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

[Daniel D. Fox]

Save My Game: Let Players Manage Themselves, Part 3

For the most part, I agree with the writer's opinions in the article with exception of this point -

You're not creating some tense piece of post-modern performance ritual, and you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere).

I disagree with this notion entirely, within the context it is presented. While the players take a vested interest as directors of their own characters, the production of these pieces resemble cooperative performance art more than anything else.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to build worlds and share it while emulating the deeper storytelling aspects of David Mamet, complex personalities, morality-based decisionmaking, the realism of our own world and bring villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason to the table. These things don't necessarily make the game "unfun".

The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind. And while this playstyle is fine and dandy if that's the sort of games people enjoy, I feel it's only fair for the author to note that not all people want to create "mini-instances of fun". Some people are looking for genuine braincandy as players and DMs through campaign-building where cooperative play contributes to a greater story as an exercise in having a good time...for fun.


Cheers~

 

[Cadfan]

1. He said "tense piece of post-modern performance ritual" You appear to be objecting because you do believe that RPGs are like performance art. Would you care to respond to any of the other adjectives in his sentence, or just that one? Do you feel that the sentence has a different meaning if you read all of the words instead of just some? Do you still disagree with that meaning? How about taking the paragraph as a whole, stating what you think he means by it, and saying whether you disagree?

2. Your paragraph that begins, "I don't know why anyone..." doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing some obvious and clear meaning? Its possible. Or is there a typo, like a missing negative? Because it all makes sense if I add the word "not" after "would."

3. You wrote, "The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind."

Whatever, dude.

 

[Serendipity]

Generally I find the editorial-like pieces (like this one, and - especially - that Confessions of a Full Time Wizard nonsense*) leave me wondering if they're talking about the same hobby I am. Different strokes for different folks and all that but....ugh. Suffice to say I generally find the overall philosophy (on average) disagreeable.



* that last irritates me to no end - that whole "I didn't cry" crap really cheesed me off...perhaps because I'm a woman and her attitudes drive me up a wall.

 

[DeusExMachina]

But postmodern roleplaying can be so much fun: Dresden Codak casts Magic Missile

Anyway, having done my Dresden Codak plug in, I kind of have to agree that these editorials seem to miss the point sometimes. Then again, maybe the point is really just to say that this is how they do it and it can be totally different in your game.
All in all I'm not too taken by the way they seem to play their games though. Which is fine, I'll just do it my way...

 

[Adso]

But postmodern roleplaying can be so much fun: Dresden Codak casts Magic Missile

Anyway, having done my Dresden Codak plug in...

And thank you for that. I had not seen that before. Very funny!

 

[Irda Ranger]

The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind.

I read it the same way. It's been obvious for a while that WotC seems to have been taking over by a "gamist monoculture". Whether that's because they all honestly prefer to play that way or whether it was a corporate decision to focus on this particular kind of gaming (and exorcise the simulationists and storytellers) I can't say.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Save My Game: Let Players Manage Themselves, Part 3

For the most part, I agree with the writer's opinions in the article with exception of this point -

You're not creating some tense piece of post-modern performance ritual, and you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere).

I disagree with this notion entirely, within the context it is presented. While the players take a vested interest as directors of their own characters, the production of these pieces resemble cooperative performance art more than anything else.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to build worlds and share it while emulating the deeper storytelling aspects of David Mamet, complex personalities, morality-based decisionmaking, the realism of our own world and bring villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason to the table. These things don't necessarily make the game "unfun".

The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind. And while this playstyle is fine and dandy if that's the sort of games people enjoy, I feel it's only fair for the author to note that not all people want to create "mini-instances of fun". Some people are looking for genuine braincandy as players and DMs through campaign-building where cooperative play contributes to a greater story as an exercise in having a good time...for fun.


Cheers~

Having read the entire article I don't have a problem with that particular point. 4E is not a system that really works for creating a world that could exist somewhere so why try?

