Low Magic Campaigns?

[Thomas Percy]

When you begin one these threads (usually beginning with I hate d20 power creep, I want low-magic) you almost instinctively begin by criticizing the other sides playing style. Even though jbuck didn't start by saying he disliked High Magic, it didn't take long for someone to come in and begin beating the "d20 wealth/magic is bad" drum and causing all the typicals to come out and assume trench warfare.

Good resume
but anyway, perhaps everyone of us one day must do HIS trench warfare.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's like I always say, typing is about mastering the keyboard. It's about dominating these little letters, beating them to my will. It's about showing other people how smart I am until they beg me to stop. Anyone who doesn't experience that thrill of power and victory when they type is just deluding themselves.

LOL.

I would agree that there is an integral part of D&D that is about not being powerless. You face these terrible things, and then you do something. Whether or not you succeed, at least you take action. And, in the real world, all too often we are faced with terrible things wherein we feel that we cannot or should not take action.

But this isn't at all the same thing as ego-tripping. It isn't the same as needing to be the most powerful being around, or being able to defeat all you encounter, or maximizing your power, or any of that.

And Frodo succeeded because he understood his place in the framework of the world, and neither tried to be more than what he was (as Boromir and Denethor did) or less (as was the case with Gollum). Frodo was a normal person who knew that he was a normal person, and was okay with that knowledge.

(Sam was perhaps even more humble than Frodo -- he's the only person in the novel to hand back the Ring without any qualms or hesitation whatsoever.)

RC

 

[Mallus]

I don't subscribe to this philosophy when I DM.

Neither do I. Which is why I went on to write...

At least with RPG's the framework isn't zero-sum. We're supposed to take turns indulging in our power-displays. Even lend a hand (which is exactly how my gaming groups tend to operate. I've made some memorable characters, but I couldn't have done it with the support of the other players and their characters)

 

[Celebrim]

Hell, all games are all about power. I'm trying to beat you. It's locking horns, humiliating rivals, practicing for war, the whole nine yards.

No. Roleplaying games make exceptionally bad competitive games because they depend so heavily on fiat and because the ability to control the game is inherently in favor of just one participant. If you want to play a game that is about humiliating rivals, then RPGs are a very poor choice and you are likely to ruin everyone elses fun as well.

My enlightened view of games must come from all the chess I played as a youth... pitiless as the sun, that game is.

I played alot of chess in my youth as well. I still play alot of Settlers of Cataan and other sorts of competitive games.

But if I DMed the way I play competitive games, I wouldn't have any players. I am most certainly not trying to beat the players, much less humiliate them. I'm deliberately playing to lose, and unlike any competitive game this isn't considered to be poor sportsmanship. On the other hand, if I were to play to win then it would be poor sportsmanship!

My experience of many of the players that are primarily 'playing to win' is that they are playing the wrong sort of game. They need to be playing chess, or settlers, or Blood Bowl, or some other sort of actually competitive game. That sort of game would actually satisfy that craving to prove themselves.

But the problem players are the ones of that sort that don't want to actually play a competitive game, because in a competitive game there is the possibility of ego crushing failure. Instead, they play a non-competitive game as if it were a competitive game and attempt to control both sides of the DM screen at the same time - DMs trying to control the players or players trying to control the DM. In this fashion, if they succeed in doing so, it offers them the chance to get an ego fulfilling victory every single time that they set down to the table. And thats what they really want. And there is nothing particularly wrong with that, as I said, its not like all of these players are bad players. But, again, frequently this goal becomes so important to them that they become control freaks and then that becomes disruptive.

Other sorts of players with different goals rarely become disruptive in this fashion. They become bored, and when bored they might express that with in character actions that are meant to disrupt the story that they are now bored with, but they rarely are disruptive out of game. An in game disruption is a signal to me that I'm not doing my job and I need to compensate. An out of game disruption is a signal to me that I need to talk with a player privately, and maybe find a new player.

My point was that even Frodo wasn't a normal guy. He was exceptionally humble. Fantasy is rarely, if every, about truly unexceptional people... which is another way of saying its almost always a kind of power-fantasy, even when it's pretending otherwise.

Riiiigggghhhttt.

 

[Ebony]

I'm not the one with the Slayer's Guide to the Obvious, so you tell me. My guess is no. But I didn't say that my players don't read the DMG, so I'm not sure what you're worried about. I'm pretty sure they don't think those are locks either.

The first time you made that joke, it was a little humorous, but now you're overdoing it.

Joss Whedon is certainly talented, but he can't possibly live up to your expectations...

But you knew that.

So what did you mean when you said, "Fortunately, even the power-gamers in my group at least understand that the guidelines in the DMG are none of their business. That's why it's in the DMG." as though the DMG is somehow off-limits to them.

 

[Ebony]

Because a story about humility, mercy, and sacrifice must be an ego trip at its heart.

If it weren't, the author wouldn't bother to write it down.

Even when the character is humble and not about showing off, the author is, and that makes all the difference.

 

[molonel]

Ok, note that this is an example of my case #1. You are claiming that DM's that run that particular sort of campaign must be control freaks.

