Let The Players Manage Themselves Part 3, waitaminute...

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by justanobody

DMs like players are different in the same and other areas. I just think the articles should take that into account. IF most of the people you speak with think the same way as you, you should try to find the other side of the coin, because it always exists; to make sure you don't discount another group that you are unfamiliar with.

I applaud trying to help new players, but the wording seems to come off too strong in a bunch of the articles.

Anything coming from the official product source most times is viewed as canon, and can cause much unrest from the fanbase. Just look at Dumbledore being gay in Harry Potter. One little specific given caused many people to question many things through the books and even caused some to change their mind about liking it.

So if your article has only one side of the coin, you may wish to partner up within someone slightly out of phase with your views to offer the other side. Either each having your own byline in a given article, two articles being combined into one release, or actually two separate articles to make sure to cover the most ground to offer something to more players. So thanks for coming by and sharing your wisdom on the behind-the-scenes of the article with us here Stephen.

Originally Posted by Greg K

I admire you desire to help new or frustrated DMs. However, you are writing under the banner of WOTC. And, while you don't intend for your column "to be the be the-end-all-be-all", new and inexperienced DM and players as well as a larger segment of the DND fanbase often take what the designers at WOTC write as being the gospel of how things should be done and your approach often comes across (to me and apparently others) as reinforcing this.

Originally Posted by justanobody

As others have said, coming from a WotC product, everything is considered canon, or core, or what term have you. The electronic magazines form another source, may not be viewed as harshly in terms of article temperment or wording, but coming from the makers of the game it does sit that the words are law for the game.

So your intent is one thing, but being part of the company means you are building on the whole of everything else that makes up that game.

It is good that you feel so strongly towards your style of play and enjoyment and can share that with others in this type of format as a Dungeon article. i tore into your Be Fair section on another thread here is you are able to search the forums and find it. May have ben the sacred cows thread. Which goes to show that the various style are out there, and you are providing many readers with a side of the coin they may not have seen before.

You just have to make sure that you do not deface their side of the coin while doing so as Dungeon is an official core D&D product.

Also, sadly, your article, and others for Dragon and Dungeon, are one-way streets and not conversations with anyone. While the various online forums allow for discussion and conversation, the articles are not capable of this. Thus why there is a strong possible chance to come across heavy handed with words and opinions that would seem to reflect the view of the company and the intent for the game itself. Sadly, again, in some elitist way if you will, even without that intent at all.

Originally Posted by The Ghost

I agree. The previous two parts and most of this article where very good advice. It looked at a number of problems a lot of DMs face and gave us a solution. The solutions given never felt like they were musts but instead felt like options.

The comment about world-building, however, seemed wrong. Especially since it just followed a statement about how the game is supposed to be fun. It felt like a must; that I need to stop world-building posthaste because it detracts from instances of "the fun". I take exception to that as I find world-building to be part of "the fun". I find the interactions my players have with the world to be part of "the fun". My players enjoy the richness that exists in my worlds - it is part of "the fun" for them.



So long as it is free. I will be sad when WotC goes onto the subscription model - but, that is neither here nor there.

I wonder how you guys feel about the 1e DMG? Or early era Dragon magazine?

And, as far as "saying such in the article", just down from the quoted quote is:

Originally Posted by SRM's article

Anything in your game that fights the fun by any means should be discarded, and posthaste.

So, pretty much, what he's saying is not "World Building is teh Suxxors", it's fun=good, not fun=bad. Going beyond that is just adding your own spin.

[justanobody]

The problem comes with the examples. I can't tell you how many times Gary wrote about "Thespianism is bad and doesn't belong in D&D." But many people I know disagreed with it at ever turn and enjoyed the hell out of a little bit of play acting for NPCs and other things that brought the game, and the world to life. I get the same feel from this article in a sense about the worlds building comments, and be it Stephen of Gary I don't like it.

You can say these are ideas you use in your games, or this is how you play your games, but not try to make some blanket statement that tells someone what they can or cannot, should or should not do while playing.

How many people would laugh in the face of Sony telling then they shouldn't play Warner Borthers DVDs in the PS3?

