MMO terms and tabletop, anyone completely ANNOYED by this?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I know exactly why too, they go home and play diablo and wow, and get in their heads the only way around something is to smash through it. Well, after around 9 or 10 sessions the group fell apart and now im thinking about gearing up for another run at it using either Rise of the Runelords or Dragonlance. It would be a different group , several people have come back to college (where I currently reside, teaching astronomy).

So yeah... that post turned out way long than intended. Hopefully this new group will be a bit better, about half the same people will be playing so I'm not expecting much of a difference... we will see.

Misattribution.

People were playing like that in 1993 when I started gaming. Did the term MMO even exist back then?

The issue isn't MMO. You and your players don't share the same playstyle.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm glad my one scenario allow you to demean my entire gaming career of 15 years. It is certainly impressive you have deconstructed my entire GMing style from one example. I tried to give an example that involve different ways of dealing with a solution, and suddenly its a LOL CLICK AND FETCH COMPUTER QUEST. I feel awesome right now. Thanks.

What allowed me and encouraged me to demean your entire GMing style was one simple thing. A GM blaming all their players - and not for being jerks.

When there is a problem with the game that isn't down to jerk behaviour, there is one person responsible for the game. That is the DM. And if there is a problem with how the game is playing out that's shared by all the players then the problem is IME invariably in the DM's chair. And yes, I have subjected myself to this scrutiny.

At that point the question is what is going wrong with the DMing? The answer is that for whatever reason the players find it more fun to fight than to take part in "creative" problem solving you appear to want. The cause of this emphatically isn't MMOs - this issue predates MMOs. And it has to be that the players aren't getting an emotional reward out of doing things the way you want them to. Now I might be wrong on the exact problem with the problem solving. They might have stressful jobs and be looking to beat things up to unwind (I know I occasionally have). But either way the problem is one of expectations and rewards, not MMOs.

 

[Janx]

What allowed me and encouraged me to demean your entire GMing style was one simple thing. A GM blaming all their players - and not for being jerks.

When there is a problem with the game that isn't down to jerk behaviour, there is one person responsible for the game. That is the DM. And if there is a problem with how the game is playing out that's shared by all the players then the problem is IME invariably in the DM's chair. And yes, I have subjected myself to this scrutiny.

At that point the question is what is going wrong with the DMing? The answer is that for whatever reason the players find it more fun to fight than to take part in "creative" problem solving you appear to want. The cause of this emphatically isn't MMOs - this issue predates MMOs. And it has to be that the players aren't getting an emotional reward out of doing things the way you want them to. Now I might be wrong on the exact problem with the problem solving. They might have stressful jobs and be looking to beat things up to unwind (I know I occasionally have). But either way the problem is one of expectations and rewards, not MMOs.

While some retrospection is also good whenever there's a problem, there are a few other explanations that are possible to pin soley on the players:

the players are stupid. It is possible the entire group just isn't that bright.
the players are conditioned. it is possible that the MMO they all play has conditioned them to think and react to situations in a common way that has dramatically altered how they approach other games or activities.

A normal GM isn't a therapist, psychologist or whatever. They aren't trained to deal with these situations.

It's one thing if the GM is a crap DM or there's just a style difference. But there's also the concept that D&D has some standard scenarios that normal players detect should be handled differently than others. If damaged players are unable to make the distinction, that normal players would, the problem is the player, and the DM may not be equipped to reprogram them.

 

[amerigoV]

While some retrospection is also good whenever there's a problem, there are a few other explanations that are possible to pin soley on the players:

the players are stupid. It is possible the entire group just isn't that bright.
the players are conditioned. it is possible that the MMO they all play has conditioned them to think and react to situations in a common way that has dramatically altered how they approach other games or activities.

Heh "stupid players." Ain't that the truth!

And MMO's are not the only conditioning factor. D&D has always had built-in incentives that align with the way people play MMOs. As an example, for those that ran the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, if you recall in the hidden part of the Moathouse (in the Obelisk room) there is an arch that if you touch it, it summons a Grell. When someone touched it in my campaign, you could see several players eyes light up. First words out of one of them was "cool, an XP machine!" That player was not into MMOs. Now I have good players, so a subtle hint that the next Grell might be the grandaddy/ halfdragon / half demon Grell got them back on track.

D&D has always been about killing critters and taking their stuff. That is exactly what alignment is all about "it detects as Evil!??! Charge!" XP has always been awarded for killing things and taking their stuff. Its always been there.

