D&D General Creativity?

[bloodtide]

And I can't believe I missed this on the way through. I absolutely and completely could not disagree more. Every single player at the table should care about the game and all the players. And the best players I have played with are the best precisely because they do care about everyone at the table. And both the players and the characters.

Sure it's nice to say that boded part, but it's just words.

It might be possible in some theoretical game that you might have a group of near perfect good human beings that care about the game and each of the players. Maybe.

Though chances are not every player in a group is so good and pure.

A huge number of players really only care about their character in the game....nothing else. They care only about their own person fun.

And that does not even mention the casual players that just show up to waste some time and maybe drop some dice, and they don't really care about anything.

This in a step on up game means that they are better at teamwork. And in an emotion driven game it means they are caring about and supporting the other character for far better and more interesting scenes.

If you don't care about either the game or the other players then what are you doing there?

Many players only care about themselves and their fun: it's the only thing that matters to them.

A lot of players are Dark Showoffs: they basically want an audience for whatever they do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure it's nice to say that boded part, but it's just words.

It might be possible in some theoretical game that you might have a group of near perfect good human beings that care about the game and each of the players. Maybe.

Though chances are not every player in a group is so good and pure.

A huge number of players really only care about their character in the game....nothing else. They care only about their own person fun.

And that does not even mention the casual players that just show up to waste some time and maybe drop some dice, and they don't really care about anything.

I didn't say everyone would. I said everyone should. And it's not just words. I'm currently running two groups; a technically open D&D table (I say technically open because of my seven regulars I had six at the start of last January, and one of them now commutes two hours each way) and a closed Apocalypse World table of four. In my D&D table I'd estimate one or two of the players cares about the other PCs. In the Apocalypse World table you know how many do out of four? All four of them.

This doesn't require them to be "good and pure". It requires them to be self-interested and interested in roleplaying. And to have worked out that they get better results if they riff off each other. It's also a lot easier with the smaller table.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That set-up is way out of bounds:

I've had no chance to determine for myself whether he in fact has Karen or is merely bluffing (e.g. by going to her house and seeing if she's there)
--- if bluffing, I've had no chance to call that bluff and see what he does
I've had no chance to determine or learn whether Karen is still alive or whether he's already killed her (or whether she's escaped on her own)
I've had no chance to roleplay through any negotiations and-or my actual surrender
I've had no chance to attempt to escape before or during the tie-me-to-the-gurney process

Nope, sorry, not gonna fly.

It'll fly when all nine hells freeze over in D&D. But Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and D&D are very different games and what works in one doesn't necessarily work in the other. For MHRP it's pushing it but just about within bounds. Meanwhile taking a Hold Person spell from D&D and using it in MHRP on a player in combat would be out of bounds.

That the mechanics say I'm not in a disadvantageous position while the fiction clearly says I am is a disconnect in itself.

I'd disagree that it's not disadvantageous. But the penalty for being strapped to the gurney would last only as long as the gurney. We've been through the equipment difference. But here's the Black Widow captured and tied to a chair while being threatened. How much of a disadvantage do you think she's really at?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When I talk about other games, I'm addressing the things like "anyone in the other game can just alter reality at will", often this is PART of the game rules...but it does not have to be as it's often a social agreement. And when a player can alter reality, all players must be on the same agreeable page. Like:

Example 1: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player C just randomly says "Oh we find a secret escape tunnel and get away!" All the players high five and say "great game" and that happens. It ONLY works are all the players have agreed to massive harsh limits on "they can do anything" to make the game work. Everyone must always agree to make this game work.

Example 2: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player Z randomly says "My character shoots out ten 100d100 lightning bolts!" And THAT is what happens when you don't have a group of toned down players. Players will do wacky all powerful, and most often only for their character and their ego. And THAT is why D&D does not let players alter reality and had DMs there to stop such shenanigans.

I'm really interested in what game you think works like this. I mean, maybe there is one, but clearly there must be a bit more to it. I mean, as straight up examples of some hypothetical "there is no limit to what the players can declare" I don't see how that would be a game at all, and it would have as much role play and story/plot development as any random improv session!

