D&D Obsessions or Minimizing Exposure and Pixel Bitching

[Manbearcat]

So I've run a few various one-off games (Basic, Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Marvel Heroic) with a mix of (a) long time, exclusively D&D players, (b) casual players of lots of different games and genres, (c) more or less TTRPG virgins. These are all adults, 30s-40s.

With respect to approach to play, group (b) and (c) have shown a decent bit of overlap betwixt the two groups. Historically, this has matched up to my experience in running games for these two groups. They don't play recklessly/foolishly but they're definitely not conflict averse. The level of zoom/amount of information required for them to make decisions and declare actions is pretty similar. I set each scene with an above-modicum (not minimalist, but certainly leaning in that direction versus the opposite) amount of relevant information and context. One or two player questions later (often different from each other) and they're ready to proceed with their respective actions. Sometimes, no questions required.

The 3 players representing group (a) has a propensity for consistently trying to minimize risk/exposure to the highest degree possible. Their approach to action declarations is much more steeped in "reverse pixel bitching" (the expectation that every tiny bit of spatial/temporal/context minutiae will inevitably be relevant and therefore must be "parameterized" before they can execute their mental model). Unlike (b) and (c), the number of questions required to proceed with action declarations doesn't border on excessive. It tramples over excessive with enough force to make the Pamplona Bull Run blush.

Group (b) and (c) have expressed vexation with the effect on play that group (a) has while group (a) has, unsurprisingly, expressed like vexation with the approach of the players making up group (b) and (c). Now these are one-offs, so "vexation" manifests as pretty mild, adult ribbing. If these were campaigns (which I outright refuse to do with this mix), it wouldn't take too terribly long before either one side capitulated/compromised/reined it in, or ribbing turned into legitimate table strife.

Now this is no mystery to most of us. We either are a member of group (a) or we've run games for many-a-group (a)-player. What got me thinking about this is the nature vs nurture question. The guys in group (a) are long-time friends of mine (relative to those in groups b and c who I have a fair amount of history with or very little at all) and each run their own home D&D games (house ruled 1e or RC). Their careers/trades they ply have little to no overlap. They're all athletes, and they're naturally competitive. However, they don't have a propensity for conservative, risk-averse play with respect to ball sports (I would say it is pretty close to the exact opposite with two of them). While each possesses varying levels of shrewdness and pragmatism in their daily affairs, none of the three exhibit anything remotely resembling their D&D mental framework when working or playing outside of it. When I ask them to play games outside of the D&D sphere, they universally bring their D&D dispositions with them. They HATE Call of Cthulu games because of the lack of agency/ability to strategically power play. When the system calls for abstract scene resolution or genre logic, they chafe horribly because a player's OODA Loop/the permutations they undertake will be either slightly askew from group (a)'s orthodox/SOP, or more deeply so.

There is definitely a wee bit of nature with these guys, but it seems to me that the overwhelming input in the formulation of these guys mental framework/approach to play here is nurture. Any opinions/anecdotes? Does D&D generally attract players of that mental framework or does it cultivate it? I guess the next question would be, why doesn't that cultivation extend to other reaches of life? Or does it (in your experience)?

 

[Tony Vargas]

(a) long time, exclusively D&D players,

The 3 players representing group (a) has a propensity for consistently trying to minimize risk/exposure to the highest degree possible. Their approach to action declarations is much more steeped in "reverse pixel bitching" (the expectation that every tiny bit of spatial/temporal/context minutiae will inevitably be relevant and therefore must be "parameterized" before they can execute their mental model).

... it seems to me that the overwhelming input in the formulation of these guys mental framework/approach to play here is nurture. Any opinions/anecdotes?

Nothing too surprising, there. Classic D&D had a lot of 'gotchyas' in deceptive monsters, cursed items, and ubiquitous/arbitrary traps, and that style which enshrines coping with such things has never completely gone away, even as the published systems have moved away from those specific features. You either internalized that attitude, explored other modes of play (not always in other systems), or exited the hobby when you couldn't take it anymore (quite possibly in the middle of your first time trying D&D).

