D&D Obsessions or Minimizing Exposure and Pixel Bitching

[Lanefan]

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".

Or, relentlessly trying to find ways to do things differently "because we can", whether ultimately advantageous or not.

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?

A further factor is that the early systems were more or less rules-light (or were often made so by individual DMs) compared to what we've seen over the last 15 years or so, thus giving Calvin a much bigger sandbox to play in; and Calvin likes big sandboxes. On the flip side, rules-heavy systems don't like Calvin, don't play well with him, and at those times when he does rear his head don't really know what to do with him. And so, players who cut their teeth on rules-heavy systems are naturally going to approach things differently than those who started with 1e or - more recently - with some sort of OSR system; if Calvin-style play is or can be part of the game sooner or later it'll happen, as your group A have found.

I suspect, though, that "Calvin-derived pleasures" are just a part of what's driving your group A; you're noticing it more perhaps because it's so markedly different to how your groups B and C approach things.

Lan-"who once had a PC Cavalier in his game named Sir Kalvin of Hobbes"-efan

 

[chaochou]

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.

Yes. I've gone through the same process of getting players who are accustomed to the trappings of Pendragon, Cthulhu, White Wolf and L5R in the right place to play HeroWars, Fate, Apocalypse World, etc

And yes, it takes time and is, frankly, quite hard work which will inevitably result in some disappointing sessions. I called a game of HeroWars after a single session after realising that it just wasn't going to work with that game at that time with those players.

I think starting with one-shots is a good thing to do because it frees people up to realise that there can be no 'gotchas' in a game where you have a disposable character who gets played that one time. Fiasco is great too - it's a one shot with no stats, no system to 'game' and the expectation that everything goes horribly wrong for your character. It's quite liberating

I'd recommend Shab Al-Hiri Roach too, if you can find a copy. Crazy good fun, total PVP one-shot with a dice mechanic to resolve conflict and alien mind-controlling cockroaches. Who could ask for more?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why not? Really, why not?

As I said, because it's a meaningless tautology. The distinction I thought I saw you make up-thread was that it wasn't the game that was conditioning players to be risk-adverse, as if that were some flaw of the game, but the 'genre' that required risk aversion.

the point is that the genre (emulated or intrinsic) sets expectations in the player.

But, if the game /defines the genre/, then you're right back to the game, itself, being 'at fault' for setting those expectations.

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.

Like breaking any other bad habbit, I suppose.

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.

Well, I guess that'd be true. I'm not sure how meaningful it is. They learned different systems on a casual level, rather than a single one on a deep level.

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?).

Meh. One of the things that appeals about a TTRPG system is that it takes something (heroic fantasy) that vaguely corresponds to life (which is wildly unpredictable and utterly beyond our control in the final analysis), and renders it systematic, understandable and controllable. It also takes something - storytelling - that we were previously consumers of, and makes us producers. Both are empowering.

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). ...
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)!

I don't really think 'genre' has much to do with it. D&D is a game and early D&D lent itself to certain sorts of play, genre emulation not being a big part of it. Umbran considers that 'D&D created it's own genre,' while I consider it failing to model genre, but there's no functional difference: either way you had a game that didn't model any per-existing fantasy sub-genre, and did lend itself very strongly to the kind of play you describe.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd recommend Shab Al-Hiri Roach too, if you can find a copy. Crazy good fun, total PVP one-shot with a dice mechanic to resolve conflict and alien mind-controlling cockroaches. Who could ask for more?

I'm confused. Alien mind-controlling cockroaches? I wasn't aware that there were any other kind of cockroaches

But that does sound like a little slice of heaven!

Yes. I've gone through the same process of getting players who are accustomed to the trappings of Pendragon, Cthulhu, White Wolf and L5R in the right place to play HeroWars, Fate, Apocalypse World, etc

And yes, it takes time and is, frankly, quite hard work which will inevitably result in some disappointing sessions. I called a game of HeroWars after a single session after realising that it just wasn't going to work with that game at that time with those players.

I think starting with one-shots is a good thing to do because it frees people up to realise that there can be no 'gotchas' in a game where you have a disposable character who gets played that one time. Fiasco is great too - it's a one shot with no stats, no system to 'game' and the expectation that everything goes horribly wrong for your character. It's quite liberating

One shots is the only way I was going to do this. I've been running dungeon crawls for the guys in group (a) for 2 + decades. They're solely old school D&D guys. In the last 10 years or so, I've been trying to get them to let me run some one off games of various systems for them. Mostly to sate my own curiosity as much as anything else. I wanted to see (1) what would happen (at all) and (2) if I could move them from skeptical to conflicted (at least). I had some inkling that what happened might indeed happen (as I've seen it before).

