How Do You Get Your Players To Stay On An Adventure Path?

[Starfox]

As much as Howandwhy99 vs. the world is an entertaining spectator sport, I must still intrude to mention that you're discussing from such different perspectives that any progress is impossible.

Howandwhy99 sees the game from an idealized gamist standpoint. The game is a series of maps containing obstacles to overcome. This is is a completely legit approach - extreme perhaps, but completely functional.

His opponents see this as so extreme as to be nonfunctional, and howandwhy99 sees them the same way. My stand is that you're both wrong and both right; both game styles are functional. Its a matter of preference, not science.

You're never going to convince each other. You cannot debate each other into submission, as these are matters of preference, not reachable by logic. And referring to the early DnD books as if they're some kind of sacred texts won't help either as they are clearly not written by some omniscient authority.

 

[Celebrim]

I'd like to respond back, but I think you'd just repeat what you've said again.

At least I'm producing actual examples. You are stating nothing but sheer unadulterated meaningless nonsense.

Game boards (like all the pieces in the game) are function maps of the game's algorithm.

No they are not! There is no algorithmic way to produce a game board or the other pieces in the game. Monopolies game board wasn't produced by an algorithm, but a designer. Chesses game board wasn't produced by an algorithm, but a designer. In the same fashion, the 'game board' of an RPG is not normally produced by an algorithm, but a designer. Just as the pieces are. And in his role as DM, the DM has no limits on the pieces which he is able to create.

C1 is certainly convertible to the game engine as it stands.

What does that even mean? What game engine? Where is this game engine? Convertible in what fashion? It's a module? Are you saying it's not in the proper format to play D&D with until you do some sort of conversation?

If the players want it rather than something randomly generated, they can select it - once converted it's all the same.

What does it mean to 'convert' it?

Precisely because D&D is an infinite game, not an finite game. Per game theory terminology.

Stop using terms that it's clear you don't know what mean. Conway's Life is an infinite 'game', analyzable because it is based on a very small finite set of rules. D&D has an infinite number of rules, most of which by necessity are not in the game's text. D&D is therefore not analyzable in the same way that Conway's Life is. By restricting the number of pieces and moves to a very small set, that is by removing improvisation, you can transform D&D into something like Nethack, but it will be notably not like D&D precisely in that the players can't improvise (nor can the referee).

There is no such thing as freeform anything in games.

Good grief, have you never played Poker? Settlers of Cataan? Diplomacy? Even Monopoly? Tons of games have freeform elements. One way is to write something like, "Players may trade resources by any agreed upon method." That's freeform. Negotiation. But even where there is not negotiation, any skilled game player will tell you that the secret to many games is in how you manipulate and how you read the other players and influence their decision making. That's all freeform and its not amendable to mechanical analysis. Mechanical analysis can tell you the odds of winning. It can't tell you win and how to bluff, or how to identify find tells and tell them from false tells the player uses to cover and disguise his emotions.

But RPGs by having an infinite rules set takes this to a whole other level. It's a freeform world filled with freeform player actions free form DM resolutions and freeform conversations.

Gaming is the act of discovery, never invention.

If there is no invention, there is nothing to discover. Even in a case of Nethack, which is finite and mechanical, what is there to discover is what was invented by the designers. There is nothing there that wasn't put there by a process of invention. In the case of D&D, this process of invention is continually on going.

You must know you're rejecting obvious reality now. How can you not remember D&D before the 90s?

Dude, I remember gaming before the 80's. And you are just full of it. There are people here on these boards that remember Blackmoor and Greyhawk, and what you describe is just la-la-land. I don't know who you played D&D with, but this rote mechanical game you claim existed somewhere sure as heck wasn't what most people were playing, nor is it the game Gygax describes in the DMG, nor is the role you make of the DM the role Gygax gives to the DM. So somehow you are describing a pre 1979 game with a culture fundamentally different than the Blackmoor or Greyhawk tables and yet you think it is widespread?

FYI, D&D was actually a breakthrough because it uses extensionality to cover everything any player could ever, perhaps not imagine, but convey to a referee who converted that then into the game system so everything could be actually gamed.

Show me where this extensionality lies? On what page of the rules is this infinite extensibility to be found? How is it accomplished? And where are these 'conversion' rules you keep talking about? The OD&D especially and the AD&D rules as well are notably not comprehensive in the slightest. Where is this universal rules coverage that lets a referee mechanically turn input into output without bias or improvisation? The dang example of play in the 1e DMG contains multiple examples of the DM improvising on the spot, so how in the world are you claiming this extensibility exists without improvisation?

Generating them, as I said.

How was G1 'generated'? How was C1, S1, B2, S2, UK1, U1, I3, N1, L1, T1 and all the rest and all the fabled levels of Castle Greyhawk 'generated'? Where is this generator so that I can turn the handle and produce adventure modules that have the features of those adventures?

