All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[Reynard]

Some of the most interesting stories in other mediums are ones where there's no right decision to make, just decisions with different consequences.

Emphasis mine.

Those other things aren't games.

It is obviously perfectly fine for people to engage in whatever degree of storytelling they like in their RPGs -- but that includes both "only emergent" and "next to none." Players trying to make it through and out of a trap and monster laden dungeon, carrying as much gold on their persons as possible, is still a completely viable way to play D&D -- regardless of edition (although some editions make it easier than others, or at least emphasize different things). Trying to figure out what the GM has in mind for a specific challenge is a core part of that sort of gameplay, and the GM coming up with ever more twisted traps and encounters is the way it stays fresh.

Obviously not everyone -- or even many -- plays that way. But I don't think we should just handily disregard it as a valif form. If anything it is the original form, and everything else is a development after the fact. But those "evolutions" are not inherently superior or even preferable for everyone.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Emphasis mine.

Those other things aren't games.

It is obviously perfectly fine for people to engage in whatever degree of storytelling they like in their RPGs -- but that includes both "only emergent" and "next to none." Players trying to make it through and out of a trap and monster laden dungeon, carrying as much gold on their persons as possible, is still a completely viable way to play D&D -- regardless of edition (although some editions make it easier than others, or at least emphasize different things). Trying to figure out what the GM has in mind for a specific challenge is a core part of that sort of gameplay, and the GM coming up with ever more twisted traps and encounters is the way it stays fresh.

Obviously not everyone -- or even many -- plays that way. But I don't think we should just handily disregard it as a valif form. If anything it is the original form, and everything else is a development after the fact. But those "evolutions" are not inherently superior or even preferable for everyone.

Given this is, by far, the dominant form of play in the hobby, I find it a bit funny how often it's defended as if it's actually under attack and in danger of slipping away into irrelevance. Like, the slightest hint of something else and everyone has to be reminded that how the vast majority of people play is a perfectly valid way to play. Well, like, yeah? Of course?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think there’s a balance to be found with this part of the game. Everyone’s tastes will vary a bit of course, but I think you have to allow for those wandering moments here and there. They can unexpectedly lead to interesting places, and when they do, that’s awesome.

But, at the same time, keeping things moving, maintaining a sense of momentum, is important. If we’re trying to continually present interesting choices to the players… which I read more as meaningful choices… then allowing things to get sidetracked by something that’s ultimately nothing but color is probably not a good idea.

I’m probably a bit more ruthless about that than I maybe should be. Years of games with meaningless chatter with merchants and innkeepers and the like has hardened my heart in this regard, and I tend to break out the “wrap it up” gestures pretty quickly.

I probably need to relax my impulse and let some scenes breathe a bit. See if they’ll actually go somewhere interesting/meaningful. Whatever may be gained in those scenes is something that a GM can use. I think it’s a bad idea to constantly punish players for what’s revealed in those scenes, though.

So I think you need to allow for those moments, but you also need to be ready to reel it in if nothing meaningful seems to be coming from it. And you need to temper how you incorporate the details of such scenes into play.

 

[Reynard]

Given this is, by far, the dominant form of play in the hobby, I find it a bit funny how often it's defended as if it's actually under attack and in danger of slipping away into irrelevance. Like, the slightest hint of something else and everyone has to be reminded that how the vast majority of people play is a perfectly valid way to play. Well, like, yeah? Of course?

You think player vs GM dungeon crawling is the dominant form of play now, in the modern era? Really?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I fully agree that meaningful choices are important. But then we also must consider what it is that makes those choices meaningful. And often it is establishing the context. That first hour or two of the session being spent on interacting with various NPCs is what makes the later choices relating to those NPCs meaningful and gives the required context for those choices to be informed.

 

[payn]

Emphasis mine.

Those other things aren't games.

It is obviously perfectly fine for people to engage in whatever degree of storytelling they like in their RPGs -- but that includes both "only emergent" and "next to none." Players trying to make it through and out of a trap and monster laden dungeon, carrying as much gold on their persons as possible, is still a completely viable way to play D&D -- regardless of edition (although some editions make it easier than others, or at least emphasize different things). Trying to figure out what the GM has in mind for a specific challenge is a core part of that sort of gameplay, and the GM coming up with ever more twisted traps and encounters is the way it stays fresh.

Obviously not everyone -- or even many -- plays that way. But I don't think we should just handily disregard it as a valif form. If anything it is the original form, and everything else is a development after the fact. But those "evolutions" are not inherently superior or even preferable for everyone.

One of the reasons I think this play loop went out of style is how exhausting it can be. Some GMs leave it in the dungeon, and/or to scenes of RP importance. A few GMs beat the players with this in every single interaction. Eventually, everything is a round of paranoia in which the PCs are trying to puzzle out where and who the enemy is. I think there is place for that, but not every time you buy a canteen or a pint of beer. Better check your sleeping bag for ticks, spiders, and scorpions because snakes alone is not enough. Don't ever go to the out house without the cleric etc..

 

[Reynard]

One of the reasons I think this play loop went out of style is how exhausting it can be. Some GMs leave it in the dungeon, and/or to scenes of RP importance. A few GMs beat the players with this in every single interaction. Eventually, everything is a round of paranoia in which the PCs are trying to puzzle out where and who the enemy is. I think there is place for that, but not every time you buy a canteen or a pint of beer. Better check your sleeping bag for ticks, spiders, and scorpions because snakes alone is not enough. Don't ever go to the out house without the cleric etc..

Sure, overdoing anything is a bad thing. See: cilantro.

One thing I try to establish early if I am running a "good old fashioned dungeon crawl" is that not every surprise is bad. Sure, there are traps and mimics and nasty tricks -- but there are also healing fonts and good faeries and beneficial anomalies. Just like you can't have every family member be held hostage or murdered by the villain, or every henchman turn traitor. Otherwise you get just what you mentioned: paranoid players refusing to do ANYTHING without 30 minutes of very careful poking and prodding. That kills meaningful choice, too.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You think player vs GM dungeon crawling is the dominant form of play now, in the modern era? Really?

I expect he meant this part:

Trying to figure out what the GM has in mind for a specific challenge is a core part of that sort of gameplay,

Not specifically about dungeon crawling, but just about trying to figure out the solution to any problem that the GM presents. Such an approach isn’t limited to dungeon crawling, though it is of course a core part of it as you say.

But I think it’s a core part of a significant amount of play of all types.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Those other things aren't games.

Very true. But to me a game that's really just 20 questions, except with dice, isn't all that much of a game either, and not very interesting. But that's my take and preference, and you're right that it's how plenty like to play. I'll always try to point out, though, that not only are there other ways than the one way that's been around since the 1970's, but that it's notable that newer games increasingly steer in a different direction. I'm not talking about one new game. Tons of them.

 

[payn]

Sure, overdoing anything is a bad thing. See: cilantro.

One thing I try to establish early if I am running a "good old fashioned dungeon crawl" is that not every surprise is bad. Sure, there are traps and mimics and nasty tricks -- but there are also healing fonts and good faeries and beneficial anomalies. Just like you can't have every family member be held hostage or murdered by the villain, or every henchman turn traitor. Otherwise you get just what you mentioned: paranoid players refusing to do ANYTHING without 30 minutes of very careful poking and prodding. That kills meaningful choice, too.

Agreed; except cilantro. Cant be overdone. Muy Bueno.