The point that made me stop and think about was the whole XP line of reasoning. I agree that as a game the policy of equal xp for all is easy and can be seen as fair to the players but it is directly at odds with the statement about D&D being a game of big risks and big rewards.

Where is the risk in this? If the players know that they can just bring in any character with no loss of xp then why not try the most risky hairbrained ideas for every situation because dying is no biggie. There is no risk whatsoever merely big rewards. More fun I guess? The lack of consequences for failure make success sort of pointless. Its like playing a videogame on "god" mode. Yeah you completed the game but so what, there was no way you couldn't.

As a player I actually enjoy risking real in game resources in the pursuit of accomplishing goals. How can you savor a hard won success knowing that had you failed you would simply put another quarter in the machine, write a "2" next to your character's name and do it again? I guess what I am really asking is how can one balance risk vs reward when the risk equals zero?

 

[Logan_Bonner]

I'm curious how those of you who don't agree with the way the games are run approach your own games. "I don't agree with this" and "This isn't how I like my games" is too vague if you don't talk about what you like in games, so here are some questions:

1. What types of game do you run?

2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?

3. Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?

 

[Snoweel]

(and exorcise the simulationists and storytellers)

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.

I would say that simulation and narrative are opposites of each other - the gamist view is outside of this continuum.

Because where simulation tries to model real life, narrativist play tries to model stories. And real life generally doesn't make for good stories.

 

[Adso]

Having read the entire article I don't have a problem with that particular point. 4E is not a system that really works for creating a world that could exist somewhere so why try?

The point that made me stop and think about was the whole XP line of reasoning. I agree that as a game the policy of equal xp for all is easy and can be seen as fair to the players but it is directly at odds with the statement about D&D being a game of big risks and big rewards.

Where is the risk in this? If the players know that they can just bring in any character with no loss of xp then why not try the most risky hairbrained ideas for every situation because dying is no biggie. There is no risk whatsoever merely big rewards. More fun I guess? The lack of consequences for failure make success sort of pointless. Its like playing a videogame on "god" mode. Yeah you completed the game but so what, there was no way you couldn't.

As a player I actually enjoy risking real in game resources in the pursuit of accomplishing goals. How can you savor a hard won success knowing that had you failed you would simply put another quarter in the machine, write a "2" next to your character's name and do it again? I guess what I am really asking is how can one balance risk vs reward when the risk equals zero?

It’s because I’m a fan of story consequences rather than rules consequences for this kind of failure.

This past weekend my Season of Long Shadows campaign had three character deaths. Two PCs came back, and one player decided to make a new character. All three know there will be story consequences for the failure. Some of them have already been hinted at (Lysander shouldn’t of made that deal with Acererak while in the Shadowfell! Tsk, tsk). Some are still to come (how come the dragonborn loses a healing surge for a level each time that ring revives him?). They are all dreading it, but they also trust me enough where they know they will be entertained by it (even in final defeat, they will be entertained...). They know failure brings outside powers that plot and scheme. They know that a new character also brings in new motives (there are always motives both outward and ulterior in my games) which could fundamentally change the story assumptions. They know it changes the story, but it doesn’t "Nurf" anyone's game play.

Then there is just the aggravation of dying.

One of my players has made it her goal to finally survive one of my campaigns. Usually her character doesn’t die until the last adventure—but thus far she has always died. Just dying is punishment to her. It’s punishment to most people. I know I could just write a “2” on my character sheet and keep moving, but that’s not how I roll, and I know that not how most (if not all) of the people I game with roll. Characters are special. We fight to keep each one alive, and when they die, we raise them, or we move on to new ones that we craft with care and dedication.

I find it funny that some have insinuated that I am in favor of turning my game into a video game. I absolutely don’t believe that creating an imbalance of player power level serves story, setting, or fun in a tabletop RPG. It’s in fact a terrible gamist device stuck tacked on where it doesn't belong…something you would see in a video game that doesn't have the benefit of a DM who can react to PCs action, success, and failure on the fly in interesting ways. But that's something I am going to talk about more in my next column.