Or, any other silly you can or cannot. When you are talking to adults, you don't tell someone what they can or cannot do or should or should not do. Leave that for when you are teaching your own children, as you shouldn't tell others people's chidlren what they can or cannot do either.

So it spans the ages in terms of these articles, and makes people upset always. It is just now The Forum is not a column in Dragon that only certain letters get printed in a later issue, but the internet where people can say what they want without worry of their comments being discarded by a company, because the company has no control over the outlets for comments on Dragon or any other publications articles this day and age.

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by Snoweel

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this ... anybody claiming to run a legitimate sandbox is not only deluding their players, but themselves as well ... A true sandbox game would be an insanely frustrating experience.

Real life is a true sandbox, and I don't find it to be insanely frustrating. Do you?

Regardless, I think you have a misguided impression of what "simulationist" is supposed to mean. Either it's been communicated poorly here at EN World or you've played with DMs that were "doing it wrong." Obviously there are lots of things I don't model or roll for. There's a chance some PC will just die in his sleep, or have a heart attack, or be decapitated in a terrible circus accident, but of course I don't do any of those things (even if running Tomb of Horrors is almost indistinguishable from that).

By "sandbox" I mean that the world (and the campaign) is open ended; the PCs don't have to follow a script or pre-written adventure. There are no rails to road on. If they want to say "You know what, I don't care about solving this murder mystery, let's go clear some caves." that's 100% fine. Or vice versa. The only "Simulationist" rule is that effect will follow cause, so if you want to be trusted by Halfling river-gypsy clans, don't get caught stealing from one. Etc.

Originally Posted by Snoweel

Which is why I'm wary of anybody who is a world-builder first and a DM second - they have so much emotional investment in their work of art that the other people around the table have to take a backseat.

Fair enough. I hate those guys. They would do well to remember that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Anyone who thinks they know everything about their campaign world is fooling themselves. Even Ed Greenwood admits there is much about the Forgotten Realms he is unaware of (and he's the most completest world builder I've ever heard of).

FWIW, when a PC asks a question like "Where can I find Sir Perrigan's lost sword?" I don't respond "It doesn't exist" or "Don't bother, you'll never find it." My job is to say "Ah, now that is a worth quest! But your PC doesn't know where to look. Perhaps you should ask the Sage Pruspuar where to begin?"

I don't build worlds. I reveal them. (Often by taking my PCs' best ideas and passing them off as my own).

[Kamikaze Midget]

Originally Posted by Idra Ranger

By "sandbox" I mean that the world (and the campaign) is open ended; the PCs don't have to follow a script or pre-written adventure. There are no rails to road on. If they want to say "You know what, I don't care about solving this murder mystery, let's go clear some caves." that's 100% fine. Or vice versa. The only "Simulationist" rule is that effect will follow cause, so if you want to be trusted by Halfling river-gypsy clans, don't get caught stealing from one. Etc.

I've gotta say, even though many of my games are more plot-driven than this by simple virtue of what the players choose to do, this is very close to how I set up my games.

I just want rules that help me wing it with a nod toward "what would happen."

Rules that mandate that I divorce combat from story fly in the face of that, because there IS NO DIVISION in my mind, or in my games.

And I vastly prefer it that way.

Originally Posted by Idra Ranger

FWIW, when a PC asks a question like "Where can I find Sir Perrigan's lost sword?" I don't respond "It doesn't exist" or "Don't bother, you'll never find it." My job is to say "Ah, now that is a worth quest! But your PC doesn't know where to look. Perhaps you should ask the Sage Pruspuar where to begin?"

I don't build worlds. I reveal them. (Often by taking my PCs' best ideas and passing them off as my own).

Golden. Absolutely golden. Yes a thousand times!

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Golden. Absolutely golden. Yes a thousand times!

You know, NYNY isn't that far from Montclair. Hint hint. *cough*sig block *cough*

[The Ghost]

Originally Posted by Hussar

I wonder how you guys feel about the 1e DMG? Or early era Dragon magazine?

