Apparently adventurer WAS a profession

[Celtavian]

Re

Joshua,

It is difficult for me to empathize with your view because I have never followed perfectly the D&D paradigm. I use the D&D game purely as a set of rules and modify according to how I wish the story to go.

I also have zero difficulty modifying where I see fit. I modify rules to fit my vision, not what people call the "D&D paradigm". As far as I am concerned, there is no paradigm. There never really has been. D&D is a base concept with a base set of rules, and the game rules were never meant to be a restraint to the imagination, though this may occur for some.

I guess I have been fortunate to have players that enjoy developing their characters above and beyond the normal boundaries of D&D. I don't think I have ever played with pure hack & slashers who accumulate treasure and care little about story.

The Tolkien books are my favorite fantasy books of all time. I usually attempt to contrive a Tolkien type feel to my games. I don't have difficulty doing this with the D&D rules. I even attempt to have my characters speak in a Tolkienesque manner. Heck, I like to write poetic songs for my clerics just to do it.

For me, Tolkien has very little to do with magical power, and everything to do with heroics. So that is where I concentrate my efforts, on building epic storylines that require great heroics on the part of the players to achieve victory.

Just because your mage can cast Time Stop or Wish doesn't mean you can't incorporate such magnitudes of power into a heroic campaign. You can be heroes with high or low magical power.

No, standard D&D magic doesn't emulate a particular literary world, and I would think that one would have to build a game system specifically suited to a particular literary world to have such a magical system.

There really is no standard system of magic that is the same in all literary worlds. How can anyone possibly expect the D&D system to have a system of magic according to what fantasy gamers have read?

Even what people have read doesn't conform to any standard magical world. Tolkien's magic is not like magic in the Arthurian legends. I am quite sure the magic displayed in the Wheel of Time is not alike magic displayed in Middle Earth. It is an impossibility to have a standard magic system that conforms to all literary worlds.

Once again I state, you want a system that conforms perfectly to your desired magical system. That you must do on your own. D&D is perfect vehicle for such an undertaking, or D20 if you would prefer. There are no problems with the inherent system, never has been. It is a toolkit, pure and simple. It responds to the whim of the DM.

I am sorry if I seem condescending, but I am put off all too often by people who complain about the overall D&D game system when it really is a flexible system and always has been. Nothing is set in stone and 3rd edition is the most customisable version I have ever seen.

I also wonder if you have ever played GURPS fantasy. That seems right up your alley. Low magic system. No level based advancement, everything is skilled based. A very customizable skill set and advantage system.

I would think GURPS fantasy would be the system of choice for players who desire to play low magic fantasy games capable of emulating literature.

 

[barsoomcore]

Celtavian, I think you're missing the point.

I'm not hearing JD say (forgive me for jumping in here but it's lunch hour and I have time) that D&D is a bad system. It sounds like you two are saying the same thing, really, which is that one has to tweak and alter the system in order to get it to replicate what one sees in various fantasy novels. I know that Joshua's come up with a variety of alternate magic systems (as have I) for his campaigns.

What I see as the real issue here is the notion that what works (storywise) in a novel is not what works (storywise) in an RPG.

For example, you say you create a Tolkeinesque feel in your campaigns. And perhaps you do (but with clerics? How does that work?) But that's not the point. What JD is saying is that you can't reproduce a story like LotR in a game. Because who's going to want to play Frodo, and be good at nothing, never win any fights, never get any stronger or braver or smarter or more powerful, just suffer endlessly and get forgotten by everyone except a few elves living far away?

Who's going to want to play Boromir, and what do you do with them after the party has killed them or kicked them out?

Who wouldn't want to play Gandalf or Aragorn and get to have all the fun, be the decisive force in any conflict, be the heroic leader and so on?

Frodo and Sam do basically nothing but walk for the last two-thirds of the story. Who wants to play those characters and how do you run sessions where half your party spends six months walking uneventfully across Middle-Earth while the other half fights endless battles, performs daring rescues and wins the love of ladies and stout-hearted warriors all around?

RPG structure and novel structure are necessarily different. They have to be, because a good game has to be fun for everybody. A good novel doesn't have to be fun for ANYONE. I refer you to the novels of Steven Erikson.

This leaves out such notions as game balance, which can be very important in a game but has nothing to do with a novel, and systematic consistency, which again a novelist doesn't have to worry about (Conan's just defeated three hundred swordsmen with his bare hands but when the bad guy's lieutenant points his sword at the hero's throat, Conan surrenders. NEVER HAPPEN in an RPG). Nobody's writing an RPG session. Nobody can decide what this episode is going to show, or what the themes of this campaign will be.

Blah blah blah.

I'm eating lunch, and you want coherence? Dream on.

