Game problems that are really Player/DM problems

[mmadsen]

For instance, in the current debates over using minis in the game, several people complain that Players stop role playing their characters and start playing table-top tacticians, taking an inordinate amount of time chosing just the right path or action. This is not a problem with the minis, it is a problem with the Players.

If those same players, playing under that same DM, behave one way with miniatures and one way without miniatures, how can you not blame (or credit) the miniatures for the difference?

Obviously the miniatures don't mind-control the players, and the players could consciously choose to play in a less tactical manner, but the miniatures encourage -- or afford, as designers would say -- a certain style of play.

 

[maddman75]

I think that while its true that the examples do come from a divergence of DM/Player expectations and actions, that the ruleset used can encourage these behaviours. Players will tend to do what the system rewards them for.

"All PCs ever do in D&D is fight monsters and take their stuff. D&D is just hack and slash."

Is the above true about D&D, or is it probably a problem with the Players/DM?

Well, if the players and DM agree you can certainly move in a different direction. But with the careful balance, CR system, and huge amount of combat rules its kind of hard to argue that D&D isn't about killing things and taking their stuff. Or that either a player or a DM will come to the table with that conclusion in mind.

"D&D combats take way too long. It takes us all game session to settle one combat against a band of ogres. Everyone tries to pick the best route for movement to avoid AoOs. Everyone has to decide on a combat maneuver or a spell for the absolute best result."

Is the above a truism about D&D, or an example of problematic Players?

Its a problem with D&D that can be exacerbated by overly anal players.

"D&D is all about gathering hordes of treasure and magic. By 5th level, our PCs have a ton of magic items."

Is the above a standard aspect of D&D, or the sign of a bad (Monty Haul) DM?

If you're used to most fantasy fiction where the main characters have, at best, one or two magic items, then the gear that a 5th level character should have according to the default wealth table could certainly qualify as a 'ton of magic items'.

IOW, its not an either/or situation. These things are caused by the system, but can be made worse by the players/DM or can be eliminated by them.

 

[Henry]

Quasqueton's point, if I understand it, is that many of the problems ascribed to traits of a game system seem to him to be instead actually caused by gamers who read something into that system that isn't there, but instead is brought on by perceptions of the participants themselves.

For example, emphasis on miniatures and spatial representation by D&D 3E. When some people use miniatures in-game, they "zone out" to everything except the tactical situation before them, and ignore the roleplaying that they were engaging in just moments before they started paying attention to the combat. The roleplaying of "Zargath the wizard is mysterious and possesses Hell-born Powers" becomes, "OK, I move 1 square that way and cast a 9d6 fireball 13 squares in that direction."

Sound right, Quas?

 

[ST]

On the other hand, I think if a system encourages certain behavior, then the system is at least partially responsible. If D&D 3.x didn't have a lot of rules that encouraged careful tactical planning of moves, obviously the players wouldn't focus on them.

I don't even think the things you mention as "problems" are such, they're differences in preferences. If a group wants to play a heavily tactical game with little in-character dialog, that's cool. It's only a problem when the group's not all on the same page.

I do think that D&D is vulnerable to this kind of situation, because it's the "blind men and the elephant" situation. When someone says "Hey, let's play D&D", without a fair amount of additional discussion about expectation, every person in the group could think they're sitting down to play a different game.

For example, some DMs adjudicate social interactions based on how the skill rolls come out, while others have the player act out the interaction in character and decide based on that how things turn out.

There is one thing you can count on in D&D no matter whether you know the group's social contract or not, though: Knowing the combat rules well, building your character to suit, and playing with a tactical mindset = "success". So is it any wonder that a lot of players fall back to this behavior?

 

[Quasqueton]

Quasqueton's point, if I understand it, is that many of the problems ascribed to traits of a game system seem to him to be instead actually caused by gamers who read something into that system that isn't there, but instead is brought on by perceptions of the participants themselves.