I have never seen an early era Dragon Magazine so I cannot comment on whether or not I would have liked it - I started playing during 2E. From the very beginning our goal was to emulate the feel we got when we read LotRs. We delved into creating interesting characters, mighty empires, their rulers, their people, what caused their fall from grace. We fell in love with the idea that our characters could interact with the world in strange and exciting ways. Dungeons and Dragons was the tool we used to create these stories because, quite frankly, it was the only game we knew off that offered us that ability. We have been doing this together for fifteen years now through three editions. Whether Gary Gygax agreed with how we played is completely irrelevant to me. We had and have fun! I want to make sure others, like us, have that same opportunity.

Originally Posted by Hussar

So, pretty much, what he's saying is not "World Building is teh Suxxors", it's fun=good, not fun=bad. Going beyond that is just adding your own spin.

Did you miss my post were I thanked him for clarifying himself?

[Snoweel]

Originally Posted by justanobody

That is not even possible. You have to be a world-builder to be a DM. Even purchasing a published setting requires adaptation and rebuilding of parts of the world to meet your player needs.

This is only tangentially related to my point.

I was talking about people who are world-builders first and DMs second. The assumption is that every DM is a world-builder in some way. My beef is with the people who seem to only DM in order to showcase the setting they've built.

Are you saying that Greenwood, Baker, Wyatt, etc are probably bad DMs since they are setting/world builders?

To be honest, I'm not sure I would want Greenwood to DM me in the Realms, as funny as that might sound, though Irda Ranger's comment about Greenwood not knowing everything about the Realms means it might not be so bad.

I would then ask how those world settings do so well if those people did not know what a DM needed or how a DM works. building worlds for the PCs is part of hte DMs job unless you just draw random card/tiles to stick together and call it the world.

I think the settings sell well for two reasons:

1. They are generic enough and roomy enough for people to be able to pick them up quickly, bringing their assumptions with them.

2. Once they are in circulation, they become like a shared cultural experience for gamers - ie. they feed off their own success.

And obviously they are internally consistent and well-writen. I don't deny that they are quality products. I'm not a fan of the Realms but don't think I haven't plagiarised the **** out of it for my own homebrews.

But I have seen much better (in my opinion) settings - such as Dark Sun - that haven't sold as well, and I don't expect them to, because they are too different from Middle Earth (and therefore from vanilla D&D).

And to answer your question, the fact that the men you've mentioned are such great world-builders has little to do with whether or not they are any good as Dungeon Masters. I think it's impossible to say.

Originally Posted by Irda Ranger

Real life is a true sandbox, and I don't find it to be insanely frustrating. Do you?

Since I'm not a hero, and don't try to be one, I only find it slightly frustrating - it's a matter of expectations.

So while I'm achieving my goals IRL, it's happening far too slowly for my liking. How much moreso if I was playing at being a hero in a tabletop RPG where there's a DM sitting opposite me with only a handful of people to satisfy?

When I sit down to play I don't want to have to chase leads and sift through red herrings for half a session; I want to look for the biggest adventure in town and I want to find it straight away.

Regardless, I think you have a misguided impression of what "simulationist" is supposed to mean. Either it's been communicated poorly here at EN World or you've played with DMs that were "doing it wrong." Obviously there are lots of things I don't model or roll for. There's a chance some PC will just die in his sleep, or have a heart attack, or be decapitated in a terrible circus accident, but of course I don't do any of those things (even if running Tomb of Horrors is almost indistinguishable from that).

By "sandbox" I mean that the world (and the campaign) is open ended; the PCs don't have to follow a script or pre-written adventure. There are no rails to road on. If they want to say "You know what, I don't care about solving this murder mystery, let's go clear some caves." that's 100% fine. Or vice versa. The only "Simulationist" rule is that effect will follow cause, so if you want to be trusted by Halfling river-gypsy clans, don't get caught stealing from one. Etc.

Fair enough. But does this style of play need a fancy title, like "sandbox"? This is the generic D&D campaign experience. This is how 90% of us play, including the author of the article in question.

FWIW, when a PC asks a question like "Where can I find Sir Perrigan's lost sword?" I don't respond "It doesn't exist" or "Don't bother, you'll never find it." My job is to say "Ah, now that is a worth quest! But your PC doesn't know where to look. Perhaps you should ask the Sage Pruspuar where to begin?"

