there must be some central organisation which is telling them it's volleyball. It's sending out the message that it is. It'd have to be organised - you don't get hundreds of people making really different games, then naming them all the same just by chance. Same with D&D. Why is everyone calling their game they essentially made up, D&D? Thousands of games made and all called D&D? Seriously, why? Unless someones patting them on the back somehow and saying 'Oh yeah, that's D&D!'

In terms of D&D, talking about it is not the way to get around it. There's a central authority involved which will say 'Oh yes, that's D&D!' to just about any flippin' set up. When people in the same group have different set ups, but this central authority keeps going 'Oh yes, what your doing is D&D!' to each of them, any talk the group might have is undermined before it even begins. Talking about it only aggrivates the whole situation, because their all bloody certain their doing D&D because they keep getting told through books and shit that they are. Which is terrible, come to think of it, because talking about it is about the only thing we have as human beings to deal with stuff. Though in terms of creative denial and simulationism, it could work out - and there does seem a massive sim culture out there.

I almost feel bad saying 'talk is bad' - it seems really heretical to say, yet it adds up.

Hi Callan,

That kind of talk is bad, I definitely agree. However, that can't possibly mean that any talk is bad - the talk in this thread, for instance, is seriously good. Does it not seem possible to you that, some day, you will be able to play D&D with some folks with whom you talked in this way, instead?

Best, Ron

Hmm, when you put it that way, no! To "play D&D" would mean saying I know what D&D is, or whoever else says "Lets play D&D" would be saying they know what it is. You can't refer to doing something without implying you know what it is. As said, it's company (past and present) pats any version on the head - what is true D&D? Who knows? Or wants to clash with someone elses idea of it?

However, talking about making up something as we play, and talking about canabalizing D&D rules or rules from other books that seem to suit, that is fun! I'll have to start asking about that first next time - also that helps kick off the talk in a 'make up a game' session. The talk will be roughly like in this thread and the forge in general. Still feel a bit ripped off with the books - but the best revenge is living well/playing happily! :) Also checking out what RPG's I can actually find in shops, check 'em out to see if they are just the one thing. Perhaps canabalizing them otherwise, bwa ha ha ha ha!

It's probably that time for anyone to give their last comments to the thread before closing time, aye?

Just an aside Callan, but have you ever put serious effort in running D&D by the book, and getting people to consent to do the same, you'd be surprised at how well it works. Its like playing one of those board games thats based of D&D (you know, Descent or Dungeoneer or Dungeon Twister or whatever, heck even Munchkin kinda counts) except its a lot better. D&D breaks when you try to do things with it that it wasn't meant to do... As far as the company line equating to "Do whatever you want" well, I guess that kind of sucks, but... they're not really saying that, I don't think. They're saying, try to make the game the best it can be for you... it just is tied up really really deeply in trusting your DM like you would your mother.

Talking: I wanted to say you don't talk when you sit down at the chess club. But actually even at the club you scope out people of equal ability. You've ferreted out the 'casual players' just by being at a club, so you don't have to worry about destroying sensitive people, but on the other hand no one wants to waste their time either. The expert might play a few games with the tyro as a kindness, but will prefer to play against other experts most of the night, most of the time.

With 'D&D', which means everything from 'any role playing game at all' to 'this particular edition of a game actually titled D&D' to 'the way me and my friends played such-and-such at time x', not talking means you just show up and see what happens. The stronger your preferences are for particular ways of playing, the more time-wasting this threatens.

----------------------

What I'm thinking about that made me want to post was the social stuff.

I'm totally fine with real-life social status and issues between players mediating and being mediated by what happens in an RPG. (Others may not be, which is fine too.) The situation Callan describes to me would be poisonous, but not because the social dimension is there - it's because the social dimension is shitty and juvenile, or at least seems to be by my standards and reading of Callan's description.

Distributed 'player control' as an approach to RPGs is theoretically interesting in all kinds of ways and has produced some thought-provoking designs. But I think it's perhaps misplaced as a response to the problem of shitty social manipulation. I suppose it's possible that distributed control makes the entire game shut down faster if someone's an overt dick, but you can always take your social manipulation to a higher level.

Being adult and mature in your social relations can happen with a 'God GM' or with totally distributed power across the table or anything in between. Each approach can be manipulated in different ways and has different strengths and weaknesses.

-------------------

As a corollary to this, though, I just thought of an interesting reason why some people might like the kind of play described in Callan's post, God GM, social manipulation, and all. Just as some horror movies let you get off by fantasizing about being the killer - or Grand Theft Auto's fantasy of lawlessness - maybe being in a D&D game of this kind lets you be as big a shithead as you possibly can in a constrained environment.

In other words, I wonder whether the shittiness of these games is actually for some players a feature, not a bug. "At home and school and at work I have to be nice to people whether I like them or not. Fuck that shit! I want to be in it for me and get away with whatever I can...."

Thinking about that, I'm sure it's right, actually - it explains a huge amount of play I've seen over the years in a satisfying way. The ruthless killers, the peevish social manipulators, the bad boys, all kept in as tight a cage as possible, raising the ante for the stab out, the break, etc.

So it's a kind of gamism after all, but the game is (1) fucking the DM (that actual person) and (2) fucking the other players (we're the leaders, we get the magic items, etc.). The SIS and the system are props for that social interaction. And that's where the real fun is for a lot of people who play our games.

But going back to the conversation issue I started with, how many of them can admit that to themselves, let alone to others thinking of joining their group?

I'd like to add some extra notes to my post, since when the penny dropped it was all so clear, but perhaps not described well.

Essentially there are two outcomes - A: I either do the particular activity I set out to do, or B: I don't. It's binary, there's no inbetween. And when Ron posted, I realised all the talk in the world wont change that it ends up at one or the other.

