Adventure Design

[thormagni]

True. It is the "acted" part that sometimes bothers me. A skill check can be just as much role-playing as acting out a conversation. If a character decides to make a Diplomacy check instead of combat, then that shows a choice and is role-playing. A lot of players I hear about (mostly by reading RPG boards) insist on such things being "acted-out" yet do not insist on "acting out" combat. To me, roleplaying is about making choices appropriate to the character played, not about pseudo-acting.

What RPGs in general and D&D in specific are desperately in need of is a verbal combat system. Instead of a simple, single opposed die roll, there should be a system of social interaction resolutions as varied and subtle as the combat mechanics. Instead of getting a +2 for charging an opponent, you would get a +2 to a diplomacy check for asking a leading question, or some such...

But... To my mind, without the "acting" then the game is just a war game with some added mechanics. If every social interaction in the game boiled down to a simple "I roll Diplomacy" or "I roll a Bluff" then a lot of the fun would be gone from the game. It should at least be "I am going to try to convince the guard that we are royalty..." rather than "I roll a Bluff check..."

I mean, if the social interaction system of the game was as varied and exciting as the combat resolution system, people would be more willing to use it, I would think.

For example, a good portion of the movie Wedding Crashers is all about the two main characters schmoozing their way into wedding receptions. They have a complete arsenal they use to try to get their way in. And I can see how it would be a lot of fun to role-play those sorts of interactions in a game.

What a lot of GMs forget, I believe, is that it is very possible for a player to be much smarter, wiser, charismatic than the player, as well as stronger, more agile and healthier. We just take for granted that the character can perform feats of strength and dexterity much greater than the player, but forget that a smarter character can figure things out more easily than an average intelligence player. I may not have a lot of skill at smooth-talking someone, but my charismatic character would. There is no real guidelines that I am aware of to simulate this in the game.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

There is a system presented in one of the Signs and Portents issues that presents that sort of social 'combat' mechanic - and the Messantia boxed set has another.

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

In the end...who the FRACK cares! As long as you and the players have fun with what you do, to HELL with everything else.

As long as there are prostitutes, I'll be statisfied.

As long as there are dart boards that look like Raven on the conan forums, I'll be satisfied.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Your "who cares" attitude could be applied to just about any topic up for discussion here. Who cares about the outcome of a ball-game? Well, those who enjoy playing the ball-game. Who cares about the merits of one game vs. another game? Those who enjoy making such comparisons. This conversation is not about any sort of life-or-death deal we should all care about. I just like chattering with you all. I enjoy finding out what other people think on a certain topic.

I also like discussing economics, but, really, what is the point? I certainly am not going to set economic policy for the U.S.A. or any other nation, but I still enjoy talking about it. I may not be able to set the policy or standard for RPG adventure design, but I sure like talking about it all the same!

Besides, what if I had taken a "who cares" approach when I decided to put up my Inzeladun site five years ago? What if I had taken that approach when I decided to convert Conan into d20 stats? Well, I would not be a published author, would I? I would be making considerably less money each year, wouldn't I? Perhaps if I come up with some good ideas and write better adventures because of people's ideas here (and the correction of any of my own erroneous ones), then... well, then I guess I care.

If I just keep my opinions to myself and do not risk throwing them out there, then no one will notice me. Keeping my thoughts to myself is akin to brewing the best beer on the planet but not sharing it with anyone. As it is, folks sometimes do care and are willing to pay perfectly good money just because I also cared to say something or do something. Brewing the best beer on the planet and keeping it to oneself may be personally satisfying but it does not pay the bills. Sometimes it pays to risk putting it out there. By gathering the thoughts of the august assembly of people who read this board, I am gathering the ingrediants for my version of beer - a wonderful brew that I intend to share with everyone I can in hopes of earning money and recognition. To do that, I need to be the best. In that regard also, I care. If I am missing something important in game or adventure design, I need to know it.

You are playing with some pretty impressive people. My site is award-winning and linked to by a great many sites, not to mention my writing credits. John has been picked to run a demo game for a major RPG company for a vital fantasy series by a highly-regarded author, not to mention the contacts he probably makes while volunteering for Gen-Con. Chris is going to be able to sit with Mongoose at the ENnies and has managed to secure several play-tests for us, not to mention site manager for the afore-mentioned award-winning sites. Bob can write some first-class, high-quality rules and feats on par with anything Monte writes. If he wanted to actually get started in the industry, he'd certainly have my backing. This does not happen as random events; we each reached for the opportunities and did something to get noticed, to be seen as the best choice available, if not simply as the best.

