Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Sadras]

If my players are telling me what kind of monsters they want to fight, and what sort of rewards they want then my response is "Awesome!". Far better to know what they're interested in seeing than making stabs in the dark.

We seem to have completely different playstyles. I guess I cannot comprehend a Caramon Majere wishing to fight Draconians, and so the DM (or authors) introduced them so he could fight them. I also missed the part where after each kill, Tasslehoff loudly recited which items, magical or otherwise he wanted to find on his dead opponent before checking the deceased's treasure pouch. What am I saying, with your playstyle preference a Tasslehoff could probably do this while pick pocketing. Go Kender!
I also do not enjoy movies where I can predict the whole movie, but I'm not saying your style is badwrongfun, just not suited for my group.

As far as 18 point ability scores and point buy go ... how dare the players want to play the characters they want to play, eh? Back in the good old days, if you wanted to be a paladin you had to wait for the rolls that LET you be one. None of this new-fangled "playing characters you enjoy playing, for the fun if it". What do these kids these days think this is, a game or something?

I'm referring to min-maxing and the 18's reflect a predisposition by players towards gamist tendencies. And given the number of min-maxing threads I'm guessing this was a problem for many DM's (verismilitude and all)

Sorry, but I play the game to have fun, and as far as I can tell, so do the people I play with.

Apology accepted, not that I think you needed to apologise, but it was kind of you.

As choosing to place an 18 in an ability has never, in my experience, impeded someone's ability to roleplay, or reduced anyone's enjoyment of the game, I'm a little unclear on why people choosing to do so is supposed to be somehow a bad thing.

I did not say it is a bad thing, only that it reflects a predisposition by players for gamist tendencies which can affect in-game roleplaying. This actually has been covered a while back in this thread.

If you're trying to link "players, given the opportunity, will choose stats that are unlikely to be randomly generated" with "players, given the opportunity, will act in ways contrary to their character's stated beliefs" ... I find that rather a stretch.

I'm reflecting a player's predisposition for gamist tendencies which could influence character's actions which might conflict with a character's beliefs. Hence I mentioned that the DM makes for a better adjudicator than the player since he does not possess these biases.

 

[Manbearcat]

While i agree with you that disruptive players are not a good thing, and childish behavior is a problem, i dont really see it stemming from failure self analyze playstyle.

Conversely, I probably couldn't vehemently disagree more. I find lack of self-awareness and introspection to be the primary causal mechanism of social discord in leisure activities specifically and social activities generally. Being considerate of others is paramount. But being functionally considerate of, and empathizing with, others is as much a by-product of firm understanding of self, and consistent presence of mind, than it is anything else.

In fact, I find people who are not entrenched in rpg theory or filled with a point of view taken from online message boards are generally more open minded and easy to game with than those who have very strongly held opinions about the way they like to game. Even in myself, largely due to the ideas i have been exposed to through online discussino and my own self assesment, i really have to turn it off at the table....otherwise i would be the one disrupting things. In the end, i am usually a bit happier with a table where the players have a wide variety of tastes and preferences. This is obviously something of a side issue, but i am not so sure incoherence in design or at the table is a bad thing.

I'm not really talking about established rpg theory here. You don't have to know a thing about The Big Model or metagame mechanics to understand that you, Johnny and Suzy want different things out of play (eg; system complexity, serious versus silly, genre conceits, GMing techniques, player authority) and they appear to be at tension with one another.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For me people dividing into tribes and erring worked up because there is some playstle cross over at the table is a bigger source of discord than lack of awareness of one's play style.

Don't get me wrong, knowing what you like and what you don't is fine and good. I have no problem with people understanding what they like. But the kind of self-analysis you appeared to be suggesting seemed a bit overboard to me. I think it is possible to take preference and style too far. For example, I love martial arts movies, and I have discovered over the years that in particular I love wuxia films and television shows. Beyond that I have identified further sub-groupings that appeal to me more than others. Knowing that has been helpful because it enabled me to find movies, films and books I would not otherwise have encountered. But were I to go deeper, and really examine for possible reasons why I live these things, I start to just draw lines in the sand, where instead of exposing myself to new and interesting martial arts movies and books, I establish criteria for what I am willing to watch. Because you framed this as the problem being an incoherent table, I saw what you said as connecting to this, and it is growing a problem in my opinion among gamers. Knowing what you like seems to have gone from being aid to help connect you to products you might enjoy more, to limiting who you game with, reducing your exposure to different styles of play, and creating more homogenous groups. I think these are not positive developments for gaming, and I have seen over time that the lines have hardened a bit. There have always been divisions. It is just now there are more, and they are over extremely subtle things. By all means don't play stuff you hate. But for my group, I want a broad range of people, and am not looking for folks who have really drilled down and examined their preferences beyond some basic things. Anything more detailed and subtle like what we are discussing here, I expect people to not turn into an issue at the table (i.e. if you like sandbox and world exploration as I do, don't piss all over a GM or player who happens to approach the game from more of a story approach).