So, all in all, this is mostly for a laugh and, of course, science! If at any point "work" or "disappointing sessions" turn into descriptors for this endeavor, I'm going to exit stage left and nix this thing permanently. My guess is though, as you write, we could undo the hard-wired D&D impulse to minimize exposure and reverse pixel bitch given enough time and effort.

You bring up Fiasco though. This allows for illustrating the point in the opposite direction. Imagine a group of 3 players who literally have played nothing but Fiasco for the entirety of their gaming lives. They're used to "caper-based" play where things always go horribly wrong and the recounting of their play is more like Burn After Reading than Leverage (another game we can pretend they play) or Ocean's Eleven.

What happens when those reflexively port that mental framework to old school D&D dungeon crawls? Obviously I know "what happens". I mean what happens in their heads as things unfold when they're playing with other players who aren't saddled with that history and those trappings (as you put it) and what happens, personally, upon reflection. Something different? If their reflections are different and they're able to more nimbly pivot their mental framework to something more coherent, then the inevitable question would be...why?

If they were able to more effective reflect and adjust, then my answer would be because they aren't saddled with the old school D&D reward cycle and the personal investment inherent to the internalization of system and genre components (and their WTFitude) that happens in D&D.

Or, relentlessly trying to find ways to do things differently "because we can", whether ultimately advantageous or not. A further factor is that the early systems were more or less rules-light (or were often made so by individual DMs) compared to what we've seen over the last 15 years or so, thus giving Calvin a much bigger sandbox to play in; and Calvin likes big sandboxes. On the flip side, rules-heavy systems don't like Calvin, don't play well with him, and at those times when he does rear his head don't really know what to do with him. And so, players who cut their teeth on rules-heavy systems are naturally going to approach things differently than those who started with 1e or - more recently - with some sort of OSR system; if Calvin-style play is or can be part of the game sooner or later it'll happen, as your group A have found.

Rules-lite D&D? When I think of "rules-lite" I'm thinking of (1) a universally applicable resolution mechanic (or a couple of mechanics), (2) simple/intuitive (but not simplistic/barren) PC build mechanics that are coherently synthesizes with one another, (3) GMing with a clear agenda that doesn't involve tons of prep or having a jillion balls in the air simultaneously, (4) an elegant, play-perpetuating rewards cycle. I don't think of TSR or WotC era D&D for that! The closest it comes to it is Basic, but Basic is not rules lite. 4e has a lot of properties of a rules lite system (in actual play by proficient users), but there are far too many moving parts during combat resolution to even consider it.

At the most basic level, stuff like Toon, PBtA stuff (like Dungeon World mentioned in the lead post), and maybe Fate Core. I never ran OD&D, but it is likely more rules lite than any TSR or WotC era. Regarding house rules, while I feel my folder of 1e house rules made play more intuitive, sensible and wieldy, I don't think it made it anywhere in the same stratosphere of rules-lite!

I suspect, though, that "Calvin-derived pleasures" are just a part of what's driving your group A; you're noticing it more perhaps because it's so markedly different to how your groups B and C approach things.

As I noted above to chaochou, I was expecting it to one degree or another. I don't think any of the groups were really much of a surprise, I just thought it interesting.

If I could reverse field (pardon the pun - see below), consider someone who has played American Football their whole lives and only American Football. They've internalized the fundamentals (not just position technique, but rules specificities, emotional state, jargon, and game management dynamics) to an extreme degree. Suddenly you ask them to play Soccer (Football). Are they going to try to port their mental framework (parenthetical above) over to their Soccer efforts? When it (clearly) doesn't work, are they going to refuse to be malleable and clumsily continue, damaging their (and others) experience and others. Or are they going to adjust? Or does Soccer get denounced for being a crap game (or perhaps not even a game at all!)? I don't know what group (a) is going to do yet as we're still mid-stream.

Its weird. These guys are versatile and malleable in most other areas of their life. Just not this one.

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I'm sure you don't mean that approach is bad (period). I'm sure you mean that it is a bad habit to try to fit a square peg in a round hole by importing one mental framework (which is suitable for what it is suitable for) into an arena where it doesn't mesh. Correct?