Bluntly, I know of no RPG whatsoever in which either of these examples even remotely resembles any description of play. Sure, if you simply added a rule to your D&D game, straight up, "the players can just decide any old thing happens if they say so" then your D&D game will turn into story time or whatever, it won't be D&D anymore. Extrapolating that into "Any game with player-side fictional authority cannot work" is just silly. In our Blades game I described my character's new rival (I killed the old one). I just straight up described who this rival is, her relationship to my character, he motives, and in a very general way what sort of abilities she has. Why is that kind of thing a problem? In that game, BitD, at various points 'complications' can arise (mechanically there are several sources of these). The GM can, and most likely will at some point, invoke my character's rival as the source of some of the complications he faces. Given that I created the NPC as my rival, he may well simply declare during some down time that a 'clock' now exists in which said rival is manifesting as a threat, and I must either resolve the clock somehow, by a DTA or a Score, or else it will advance until 'bad thing' happens. This could also be established when I ask for a devil's bargain, or even as a result of a roll of 3 or less during some action I take if it follows from the fiction.

The point is, I, as a player, was completely free to construct whatever rival I felt like, only bounded by the limits of making it fit appropriately within the milieu and genre. There is no issue with this. Heck, I could have done a very similar thing in a D&D game for that matter. I mean, BitD REQUIRES you to have a rival, its a part of the game, but you could have one in D&D. I doubt it would really matter much what sort of rival a D&D player decreed for their character. There's a lot of ways it could show up in play, the details would simply depend on the nature of the rival. A high level rival might put obstacles in your PC's path indirectly (minions or whatever) while one that was on a par with the PC might literally show up and get in your face. You could even have a weaker rival that simply appeared as a foil! I'd also note that it wouldn't be THAT helpful to a BitD player to have a plot power like "have any arbitrary resource you want." I mean, sure you could definitely create certain fictional situations with 100 coin, but it wouldn't break the game at all, fundamentally.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure it's nice to say that boded part, but it's just words.

It might be possible in some theoretical game that you might have a group of near perfect good human beings that care about the game and each of the players. Maybe.

Though chances are not every player in a group is so good and pure.

A huge number of players really only care about their character in the game....nothing else. They care only about their own person fun.

And that does not even mention the casual players that just show up to waste some time and maybe drop some dice, and they don't really care about anything.



Many players only care about themselves and their fun: it's the only thing that matters to them.

A lot of players are Dark Showoffs: they basically want an audience for whatever they do.

So, if I show up somewhere to DM, I get a lot of deference. I'm old, I can trot out 1970's era RPG rule sets, a LOT of dice, minis, whatever. Heck, I can grow a pretty convincing neck beard (my wife will actually prevent this, but IN THEORY! . The point is, if I sit down at a table A) its probably filled with people that I first gamed with BEFORE 1984. If that isn't the case, its probably their friends, who are almost certainly cool. Even if it was a random table at the old FLGS, I'm going to be listened to. Yeah, OK, there is always the possibility of some idiot. Honestly, I think the last time someone 'left my table' not of their own will Ronny Raygun was still (pretending to be) President! I can pull off a lot, which maybe not everyone can. OTOH I generally just ignore BS, I'm hard to irk.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm really interested in what game you think works like this. I mean, maybe there is one, but clearly there must be a bit more to it. I mean, as straight up examples of some hypothetical "there is no limit to what the players can declare" I don't see how that would be a game at all, and it would have as much role play and story/plot development as any random improv session!

Again, I am not talking about any published game. I'm not talking about The Hopping Frog Game(tm) or any other game. I'm talking about a Play Style: the way the meta game is played.

Bluntly, I know of no RPG whatsoever in which either of these examples even remotely resembles any description of play. Sure, if you simply added a rule to your D&D game, straight up, "the players can just decide any old thing happens if they say so" then your D&D game will turn into story time or whatever, it won't be D&D anymore.

Again, I am not talking about any published game. I'm not talking about The Hopping Frog Game(tm) or any other game. I'm talking about a Play Style: the way the meta game is played.

The point is, I, as a player, was completely free to construct whatever rival I felt like, only bounded by the limits of making it fit appropriately within the milieu and genre.

Except your limit is pointless. You think the limit is X. Player two thinks it is Y. Player three thinks it is Z. And so on. This is my point about game styles like this only work if all the players are on the same way. Do you think the limit is X? They answer Yes! Then the two players high five and start a group.

But here's the Black Widow captured and tied to a chair while being threatened. How much of a disadvantage do you think she's reallyat?

The problem is the cinematic movie vs an RPG. See everyone in the movie, even the villains, know Black Widow will break out and will auto win. You don't normally do that sort of thing in a normal RPG. There is no "ok, on round three you will automatically break the chair and jump up to auto hit goon one for 10 points of non lethal damage ".

The bigger problem is a great many players really do freak out if they even feel that have lost even a tiny bit of power. If their character even just gets 'stuck' with their back to a wall, they can start to loose it mentally and emotionally. And it's a ton worse when the character is disarmed, tripped and dropped into sewer pool and have several guards point spears at them: right there many players will feel loss and crushing doom, so much they simply can't play the game.