Does D&D generally attract players of that mental framework or does it cultivate it?

I think it mostly just repelled players who can't handle working within that framework, kept them out of the hobby or set them looking for other games (even though there's no one clear alternative, leading to the hobby being so 'niche' outside of D&D). And in the sense of the system, itself, mostly earlier in D&D's history. Some of the old guard who have stuck with the game all this time may tend to perpetuate it, even as it's gone from necessity to play that way, to merely one of several styles the game readily lends itself to.

I guess the next question would be, why doesn't that cultivation extend to other reaches of life? Or does it (in your experience)?

TTRPGs are to an extent, an escapist hobby. Don't get enough risk/thrill in IRL, reckless play may have an appeal. Feel a lack of control IRL (not unusual, in spite of the modern world being nominally relatively 'safe'), you may want to exercise a lot of control and foresight in your gaming.

So what you do when you game can be neatly silo'd off from RL attitudes.

 

[Umbran]

I am seeing a similar effect in my own group.

We had a 5 year campaign of classic Deadlands, which, if you are not conflict averse, you get into a fight where you can easily be permanently maimed or killed. The party was built for conflict avoidance combined with the ability to put up a nigh solid wall of flying lead when conflict did appear.

With the end of that game, we chose to take on a short arc of Atomic Robo. Complete genre shift - a comic book game in which Action is the name of the game (and the characters are basically "Action Scientists". As a FATE-based game, character death only occurs if the GM so wills it. But, even though they know this intellectually, most of the group hasn't internalized it. This chafes on the couple of players who just want to get *on* with it, instead of having analysis paralysis.

So, I might suggest that at least part of the difference is an assumed-genre thing. Internally, the long-term players assume a very risky genre. The new folks don't have that same base assumption.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sure there's some genres, or at least sub-genres, where the protagonists die like flies or get maimed pretty regularly or otherwise need to be very risk-adverse, and actually are. Survival horror, for instance. The 'high fantasy' and S&S sub-genres that D&D nominally takes inspiration from aren't quite that extreme. Boromir is the only member of the Fellowship o/t Ring to die, for instance, and that was an almost moralistic tale, where he came close to betraying the hobbits only to redeem himself by defending them to the death. In most other fantasy stories, you have a protagonist that survives and wins through in spite of not only facing extreme danger repeatedly, but approaching said extreme danger pretty recklessly much of the time.

Maybe the fantasy trappings were deceptive, and D&D was really more of a treasure-hunting genre? You have a group of cooperating rival treasure hunters who aren't exactly disappointed that their individual shares get bigger each time one of the others dies, but are each highly motivated to live long enough to get their share, which requires cooperation, since no one of them can get the treasure alone. I know I've seen the odd caper movie or thriller that went along those lines, though I can't think of a specific one.

Or, maybe some of the attitude of D&Ders is in reaction to the less plausible genre tropes? The bold hero who takes pointless risks and makes no preparations to speak of, only to survive and win through blind luck, the aid of some love interest who dies later, and/or outright Deus ex Machina. So, in contrast, play a band of cautious heroes who take full advantage of every piece of gear and magic trick they have available to not only win, but win without sticking their necks out. It'd make a boring movie, but it's a vindication, of sorts, for anyone who's ever yelled at a screen or thrown a book across the room because the hero (or villain) was just that stupid.

 

[Celebrim]

As I've observed many times, RPing is the only hobby where the more experience a person has in it, the worse they tend to be at it.

 

[Lanefan]

So I've run a few various one-off games (Basic, Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Marvel Heroic) with a mix of (a) long time, exclusively D&D players, (b) casual players of lots of different games and genres, (c) more or less TTRPG virgins. These are all adults, 30s-40s.

For the record, I'm in group (a), only a bit older...

