D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[slobo777]

This evolution that Hussar speaks of mirrors my own. This isn't the first time I've seen this evolutionary congruency (that matched up ultimately with current system preference as well).

I've seen quite a few folks who seem to have very similar testimony regarding their evolution of playstyle preferences and system preferences (that are in relative accord with my own experience). It would be interesting to have a thread whereby people posted the evolution of their tastes (genres most emulated, table feel, etc), playstyle (sandbox vs episodic, mechanical resolution tools, DM empowerment vs game co-authorship or shared power, etc) preferences, the systems that they journeyed with and their ultimate, current system preferences. I suspect we would find some interesting symmetry. We may learn something.

I would say I have made a similar journey. I have definitely loosened control on the game, and handed it to players, over time. I found the results very satisfying as a whole.

But I wonder if I'm just constructing a narrative to match yours, and others seen in the forums?

How much of the pattern is real, how much randomly picking up "best practice" as I've read it, and is it going anywhere useful or just showing me I'm more relaxed at 44 than I was aged 13?

 

[Emerikol]

I agree with Manbearcat. It's bottom up vs top down campaign design. I used to be a top-down campaign designer similar to what Emerikol talks about. But, I find now that I'm not interested in that as much. Setting exploration bores me to be honest, so, when a player comes to me with a concept that is outside the parameters I original set down, I'll likely change the parameters if I can. I'd much rather have happy players than cater to this notion of the "sanctity" of my campaign setting.

As far as good vs bad DM's, with this quote:

I'd simply respond with, any DM so inflexible that he dictates to his players what they can play and will eject players, or consider them bad players, if they deviate from this, is a DM I no longer have any interest in playing with.

But, then, I accept that this is simply a preference style and try to avoid saying that other DM's are bad because they don't share my preferences. For me, given the choice between the player taking something he really wants to play or me holding to some preconceived notion of how my game world "should" look, I'll side with the player every single time.

Yes. Perhaps I am too strong in defense of my style. I have a style that works. I play as much as I want. And the players I have have fun. But of course I don't care or think ill of anyone in the next house doing as they wish and having fun. That would be silly. Mostly I try to advocate that they produce a game rules wise that is at least usable by me for my gaming goals.

I'm a simulationist in the GNS sense. So exploring the world really is what a campaign is about for me. Other factors play in and I can appreciate those as elements but when I do play I want a good world. I mostly prefer standard fantasy but I like it when a DM puts a twist on it here and there. A good DM no doubt could do it bottom up and keep me in the dark about it and succeed in making me happy. But I don't want to affect his world in a director stance way because that would make the world unreal to me. I can't affect the real world that way and I don't want my characters affecting it that way either.

The PCs in my campaign are never the heroes of Lord of the Rings. I don't contrive a game world that is wrapped around them. And thats not saying they can't have ties to the game world in some way. But the world won't rise or fall based upon them, unless they are really good at being bad. Instead they are Fafyrd and Grey Mouser kind of heroes. They often fight evil. But understanding what's going on in the world through exploration is what drives the campaign. I always have lots of organizations with their own agendas. Things happen in the world independently of the PCs and often I roll dice for events.

My players and I want to feel like we are in a real breathing living world not a story. So verisimilitude is important to us.

But I agree. It is a game and different strokes for different folks no doubt. But a lot of D&D that gets played these days is really for me a poor version of a board game. I'd really rather just play the superior board games out there if thats what I'm looking for. Same for mmos. If a campaign provides nothing an mmo couldn't provide then it's a big fail for me. I'd just play an mmo. And I have no issue with either board games or mmos.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Yes. Perhaps I am too strong in defense of my style. I have a style that works. I play as much as I want. And the players I have have fun. But of course I don't care or think ill of anyone in the next house doing as they wish and having fun. That would be silly. Mostly I try to advocate that they produce a game rules wise that is at least usable by me for my gaming goals.

You don't care to think ill of anyone....That is excellent, even a great attitude. I so agree.

But I agree. It is a game and different strokes for different folks no doubt. But a lot of D&D that gets played these days is really for me a poor version of a board game. I'd really rather just play the superior board games out there if thats what I'm looking for. Same for mmos. If a campaign provides nothing an mmo couldn't provide then it's a big fail for me. I'd just play an mmo. And I have no issue with either board games or mmos.

Whoa, "poor version" and "big fail" and "superior board game"??????

Sadly, Seems that you cannot abide by your own words for even in a single post.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would say I have made a similar journey. I have definitely loosened control on the game, and handed it to players, over time. I found the results very satisfying as a whole.