For a lot of players, as soon as the slightest thing goes slightly wrong......they give up at best, and stop playing at worst. And this is the normal 'good' players.

A lot more players are super over sensitive. The charterer fails a check or takes some damage, and they are ready to quit RPGs forever.

So, if I show up somewhere to DM,

Different rolls for different dice?

Sure if your a luke warm middle of the road type you can mostly get along with everyone.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again, I am not talking about any published game. I'm not talking about The Hopping Frog Game(tm) or any other game. I'm talking about a Play Style: the way the meta game is played.

So you are not talking about any real game. You're talking about an abstract concept that you can not point to one single example of to share. Right, gotcha.

The problem is the cinematic movie vs an RPG. See everyone in the movie, even the villains, know Black Widow will break out and will auto win. You don't normally do that sort of thing in a normal RPG. There is no "ok, on round three you will automatically break the chair and jump up to auto hit goon one for 10 points of non lethal damage ".

Of course there is no "ok, on round three you will automatically break the chair and jump up to auto hit goon one for 10 points of non lethal damage ". Because that would be a terrible way to handle things and is such a railroad I didn't even think of it as a possible option for how to run a scene like that in D&D.

What instead you do is start with some sort of effect, aspect, condition, or whatever the game uses. D&D is not a great example of this. But if I were running that tied to a chair scene in D&D one simple method would be to create the chair as an NPC with the following stats

Chair with handcuffs.
AC 10, 10hp.
Petrified, Immune to psychic damage​

A character grappled by the chair is Restrained but can move at half speed. Escape DC 15​

And then the player gets to decide how long to stay in the chair for and when to try and break it or to wriggle out.

The bigger problem is a great many players really do freak out if they even feel that have lost even a tiny bit of power. If their character even just gets 'stuck' with their back to a wall, they can start to loose it mentally and emotionally. And it's a ton worse when the character is disarmed, tripped and dropped into sewer pool and have several guards point spears at them: right there many players will feel loss and crushing doom, so much they simply can't play the game.

For a lot of players, as soon as the slightest thing goes slightly wrong......they give up at best, and stop playing at worst. And this is the normal 'good' players.

A lot more players are super over sensitive. The charterer fails a check or takes some damage, and they are ready to quit RPGs forever.

You know I have literally never seen this, and my players lose semi-regularly all of missions, equipment, and character death. And this is in the last few weeks and on my semi-open table where the players range from early 20s to mid 50s (far from the youngest or oldest I've DM'd for). Nevertheless you claim it happens. And you claim here that you've seen such things hundreds of times.

I suspect there's one common link between all those hundreds of players of yours. Just as there's a common link between my dozens of players where I've never seen this happen.

Sure if your a luke warm middle of the road type you can mostly get along with everyone.

I don't think anyone would describe me as lukewarm or middle of the road.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: players who lose their naughty-word when things go badly for their character(s):

You know I have literally never seen this,

Sad to say, but I have; though fortunately not too many examples. Adults in every case, too.

I don't DM for those people any more.

 

[bloodtide]

So you are not talking about any real game. You're talking about an abstract concept that you can not point to one single example of to share. Right, gotcha.

Well, I did give examples on previous pages. But, sure, how about one more:

The DM has a Cool House Rule: once a day a player character can "suddenly remember anything"(and Alter Reality) something they bought/found/got earlier and have. So the general intent is to help the more casual players that can't be bothered to look through the equipment lists and the players without enough real world/game savvy to figure things out "for real" ahead of time.

Now this works perfectly when all the players agree and think in step with the DM exactly: For characters to "remember"(alter reality) that they have something small, but useful when needed to keep the game flowing/make the game more interesting. So for a halfling to 'remember" they have a bag of marbles, or the fighter has a dagger in her boot or the wizard has a bottle of ink. Though it all falls apart when a player abuses it to get things they want. So Bob "remembers" he found a very expensive diamond or an anti magical rock.

You know I have literally never seen this, and my players lose semi-regularly all of missions, equipment, and character death. And this is in the last few weeks and on my semi-open table where the players range from early 20s to mid 50s (far from the youngest or oldest I've DM'd for). Nevertheless you claim it happens. And you claim here that you've seen such things hundreds of times.

You have never seen a player freak out, ever? Never seen a player whine, complain or cry? Never seen a player get sad or depressed? Never seen a player give up? Ok, so maybe you have only played with perfectly, well adjusted individuals? Ok, if that is what you say. I can tell you the world is full of people like I described, even if you have never, ever met even one.

I suspect there's one common link between all those hundreds of players of yours. Just as there's a common link between my dozens of players where I've never seen this happen.

