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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

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

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

Mike

Hi there,

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

Best,
Ron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couldn't agree more.

Jake

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prophet118 wrote: i thought that our plan was brillant, and very very cool, unfortunately as we were leaving the game, we got to hear how the majority of the players hated the idea, and thought that the trolls should have been slaughtered from the get go....

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

prophet118 wrote: thats a load of crap, so i altered the system, customizing it to the group of people i run it for..

Hi Bob,

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

Mike Holmes wrote:

prophet118 wrote: thats a load of crap, so i altered the system, customizing it to the group of people i run it for..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

prophet118 wrote: this will be the last time im going to make a comment about rune... except to say, have you even played the damn game?

well like i said, i ran the game as intended, even had encounters drawn up so they wouldnt have to, everything was going fairly ok.. one player did get killed because of a lucky goblin, the player decided to jump over the small underground stream, and couldnt see across the thing.... the torch was being held by someone way in the back, he jumped across, and landed in front of a goblin, who attacked him, i rolled a 45 on my attack, he rolled a 13 on his defense, i dropped that character fairly quickl, and he swore off the game... now i didnt alter anything rule wise that was used in that scenario ... however that player wants me to drop the thwack margin...which wont be happening..

however as we are playing through the encounters, the players noticed things that didnt like, and since one of the nifty little things is "The Book Of Iron Law", i took their ideas and objections under consideration, and came up with some interesting solutions, they all agreed on them..


the solutions basically came out to

single GM (me)
have a more balance system for missile combat (and dont make it so blatant on the screwing over part)
altering weapon stats to match what they should be (based on the other weapons in the game of the same type, and the definitions given for what each thing did (attack, defense, ETC)
i also added my own gifts into the mix (only 2 so far, one for stealth rolls, and the other as a kind of healing gift, similiar to "the knitting of meat and bone")
and i added story as the back bone, instead of "we must go kill more goblins"... theres a story, whats so strange about that?

prophet118 wrote: ...theres a story, whats so strange about that?

ok yoda....thanks for being vague there...i have no clue what the hell you just said...

Read the essay, young Padawan.

Mike

Prophet-

Basically it boils down to this. People play games for different reasons, different games are designed for different types of enjoyment. People tend to have problems/less enjoyment when either everyone is there for a different reason("I want a deep story/I want to kill things"), or if they are playing a game that is intended for a different purpose than the kind of enjoyment that they're looking for("I don't like Rune, it has no story").

What your initial post breaks down to, is that what you want and what your players want, and what the games you are playing, are not meshing smoothly. What this means, is that you need to be absolutely clear on:

•what kind of play you're looking for
•what kind of play the other players are looking for(as individuals and as a whole)
•what kind of play the game you're using supports and encourages

Then find out where the friction is coming from.

Most of the complaints that I hear about TROS boil down to,"It doesn't do D&D as good as D&D does!" No Duh. That's why its a different game. Its designed to work differently and play differently. If your players still want D&D, then give them D&D.

Again, you need to decide what sort of games you're looking to play, and find folks who like it. Your current players are who they are, they have whatever conceptions and conditioning they have. Don't be upset because they won't change, just find some different people.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Don't be upset because they won't change, just find some different people.

Last resort, Chris, last resort

Ok, my bad. Let me modify that statement-

Either look for folks who want what you want(and be clear about what you want, and what they want as well)

OR

Be willing to accept that you will have to compromise, and understand that the folks you have will not change, or will only compromise so far.

So, if you want to play certain games, and folks aren't willing to go there, then you'll have to make do and not complain.

Chris

Hey ya'll, I'm stepping in to moderate. This is a bit off topic anymore. Take it to GNS forum or tie it more into TROS.

And chill out some of you.

Jake

well i was trying to keep it to challenging player notions of what a game should/could consist of... ya know some people think a perfect game is nothing but combat with a little story... stuff like that...

prophet118 wrote: well i was trying to keep it to challenging player notions of what a game should/could consist of... ya know some people think a perfect game is nothing but combat with a little story... stuff like that...