I don't build worlds. I reveal them. (Often by taking my PCs' best ideas and passing them off as my own).

This is how I roll.

No part of the setting is immutable - if something better comes up (and by that I mean the PC's misconceptions look they'd be cooler than what I've got planned) then I adjust on the fly where I can and rewrite between sessions to make up the difference.

I think it was Elmore Leonard who said that when his story is getting bogged down, the way to get it back on track is for two men with guns to burst into the room.

[justanobody]

world-builders first and DMs second

This is what I said would be impossible. Unless the players really like hearing about the world, after a single session this person would likely not be a DM anymore, and therefore not be a problem....So if they are only interested in showcasing the background information for their world, then they are not a DM at all, or won't be for very long.

[howandwhy99]

Originally Posted by Janx

I disagree right here, due to the way I create my PCs and play them.

When I create a PC, I figure out what he's going to be like. I then play him that way. This means, I could be playing him wrong. If I were out for a session and someone took over, they could play him contrary to the way the character is.

All of this is possible if your PC has PERSONALITY. By investing in a PC this way, it is possible to play it WRONG. However, the reward is a richer story experience.

I have a half-orc barbarian who's gruff, bullying, brave, and willing to fight evil. After playing him that way for 20 levels, suddenly playing him as eloquent, polite, and fiendishly diabolical would be out of character. That would be wrong.

If you can play your PCs differently session to session without anybody noticing or caring, then you're right on the money. You're not creating a world or playing a character.

It sounds like you prefer acting out your character, while roleplaying him. When you say you can "play him wrong" I take you to mean you can portray the character poorly, not roleplay him poorly.

Playing a PC with personality is simply acting as someone other than yourself on top of role-playing. It isn't hard to mix the two, but when you start talking about "story experience" you've left RPGs behind. Stories don't happen in RPGs except when you have a biased DM warping the world to force you into certain behaviors and decisions. Stories are an impossibility for any kind of role-play as much as they are impossibe to create through living real life. To say I am creating story right now by existing is an error in rhetoric (one Snoweel made earlier in the thread).

There is no way to role-play "out of character" when role-playing. It is you, the player, who is the character. Everything you do, the PC does - no matter how you choose to act (portray) the character during this time. You can only act "out of character" when acting. When role-playing, the character always is "in character" no matter how you portray them. In other words, it isn't you, the player, who is acting "out of character", it is the character himself acting out of character (no quote marks, meaning: out of sorts) to others in the gameworld. This is exactly like you or I acting out of character (out of sorts) during real life. Only other characters in the game world can wonder why your PC did such things, the other players cannot. (though they may see some metagaming going on, like you playing to be an actor or playing towards any other player preference).

To repeat again, as the character is you in a RPG, it is impossible to role-play "out of character" without actually switching to a completely different PC and forgetting you did so.

If someone else were to role-play your PC for you, they could try and act like you do when you play the PC, but they cannot role-play you role-playing the PC. See the difference? They would not be portraying the character, they would be portraying you role-playing the character. If it were an acting game, they would simply take on the character as a separate entity and attempt to portray some outside characterization as any actor does when attempting to portray Hamlet for instance.

[howandwhy99]

Originally Posted by Snoweel

I was talking about people who are world-builders first and DMs second. The assumption is that every DM is a world-builder in some way. My beef is with the people who seem to only DM in order to showcase the setting they've built.

Excuse me for jumping into your discussion, but I just wanted to back you up here. A DM that doesn't take players' preference into creating their worlds isn't going to be a very popular DM.

And to answer your question, the fact that the men you've mentioned are such great world-builders has little to do with whether or not they are any good as Dungeon Masters. I think it's impossible to say.

Agreed again. They are selling setting material, not displaying their abilities to run such settings in a fun way. Though I do believe some settings are more fun than others, but that's probably more a personal preference for everyone than some attainable ideal.

Since I'm not a hero, and don't try to be one, I only find it slightly frustrating - it's a matter of expectations.

