I got a chance to play D&D 3.5 tonight...actually, I had never played D&D 3 either- I own the books but just never played.

I must say that I have never played a game I liked less.

I felt like I was playing a wargame- not that their is anything wrong with wargames, I just don't like to play them. The characters and the creation process left me feeling like I was playing Diablo 2 (the computer game). Everything is based on what kewl power you have to take to get to the next level of kewl powers, and how you can squeeze every point for the maximum effectiveness. I know its Gamist play- I just didn't like how it was implemented.

It may not have been entirely the games fault, the folks I was playing with could not have been a more dysfunctional group for me to play with. They loved the rules lawyering, the minutia of the combat sequences, the lack of anything other than combat sequences. Things that I may have liked or had done at one time, but my tastes have definitely moved on.

I totally get where you're coming from. D&D3 is pretty good at what it's designed to do: Dungeon Crawls and abstracted combat. If you either aren't expecting or don't like a good dungeon crawl, then you're not going to have much fun.

Out of curiosity, what made you decide to try it out?

ethan_greer wrote: Out of curiosity, what made you decide to try it out?

Hi Anthony,

This is getting more interesting by the minute.

Before talking about the interesting part, though, I'll toss in the point on which I think we already all agree: that D&D3E is a remarkably good engine for small-scale skirmish miniatures combat. It is, essentially, individualized Chainmail brought to its most focused form, with maximal Color per character. As such, it works extremely well.

So ... that brings me to two interesting inquiries, not just one.

1. What sort of "lesson" does the GM want to teach the players? After all (just to speculate), if all they're interested in is combat, and if all they like to do is wade in and kill stuff ... um, that's what the game not only facilitates, but aggressively rewards.

In other words, is the lesson from the GM to play more like what the game system is designed to do so well, or less?

Or some other lesson entirely?

And, as far as you can tell, how exactly is killing their characters through betrayal supposed to teach the players the lesson?

2. And more concretely, how did it go? Did you kill'em? Did the betrayal "work" in the sense of surprising them, or (as is typically the case in my experience) did they spot you for a GM-ringer from minute one? Did the fight have a significantly higher or lower excitement-factor for the players, compared to whatever monster-fights you may have been involved in earlier in the session?

And hey, toss in some logistic details ... what spells got flung? What items got used, or Feats employed? Did they use teamwork (stacking spell A with the warrior's Feat B with the other guy's item C), or just potshot per "turn to go"?

What level characters are we talking about?

Sorry about the rapid-fire questions. This really interests me a lot, and I'm trying to get a full-bore understanding of all aspects of play, from Social Contract ("teach them a lesson") all the way down to minute-to-minute Techniques and Stances.

Best,
Ron

I to played 3.5 for the first time the other night and I was bored out of my mind. It's been about a year since I last played DnD and somehow I had forgotten all that I didn't like about 3rd ed and then they made all the wrong changes. It seems to me that WotC has an agenda and they don't seem to mind switching things up on their players (of course that could just be bitter experience talking).

The only saving grace of the evening was that the other people playing were excellent roleplayers and <gasp!> there was only one combat during the entire 7 hour session.

Ron, I've tried to answer all your questions.

Before talking about the interesting part, though, I'll toss in the point on which I think we already all agree: that D&D3E is a remarkably good engine for small-scale skirmish miniatures combat. It is, essentially, individualized Chainmail brought to its most focused form, with maximal Color per character. As such, it works extremely well.

1. What sort of "lesson" does the GM want to teach the players? After all (just to speculate), if all they're interested in is combat, and if all they like to do is wade in and kill stuff ... um, that's what the game not only facilitates, but aggressively rewards.

In other words, is the lesson from the GM to play more like what the game system is designed to do so well, or less?

Or some other lesson entirely?

And, as far as you can tell, how exactly is killing their characters through betrayal supposed to teach the players the lesson?

2. And more concretely, how did it go? Did you kill'em? Did the betrayal "work" in the sense of surprising them, or (as is typically the case in my experience) did they spot you for a GM-ringer from minute one? Did the fight have a significantly higher or lower excitement-factor for the players, compared to whatever monster-fights you may have been involved in earlier in the session?

And hey, toss in some logistic details ... what spells got flung? What items got used, or Feats employed? Did they use teamwork (stacking spell A with the warrior's Feat B with the other guy's item C), or just potshot per "turn to go"?

What level characters are we talking about?

Sorry about the rapid-fire questions. This really interests me a lot, and I'm trying to get a full-bore understanding of all aspects of play, from Social Contract ("teach them a lesson") all the way down to minute-to-minute Techniques and Stances.

Huh!

Reading your post, I was with you on the "lesson" in question - it seemed to me that the GM is running the risk of teaching the characters not to trust him.

But then ... a funny thought strikes me, based on our current game of Tunnels & Trolls, that this lesson isn't necessarily a dysfunctional one, not for this brand of Gamist play. Perhaps the GM is saying, "Look, the venue is nastier than you think. I'm not your buddy; I'm playing characters who are trying to kill you."