Be careful in reading this, I'm not saying talk can't change which outcome you end up at. I'm saying once you arrive at an outcome, all the talk in the world cannot then change that you ended up at that outcome - you ended up at A or B. You can't end up at B, have a bit of a chat and somehow end up at A instead.

Take the volleyball example - all the pregame talk possible wont matter, if no one else is actually interested in a ruthless game except you. You've already hit outcome B - you've failed to do the activity you set out to do. "No! See, now you just gee 'em up, get em feeling ruthless!". No, this is like the example of the gambler who keeps repeating the same behaviour, because he will not accept he failed to do the activity he set out to do when he lost the first bet. Putting in more and more effort into geeing them up or whatever is like the gambler throwing more and more money at it so he can win (what he has already, permanently lost). The activity you set out to do involved ruthless volleyballers already there, it did not involve you geeing them up.

When you accept you've failed to meet your expectations, you naturally look for something else you want to do (what you want might be in the same area as before, or you might want to go for a jog now, or something else). You change your behaviour. If you don't accept you failed, you can try new approaches all you like, with all the forge help and talk you can get - your still plugging away at a battle you already lost, repeating the same core behaviours much like the gambler does. Any other change in behaviour don't matter if you have a core set of behaviours which simply must be followed (since 'they have not failed'!). Those core behaviours will overide any other changes in behaviour, if they get in the way of the cores desire.

Personally I thought I wasn't getting to A because I thought it was a skill, like driving, and I was a bad driver and running into a tree half way and just needed to get better. The way Ron phrased it, I realised I'd lost before I'd begun - to 'play D&D' requires someone to assert their version of D&D for play - bang, that wont let me meet my version of D&D, so I'm already at B. No amount of skill will overcome that because it's already happened. It's over already. And thus...behaviour change! Which feels good!

Sorry, but I have to disagree and I hope hope hope that I'm not just being contentious. I think you see D&D as a game in the traditional sense, but no matter how you slice, its not. It will never tell you what to do next. I know this sort contradicts what I said above about playing it by the book, but by "by the book" I guess I just meant taking the most obvious course provided by the book and following it.
With very few exceptions, role playing "games" are essentially sets of tools that a group of people can use to make a game... The game is the scenario the GM/DM/Storyteller presents, not anything in the book, and there's no possible way anyone can know what their getting before hand besides discussion: so, with these tools that we bought, what kind of game are we going to make.

Their are RPG's now that fix this (Panty Explosion comes to mind, because I've actually played it... it sounds like a lot other Forge-y RPG's do the same) and if you want to avoid all the "so what the fuck are we doing here" talk, I highly suggest sticking exclusively to those games.

But even then, talk will probably be necessary. To take a board game example: I love A Game of Thrones by Fantasy Flight. Its a solid game and there's never any confusion over the rules of play that can't be found in the rule book, but oh man, have I seen the way that various people approach playing that game dramatically effect the feel and out come of play.

Extreme A) No one talks about what is happening in play, everyone plays the game without in put, advice or deal brokering between players.
Extreme B) Every action take part by any player comes after long negotiations with the other players.

I find both methods to be fun and enjoyable, and I like in-between play as well, but some people hate A and hate B, though both are perfectly allowable within the rules... thus, discussions is necessary.

Nolan, do you want to ask people questions where they give their own answer, completely on their own, without any influence from you or anybody else?

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Are you saying I'm asking a leading question, or that I'm not asking a question at all? Well, I wasn't trying to ask a question, I was making a statement in response to your last statement, one that said as clearly as I could what my opinion on the issues at hand is. I figured you would respond by giving your opinion, from what I said, with the purpose being that we both would understand things more and thus be able to make better (i.e. more informed decisions). I said I hoped that I wasn't being contentious because I didn't just want to contradict you... if you want to end the conversation theres no reason for me to sit here and give an opposing side to things... Anyway, if you could explain what you meant maybe I could respond more directly.

It wasn't a statement, I wasn't saying anything, I wasn't talking. I was asking a question. There's no ill will here, in fact I am listening very intently for just your answer. This is your choice, alone, quite seperate from any talk we could have had, because all I am doing is listening to you. Please excuse my shortness and relative silence. It is because I am busy listening only to you.

Nolan, do you want to ask people questions where they give their own answer, completely on their own, without any influence from you or anybody else?

Sometimes...

Callan wrote:
Take your example where everyone has a 'volleyball league'. Why are they all calling it volleyball? That doesn't happen by itself - people invent sports independently all the time, but they name them all sorts of things. For everyone to name their variant the same (volleyball), there must be some central organisation which is telling them it's volleyball. It's sending out the message that it is. It'd have to be organised - you don't get hundreds of people making really different games, then naming them all the same just by chance.

Callan wrote:
It'd have to be organised - you don't get hundreds of people making really different games, then naming them all the same just by chance.

masqueradeball wrote:
Sometimes...

What? I don't understand your point at all. I feel like the original question is rhetorical, not in the sense that you didn't want an answer at all, but that you wanted the answer so you could use it to make a point. Please just make the point, because I don't understand what your saying or how it related to the topic of the thread.

Are you saying that? Well, I could sit here and give you a bunch of possible meaning for what you said, but you said, so please explain. You've seriously lost me.

Part of your post was

Extreme A) No one talks about what is happening in play, everyone plays the game without in put, advice or deal brokering between players.
Extreme B) Every action take part by any player comes after long negotiations with the other players.

I find both methods to be fun and enjoyable, and I like in-between play as well, but some people hate A and hate B, though both are perfectly allowable within the rules... thus, discussions is necessary.