In that particular sort of campaign. Your example #1 had to do with people who can't tell the difference between what they've experienced in the past, and what other people are playing. Since I'm running two low-magic, gritty games right now on a weekly basis, I must be able to tell the difference, and therefore do not qualify for your "The world must be divided into two sorts of people" division.

Yes, you are. You are waltzing with them all over the place.

But at least I look sexy while I'm doing it.

And they are having badwrongfun, right? Worst of all, these deceptive badwrongfun players are denying that they have a power fetish, because we know, everyone must have one. Thanks for proving my point.

I have a sneaking suspicion that nothing I say will ever do anything but prove your arguments entirely correct, in your view.

To my knowledge, I never did either. I just said that someone could have dragged the ring to mount doom as a 1st level commoner. The assumption was that you were playing an RPG in Frodo's place. I was highlighting the fact that Frodo, as a character, doesn't need to have any the aspects of a traditional powerful hero. The Hobbits are rather uninviting to power gamers.

Sure. There is nothing inviting about a race that is highly resistant to magic, good at sneaking and hiding, highly skillful, tough ... wait a minute, we're talking about one of the main races in the PHB, right?

Riiiiiighhhhttt ... In your opinion ... In your opinion ... In your opinion ... In your opinion ... So what. Whatever you call him doesn't defend your initial claim ... No. And even if they did, it still wouldn't prove your initial claim ... Naturally, but that still doesn't support your initial claim.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. [/ManInBlack]

And for the record, when Tolkien adapted the story to be a screenplay, he pretty much did exactly that. He took out all that 'adventure', and focused on what he believed was important to the story.

Nobody ever accused Tolkien of being the brighest bulb in the pack when it came to screenwriting.

Right. Because a story about humility, mercy, and sacrifice must be an ego trip at its heart.

The great rabbi comes before an even greater rabbi. He says "Who am I to even stand before you? You are everything and I am nothing."

Another rabbi comes before the High Holy One. "Oh Venerable Rabbi, who am I to speak to you? I am nothing."

Then in comes the janitor. He, too, is humble. "Oh great one. Before you I am indeed nothing."

Rabbi #1 says to Rabbi #2, "Look who thinks he's nothing!"

One that you've yet to demonstrate. It seems to me that all I have to do to knock down that line of thought is to demonstrate that there are ways to play and motivations which are not primarily power fantasies. I don't expect such illustration to resonate with you, although you don't seem to deny that there are large number of these people, but I do suspect some readers will recognize themselves or people that they know amongst the alternate styles and motivations I mentioned (which is only some). Even if it did, my point is that its not helpful to your claim because you didn't begin by saying merely that people are driven to play because of ego. You claimed that they were driven to play a particular style of empowered play because of ego. If a player is driven to play a powerless character because of ego, it still disproves your initial claim.

Is this where I'm supposed to say, "In your opinion"?

What it does mean is that in my experience, the majority of bad roleplayers are also ego driven power gamers.

I've met bad gamers of all kinds. There's Argument Man, who doesn't even know the game very well but insist on grinding the game to a halt to argue about rules minutae. There's the guy who falls asleep on the couch or players video games, and you wonder why he's even there. There's Cat Piss Man, who is a social reject who lives at home with his parents and possesses the social skills of a 12-year old. There's the Possessive Girlfriend, who doesn't really like her guy playing RPGs, but wants to keep an eye on him so she shows up. There's the DM's Girlfriend.

If you'd like to argue that the sort of people you find yourself arguing with or about in these discussions tend to be the pool from which the worst roleplayers are drawn, whatever, but I highly doubt that's been the case.

 

[Celebrim]

So what did you mean when you said, "Fortunately, even the power-gamers in my group at least understand that the guidelines in the DMG are none of their business. That's why it's in the DMG." as though the DMG is somehow off-limits to them.

I don't think he was implying that the DMG is off limits to them, although in earlier editions of the game it expressly was.

I think he was implying that if it is in the DMG, it is the province of the DM, and as such, during play, if a player tried to impose the DMG on the DM he would be guilty of the same breach of good faith that a DM would be guilty of if he tried to play the player's character (telling the player what his character would or would not do). The player has no business telling the DM during play how much experience or treasure he should recieve, or how the campaign world should be structured and populated, or anything else of that nature.

 

[Ebony]

Riiiigggghhhttt.

You keep saying that.

Are you trying to make some sort of point?

You'll have to be more explicit, because I'm just not getting it.

Please explain.

 

[gizmo33]

No. Roleplaying games make exceptionally bad competitive games because they depend so heavily on fiat and because the ability to control the game is inherently in favor of just one participant.

Add to that that an RPG tends to be as inclusive as possible regarding character types, ideas, etc. Hardly the kind of environment that is conducive to really rigorous balancing and competition. Whereas Chess changes very slowly over time - people don't show up to Chess tournaments with the latest Chess splatbook wanting to try out some new piece. RPGs IMO are much more cooperative by nature, and really don't tolerate the kind of stresses that comparing it to a game like chess would imply.