The distinction between "murder" and "fights" is therefore crucial. The GM (to my mind, in these games, one of which I happen to be running currently) is legitimately considered a potential murderer, rather than the guy who poses fights. The players must be ruthless and cunning enough to deal with that.

Huh again! What got me thinking in this direction is that clearly the players liked it. They liked it a lot. Your description shows that personal threat grabs them way more than generalized "this thing in this room" threat, which applies to anyone who'd wander in there. My hope now is that the GM learns this "lesson" and keeps this sort of NPC-relationship-based conflict as a major feature of the in-game Challenge. I certainly do so in my T&T game.

Other minor points ...

1. A big Z on her face! I feel sort of guilty, but I'm enjoying imagining the player's expression. Betcha that led to a post-game bed-talk conversation worth eavesdropping on!

2. It's a bummer you didn't manage to kill the dwarf character. I was kind of looking forward to that. (Side point: I recall late 70s D&D assassins as being way more deadly ... whiffed roll? ptooey.)

3. I'm not surprised at all that the party is 5th-7th level - this is the D&D "sweet spot" for nearly all its incarnations, when the chances to succeed and the chances to be really harmed are operating at the same statistical scale. Arguably, a group has more fun with a high mortality rate at this level, cycling in new characters just under this level, then they do by advancing to 10th-12th.

My final point: the only real downside in this story is that you didn't enjoy it. Any discussion about that?

Best,
Ron

I noticed the same thing while I was writing the reply last night- the players (well, all but the GM's girlfriend) really did seem to enjoy themselves more during this type of threat, and I agree that there is nothing wrong with this type of play- I think that I was so shocked because I don’t usually play this way. A personal threat seems to force players to care, therefore I would say the level of interest will always be higher.

It seems to me that I wasn’t prepared for this blatantly hostile type of game play- mostly because the groups I tend to play with now just don’t play this way. Thinking about it now, I think I’ll try another couple sessions with this group, just to see if I, with the right frame of mind and expectations, can have fun playing this way.

” My hope now is that the GM learns this "lesson" and keeps this sort of NPC-relationship-based conflict as a major feature of the in-game Challenge.”

Anthony I wrote: Thinking about it now, I think I’ll try another couple sessions with this group, just to see if I, with the right frame of mind and expectations, can have fun playing this way.

Hi,

Given the above two posts, it really does seem as though the DM is the Unknown Factor, socially and creatively speaking. I'm still interested in the couple-dynamics between him and the girlfriend, in terms of events during play, and also in terms of the points I make throughout Sex & Sorcery. Time will tell.

Best,
Ron

I have to agree, knowing what is in the package makes a big difference in playing. I will probably never fully enjoy D&D, because I just can't get into anything that gamist, but at least now, I know why I don't like it.

The biggest problem with 3.xE is they get pretty hypocritical in their attempts to update it. Modern games tend to encourage less metagaming gamest elements. The writers of D&D write several pages on this matter, but really didn't do anything to the rules to alter that. Basically, they are saying "The game is designed to be played like munchkins, but you'll enjoy it better if you don't." I understand they wanted to retain the feel of AD&D, but that is the feel of AD&D, and it's a feel a lot of people don't like. Face it, if the goal of the game is to over come a challenge, then the players are encouraged to do what they can to do so. Picture this example:

Coach: Well boys, we are going to have a race. For the race we have a short track, and a long track. Anyone can run on either, but I must say that the long one is more fun.
Student: Yeah, but if I take the short one, I'll win.
Coach: Well yeah, but the long one is more fun.
Student: But I want to win.
Coach: Winning isn't everything, Johnny.
Student: But it's a damn race you moron.

Hi Macmoth,

I was going to say your post represents a bit of thread-drift, and call the thread closed, but your Coach & Johnny dialogue cracked me up.

So a gold star to you.

Still, though, I'm thinking that this particular discussion has accomplished its goals. Unless Anthony wants to continue with anything specific, maybe we ought to log it and move on.

Best,
Ron

Wait, I have a comment, so shoot me.

What struck me about the Lesson is something I am beginning to see happening quite frequently. Every know and then this sentiment crops up. I think the Lesson is a non-explicit Sim/Game clash.

The players are likely behaving in a gamist-facilitative mode. You know, they don't go exploring off the Edge of the Map. They know as players that theres nothing there. Similarly, they know the GM is seeding plot hooks in the form of NPC's; thus they do not approach NPC's with a realistic degree of scepticism if they are presumed to be a metagame element to get the game going, rather than a component of the game.

The Lesson is thus, at one level, "don't be too trusting", but it may also be at another level, "your behaviour is too gamey and insufficiently Sim".

Hi Gareth,

Cool, no thread-closing then.

1. Perhaps we're talking about a phenomenon, not an isolated instance from one group. I have also seen instances of the "guest player" being the "GM's ringer" for purposes of betraying the regular player-characters, usually in the context of superhero games. Anyone else?