So while I'm achieving my goals IRL, it's happening far too slowly for my liking. How much moreso if I was playing at being a hero in a tabletop RPG where there's a DM sitting opposite me with only a handful of people to satisfy?

When I sit down to play I don't want to have to chase leads and sift through red herrings for half a session; I want to look for the biggest adventure in town and I want to find it straight away.

I'm a bit more confused on this one. Why would failing to achieve your goals in game be to slow for your liking? Wouldn't you prefer achieving them according to your own ability? Rather than a DM, say, cheating in your favor? I don't think anyone slowly plods during RPGs. With players in charge of the focus they only spend as much or little time on any one thing as they wish. Same as the level of detail, only ask for as much as you want to hear. (unless your DM is prone to long, unasked for, flowery monologues)

Also, how do you determine the "biggest" adventure in town? I know most adventure modules I've read only have 1 in a town or even 1 mixed with other things and a town (I call 'em "Town & Dungeon" modules ) But even if I was playing in a big city with a great deal of adventures, "big" is a bit hard to relate.

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by Adso

I think you are right about this. I love the story. I love the game. Simulation beyond does it pass the BS test doesn't interest me at all. And let's face it, with fantasy in general, and D&D in particular, it’s relatively easy to pass that particular test...especially when you are helped out by strong game and strong story.

Strong beer helps too.

Many a story has been saved by it.

Lanefan

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by Snoweel

My pet hate is players who let "what their character would/wouldn't do" get in the way of the game:

"Even though X is the best course of action my character would do Y, making our goals ten times harder to achieve."

Dude WTF?!?!? You are the one running your character. Now would be a good time to decide your character has outgrown that particular limitation and do what needs to be done.

Assuming, of course, that it's all about "the goal".

To which I say, to hell with "the goal". Let's instead have fun waving at the goal as it goes by, while we laugh at each others' foibles and occasionally finish an adventure that wasn't even the adventure we started out to do but it got in the way somehow and here we are with no real idea of what we just did but three of us are dead and the rest are stinkin' rich and while we might get the dead guys back tomorrow tonight's for celebrating our survival!

In other words, "bad" courses of action are the best (and by "best", I mean most fun) ones more often than you'd expect.

What if they don't?

Do you just simulate the common real-life situation where strangers meet, fail to hit it off, develop mutual mistrust and go their separate ways?

Yep. Except in my game they don't go their separate ways; they stay together and continue their mutual mistrust (often enough it's a justified mistrust, but whatever) as they head out into the field plotting all the way, then kill each other off partway through the adventure when some of the plots try to hatch....

Those are the stories that get told and retold for years to come.

Lanefan

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by Mallus

In a more serious vein, I think it's important to make a distinction between the world before play starts and after. My take: initially, a homebrew is my baby, it's all art-for-my-sake; a creative outlet. But as the campaign start date approaches, that same homebrew is now a tool.

I see it as more of a rich vein of ore in a mine...you build the world, give it a flavour, a history, some life, cultures, etc....and then mine it for whatever stories it can give you. Then, present said stories to the players and see if they bite, or better yet take said stories and run with them.

And, to answer another issue posted elsewhere this thread: story advancement and role-playing are absolutely not mutually exclusive! If your character is meeting the King, then I as DM take the role of King and you role-play...or act out...your character. If things go well and you make a good impression, you (and your party) might get a royal commission to carry out some adventuring duty somewhere. If things don't go so well and you get thrown out of the palace, you (and your party) had best seek employment elsewhere. Either way, *direct* story consequences and advancement achieved only through role-playing (no dice need be rolled).

Lanefan

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Lanefan

Yep. Except in my game they don't go their separate ways; they stay together and continue their mutual mistrust (often enough it's a justified mistrust, but whatever) as they head out into the field plotting all the way, then kill each other off partway through the adventure when some of the plots try to hatch....

Or, the one character that everyone mistrusts eventually becomes one of the most noble and trusted members of the group. :P

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Or, the one character that everyone mistrusts eventually becomes one of the most noble and trusted members of the group. :P

Ayup. Seen it happen. (though I'd hedge a bit on the "noble" part...he *was* an Assassin, after all)

Lanefan

[Snoweel]

Originally Posted by howandwhy99

To say I am creating story right now by existing is an error in rhetoric (one Snoweel made earlier in the thread).

