D&D Obsessions or Minimizing Exposure and Pixel Bitching

[Tony Vargas]

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.

In other words, it's not the genre, it's the game.

 

[billd91]

I think a lot depends on the developments of local group culture rather than games. For example, the older school D&D players I know tend to be reckless as hell. Put in a deck of many things and they'll be drawing from it in no time flat as they did in the 3e game I ran. For them, experiencing the dangers of the old, classic edition was a real charge. The two most reckless also have backlogs of character ideas they're interested in trying, so PC death isn't a big deal.

One thing I've noticed in multiple groups is that D&D characters are often viewed quite differently from other game characters. The amount of emotion generated over the loss of a D&D character is tremendous, despite there being many in-game ways of recovering from death and destruction, compared to the loss of Call of Cthulhu characters where death is nigh impossible to overcome and initial character development a longer process. I suspect there may be a few factors at work here:

1) CoC characters are expected to have a high body count because of the things they face, whereas D&D has pretty much always skewed in the PCs' favor for survival (barring too much exposure to killer DMs) and that difference fosters differing levels of attachment
2) D&D tends to be an earlier, gateway experience into RPGs when the players are more likely to form less mature, less detached, emotional bonds with their characters and that sets long-standing patterns of play
3) the fantasy genre tends to generate stronger bonds between players and their PCs similar to the way fantasy serials form strong emotional bonds between characters and readers

 

[Lanefan]

I think a lot depends on the developments of local group culture rather than games. For example, the older school D&D players I know tend to be reckless as hell. Put in a deck of many things and they'll be drawing from it in no time flat as they did in the 3e game I ran. For them, experiencing the dangers of the old, classic edition was a real charge. The two most reckless also have backlogs of character ideas they're interested in trying, so PC death isn't a big deal.

You've summed up most of our crew in a nutshell.

Lan-"no risk, no reward"-efan

 

[Umbran]

In other words, it's not the genre, it's the game.

So long as by "the game" we are talking about "game in actual play", not "the rulebook".

But then, the game as played sets up a number of expectations - tropes, in effect - such that you do sort of get a genre. It just may not quite match the fictional genre used as original inspiration.

In my Deadlands case, it actually was intentional fictional genre implementation. They were supposed to be risk averse - in a western or horror, the moment before you get into a fight is supposed to be tense, and you don't whip out the guns frivolously. But some of the 10' pole and search every element explicitly to find all traps and treasure seen in some "old school" D&D games isn't a whole lot like Conan, but does fit into the "old school D&D" genre.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So long as by "the game" we are talking about "game in actual play", not "the rulebook".

Both, of course.

some of the 10' pole and search every element explicitly to find all traps and treasure seen in some "old school" D&D games isn't a whole lot like Conan, but does fit into the "old school D&D" genre.

I was thinking genre in the sense of fiction, a game might emulate a genre, but it can't define one. The sense you use "old school D&D genre" is the same that I'd use simply "old school D&D," since a game emulating a genre defined by itself is just a tautology, it's the same as just saying "the game."

 

[Manbearcat]

Lots of interesting stuff here. Looks like lots of nurtures, a few kinda-sorta natures, one "the youth is wasted on the young" but only inverted and applied to TTRPGs, and one "Manbearcat and his hippy dippy GMing is obviously the problem."

I'll address specific commentary this weekend (pretty much all of which I agree with in same way shape or form...except the stuff about me sucking...I disagree...I'm mostly awesome).

 

[Umbran]

I was thinking genre in the sense of fiction, a game might emulate a genre, but it can't define one.

Why not? Really, why not? A work of fiction can pretty much define, or at least typify, a genre (say, Gibson's Neuromancer). So, why can't a game do the same?

The sense you use "old school D&D genre" is the same that I'd use simply "old school D&D," since a game emulating a genre defined by itself is just a tautology

Except there have been things like publishers working with a new edition claiming, "old school feel". And any OSR game is trying to take the old game, rework it, but keep the feel. Genre is largely a matter of "feel".

Whether it is "emulating" a genre or just being a member of a genre isn't material to this particular discussion - the point is that the genre (emulated or intrinsic) sets expectations in the player.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

This is a pithy way to get to one of the primary issues at hand here; the operative conditioning angle and "untraining" it (if possible).

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).

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).

Total aside. I've been going to Basic for my dungeon crawl games because introducing the few new folks/casuals to my house-ruled AD&D is far too burdensome. When running dungeon crawls for the guys in group a, I use house-ruled AD&D.