Who knows who might be reading this? Perhaps if you come up with a fabulous, award-winning idea, someone who cares might notice and pay you for your thoughts. If you ever want to make money at playing your favourite games, you should care to discuss those games and topics. If you want to be the best at playing those games, then you should also care. Finding out how other people do it leads to innovation and greater satisfaction. Ignoring what other people do, or dismissing what they do as unimportant or unworthy just leads to stagnation.

That said, what makes a good adventure for you, Odavacar? Did you see what happened to Raven on the other forum? Do you make a blog about your brewing activities - the successes and failures? It would be neat if a major beer company took note of your efforts and bought a recipe or hired you.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Sorry about my long-winded rant there. I despise seeing the "I don't give a darn and neither should anyone else" attitude. I have to deal with that from my students all the time. If someone doesn't care, then someone should just ignore the thread and leave it to those who do care. The "it is all so stupid and pointless" argument, while technically correct in the ultimate scheme of time and space, is really an argument in defence of mediocrity, stagnation and resignation to the way-things-are. That argument does not lead to better understanding or growth in general.

Even if the discussions on here are nothing more than a moment's entertainment, then that is fine, that is no reason to rain on people's parades or pee in other people's Cheerios just because a person finds the current discussion not his cup of tea.

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

Perhaps then I should say: I don't care as long as I'm having fun. If I'm not having fun, then I don't care to play.


I guess in the future, I need to elaborate more on my pathetic small posts.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

And what creates a fun environment for you? How can I create adventures you will find fun? That is part of what I am trying to determine. Saying that you don't care what I do so long as you find it fun is not terribly helpful. Obviously you do care because you stated that if you are not having fun, you will not play. So, what can I do to make it fun more consistently?

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

<rant>

No, I am just saying that if I don't find any game fun, be it you, Mark, John, Bob (not fond of cthulu games, but the board game has made me want to try it again, I would like to get a 3+ player game of Arkham horror sometime! Or another game with you Vince!), or Chris, then I'll decline to play. [hmmm, this doesn't make since.....ignore it if it also doesn't make sense to you!]

The only suggestion I have, is try to be unpredicatable, not to make games that seem to be the same.

I will say this, in the past with Conan, it seemed that the typical game involved a beginning combat, then a bit of clue seeking, a bit more combat, then some more role playing, then a final battle. I admit, I'm not the best roleplayer in the world. Combat is fun, as is roleplaying. Which I do need to work on. I try my best.

It seemed to have a pattern. Perhaps some individuals liked this, but, I saw a continuos pattern, until one game I thought the pattern was shattered.

The game started within a particular city, a lot of, what I thought monsters were put out. Until it was said that it was citizens of the city. Then of course combat started.

NO! I'm not saying this is a bad strategy, I'm just saying that it seemed the same over and over. A change to the game would be nice.

Sometimes I feel I'm an NPC (my own fault here). Watching the events go by, then combat starts, my character dies, roll up another, then play again.

If I hated the game, I'd not roll up another character, I'd say I quit and not come back. I'm quite determined to stay alive. This is a challenge for me.

This may seem that I'm ranting on a lot of negatives to your game, but, I remember a lot of fond memories of your old games.

Do I have any suggestions to make your games better? Yes, make them like you use to, back in the old 2nd edtion days.

Please ignore any sentence fragments and bad spelling errors.

</rant>

~~~~~

So, when do we play Conan next?


~~~~

I blame all the above on SEARS. Stupid website had plenty of pool tables for sale online, though, none were available, unless you called the central office.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Do I have any suggestions to make your games better? Yes, make them like you use to, back in the old 2nd edtion days.

Well, that was a different game with a different style of play. My 2nd Edition games focused on character and world development. The adventure itself was actually a secondary concern. Inzeladun is a fantasy world. By the time 3rd edition came out, I was more interested in a sword-and-sorcery world.

Sword and sorcery is a subset of the larger category of fantasy. I want my current games to meet the criteria of the sword and sorcery genre. Sword and sorcery is a genre wherein a violent and often amoral swordsman battles sinister agents of dark sorcery. Light-hearted magic does not belong in sword-and-sorcery games. Helpful magic does not belong in sword-and-sorcery games. These are worlds of obscene shapes moving stealthily in the darkness, sacrificial smokes blotting the skies and the world resounding to the clash and clamour of cold steel against cold steel. The emphasis of Sword-and-Sorcery stories is a contrast between the might of the sword or flesh against the raw and awesome power of the occult.