The 3 players representing group (a) has a propensity for consistently trying to minimize risk/exposure to the highest degree possible. Their approach to action declarations is much more steeped in "reverse pixel bitching" (the expectation that every tiny bit of spatial/temporal/context minutiae will inevitably be relevant and therefore must be "parameterized" before they can execute their mental model). Unlike (b) and (c), the number of questions required to proceed with action declarations doesn't border on excessive. It tramples over excessive with enough force to make the Pamplona Bull Run blush.

...but if I had to play with these guys I'd get bored out of my mind after the first long planning go-round. This would very quickly lead to my character(s) regularly going off plan and doing something interesting - maybe or maybe not rash or ridiculous, depending on the particular character - but *doing* something instead of sitting around making plans. My character would either get rich or get killed (probably both, in that order) and there'd inevitably end up being an argument at the table over playstyle: they'd get mad at me for going off plan and I'd get mad at them for never taking any risk...good ol' Law vs. Chaos. Yet risk is what it's all about, in the end; and not getting on with an adventure is the best way to never finish it.

If I had to DM these guys, wandering monsters would become my best friend after a while.

Does D&D generally attract players of that mental framework or does it cultivate it?

Both, but the good ones eventually pass through that phase and just get on with it; plan when it's really needed and take a chance the rest of the time.

Lan-"plan is a four letter word"-efan

 

[S'mon]

I don't generally see this with my veteran players, I think it depends on their early experiences and how they've been 'trained'. Actually some veteran players will keep rushing in recklessly despite frequent PC death in earlier editions - I have a 5e D&D player who is delighted he can now finally play 'heroically', the way he always did in more lethal versions (using B/X, Labyrinth Lord, AD&D etc) without his PCs always dying the way they did before.

Just as some old-edition players are trained to be highly tactical and risk averse, you also see 3e players trained to expect CR-balanced challenges who get annoyed at 'unbalanced' encounters, so I definitely think 'nurture' has an impact. But many other players stick to their preferred style despite incentives to do otherwise - so 'nature' is important too.

 

[howandwhy99]

Any opinions/anecdotes? Does D&D generally attract players of that mental framework or does it cultivate it? I guess the next question would be, why doesn't that cultivation extend to other reaches of life? Or does it (in your experience)?

I believe it is you are nurturing a mental framework unknowingly in Group C. Groups A & B simply have different ideas of what to expect from a game, expectations having nothing to do with "true nature" ideas. D&D is a game, not collaborative storytelling. Group B sounds raised on the latter, while Group C sounds like they've been nurtured into the latter due to the "games" you've listed yourself as running. In other words, not games at all, but activities where deciphering what is going on is fundamentally a futile endeavor. By your description, it sounds like Group A is who are being let down having actual games supplied to them. For their group I suggest switching to cooperative or competitive boardgames, wargames, and cardgames so they might have play games.

 

[Umbran]

The 'high fantasy' and S&S sub-genres that D&D nominally takes inspiration from aren't quite that extreme.

It isn't he genre that inspired the game that's at issue. The genre they *experienced in play* is what trains them. If they got handed their butts in the past, or got strongly rewarded for being paranoid (like they did in my Deadlands game), then it can take quite a bit to "untrain" their thinking when the situation is different.

 

[Umbran]

As I've observed many times, RPing is the only hobby where the more experience a person has in it, the worse they tend to be at it.

I'm not sure that's a fair claim, or, at least, it is carrying connotations that imply things that aren't as true as we might think.

I think it is about patterns and expectations. I think it isn't that the older player is worse at role playing - they are very good at it, in one particular style. Breaking them out of their patterns and expectations can take some work, once they are established. The new player doesn't have those burdens at the very start, but they develop them quickly.

For example, I had a roommate years ago, who got himself a girlfriend who had not played RPGs before. So, he started running games for her. Just her. A year later, she joined in the games (same system) with the guy's other players. Complete disaster. She had gotten used to a game that was *all* about her. She had no notion of things going horribly awry, had no fear of character death, and had no ability to share spotlight.

It was only after then playing some games with a different GM, in a different system, without her boyfriend in the room, that she apparently had an epiphany that maybe some of the issues she was seeing were from her own style and approach.

Anecdotal, of course, but I think demonstrative of the issue.