A referee in D&D (like in Mastermind) does not make choices after the game has begun.

That's blatantly at odds with the text of the example of play in the 1e DMG. It's not possible to play D&D without a DM that does not make choices, any more than it is at present possible to play D&D using a computer as a DM.

He designed massive amounts of rules to ensure D&D could be such a wonderful game and not fall into the non-game cesspit of improvisation. These rules may not have been all great, but their amount certifies his commitment to maintaining D&D's status as a game, for certain.

Do you think the rules set of D&D is ever complete? And which do you think came first, Gygax's on the spot ruling or the published rule? And is not also every DM a rules and content generating engine?

 

[howandwhy99]

What does that even mean? What game engine? Where is this game engine? Convertible in what fashion? It's a module? Are you saying it's not in the proper format to play D&D with until you do some sort of conversation?

The dynamic pattern that is the game was called a game engine, frequently in the 90s. Just like converting a game module from one computer game engine to another a DM needs to convert a module to the one they are running for the campaign. Then it can be included onto the game board.

What does it mean to 'convert' it?

Use game elements to model the other person's design. This would still need to be rechecked and playtested by running the NPCs through it to check for holes, imbalancing, miscalculations, and so on. Just like any wargame module.

Stop using terms that it's clear you don't know what mean. Conway's Life is an infinite 'game', analyzable because it is based on a very small finite set of rules.

Think back to the 70s. Many, many players talked about the butterfly effect as it related to D&D. And many used game engines (codes) derivative of Conway's, only slightly more involved. His is a couple-three rules. IME D&D varieties are more manageable wargame-sized. Beer and pretzels.

D&D has an infinite number of rules, most of which by necessity are not in the game's text. D&D is therefore not analyzable in the same way that Conway's Life is. By restricting the number of pieces and moves to a very small set, that is by removing improvisation, you can transform D&D into something like Nethack, but it will be notably not like D&D precisely in that the players can't improvise (nor can the referee).

D&D's rules aren't what are in the book. Those are suggestions for sort of "world rules", the code. Rules players are supposed to know were common practice carried over from wargaming or learned through play. And yes, a player can attempt to do anything they desire in the game. But the result is only ever the action's results in the game.

Good grief, have you never played Poker? Settlers of Cataan? Diplomacy? Even Monopoly? Tons of games have freeform elements. One way is to write something like, "Players may trade resources by any agreed upon method." That's freeform. Negotiation. But even where there is not negotiation, any skilled game player will tell you that the secret to many games is in how you manipulate and how you read the other players and influence their decision making. That's all freeform and its not amendable to mechanical analysis. Mechanical analysis can tell you the odds of winning. It can't tell you win and how to bluff, or how to identify find tells and tell them from false tells the player uses to cover and disguise his emotions.

When players "read" (decipher) a player in Poker or just any game where players study other players (including D&D), the player is being treated as the game, or part of it at least. In D&D, Players do this or at least it's assumed they do, whenever they interact with each other. Referees don't need to judge intention. In fact, the very much shouldn't. Ref's must clarify player communications to them until they get an action they comprehend and allows an obvious judgement to be made within the game.

If there is no invention, there is nothing to discover.

As I said, the game's design must be set prior to play. Just as in Mastermind.

Show me where this extensionality lies? On what page of the rules is this infinite extensibility to be found? How is it accomplished? And where are these 'conversion' rules you keep talking about? The OD&D especially and the AD&D rules as well are notably not comprehensive in the slightest. Where is this universal rules coverage that lets a referee mechanically turn input into output without bias or improvisation? The dang example of play in the 1e DMG contains multiple examples of the DM improvising on the spot, so how in the world are you claiming this extensibility exists without improvisation?

You generate ability scores. You generate hit points. Damage. Dungeons. Every single thing on the referees map, the game board, must be generated. Encounters. NPC Reactions. And Gary at times simply gave no suggestions in the books he published. At several points he says "the DM should make this up" and we need to set some rules before play can begin.

How was G1 'generated'? How was C1, S1, B2, S2, UK1, U1, I3, N1, L1, T1 and all the rest and all the fabled levels of Castle Greyhawk 'generated'? Where is this generator so that I can turn the handle and produce adventure modules that have the features of those adventures?

I don't believe published modules were generated by rules, just like many published NPCs. But it doesn't matter. They have to be converted into possible generated results by every DM, which means no one is ever going to use them "as is" anyways. They have some basic balancing by way of common practices of the day, how a lot of DMs did it. But everyone of them still needed to be converted. That's obvious. It's only when AD&D was published was there "the one true set of rules (code)" that people felt they need to use. That wasn't a good idea, but they were trying to make a several hundred hour grand strategy game into a one-shot 4-hour convention tournament game. D&D can't reasonably be played as a competitive team tournament IMO, but many have tried.