This is not a game about Good vs. Evil. There are no alignments in sword-and-sorcery games as might be seen in High-Fantasy games. The savage ambitions of men, even the so-called heroes, are often self-serving; in effect the protagonists may perform good works but the motive is almost never altruistic. Perhaps the barbarian is saving the girl, which could be seen as good, but perhaps he is saving her because he wants her for himself. However, he is facing the darkest of ancient sorceries to get her, which is what sword-and-sorcery is all about. Sword-and-sorcery is a tale of the power of the natural (the sword) brutally pitted against the power of the unnatural (the sorcery).

What about ‘role-playing’? Role-playing is taking on the role of someone else and making choices that are appropriate to that role. Too many people equate acting with role-playing. Players do not need to be actors to be role-players. Choosing to make a Diplomacy check instead of an Initiative check or attack roll is role-playing if it is appropriate for that character. Role-playing in a sword-and-sorcery game is not about peaceful discussions between characters, all ‘role-played’ (acted) with false-voices and only speaking ‘in-character.’ Sword-and-sorcery is about the violent confrontation of physical might against sorcerous might. This struggle is brutal and is not about going to the market and ‘role-playing’ a minor transaction between the character and some droll merchant amusingly played over-the-top by a skilled Games Master. While such encounters arguably may add some verisimilitude to the game, it really is not what sword-and-sorcery is all about. In Robert E. Howard’s stories, Conan usually has a sword or axe or other weapon, but the origin of said weapon is almost never discussed. It is unimportant to the struggle ahead; only the fact that he has a weapon is important. Just let the Player Characters have whatever weapon is appropriate to the region and send them headlong into frights and fights.

I tried doing that with 3rd edition, which didn't quite work out. No one wanted to give up helpful magic and good-guy magic-users. However, it seems to work very well with Conan. But the focus of the game is still on battling the weird and the unnatural, not on character development or world development. (Character and world development can still be there, but that is just not where the primary focus is.)

I can still run 2E style games (with 3E or any other kind of rule set one might want), but they would not be sword-and-sorcery style games because the focus is wrong. The reason there is so much combat in my current games is because Sword-and-Sorcery is pretty much a big grudge match between swordsmen and sorcerers. Anymore, I leave character development to the Players and I just don't worry on world development at all. I am not much interested in my old 2E style of character and world development, unfortunately. I really like exploring the sword-and-sorcery style game, something I have been hunting for since I was 13. But if you guys want an old-fashioned game, we can take a short break and revisit Inzeladun, perhaps.

 

[thormagni]

What about ‘role-playing’? Role-playing is taking on the role of someone else and making choices that are appropriate to that role. Too many people equate acting with role-playing. Players do not need to be actors to be role-players.

Vince,

I'm not really agreeing with you here. I mean, sure, you don't have to be an Oscar caliber character actor to engage in a role-playing game. But to a great extent, to "role-play" you need to get into your character's head, thinking as the character thinks and trying to do things that the character would do. I think it involves taking on a role, in effect method acting. Every group I have ever played with has people speaking as their character. The moments of "in-character" interaction are what makes it role-playing, to me at least.

(For example, Val Kilmer was interviewed in the special edition Tombstone DVD and there are several parts where he is obviously inside the role of Doc Holliday. He is not just pretending to be Doc Holliday or a guy trying to guess what Doc would do, but actually momentarily living inside the role of Doc Holliday. For me, that is what role-playing is like. I AM my character for a bit, when it is going well.)

Otherwise, you are basically playing a tactical combat game, a war game if you will, with tacked on negotiation-resolution elements. Are you suggesting that when it comes time to talk to the merchant or interrogate the prisoner that instead of trying to say what your character would say and "act" out his response, that you would just announce "All right I want to talk to him. I roll a Gather Information with a +7. I rolled a 13. What does he tell me?"

If that is the case, should the GM then just present you the information without any sort of
"in-character" inflection: "All right, your 13 beat his DC of 10. He tells you that there is a group of bandits outside of the town."?

I'm just saying that it seems like you are suggesting that the actual "role-playing" aspect of the game is no longer necesary to you. The part where you put yourself inside the character's head and experiences, rather than dispassionately deciding what the character does or doesn't do.