Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Mallus]

There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.

For example, you could start with all the games whose gameplay engines don't require the use of frequently fickle, subjective, human arbiters wearing viking hats.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A role player who says things like:
"I punch the Overking in the face"
"I jump between all four trolls and poke one with my epee"
"I leap off the 2,000 foot cliff and aim for a snow bank"
"I tell the dragons that they're a bunch of sissies"

Hey, at least this guy isn't boring.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I do not think GNS labels are very useful.

They're not perfect. There's a grey area between narrativism and simulation of fiction for example, as I think you alluded to.

But GNS is very useful for analysing this discussion imo. Korgoth, the Jester, your comment about Batman having to earn his win? Pure, 100%, Gamism. Gamism means challenging the player. The player is expected to try to win. Or, at least, try not to lose, there being no such thing as an ultimate victory in D&D.

 

[Mallus]

Hey, at least this guy isn't boring.

Wait, Korgoth meant those to be negative things?

 

[the Jester]

Really? Mastery of the game is really what it's about for you?

Not entirely, but I certainly see that as a valid playstyle choice.

Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.

Well, I do play other games too. But rpgs, and especially DnD, are the most fun.

 

[Theroc]

Wait, Korgoth meant those to be negative things?

Well, he did say the player behind that character was roleplaying a "Schlub who thinks he's batman"

Schlub seems to sound negative to me.

Anyway, what if I make awesome decisions and try lots of cool things, but roll 1's and 2's all the time, and I lose. Does that mean I suck at D&D, and I need to learn to play better? I'm not trying to trivialize anyone's argument here, but the whole "Approach 1 is about player Excellence" doesn't seem to account for an epic failure due to bad luck.

If D&D were chess, I could see this approach concept more clearly, but since we've involved chance, there is ALWAYS a chance for 'failure'. Unless the DM fudges things, but I don't understand how a player who is tactically unsound could not roll a string of crits and mow down the baddies in very epic fashion, and 'Win' despite 'sucking'.

 

[pawsplay]

They're not perfect. There's a grey area between narrativism and simulation of fiction for example, as I think you alluded to.

But GNS is very useful for analysing this discussion imo. Korgoth, the Jester, your comment about Batman having to earn his win? Pure, 100%, Gamism. Gamism means challenging the player. The player is expected to try to win. Or, at least, try not to lose, there being no such thing as an ultimate victory in D&D.

To me, it's about being Batman. Batman is trying to win. I am acting "as-if" Batman. It's not about winning a game, it's about Batman trying to stop the Joker from killing innocent people. As a player, I "win" just by showing up at the table. Since GNS has nothing to say about that, GNS has very little worth saying. Any theory that purports Vampire was a bad design is a theory in conflict with reality.

 

[pawsplay]

Really? Mastery of the game is really what it's about for you?

Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.

Why do I play RPGs? To be Batman. If you are reading "tactical play" as the criterion for good role-playing, you are not reading the posts in counterpoint to the OP and drawing the same understanding I am.

It is permissible to play a sucky Batman and get wasted. It is permissible to set the bar so low that virtually anyone could win as Batman--episodes of Super Friends seem to be predicatated on this level challenge. "Oh, gosh, Brainiac, why didn't we forsee that Superman would simply toss our large monster into space while Batman and Aquaman arrested us right here in our base? Who could have imagined?" That is also permissible. It's also permissible to put Batman through the ringer, in fact, Call of Cthulhu and some versions of espionage games basically work at this level most of the time. Maybe Batman gets turned into a vampire and just wanders around drinking blood, in between stopping crimes and trying to figure out if there is still clear picture in his mind what justice is. That is also permissible.

There is no "you must be this smart to play" bar for participating in and enjoying RPGs beyond understanding the basic premise and being able to grapple your end of the rules. At the same time, when the GM informs you that orcs are attacking, I expect you to respond as if your PC were in mortal danger and respond appropriately, if not always brilliantly. "I draw my sword," is a pretty good start.

 

[LostSoul]

There is no "you must be this smart to play" bar for participating in and enjoying RPGs beyond understanding the basic premise and being able to grapple your end of the rules. At the same time, when the GM informs you that orcs are attacking, I expect you to respond as if your PC were in mortal danger and respond appropriately, if not always brilliantly. "I draw my sword," is a pretty good start.

Not if you're a wizard.

There is a "you must be this smart to play" bar. It's enforced by the group. The other players in the group are going to judge your contributions to the game; what criteria they use is going to form the creative agenda, one of G-N-S. That operates at a different level than "I came here to play Batman." (Which would be Exploration of Character in Big Model terms.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

To me, it's about being Batman. Batman is trying to win. I am acting "as-if" Batman. It's not about winning a game, it's about Batman trying to stop the Joker from killing innocent people. As a player, I "win" just by showing up at the table. Since GNS has nothing to say about that, GNS has very little worth saying.

GNS says that's Simulationism.