You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[billd91]

Perhaps this blog might be worth a read? http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/a-way-out/

In short, D&D is trying to be too many things at once, and thus it suffers because in trying to cater to many, it doesn't specifically to any because it doesn't have the set in stone rules that everyone can agree on. That part was shunted off to the DM, but another problem is the game doesn't actually give the DM much to work with as far as nailing down certain mechanics goes. So of course you're going to get problems when people expect different things out of the same game.

I'm not sure it matters what D&D would try to be if it tried to restrict itself and its scope - people would still put it to all sorts of varied uses like they have since it came out. I really think limiting its scope, as a solution to gamer groups or style advocates that don't get along, is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps this blog might be worth a read? http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/a-way-out/

Thanks for the link.

I actually preferred the preceding article - The Roots of the Big Problems - which includes the following apposite passage:

“We’re all playing the same game!”

So you had all these folks playing different games, under the same name. Somewhere, that context was lost. And those people were trying to play together.

Later editions of D&D and most roleplaying games that followed, attempted to cater to ALL of these groups, at the same time.

To “solve” the issue of gamers with mutually exclusive goals trying to play together, there’s a ton of advice in everything from the game texts to magazines and newsletters either a) trying a variety of tricks to try to keep up interest and minimize conflict or b) convince everyone involved that one method is better than all others, primarily by laying claim to “real roleplaying”, and in both cases, with a lot of shame and identity calls as the basis of proof.

Hobby-wise, this means you have:
a) A hobby with the general design philosophy that design actually doesn’t matter nor does complete communication of how to play
b) A group of enthusiasts with no means of communicating what they want to do together, and a lot of shaming when that goes wrong
​

It then goes on to an interesting discussion of illusionist play as "perfected" by White Wolf games.

 

[Ratskinner]

Perhaps this blog might be worth a read? http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/a-way-out/

In short, D&D is trying to be too many things at once, and thus it suffers because in trying to cater to many, it doesn't specifically to any because it doesn't have the set in stone rules that everyone can agree on. That part was shunted off to the DM, but another problem is the game doesn't actually give the DM much to work with as far as nailing down certain mechanics goes. So of course you're going to get problems when people expect different things out of the same game.

Nice link.

I totally grok the "Incomplete Texts" section of "The Roots of the Big Problems". It speaks directly to a big irritation of mine, namely people telling me that I either couldn't have played Old-school D&D the way I did, or that I shouldn't have, because they, in fact, know the true way to have played AD&D or BECMI. It comes from both old-schoolers and new-schoolers just with different tones.

 

[Hussar]

Going back to the idea of group templates and why I like them. Again, going to summon [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] to see if he would like to add anything.

In my current Dark Sun campaign, we do not have a group template. We've recently added two new players who are not invested in the campaign the way the longer players are. We also have one player who has recently changed characters, so, fitting his character into the mix is another problem. And, we have just wrapped up a fairly lengthy plot arc that has left us in a fairly comfortable position.

The problem is, no one knows what to do next. There are a couple of possibilities, but, because no one wants to step on anyone else's toes, we haven't really pushed for any direction. Additionally, the DM has been reticent to give us a strong push in any given direction because he wants us to drive the campaign. So, effectively, for the past three sessions, we've been staring at each other like middle schoolers at a dance. No one wants to make the first move, and, because we lack enough information and lack information on how to get more information, no one's really taken up the mantle.

With a group template, this should never happen. New characters, when they get added, have to go through the templating process to make sure that their goals are linked to existing characters. And the existing characters gain new links, outside of play, to the new characters. So, Suzy brings a new character to the group and Bob's cult background is leveraged to link Suzy to Bob, but, also, Dave's character get's linked to Suzy as well. The web simply grows and shifts as new characters are added or subtracted.

Because the characters come in already bought into particular agendas, the next step is always in front of the party. There is no "searching for adventure". Suzy brings new information about Bob's cult which spins the group off into new directions.

To be honest, I'm really worried about our current campaign. It's been about 55 ish sessions in, and the last three sessions have really lacked impetus. It's grinding down and I'm rather worried that it's going to fade. I hope it doesn't because I'm really enjoying the game, but, looming on the horizon, I can see the end coming. DM burnout and a lack of integration in the group is strangling this campaign.

