The Forge Archives

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?

Quote from: ethan_greerOut of curiosity, what made you decide to try it out?

The group I played with last night is GM'd by an old friend who runs a D&D 3 game.  I don't usually play with him or his group because our styles and preferences for play are polar opposites.  He asked if I would come in and play a "bad guy" that infiltrates the party, specificly to kill some player characters and "teach them a lesson".  I agreed, although I must admit that, while I don't mind the betrayal part, the idea of killing PC's just doesn't appeal to me (well, some of the folks playing last night quickly made me start to re-evaluate that...).

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.

QuoteBefore 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.

I think we can agree on this 100%

Quote1.  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?

The GM was trying to teach them a lesson concerning trust.  Apparently this particular group always trusts NPCs and, not surprisingly, those run by other players, that they meet while adventuring.  This group has lots of character death, and the Party is replenished by the players bringing in new characters to replace their dead ones- sometimes these characters are brought in by bumping into them while adventuring, dungeon-crawling, etc.  I was supposed to help remind them that sometimes the folks you meet are dangerous.  I'm still pretty sketchy as to why this would "teach" anything.

Quote2. 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?

I was playing a 5th LVL Rouge/2nd LVL Assassin with some magic items.  Sorry I can't remember exactly what they were- an Assassin's Dagger, a Cloak of Misdirection, some ring that shielded my mind, and a couple potions 1 of which was a potion of invisibility.  

The party consisted of (as best I can remember) a human Cleric to some Forgotten Realms God; another human Cleric to a different FR God- this one had some type of fire aspect to it, though; an awakened clay golem that had somehow turned to flesh, was really strong and had Druidic abilities;  A dwarven fighter-type- played in such an annoying way that I can only assume this guy gets a kick out of fuckin' it up for everyone else and then being able to say "that's what my character would do"; a wizard- human, I think; a female human cleric/bard- played by the GM's girlfriend.  Everyone was around 5th -7th level with plenty of magic items and luck points- I don't know if these are new in 3.5 or the DM's invention.

How did it go?  Well, most of the party didn't die, partly because I whiffed a lot of rolls, but mostly due to their horde of these luck points (you could force re-rolls for yourself or your opponent and some other similar things).

Yes, the betrayal was unexpected- the looks on the faces of the players whose character were sleeping was utter horror and shock, then they started flailing with the rule books trying to find a way out of me killing them while they slept.  I guess there is a rule that lets you wake up before an assassin kills you- or at least there was last night.  The excitement factor for the 2 sleeping clerics who had a chance to defend themselves went from high, when they thought they had a chance to win, to broken, when they saw I was going to kill them.  This particular encounter did seem to arouse the interest of the rest of the group.  Why, I'm not so sure, but it may have been the shock value of having a party member purposely turn and murder- not attack, but murder- the other characters, the personal nature of the attack, or they may just like that type of play.  The monster fights were never exciting- they were just kill, loot, what was the xp value- sometimes the players would remark on the toughness of the opponent, but more in the terms of "I can't believe we are getting our butts kicked by such low level opponents" than "this opponent is tough".

Logistics wise- I waited till the group split, with the two toughest fighter types- the dwarf and the golum- and the wizard going off scouting, while the depleted fire cleric and cleric/bard slept.  I and the other cleric were standing watch.  I used Truestrike (a spell), Death Strike- an Assassin-specific ability that pretty much just kills someone- to wack the guy standing watch with me.  He failed his save and died immediately.  Side note- the guy who is most trusting to other PCs and NPCs was the player of this particular character, he wasn't there last night, so he got to have his character assassinated in absetia, which in my mind kinda ruins the whole "teach 'em a lesson" thing.  The other two made their saves, woke up and started getting up, preping spells, etc.  I switched to my other assassin weapon- poisoned darts, using a particularly nasty poison that zapped STR points from the characters and with an impossible for them chance to save.  I kept moving and darting them, they kept failing their saves and their STR kept disappearing.  The GM's girlfriend is getting super frustrated by now, she knows her character is fucked and the other cleric abandons her to her fate by "running away to get help".  I disable her and chase after him, miss my chance to kill him before he goes to get help.  I go back to the room where the helpless girl is laying- I waste a moment trying to steal the artifacts the players where trying to obtain, hear the other party members returning, realize I'm probably trapped so I resolve to die taking down as many of them as I can...unless I find a way to escape, of course.  Right before I hide I tell the girl that because of her kindness to me earlier I won't just slay her, but so she will remember my kindness I carve a great big Z into the side of her face.  I hide by using my invisiblilty potion, the use something to counter that, so I just use the thief Hide skill and role really high.  They come into the room where the girl is laying, and I'm hiding, and who should be in front but the cowardly cleric, followed by the dwarf and the golem.  I jump out to assassinate the cleric and whiff the role.  The mage, who is outside the room casts Web and floods the whole room with the stuff- I make my save everyone else fails, including the cowardly cleric who is right nearby.  The players are now discussing throwing a fireball into the room, I'm trying to egg them on to do this as my character has a real good chance of taking no damage from such an attack, while they will almost certainly get hurt.  They start trying to break free of the web so I tell the cowardly cleric "you shouldn't have left the girl" then I whack him.  I fail a save, get stuck in the web, the others make their STR checks, break free and kill me.

After everything is over, the other players all told me how much they enjoyed the game, how well I played the betrayal, how I could have caused so much more damage if I had known the system better, etc....they really liked it, I felt really disappointed.  

Since this is such a long post, I'll stop now and if anyone needs more clarification or has other questions I'll try to expand.

QuoteSorry 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.

Actually, now that I have a vocabulary to express myself and because I am starting to actually define what I want from my game play, this is really helping me to analyze what exactly I didn't like, what I did and why.

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.

Quote" 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."

Past experience with this particular guy has shown that he is not very receptive to players wants.  He isn't running the game as "the Challenge" but rather he is using the game as a way to showcase his superiority (I'm not describing this well).  I'm not sure if this is a Gamist stance or not, but in every game that I've played in that he has run, it is always the same scenario.  But then again, it just may be me who finds this type of game-play weird and dysfunctional.  I don't know.

I felt that scarring her was more appropriately "evil" in this instance- especially since her character was the only one who didn't just try to kill my character when they bump into him for the first time in the dungeon....wait a minute.  

The DM wanted to teach a lesson about not trusting people you just meet in a dungeon- the party meets my character and attacks him, is distrustful, interrogates him, uses magic to try to figure out his alignment, etc.- where is the "too trusting" issue?  

I really, really wanted to kill the dwarf, unfortunately he was never a good target of opportunity and my die rolls were bad.  The player of this character always plays the exact asshole-type so I'm sure I can get a chance to kill another incarnation of this guy some other time.

My lack of enjoyment seems to stem from a difference in play style and by my not being ready for their play style.  Like I said above, I'm going to game with them again, but this time I'll try to embrace their style of play.

Quote from: Anthony IThinking 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.

I heartilly recommend this.  A year or so back, against my better judgement, I decided to give D&D3 a shot with a group I know.  Well, guess what?  I'm still playing, and loving it. The game hasn't changed, but my outlook has, partially due to the Forge. Knowing what to expect in the game and playing according to what the system is designed to support can make a huge difference in the amount of fun you can have. Let us know how these next sessions go, and in particular, I'd be interested in getting your perspective on this DM as you play more.

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.