"All the world is not, of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isn't are not easy to specify"

-Erving Goffman, 'Performances' in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Originally Posted by howandwhy99

I'm a bit more confused on this one. Why would failing to achieve your goals in game be to slow for your liking?

Actually, it is too slow in real time, as I sit at the gaming table.

Wouldn't you prefer achieving them according to your own ability? Rather than a DM, say, cheating in your favor?

What I want, is for my character to be in the right place, at the right time, often enough for him to have a ridiculously interesting life.

I don't want to chase up a supposedly important plot hook only to find it leads to mindless clearing of a kobold warren that turns out to be completely unconnected to the higher goal.

I want my character to be touched by fate so that he manages to live a life (at least while I'm pulling his strings) that is inordinately choc-full of adventure. I want every choice I make to lead somewhere interesting, whether it's good or bad.

At least while I'm sitting at the table. What my character gets up to between sessions doesn't interest me half as much.

Also, how do you determine the "biggest" adventure in town? I know most adventure modules I've read only have 1 in a town or even 1 mixed with other things and a town (I call 'em "Town & Dungeon" modules ) But even if I was playing in a big city with a great deal of adventures, "big" is a bit hard to relate.

By "biggest" I mean the most exciting, involved and best prepared edge of the campaign flowchart.

I want to take the course of action that the DM is most excited about because this will most likely lead to the best adventure. Obviously the DM knows this information better than myself or my character so it's up to him to make it clear.

And if I'm being railroaded I don't want to know about it.

Originally Posted by Lanefan

Those are the stories that get told and retold for years to come.

badwrongfun

[Snoweel]

Interestingly, I was just reading Radney-Macfarland's 'Save My Game' article in Dungeon 155 and came across his own reference to "sandbox" play:

Oftentimes DMs forget the general principle of hooks when they make their campaigns. Some make the critical mistake of making a place they believe “could be real”, not realizing that few players are interested in the models for trade and agriculture of their game world—since much of the game is a power fantasy. Others are so fixated with their campaign’s overarching story that they overlook the fact that this form of storytelling already has an audience (and cast) of real people in the form of players and their characters. In the end, these DMs are often trapped creating hooks that interest only themselves. And as the DM, if you’re only interesting yourself then you’ve lost a good chunk of your audience.

It’s much better to have a sandbox approach to story and roleplaying. Throw out loose threads, see who bites, figure out why they bite, and react to the story rather than driving it autocratically from the start.

I see there is more than one definition of 'sandbox' play. Unsurprising I guess.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Walknot

I say, if that mud is not fit for consumption, then that mud manufacturer is BadWrongFun !!!

Just FYI - purposely misstating another posters position may seem funny, but it generally doesn't come off well. It's kind of rude, really. So please, don't do that again. Thanks.

If folks have questions about that, please take them to e-mail with any of the mods.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Lanefan

I see it as more of a rich vein of ore in a mine...you build the world, give it a flavour, a history, some life, cultures, etc....and then mine it for whatever stories it can give you.

That's a good a way to look at it. When I called a homebrew a 'tool', I was really only trying to make the point that, if you intend to actually run a campaign in your setting, you should stop thinking of it as 'art'.

Then again, I don't think you think of art as 'art', at least while you're in the process of making it.

[Aeolius]

Originally Posted by Snoweel

While I agree 4e is less simulationist friendly (I used to be one when I started with 3.x and I would've hated 4e back then), I think it's even more suited to narrativist play than 3.x was.

Typically I prefer my D&D games to be a cooperative venture of interactive fiction.

A pity 4e removed so many elements from that game, that I consider essential to my perception of D&D. I remember when 2e was released. 2e removed many races and classes as well. I simply chose to skip the 2e core rules.

A pity 4e assumed we would drop our current campaigns like yesterday's garbage. I like my current campaign. And no, the character conversion trick of "have a weird 3e PC? Try a 4e warlock." doesn't work for me.

And then there was James Wyatt, who clenched the deal with "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." in "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)