Thanks, Henry.

Quasqueton

 

[S'mon]

I'm definitely of the "certain rules encourage certain play styles" approach, although I disagree with Edwards in that he seems to think that the more rules there are about X, the more the play will focus on X. When there was no Diplomacy skill, players had to roleplay the interaction with the NPC to the best of their abilities and hope they were persuasive - the interaction was a gamist challenge directly for the player. With Diplomacy skill a player can roll a d20 and leave it at that - the RAW don't even give bonuses for convincing presentation, it's all abstracted into the die roll. Likewise 3e's heavily tactical ruleset encourages thinking within the ruleset - square-counting, AoOs, special feats - rather than 'outside the box', which in 1e was almost the only alternative to simply rolling to-hit.
This isn't just a 3e D&D thing - I found that Heroquest's extended-contest rules with wagering bunches of points turned into an incredibly dry mathematical exercise completely divorced from any visualisation of the in-game climactic combat that was supposed to be occurring.

 

[Quasqueton]

"OK, I move 1 square that way and cast a 9d6 fireball 13 squares in that direction."

For some folks:

Without minis and a battlegrid:
Player: "I dart left, out of reach of the enemy warrior, and speak the arcane syllables to send a fireball to explode among that advancing group of orcs."
DM: "You provoke a movement attack from the warrior."
Player: "OK, I can still get the spell off though, right?"

Put minis on a battlegrid, and suddenly:
Player: "I move 4 squares over and here cast fireball centered on this intersection."
DM: "You provoke an attack of opportunity from the warrior."
Player: "Crap, then I don't want to move like that. I'll stay put and cast."
DM: "You provoke a casting attack of opportunity from the warrior."
Player: "Oh, I can take a 5' step before I cast, right? Then I'll move over there."
DM: "You can't take a 5' step and move in the same turn."
Player: "Damn. Well..."

I've seen the above lots. For some reason, DMs and Players let this kind of back and forth tactical figuring go on for a long time, rather than just doing the action. Now imagine this:

Minis on the battlegrid:
Player: "I dart left, out of reach of the enemy warrior, and speak the arcane syllables to send a fireball to explode among that advancing group of orcs."
DM: "You provoke a movement attack from the warrior."
Player: "OK, I can still get the spell off though, right?"

D&D doesn't *force* people to play like wargamers. It doesn't force people to figure their actions like a game of chess. Minis on the table doesn't mean you leave role playing at the door.

Quasqueton

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Player: "I move 4 squares over and here cast fireball centered on this intersection."
DM: "You provoke an attack of opportunity from the warrior."
Player: "Crap, then I don't want to move like that. I'll stay put and cast."
DM: "You provoke a casting attack of opportunity from the warrior."
Player: "Oh, I can take a 5' step before I cast, right? Then I'll move over there."
DM: "You can't take a 5' step and move in the same turn."
Player: "Damn. Well..."

Here's my version of this:

FIRST SESSION
Player 1: "I move 4 squares over and here cast fireball centered on this intersection."
DM: -rolls dice- "The warrior lashes out as you move away, catching you on the shoulder. 7 damage. You're still up, right? Okay, cast your spell."
Player 1: "B... but, I wouldn't have moved -"
DM (sternly): "Roll them d6s. Fireball is on its way. Next time, be ready."

SECOND SESSION
Player 1: "Give me a minute to figure out what I'm going to do. I don't want to take an AoO."
DM: -starts stopwatch at 30 seconds-
Player 1: "Um... um..."
DM: "Time's up. What do you do?"
Player 1: "Uh... I hit the orc with my staff."
DM: "Roll damage."