Part of the fascination that I'm having with my anecdote is this. The 4 games mentioned above are diverse from both a system/play procedure and genre perspective. The folks in group B (casuals with a broad spectrum of system and genre experience) have had no trouble pivoting between any of the 4. Group A is trying to shoehorn their genre expectations (Saw horror/puzzle porn - tomb raider-murderhoboing) and personal playstyle expectations of "exposure minimization, conflict aversion, and reverse pixel bitching" onto the play experience of the other 3 games (which are not remotely about exploring lethal, creepy ruins, managing daily resources, and developing/executing strategic S.O.Ps to accrue treasure/mcguffins). Group C? This is the interesting part I think. My nephew and his friend (ages 10). They're wide eyed and full of wonder (the Dogs game is too adult themed so they aren't participating). They're just taking cues at this point and trying to develop their own mental models (which will inevitably be influenced by the adults at the table coupled with their own preconceptions and Calvinball inclinations).

So a few curiosities I have with all of this.

1) Is branching/broadening of mental models for group A going to be possible if we continue this for the next (say) 6 months. Will they be able (willing?) to pivot between the variances (play and genre expectations) of each of these 4 games? These guys are not unaware people. They understood and acknowledge these tendencies toward implementing their D&D mental model in "off-genre/system games" (via jokes). Nonetheless, they just inevitably go right back to their fundamentals when engrossed in play.

2) Is group B able to "mentally pivot" because they never reached an unrelenting saturation point/level of obsession with classic D&D protocol...and then internalized it such that reliance upon that singular mental model becomes a reflex.

3) Is there something inherent with these guys in group A that would lend itself toward what is happening? The rest of their lives doesn't comport with that hypothesis...except...what about...

4) Most of us start this as young bucks (myself I started running AD&D 31 years ago when I was 7). We all have some Calvin in us (some moreso than others). Wild imaginations. Thinking outside of the box, "rules don't apply to us" philosophy, hence relentlessly trying to find ways to "game the system". Creating mad scientist contraptions/capers and unleashing them to "find out happens." How much of old school D&D dungeon crawl trappings is an indirect appeal to our "primal Calvin nature" (hence its past and continued success?).

Is this (4) what is happening with group A? With respect to "play", they have a narrow focus on what is enjoyable. "Calvin-derived pleasures" lets call them. Obviously they don't get to entertain them in the rest of their lives (with the structure of family > careers > organized sports et al).

Personally, even today when I run those guys in group A (and other people) through Basic or AD&D dungeon crawls, there is a "Calvin-derived pleasure" I get out of it.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], thoughts on 4?

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.

You and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] have been speculating about genre's influence on this. I think this can certainly be the case where there is "genre bleed" (or at least there is supposed to be). I mean Dungeon World can support genre-play anywhere from The Princess Bride to Diablo to Conan. It is pretty nifty in its versatility. From an advertised genre perspective, porting D&D Basic player tendencies over to it certainly isn't "off the reservation" (although a bit dysfunctional if you aren't playing dungeon crawls!).

But what if I say something like. "Ok folks. You're sort of a combo of Roland from the Dark Tower series and Wyatt Earp in Dodge City or he, his brothers, Texas Jack, Creek Johnson and Doc Holiday in Tombstone. Evil and demonic influence are real, palpable things. You're an order of gun-toting Paladins meting out justice and upholding The Faith in a wild west run through with sin." Or I say something even simpler like. "Alright ladies and gents. Hate Krees/Skrulls/Thanos/Ultron/Mr Sinister/Magneto/Apocalypse/Sentinels? You're either the Avengers or the X-Men. Iron Man, you're fighting the bad guys with your bleeding edge tech while you fight "the demon in the bottle". Beast, will your mad scientist ways save the day or get your pals upset with the questionable ethics of your methods...or both?"

At that point, I'm thinking that whatever genre overlap with D&D Basic dungeon crawling they might conceive would be mildly forced and mostly in their heads (a product of their mental model curve-fitting)!

 

[GMMichael]

A lot of group (a)'s issues come from the game itself. Some reasons:

- D&D has a death clock that PCs watch constantly, called "hit points."
- A dead character means making a new one, which is typically time consuming.
- 1/3 of the Player's Handbook is typically about combat - the business of killing. More if you include spells.

You might reduce some pixel, ahem, paranoia by passing on players who engage in it, and turning your attention to more assertive players. Or my preference is to use NPCs as examples/tutors.

This latter does not mean allowing an NPC to stride bravely down the hall, straight into the decapitation trap.

 

[Lanefan]

A dead character means making a new one, which is typically time consuming.

This is very system-dependent (and to a certain extent level-dependent). Banging out a lowish-level character in 1e is a snap once you've done it once or twice. To do the same in 3e or 4e can, let's be honest, take a while.

Higher-level characters take longer than low in all editions, but the general difference remains.

( [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] I'll reply to your post when I have a bit more time)

Lan-"player of over 60 characters thus far, and counting"-efan