 

[Desdichado]

Celtavian -- I think basically, I just feel like griping and you are positive about D&D in general is our only remaining difference! I agree with pretty much everything you say, and you seem to be agreeing with most of what I say, but somehow our perceptions of what that means are miles apart.

I've been very clear that really only small things need to be modified to achieve a very different feel. I don't want to play GURPS, I actually really like d20. I just don't particularly like "straight from the book" D&D, at least not for every campaign, because I like to change things to a different feel, preferably one that resembles the environments and settings of the fantasy literature that brought me into the hobby in the first place.

That, and maybe we've had a history of different players. You say the groups you've gamed with have no difficulty adapting D&D to the style of game you want. I, on the other hand, have had to adapt the rules in order to adapt the style, because otherwise D&D tends to play out pretty much the same way. The mechanics do influence the style, and the mechanics were designed to facilitate a certain style over other styles. If you disagree with that, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, although as I said, I'll certainly (and gladly) concede that the changes one needs aren't really major in order to get a style more to my liking.

Barsoomcore, I did say that, but it was somewhat tangential to my original position -- you can't tell the same type of stories exactly because the media are too different. Great novel stories usually make lousy RPG plots, and to a certain extent, the opposite also holds true. The examples you hold out are certainly great examples of that principle. But I am saying more than that -- there is an almost "ingrained" D&D outlook I've seen with most folks that I play with. When I play D&D it feels like I'm playing D&D, no matter what I try to do to influence the style or tone. When I start changing some of the rules, I get the kinds of results and reactions I like from my players.

The system certainly isn't broken, it just isn't exactly what I want without some tweaking.

And before we lose sight of the original intent of my post, in particular, I don't like the concept that PCs are wandering adventurers looking for someone who happens to have a problem that a band of adventurers would solve. That much, at least, can be solved without changing any rules, if you have a DM (and some players) who are willing to work around it. The Freeport story hour, and Sagiro's Story hour are great examples of what I prefer to do -- have the PCs work for either some patron or some patron organization that gives them more of a raison d'etre for their adventures than simply running around hoping the local country baron needs you to clear out a cave full of orcs.

That was really all I said, and I didn't mean to go off on systems issues at all. I think, Celtavian, if I understand you correctly, that after going the long way around, that's sorta what you're saying too -- good plots make good games. To me, the concept of an adventurer is a plot that's kinda run it's course; it's difficult for me to find interesting and novel things to do with that idea anymore, having tried just about every permutation of that concept that I can over the years.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Joshua,

I agree that D&D straight "out of the box" is a hack n' slash game of treasure accumulation. It does require modification and exceptional players to capture the feel of a literary plot.

I just feel the game designers really do attempt to emulate a literary feel to the game within the framework of the rules. Most game designers are very well read, and literature is often what fuels their imagination when designing games. I definitely feel this applies to module designers. Many module plots would make interesting books if a good writer were to develop them.

I understand your point. I just feel that obtaining a literary feel to games has more to do with the players and the DM than the game rules.


Barsoomcore,

Tolkeinesque feel in your campaigns. And perhaps you do (but with clerics? How does that work?) But that's not the point. What JD is saying is that you can't reproduce a story like LotR in a game. Because who's going to want to play Frodo, and be good at nothing, never win any fights, never get any stronger or braver or smarter or more powerful, just suffer endlessly and get forgotten by everyone except a few elves living far away?

To me, Tolkien is about heroics and a certain type of game play where players act in an honorable, courageous, good manner. I did not say that I desired to play in Middle Earth, which is entirely different than playing in a Tolkienesque manner.


As far as developing a story plot that emulates Tolkien's, I could do the following:


1. A Frodo-type would be an NPC. The PC's would be some of the figures escorting him. Even when the group broke up, and Frodo went his own way, he would still be an NPC. His mission would be a success, but the players would never know that until it was done since they would be battling elsewhere attempting to divert the eye of Sauron.

2. Gandalf might be an NPC as well, though I might let a good roleplayer that doesn't abuse power run him.

3. Everyone else could well be a PC.

4. I would never attempt to perfectly emulate Tolkien's story. I would create my own and work in the twists and turns in an interesting manner.


The campaigns I like to run are always story first and the mechanical stuff second. We usually do one battle a game session, then a bunch of roleplaying.

Even this last session, we spent about 20 minutes in-character discussing what to do with orc women and children. These kinds of situations are important to character development, so I make sure to allow the players ample time to roleplay their position. Character development is essential to story development and I always strongly encourage players to think about their characters and develop a consistent personality.

I think for myself, it helps that I like to read and write. If I didn't, I feel it would be exceedingly difficult to know what you have to do to create a story-like feel to a RPG.