Beyond that, any thoughts on the above?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Rules-lite D&D? When I think of "rules-lite" I'm thinking of (1) a universally applicable resolution mechanic (or a couple of mechanics), (2) simple/intuitive (but not simplistic/barren) PC build mechanics that are coherently synthesizes with one another, (3) GMing with a clear agenda that doesn't involve tons of prep or having a jillion balls in the air simultaneously, (4) an elegant, play-perpetuating rewards cycle. I don't think of TSR or WotC era D&D for that! The closest it comes to it is Basic, but Basic is not rules lite. 4e has a lot of properties of a rules lite system (in actual play by proficient users), but there are far too many moving parts during combat resolution to even consider it.

Heh. I try to remember to mentally cross out 'rules lite' and write in 'familiar' when reading comments about D&D. Don't always succeed, but I try. The benefits of being very familiar with a complicated system are very close to those of adopting an unfamiliar, but simplistic one.

[MENTION=996]I'm sure you don't mean that approach is bad (period).

I think you could make the case for it being a pathological play style, but, no, what I meant was that taking that style into other games where it isn't as heavily incentivized is a 'bad habit'.

So, all in all, this is mostly for a laugh and, of course, science! If at any point "work" or "disappointing sessions" turn into descriptors for this endeavor, I'm going to exit stage left and nix this thing permanently. My guess is though, as you write, we could undo the hard-wired D&D impulse to minimize exposure and reverse pixel bitch given enough time and effort.

Is it really worth it? Wouldn't introducing a group of new-to-gaming players bring as much to the broader hobby?

 

[mflayermonk]

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.

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.

I would like to call forth an analogy from J.R.R. Tolkien's the Hobbit and the episode with Smaug.

For killing an Ancient Red Dragon, the lakeman Bard receives 14,450 XP.


For sneaking into the dragon's treasure horde and stealing the gold while the dragon became someone else's problem, Bilbo and the dwarves received 500,000 XP (and GP too).

 

[Umbran]

As I said, because it's a meaningless tautology. The distinction I thought I saw you make up-thread was that it wasn't the game that was conditioning players to be risk-adverse, as if that were some flaw of the game, but the 'genre' that required risk aversion.

But, if the game /defines the genre/, then you're right back to the game, itself, being 'at fault' for setting those expectations.

Except there isn't *one* "the game". We aren't talking about a single edition. We aren't even specifically talking about the rules as written, but the game as played - over may years, possibly in different groups. We sometimes talk about "playstyle" - that's essentially a genre. I'm talking about much the same here - a set of expectations of what you get, and how you should proceed, at the table.

Like breaking any other bad habbit, I suppose.

Yes. That is, if you recognize you even have the habit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except there isn't *one* "the game". We aren't talking about a single edition.

Maybe not a single edition, but yes, "the game" in question is D&D:

(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 OP doesn't specify an edition or multiple editions, but they're long-time players, the formative experiences were almost certainly in AD&D or it's co-contemporary versions like B/X or BECMI. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] can clarify that if he likes.

 

[Manbearcat]

Heh. I try to remember to mentally cross out 'rules lite' and write in 'familiar' when reading comments about D&D. Don't always succeed, but I try. The benefits of being very familiar with a complicated system are very close to those of adopting an unfamiliar, but simplistic one.

That is actually pretty brilliant. I suspect that you're correct that folks mean "familiar" when they say "lite". It does double duty as it eases communication and explains quite a bit of edition war and general D&D culture phenomena.

Is it really worth it? Wouldn't introducing a group of new-to-gaming players bring as much to the broader hobby?

Worth my time? Maybe not. But again, these are long-time pals so its been a project I've been angling at for some time (to sate my curiosity if nothing else).

However, while it is serving to introduce these guys to different games, it iis also serving to introduce new folks to the hobby (both the sort of old school D&D I've run since a lad, the heroic fantasy version of Dungeon World, and other systems/genres with Dogs and MHRP).

Maybe not a single edition, but yes, "the game" in question is D&D:

The OP doesn't specify an edition or multiple editions, but they're long-time players, the formative experiences were almost certainly in AD&D or it's co-contemporary versions like B/X or BECMI. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] can clarify that if he likes.

The games I run are either for a long term stable of characters for house ruled AD&D (level of dungeon varying and characters varying depending on dungeon level) or little one-offs of B/X. Two of these guys started off with OD&D (of which I have never run). One of them has a home RC game he runs.