THIRD SESSION
Player 1: "I cast a fireball on the orcs."
DM: "Roll 'em. Player 2?"
Player 2: "I don't have many hp left. I'll strike at the chieftain's neck and try to lop his head clean off! That ought to scare them!"
DM: "Sounds good. Would you like an action point with your power attack?"
Player 2: "To hit."
Player 2: -rolls- "14... 18 with the action point! That hits, right? 29 damage."
DM: "Your blade bites deep into the chieftain's bull neck. He stumbles back, working his jaw as though to howl his rage. All he manages is a gargled cough as blood cascades from the dreadful wound. He crumples, dead or nearly so. You earn back two action points."
Player 2: "Wicked."

FOURTH SESSION
Player 1: "Can I add an action point to my magic missile damage?"
DM: "How are you getting that extra oomph?"
Player 1: "Huh?"
DM: "Describe how you're casting the spell."
Player 1: "I... uh..."
DM: "Roll damage; you can't use an action point."

FIFTH SESSION
Player 1: "I'll conjure a fireball. I'll try to lob it right at the middle of the bugbear siege tower, on top. This square right here."
DM: "Good idea. Would you like to add an action point to damage or saves?"
Player 1: "Bugbears are tough; damage."
DM: -rolls saves- "Roll."
Player 1: "45 damage with the action point."
DM: "Your burst of flame explodes atop the siege tower. Screaming bugbears, their armored paws swatting at their flame-swathed bodies, tumble off in their rage and pain. The tower itself blazes like a cyclopean torch. Earn back two action points."

Our theoretical GM (certainly not anyone I know, or myself, or anything ) raises the bar for the tactical and descriptive prerequisites over time. Eventually, the players become accustomed to vivid description, carefully observing the situation on OTHER players' turns, and making snap judgements.

 

[Treebore]

Every player who played a game system under one DM and hated it, then played it under another DM and loved it (Shadowrun, RIFTS, and MERPS were like this for me) knows that the problems are a DM/player problem, not a system problem.

Like I have mentioned in other threads, most recently the Synnibar and C&C threads, I have rarely found a system un-playable, meaning lots of fun. Aftermath is the only system I didn't have lots of fun with, but it was enjoyable enough to play for awhile.

The DM makes or breaks a game more than anyone else in a gaming group, and more than the gaming system being used. A system can be a big help, or a big headache. For example, a lot of people complained about 2E and all the kits and optional books breaking the game. I didn't use those rules, so my game never became broken and my group played for years.

However 3E has a ton of PrC's (kits) and a bunch of "optional" rules, but now everyone loves it. Well, if that is true why is the d20 market dying off again? Why has such a large portion of the 3E market silently dissappeared? Its because the 3E system has once again become this huge monster of rules that scares the hell out of the average gamer. So either they quit, again, or move on to other smaller and easier systems, again. Me, I'm moving on to Castles and Crusades when my current campaign ends for 3E, which will be no later than August.

Am I quitting 3E forever? As a DM I plan too, but I will be willing to play 3E, as a player only. So my problem is a system problem, it has become too much and too many players want to use everything. So I can't make them all happy without a lot of work and memorization on my part. Effort I am no longer willing to put forth. From now on, if anyone wants me to DM it is going to be under the rule system of my choice, and that system for fantasy is C&C for me. Sci-fi is Classic Traveller, I'll also DM Shadowrun for a cyberpunk kind of system. From now on (after July), I'll only play 3E, no more DMing.

 

[Rel]

So my problem is a system problem, it has become too much and too many players want to use everything. So I can't make them all happy without a lot of work and memorization on my part.

I think that this kind of proves Quasqueton's premise. This isn't a "system problem". It's a problem with the players not being willing to accept a more truncated version of the rules or you not being willing to work with a larger set of rules.

There's a reason the "core rulebooks" are called the "core rulebooks". They are really all that is necessary to play D&D. Everything beyond that is optional.

I just started up an Eberron campaign recently and somebody asked me, "Are we using the splatbooks?" I told the group that I wanted to use the PHB, DMG, Eberron Campaign Setting and the Sharn book and that was all. They agreed.

If they hadn't agreed, that wouldn't have made our problem a "system problem".