2. Gareth, who do you think should be learning the lesson? If you're right, in that the GM is attempting to prompt more Simulationist play, he may be fighting a losing battle (given my interpretation that Gamist play has "more power" to undermine or take over Simulationist play).

3. Gareth, what do you think of my suggestion about the lesson being, "The GM is a murderer," or in terms of my essay, turning up the Challenge-based heat? That seemed consistent with Anthony's description. But your interpretation is different.

We can't mind-read the guy, obviously, but I'm interested to know your basis for the different interpretation.

Best,
Ron

Ron, I think your point 2 was the one I had in mind. And yes, I think its a losing battle, which is why I associate this with some form of failure at the table.

But the broader point is more contentious and likely to to provoke an argument. I am beginning to think that among adolescent gamers especially, in which context I think this occurs mostly, there is a tendency for the GM-player to develop an often obnoxious "duty" to lecture the players on Right and Wrong and Smart and Stupid. All of it due to the generous empowerement provided by the "the GM's word is Law" texts, the normative nature of world descriptions and mechanics, combined with non-explicit style clash.

I suggest that this is Lord of the Flies country, in essence. I have come to expect that this sort of lecturing will only rarely be found in adult groups. I'm suggesting that the GM's desire to "teach a lesson" is indicative of a gross collapse of the social contract. Its combative, not cooperative, the GM is setting out, through their power over the World, to show the players the error of their ways. Thats very disturbing.

I think the break-point, the line at which the difference is drawn, is essentially a Game/Sim conflict. But that is not what is really driving it. If this speculation is true, than most questions about who is to learn what, and the challenge, are moot.

So, to deal with the other points at last then:
1) yes, but its so obvious as to be hackneyed, and IMO produces the reverse propblem, which is that the default suspicion extant among PC's, and now reinforced by this "lesson" as applied by the GM, may be a substantial impediment to the groups coalescing into anything viable. Thats a big part of the reason I think the lesson is worrying - it produces a reaction that is arguably worse than the initial problem.

3) This I like. I did not think of it at all that way, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure that was the actual intent at work; but I was looking in another direction entirely.

Yes, that shift would make the Challenge more personal, and more threatening. And yes I agree, in terms of what the players found exciting and engaging about the problem as it developed at the table, that this increase in threat, and the fact that they were facing an opponent who had every right and ability to exploit the rules as they do, added a degree of tension that is manifestly not there in most workaday encounters. Playing against a real opponent is a lot more engaging than playing against a mock opponent or one whom you suspect may throw the bout (GM fudging). Someone gave them a real run for their money and their eyes lit up.

Hi Gareth,

I think we're on the same page entirely.

Your point,

I'm suggesting that the GM's desire to "teach a lesson" is indicative of a gross collapse of the social contract. Its combative, not cooperative, the GM is setting out, through their power over the World, to show the players the error of their ways. Thats very disturbing.

Ron,

I think in this case the GM accidently stumbled on to what the players actually want from the game- unfortunately this particular GM is most likely oblivious to this fact. The dysfunctional element appears to be the GM in any case. This particular GM really likes the challange of Gamist play, but he is interested as a player- not as the GM.

Every game he runs has a short lifespan because of 2 main reasons; 1) the players quickly grow tired of the game- most likely from clashing play goals, maybe something else. 2) the GM, himself, grows tired of the game, giving reasons like "tired of always trashing the PCs" or "just needs a break" or "I'd rather play than GM". Would either of these be Social Contract issues, or, more likely, GNS issues that the players and the GM don't know how to articulate?

Ron Edwards wrote: 1. Perhaps we're talking about a phenomenon, not an isolated instance from one group. I have also seen instances of the "guest player" being the "GM's ringer" for purposes of betraying the regular player-characters, usually in the context of superhero games. Anyone else?

Anthony I wrote:
Every game he runs has a short lifespan because of 2 main reasons; 1) the players quickly grow tired of the game- most likely from clashing play goals, maybe something else. 2) the GM, himself, grows tired of the game, giving reasons like "tired of always trashing the PCs" or "just needs a break" or "I'd rather play than GM". Would either of these be Social Contract issues, or, more likely, GNS issues that the players and the GM don't know how to articulate?

Hello,

Gareth, I agree with you that the fizzles and other problems with this particular person are most likely GNS-driven. It fits the pattern I've observed throughout my role-playing history.

I also agree with you about the likely future events. So Anthony, keep us posted. You've provided a tremendous case study for us to work with.

Best,
Ron

This actually sounds very familiar. Who do I know like that? Oh yes, I see them every week. *sigh*

Tell me some things about the group in general (especially the DM):

1) What are their general reactions to other non-DnD RPG's? Especially ones they HAVEN'T played yet.

2) How many of them played DnD as their first RPG?

3) What is their average Final Fantasy/Diablo to Tabletop RPG experience ration?

These may sound completely off base, but I'm starting to notice a trend, and I'm not sure what to make of it yet.