 

[Ratskinner]

Going back to the idea of group templates and why I like them. Again, going to summon @Kamikaze Midget to see if he would like to add anything.

<snip>

With a group template, this should never happen. New characters, when they get added, have to go through the templating process to make sure that their goals are linked to existing characters. And the existing characters gain new links, outside of play, to the new characters. So, Suzy brings a new character to the group and Bob's cult background is leveraged to link Suzy to Bob, but, also, Dave's character get's linked to Suzy as well. The web simply grows and shifts as new characters are added or subtracted.

Because the characters come in already bought into particular agendas, the next step is always in front of the party. There is no "searching for adventure". Suzy brings new information about Bob's cult which spins the group off into new directions.

<snip>

This sounds like the way FATE handles it (at least the presumed default method of campaign initialization). Of course, FATE does it through its use of aspects, a mechanic conspicuously absent from D&D. (Although it does sound like Backgrounds might be picking up some aspect-y...aspects.) D&D makes this harder by "hiding" character motivations and concerns amongst all its other fiddly bits (when it even gives them mechanical voice at all.)

 

[pemerton]

In my session on Sunday I used a slightly different technique - namely, a dream sequence to sublimate the metagame into the game itself!

The details are on this thread, but the summary version is that each PC - having the first sleep since reaching Epic tier - had a dream that reinforced certain established facts about that character's goals and "location" within the established fiction (mostly the cosmology and mythic history), and then indicated some possible future goal or conflict. And these were linked in various ways, either directly (eg two PCs dreamed about the same event/conflict, though from different sides) or thematically (one PC dreamed about chaos and dissolution, one about death, one about stasis - there are points of connection there even though the dreams don't have literally shared content). I narrated each dream to the whole table, and of course this got that players talking (an ambiguous mix of in-character and out-of-character), and some subsequent events in the session allowed a lot of points to be further developed or reinforced.

Part of my reason for doing this was because I am worried that the tensions between PCs, which Epic will undoubtedly exacerbate, are going to split the party before the campaign reaches 30th level, and so I wanted to get some things a bit more out in the open at the table, so the players can acknowledge the various commitments of the PCs, and what each feels is at stake, and take that into account in a more deliberate way in their play.

So this was not a group template in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s style, but helped do a similar sort of job.

GMing "blind", and just hoping the game will muddle through, is in my own experience not very reliable. Hussar, I hope your game turns around!

 

[N'raac]

Going back to the idea of group templates and why I like them. Again, going to summon @Kamikaze Midget to see if he would like to add anything.

In my current Dark Sun campaign, we do not have a group template. We've recently added two new players who are not invested in the campaign the way the longer players are. We also have one player who has recently changed characters, so, fitting his character into the mix is another problem. And, we have just wrapped up a fairly lengthy plot arc that has left us in a fairly comfortable position.

The problem is, no one knows what to do next. There are a couple of possibilities, but, because no one wants to step on anyone else's toes, we haven't really pushed for any direction. Additionally, the DM has been reticent to give us a strong push in any given direction because he wants us to drive the campaign. So, effectively, for the past three sessions, we've been staring at each other like middle schoolers at a dance. No one wants to make the first move, and, because we lack enough information and lack information on how to get more information, no one's really taken up the mantle.

So basically no one has any impetus. It sounds from your "everyone is comfortable" comment that maybe that campaign has ended. You're on to a new campaign, with many of the same characters. Movie sequel, new season, whatever you want to call it, the histry is wound up. This is, perhaps, a weakness of the "exclusive focus on the present goal" model. In sme games, there are sie threads that might expand into a larger arc later, side issues that might catch attention for later followup, etc. But here, we don't have the opportunity to go back and investigate that strange structue in the desert, or catch up with that interesting NPC we hire for that one mission - we had no extraneous details before, so no threads to pull on now.

With a group template, this should never happen. New characters, when they get added, have to go through the templating process to make sure that their goals are linked to existing characters. And the existing characters gain new links, outside of play, to the new characters. So, Suzy brings a new character to the group and Bob's cult background is leveraged to link Suzy to Bob, but, also, Dave's character get's linked to Suzy as well. The web simply grows and shifts as new characters are added or subtracted.