That's blatantly at odds with the text of the example of play in the 1e DMG. It's not possible to play D&D without a DM that does not make choices, any more than it is at present possible to play D&D using a computer as a DM.

Read the text a different way. There is no improvising occurring. The DM has a map of the game behind the screen. He's noting all the changes the players take on that game board. He's referencing it to tell the players when the monster arrives, when there is a secret door or not, when the hit points run out, what roll is needed to exceed an AC, and on and on. Just like D&D.

Do you think the rules set of D&D is ever complete? And which do you think came first, Gygax's on the spot ruling or the published rule? And is not also every DM a rules and content generating engine?

The code must be complete before play, of course. And yeah, Gygax improvised quite aggressively, giving bad advice on being a referee in the AD&D version, and all of it didn't exactly go over well with a community of gamers. They wanted a game and it is well known he frequently stopped using rules and started improvising therefore negating the game. (Don't try that at a wargame convention, they'll kick you out)

 

[howandwhy99]

BTW, I think [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] has it right. Not about the so-called "agenda" stuff, but not coming from the same place. We're not talking about the same hobby given how most it stands today, or even the same practice anymore. For decades D&D more closely resembled a 90s computer RPG than any kind of tabletop "RPG" today, meaning non-gamed story-making.

 

[Lwaxy]

My experience of this (in Rise of the Runelords) was that it really sucked, because it broke my immersion. The adventure listed all these goblin tribes, exposition NPC talks about them, I say "Let's investigate Tribe X", GM says "No, only Tribe Y is detailed in the adventure". That sucked.

Wow yeah...personally I was kind of disappointed for my last batch of RotRL-players not to go off after those other tribes after they turned the AP into an Adventure Loop - as in playing parts of part 2 before finishing with part 1, then go to part 3 and then come back to some of part 2 - But who knows, they still might.. after all they just got back to part 3 now, so there is still time. But then, they have already befriended some goblins, too.

We do a lot of other stuff on the side, too, as I don't want to rush it. So no, i don't keep them ON the path necessarily. Just around it and somewhere close to it and then back the wrong direction.

 

[Lwaxy]

Could we please stay on topic of how to keep people in an AP and not talk about railroading in general? Because there is a distinct difference to the rails of an AP and what you are doing in a campaign you made yourself. Specifically as it matters where they go in an AP. World isn't changing because the PCs went the wrong way.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

It's much simpler (to me) than everything that's been said so far as to how to keep a group of players on the path. The carrot, or the stick; and when to apply each, and to which extent.

 

[Maxperson]

See, this is what you got all wrong. A dungeon does not need to have a plot. It can be just a maze with some monsters, traps and treasure. But I decided to make it more than that, by including bits and piece of lore, and including something that ties into the lore.

Wrong. This plot would not have happened, had they not gone into the dungeon. I specifically wrote a plot for this dungeon, that would tie into the existing main plot line.

The main plot does not rely on them rescuing this girl. But it adds a new angle to it, and will now have a big impact on the overall plot. It also gave them more insight into the lore and history of the world.

Yes, I understand you forced the plot on the group who walked away from it. You don't need to keep telling that to me. There was no need for you to put that girl there and remove their ability to walk away from or take a break from the main plot.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd like to respond back, but I think you'd just repeat what you've said again. For the large part, you're simply naysaying what I've said. "You can't do that! You have to do it this way. Everyone has always done it this way." Well, we can run it as I pointed out. And as D&D was designed to allow players to play it as a game not as collaborative storytelling, it's what we as DMs are supposed to do.

So it's your contention that every edition of D&D has lied to DMs by telling them that it is a collaborative storytelling game?

Last point, Gary certainly never wanted D&D to be storygame. He spoke out against "theater games" even at the end of his life (even though he lost one battle to bad game design - "skill games"). He designed massive amounts of rules to ensure D&D could be such a wonderful game and not fall into the non-game cesspit of improvisation. These rules may not have been all great, but their amount certifies his commitment to maintaining D&D's status as a game, for certain.

The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. ~ Gary Gygax

The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. ~ Gary Gygax

The books I write because I want to read them, the games because I want to play them, and stories I tell because I find them exciting personally. ~ Gary Gygax

Pen-and-paper role-playing is live theater and computer games are television. ~ Gary Gygax

You make it too easy. If you're going to make a false claim, at least make it something that can't be thoroughly disproved in a few minutes.

 

[Maxperson]

As much as Howandwhy99 vs. the world is an entertaining spectator sport, I must still intrude to mention that you're discussing from such different perspectives that any progress is impossible.

Howandwhy99 sees the game from an idealized gamist standpoint. The game is a series of maps containing obstacles to overcome. This is is a completely legit approach - extreme perhaps, but completely functional.

I can see and understand his view. It's okay to play that way. However, for him to pretend that the game wasn't intended to be a coopperative game where the players and DM create a shared story or that improv isn't involved, is absurd. Every edition says otherwise in print and Gygax from his own mouth.