TROS is great because for the person who is into playing a game, it provides a story-based reward system, which channels them in directions other than "kill everything in sight."

One or two of my players has been shocked when he finally killed the Gol Captain and he didn't get any kind of reward for it.

Others, who (frankly) are better munchkins, just got with it and figured out that their SAs are the key to "winning."

So, there's that angle taken care of. Gamists are happy as long as they're gaming. And they are.

Simulationists are treated to a world which is easy to relate to and explore. Seneschals have a lot of room to explore, too, as they get to fill in the gaps in Weyrth.

And Narrativists? Well, back to the SAs. They bind the whole works together. As long as your SAs are cool and coordinated, they drive the story through an interesting plot to a thrilling conclusion.

I introduced two of my buddies from other games to tRoS at 1 in the morning. They were back the next day begging for more.

To my knowledge, there are only a few very small groups of people who are actually lost causes.

well it all comes down to how its introduced... i am going to be starting a game of TRos after the 1st of the year, all because i had a rather fun conversation with a friend of mine, who happens to hate the whole D20 stuff as a system...

hes been playing Imagine and Rolemaster lately...

right now hes in my mage game on fridays and is a fairly inventive player... the players i worry about are the ones who... well i dont know if i can even articulate it (and english is my native language!)...

you know those players who look at you when you describe some cool fantasy element, and you know they are wondering how much XP its worth, or when you are describing what the bad guy looks like, they jump the gun to kill it before anyone else gets the reward?... i dont really think of that kind of player as a munckin... its almost like all the ADHD people got together (well ok so i have ADHD, still)

they play and play these games, never fully letting you immerse yourself into the atmosphere, and look at it as though thats how its supposed to be, also by manipulating certain in game things, they make it seem as an in character play..

like for instance the barbarian who attacks the new player in the game...well maybe thats what a barbarian would do, but deep in your heart, you know the player is actually a very blood thirsty person, and was looking for a reason to beat someone up...

challenging player notions in TROs is going to be interesting for me..but i think once i get the majority of those kinds of players toned down, and hopefully help them to fully immerse themselves, we can have all sorts of fun.....


i truely think though, that the problem doesnt like in their skill, its obvious that rules lawyers and munckins know the system, and their skills... i think it more lies in the fact that they know its a game, and what they do doesnt matter.. so they never allow themselves to get into it...


course... this could just me an amazingly innacurate analysis.....lol

Mike Holmes wrote: Hi Bob,

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

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

Sorry if I got a bit overboard there(try decaf huh?).

It is possible to challenge notions, but it may turn out that the players are quite happy and comfortable where they are in the end. It may turn out that they just aren't open or receptive. In the first case, they'll try out your new game, and decide they don't like it. In the second case, the best you'll get is D&D mentality brought over to TROS.

I will back up Bob on the fact that one of the brilliant bits of TROS is that it can accomodate Gamists, Narrativist, or Sim play, depending on your focus.

The major things that people will have to understand to play TROS are:

•Fighting isn't rewarding in and of itself
As has been said, no reward for killing...

•SA's aren't set in stone
You can change them at will, not like alignments or most personality mechanics.

•SA's are rewarded on the spot, spent on the spot
"Use the force Luke!" "Oh, yeah, now I understand the hidden technique!"

•You can get better, but you can always get dead
TROS has a very narrow margin of forgiveness. You won't ever have 300 hp to let you survive 5 or 6 rounds of being stomped by a dragon.

•SA's tell the story, not vice versa
You can choose what the story is going to be about. Your SA's tell you what to do, so don't try to "figure out" what the GM's story is.

Any other mentality will leave unhappy players.

Chris

the most important thing about any game, is to give players the freedom they need, i have a problem with a wheel of time game i play in, i made a social charismatic character, and im bonded to my wifes channeler.... well according to the racial stereotype, shes going to be the one in charge and doing all the talking in public... even though our characters were made so that i am the public one, and shes not...

we are still going to play it the way we want, but the dm pretty much was going to inforce the stereotype