So why do no characters take action? Are all their goals achieved? If so, perhaps it is time for new characters - the old ones are played out. But it doesn't sound like you are tired of them. So what's left for YOUR character to do? Throw that out on the table and see who takes you up on it. You are complaining that no one will take any initiative, but you are part of the group that is refusing to take any initiative. I think the bigger concern from your final comments is GM burnout. Is it time to shelve the game for a while and let him recharge? Maybe that provides an opportunity for players to consider the goals of their characters an see if there's some common groun to explore. I'd also suggest the players toss the GM their character goals and ideas indepenently and see what that sparks, but it sounds like your GM is saying "you guys drive the bus", which seems to be what you, at least, want.

You have spent 125+ pages telling us the players should not be waiting for the GM to hand out breadcrumbs. Why are you waiting for breadcrumbs from the GM and/or the other players? Maybe throw down the gauntlet. "Hey, guys, it's seemed kind of aimless for the last few sessions - maybe we could brainstorm where we want the game to go between now and the next session/at the next session"? Adding some ideas of your own to start the ball rolling would not hurt.

 

[Ratskinner]

GMing "blind", and just hoping the game will muddle through, is in my own experience not very reliable.

I think that depends on expectations at the table. I mean, back in the day, it was typical to start PCs without motivation (heck without a name, at times) and only acquire sophisticated motivations/goals through play. I've noticed that the OSR games I'm playing in tend to change significantly over the course of the game. What I think happened historically is that some people started to expect/want that sort of mature-campaign interaction and tension right from the campaign start. Which, honestly, I think is harder to do. There's something a little less visceral about character motivations coming right out of the gate. On the other hand, without explicit discussion of such, motivations can become a muddled or simply lapse.

 

[Hussar]

You have spent 125+ pages telling us the players should not be waiting for the GM to hand out breadcrumbs. Why are you waiting for breadcrumbs from the GM and/or the other players? Maybe throw down the gauntlet. "Hey, guys, it's seemed kind of aimless for the last few sessions - maybe we could brainstorm where we want the game to go between now and the next session/at the next session"? Adding some ideas of your own to start the ball rolling would not hurt.

Well, believe it or not, mostly because I really am not the loudmouthed jerk you've consistently tried to paint me as and I do try to game from consensus instead of simply over riding everyone else at the table.

But, because no one else at the table has any real goals, and because the group, really, has zero reason to actually be together, it's pretty hard to step up and say, "Hey, guys, I've got this goal that is only related to me and no one else in the group. Wouldn't it be really cool if we all went and did that?"

Again, if you have a group template, this sort of lull never happens. There is no "my goal that is completely unrelated to anyone else in the group". It's a lot easier to get things past the point of inertia when you have more than one lone voice in the crowd.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think it's because no one wants to step on any toes.

I think it's because most of the players fundamentally expect a plot-driven game, and the DM is more interested at this point in a (less intensive) character-driven game.

And also because none of us want to follow up on the threads he's dangling, or we follow up on them only to come to dead ends.

The example that comes to mind is that it's not like there's nothing going on in this city. There are ghouls underground coming up for some reason. There's a giant golem straddling a dead river. There's dwarves mining iron. It's the Liberation Day festival. It's a big, interesting city, with a lot of stuff going on.

But our characters have been trained by the campaign to be cautious. It's Dark Sun, so the "deadliness" is reinforced. The campaign also started with us on the run from a sorcerer-king. We've made a habit of stumbling into places of power and shaking up the bees there ("Riding the Kank"). There's no visible end-point to any of these plot threads, no obvious benefit to us. Why would we care about ghouls hitting some rich people when there's every chance we'll get in over our heads and kill something we shouldn't? We investigated rumors of an old river temple, but didn't find anything. The dwarves aren't doing anything obtrusive (and actually supply the party with an ample supply of wealth). The arena's events don't seem to have much for the half the party that's made up of spellcasters.

There's a status quo that is being maintained. There's a lack of urgent conflict. Nothing stands between us and what we currently want (which is to enjoy the Liberation Day festivities).

We can perhaps make this easier by better advertising our motivations, but I think the main driver of this is simply that the DM's on a big time crunch: he can't prepare for much.