I don't think anyone would describe me as lukewarm or middle of the road.

Well, I do have an amazing effect on people and players. But it's not like I personally am responsible for all the negativity in the world.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When I talk about other games, I'm addressing the things like "anyone in the other game can just alter reality at will", often this is PART of the game rules...but it does not have to be as it's often a social agreement. And when a player can alter reality, all players must be on the same agreeable page. Like:

Example 1: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player C just randomly says "Oh we find a secret escape tunnel and get away!" All the players high five and say "great game" and that happens. It ONLY works are all the players have agreed to massive harsh limits on "they can do anything" to make the game work. Everyone must always agree to make this game work.

I don't know of any game that works even remotely like that. The vast majority of "story" games (at least the ones I'm familiar with) require that new actions either flow from the established fiction (so "we find a secret escape tunnel!" simply isn't something the player can just declare, it must fit with the established fiction) or arise from the established stakes or values (I don't know these as well so I am speaking somewhat obliquely.)

Example 2: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player Z randomly says "My character shoots out ten 100d100 lightning bolts!" And THAT is what happens when you don't have a group of toned down players. Players will do wacky all powerful, and most often only for their character and their ego. And THAT is why D&D does not let players alter reality and had DMs there to stop such shenanigans.

No "story" game I've ever heard of permits that. There's nothing special about them vs D&D in this regard. "Story" games aren't playground Let's Pretend where one player says "well I hit you for a MILLION damage" "oh yeah well you hit my BILLION SHIELD" "well now I'm using my INFINITY SWORD" "I block it with my INFINITY PLUS ONE SWORD" etc. You're talking about example games that don't exist, to the best of my knowledge. This makes the examples hard to take seriously, because they're so divorced from what actually playing "story" games is like.

It would be like describing D&D as being a game where you do nothing but roll 20-sided dice until you get 20 and then declare you've won for the evening. It has only the vaguest, most tangential similarity to actually playing D&D (rolling d20s; there's a reason icosahedra are used as symbols for D&D), and the rest is utterly unlike actually playing D&D. In exactly the same way, it's simply wrong to characterize "story" games as games where "Player Z randomly says 'My character shoots out ten 100d100 lightning bolts!' And THAT is what happens" or as ones where "Player C just randomly says 'Oh we find a secret tunnel and get away!' [...] and that happens." Neither of those is any more like playing (for example) Dungeon World than "Well, I finally rolled 20, that's a wrap for tonight's session" is like playing D&D.

Sure it's nice to say that boded part, but it's just words.

It might be possible in some theoretical game that you might have a group of near perfect good human beings that care about the game and each of the players. Maybe.

...it's literally achievable right now. That's what I've had with all but one player (who left the group within the first year of a now almost-five-year game.) All of us want everyone to have a good time. All of us care about being here. One other player has had minor issues with not giving it his all, and all it took was one adult conversation and some effort on my part to help him with his anxiety about certain kinds of play (this is his first TTRPG of any kind, so he isn't always confident with the RP side of things.)

You describe it as some sort of unattainable utopian goal, a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that practical people should ignore. It isn't. I experienced it literally just a few hours ago.

Though chances are not every player in a group is so good and pure.

A huge number of players really only care about their character in the game....nothing else. They care only about their own person fun.

And that does not even mention the casual players that just show up to waste some time and maybe drop some dice, and they don't really care about anything.

It's not a matter of being "so good and pure." It's...just a matter of being a respectful human who values the experiences and opinions of other humans. That's not rare. It's one of the prerequisites of society. If I had a player who genuinely didn't give two figs about anyone except herself, there is a good chance I would ask that player to leave the game. (That's not super far off from what happened with the one player who left early on, though the situation was more complicated than just "I'm a jerk who doesn't care about anyone but myself.") If I had a player who literally didn't care about anything at all, I wouldn't be asking them to leave, I would be asking why on earth they stay if they don't actually care--there are entertainments they could engage with that would be much more impactful than my game.

Many players only care about themselves and their fun: it's the only thing that matters to them.

I have never met these players and I sincerely hope that I never do.

A lot of players are Dark Showoffs: they basically want an audience for whatever they do.

That's...still caring about what others think, though. It's just selfishly caring about what others think--wanting others to bask in your glory or the like. But I've met plenty of people who genuinely want everyone at the table to have a good time. They think about things like, "Would roleplaying in this way upset someone else?" Or when treasure is found and it includes a fancy magic item, they consider both who could use it best and who hasn't gotten anything cool in a while. They may want an audience, but they want it because it will be something fun they have shared, not them basking in the glow of adoration.