Try playing a different genre for a bit and you will see how much D&D has shaped gamer thinking.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Try playing a different genre for a bit and you will see how much D&D has shaped gamer thinking.

And it's a great way to expand your horizons so when you return to D&D you can be free of the XP for killing mindset. (At least it helped me.)

 

[Zhaleskra]

Player: blah blah Toon blah blah blah
GM: Eh, we aren't playing Toon, Doc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Heh "stupid players." Ain't that the truth!

And MMO's are not the only conditioning factor. D&D has always had built-in incentives that align with the way people play MMOs. As an example, for those that ran the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, if you recall in the hidden part of the Moathouse (in the Obelisk room) there is an arch that if you touch it, it summons a Grell. When someone touched it in my campaign, you could see several players eyes light up. First words out of one of them was "cool, an XP machine!" That player was not into MMOs. Now I have good players, so a subtle hint that the next Grell might be the grandaddy/ halfdragon / half demon Grell got them back on track.

D&D has always been about killing critters and taking their stuff.

Ah, this isn't quite true. More accurately, this is one of the many places where 2e missed the point of D&D - and Gygax didn't explain things clearly in the DMG or anywhere else. 3e, of course, kept pretty close to the 2e way - and even managed to make the situation worse by turning XP into a commodity you could spend for gold.

In 1e there were two ways of gaining XP. Killing things and taking their stuff. And you gained about 90% of your XP from the 1GP = 1XP rule. This meant that the XP from killing things was effectively consolation prize - smart play revolved round taking stuff and fighting the monsters as little as possible. (This counted double for wandering monsters because wandering monsters did not carry treasure).

2e by default had two basic ways of gaining XP - killing monsters and being a stereotypical member of your class, using your abilities no matter what you used them on. (Which meant fighters gotta fight). It's a much more monster killy game than 1e or even 4e.

3e had XP for overcoming monsters (normally by killing them) and for quests. And made XP a spendable resource (3.5 went one step further due to XP being a river and able to be metagamed).

4e has bigger quest awards, XP for handling challenges through skills rather than combat, and IME a lot of DMs simply ignore XP and level up the PCs periodically - something 3.X's ability to spend XP for items makes imposisble. On the other hand it makes combat a bigger and (IMO) more fun thing than any other edition - swings and roundabouts.

(I'm currently running Caverns of Thracia in 5e - my XP system is simple. Gain a level for going down a level in a safe(ish), sane (for adventurers) and consensual manner.)

 

[Ranes]

...IME a lot of DMs simply ignore XP and level up the PCs periodically - something 3.X's ability to spend XP for items makes imposisble...

I think I know what you're getting at but dig into the EN world archives and you'll find hundreds of examples of 3e DMs finding it entirely possible.

Anyway, what was this thread about again? Oh yeah. 'Meat shield'? Seriously?

I had this lawn once...

 

[psiphre]

Honestly, this sort of thinking bothers me far far more than even the people who talk about 'rolling toons'. And I really dislike calling characters toons - makes me want to declare duck season. (I dislike calling them toons in MMOs as well).

It bothers me for two reasons; firstly a lack of desire to expand the hobby and secondly rejecting MMOs indicates to me a complete lack of respect of D&D and its influence.

The desire to expand the hobby is simple. There are what? A few hundred thousand D&D players. World of Warcraft has literally millions of subscribers, all taking part in what is in some ways a third rate knock-off experience when compared to the one you get round the table. (In other ways it's better, but I digress). Probably half those players don't even know that D&D is even in print - and 90% couldn't give a damn about D&D terminology. But if we can even pick up one tenth of them we've vastly expanded the hobby and that will be good for it (especially as we'll have expanded it by the people who care about roleplaying and tabletop interaction).

snip

In my pathfinder game, we just picked up a new player. she had never played D&D before but was curious. as a recovering wow-aholic of several years, she chose to play a druid (her class in wow). in three sessions she's rocketed from the noob of the group to the star of the show. I hope just to keep her around, because she derailed a boring module into a great session last time.

insularity and quibbling about word choice, when meaning is preserved and communicated, is going to hurt the hobby and it makes you look like a dick.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) (I'm currently running Caverns of Thracia in 5e - my XP system is simple. Gain a level for going down a level in a safe(ish), sane (for adventurers) and consensual manner.)

[threadcrap] Caverns of Thracia rocks. [/threadcrap]
[MENTION=6699363]psiphre[/MENTION]: I'm looking to make my first WoW converts as soon as my books arrive in the Philippines from Oz. And I plan to learn their jargon first so I can explain things in a way they understand.