But I wonder if I'm just constructing a narrative to match yours, and others seen in the forums?

How much of the pattern is real, how much randomly picking up "best practice" as I've read it, and is it going anywhere useful or just showing me I'm more relaxed at 44 than I was aged 13?

I couldn't say for sure but I am pretty close to the antithesis of a postmodernist so I'm certain that there is something more to this than mere social constructs and cultural memes moving units. They likely play a roll in some of this (and perhaps more for certain people), but by no means do I believe that it is anything near the sum total answer.

My guess would be that there is a hefty dose of shared experience with specific rulesets, specific genres and the general conglomeration of those things with the oddities and eccentricities of gamers and the gaming culture. Further, my guess would be that there is likely a hefty symmetry of Meyers Briggs personality type and the organization of information (and subsequent execution) within the brain going on in confluence with those shared experiences. Finally, as you put it, there are probably some shared externalities (getting old and tired or just intellectually disinterested in youthful shenanigans or rigamarole - are those sufficiently "old man" words?) that have their input on the formula.

 

[Manbearcat]

@slobo777

Can't xp so this will have to do. I'm primarily ISTP, with some slight deviations now and again, so pretty close (those two are classically coupled). It wouldn't surprise me to find the gaming community's predominant personality modes to be INTP and ISTP.

 

[slobo777]

@slobo777

Can't xp so this will have to do. I'm primarily ISTP, with some slight deviations now and again, so pretty close (those two are classically coupled). It wouldn't surprise me to find the gaming community's predominant personality modes to be INTP and ISTP.

Well, it would be an interesting survey, if possible!

Whenever I have met large numbers of gamers (such as at a Con or LARP event), I am struck though by how varied a bunch we are.

So I fully expect there to be XSFJ and XNFJ dungeon masters and players out there. I imagine them to be into (and possibly naturally talented at) hammy acting, and playing loose with the rules, perhaps with one eye on keeping the story "on track" (not necessarily railroaded, just with a group consensus direction). But that's probably going a few miles too far into pop psychology . . .

Edit: In fact I think I'm getting my "XSFJ" image from a good DM I used to play with. He involved everyone and worked to ensure everyone was having fun (X -ish), liked to run pre-made and linear adventures, staying on track (J -ish) and presented cinematic visions of encounters and scenes. His NPCs reacted emotionally and story-driven first and foremost, often ignoring rules that wouldn't let them do stuff (F -ish).

 

[ggroy]

Myers-Briggs descriptions look a lot like astrology personality readings.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, it would be an interesting survey, if possible!

Whenever I have met large numbers of gamers (such as at a Con or LARP event), I am struck though by how varied a bunch we are.

<snip>

I'm sure there would be more than a smattering of XSFJ and XNFJ folks out there. I've probably known 5 or 6 within the 30-40 gamers I've personally known.

As far as the aggregate diversity and at Conventions and so forth, I will defer to your experience as I have no experience (so I can merely extrapolate and speculate) with the "greater gaming community" (outside of the internet). My gaming "career" has been rather isolated compared to most in that group of 30-40 that I know (and from what I see online, its rather isolated compared to a great number of folks). While I do love the hobby, it has never been my primary leisure pursuit or past-time. As such, I'm sure you have much more well-founded opinions on the sociology/behavioral paradigm of the sub-culture than I.

 

[slobo777]

Myers-Briggs descriptions look a lot like astrology personality readings.

They do, but there is some underlying science.

Probably most importantly, they don't try to link your personality to anything else but . . . your personality. A lot of it is just bleedingly obvious self-consistency:

MB question: "Do you prefer to plan, or are you spontaneous?"
Answer: "I prefer to plan."
MB prediction: "When the project starts, you will want to focus on th plan for it."

Where I disagree with Myer's Briggs is in the handedness model (you must be either one or another, there's no scale). But you can see that as a simplifying level of granularity (much like D&D's class system). The MB model of personality is a moderately good predictor of normal behaviour. It's most important use in business though is to make everyone stop and think about why other people are different, and perhaps give up some time to allow for it now and then rather than being self-obsessed.

A scientifically more robust personality model emerging is the "Big 5", which is basically just a measure of self-consistency in descriptions of people and behaviour.

Edit: I used MB shorthand for my NPCs before, and I have to say it works quite well for talky/non-violent encounters to add a bit of variety. Doesn't seem to work too well for monsters - is the ogre a detailed thinker or an ideas-based giant - er, no he just wants to bash your head in!

 

[haakon1]

Well, it would be an interesting survey, if possible!

Why not? I'll go post it.