So while I have my preferences, which I am sure you and the other regular posters here have a handle on, I can also sit down to a game of Gumshoe or Dungeonworld if someone in my group really wants to play those. And I can make my setting exploration campaign a little more dramatic if a couple of players in my group seem to like that stuff. My expectation though is you aim for the average of the group. So if I have three pemertons, and one Nraac, I am probably going to take a much more relaxed and subjective approach to alignment. But if it is three Nraacs and one pemerton, we are going go with the more standard approach. For most people I game with, this sort of thing isn't an issue. The tables in my area have always been a blend of people and styles, so folks are used to that.

So yes, knowing what you like, what other people like, can be useful. I just see it becoming as much of an obstacle to fun when it goes too far (and online, a lot of what I encounter on all sides of the gaming spectrum goes too far).

 

[Grydan]

We seem to have completely different playstyles.

Perhaps, though given some of what you say in the rest of the post, there also seems to be a degree of misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Perhaps you're perceiving greater differences than actually exist. Or perhaps not.

I guess I cannot comprehend a Caramon Majere wishing to fight Draconians, and so the DM (or authors) introduced them so he could fight them.

You're conflating character desires with player desires. The two need not be (and often aren't) synonymous.

I might choose to play a character who is absolutely terrified of snakes. If you ask the character, then he'd gladly tell you he'd rather fight anything than have to face snakes ... but I think it's rather clear even without stating it that there's not much point in telling anyone my character is afraid of snakes if I, as a player, don't want that to become relevant by having my character repeatedly placed in situations where he has to deal with snakes.

If, on the other hand, I genuinely don't want to deal with snakes, for whatever reason, it's far more effective to explain to the DM that I'd prefer it that we never encounter them than to make that desire part of any character I play.

I also missed the part where after each kill, Tasslehoff loudly recited which items, magical or otherwise he wanted to find on his dead opponent before checking the deceased's treasure pouch. What am I saying, with your playstyle preference a Tasslehoff could probably do this while pick pocketing.

Again, conflating players with characters. A player providing a wishlist of items to the DM gives the DM a resource to ensure that they can place desirable treasure in an adventure. If I want my players to be motivated to have their characters seek out treasure, rather than have treasure be something that they take when they find it but don't actively seek, then is it not useful to know which things (or types of things) they find interesting?

Just because the player wants a particular item, and has reason to believe that you will make it available at some point, does not mean the character they are playing even knows such an item exists, or what it does.

Characters might have wishlists too. Those may or may not coincide with their player's wishlists. A character stating, in game, what they'd like to find is not the same thing as a player having let the DM know.

Go Kender!
I also do not enjoy movies where I can predict the whole movie, but I'm not saying your style is badwrongfun, just not suited for my group.

Knowing what (some) of the enemies they're going to face are doesn't tell them what numbers of them they're facing, when they're facing them, where they're facing them, what those enemies will be trying to achieve ...

Knowing that (some of) the treasure you'll find will be things you wanted doesn't tell you what you'll have to do to find it, where it is, what costs you'll have to pay, or whether you might not find you like something else you find more.

It's less "I can predict the whole movie", more "I've seen a trailer".

I doubt many people went to see 12 Years a Slave under the impression that it would feature an archaeologist fighting Nazis, for instance.

And while you're not saying my playstyle is badwrongfun, you do seem to be going out of your way to mischaracterize it and present it as ridiculous.

I'm referring to min-maxing and the 18's reflect a predisposition by players towards gamist tendencies. And given the number of min-maxing threads I'm guessing this was a problem for many DM's (verismilitude and all)


Apology accepted, not that I think you needed to apologise, but it was kind of you.


I did not say it is a bad thing, only that it reflects a predisposition by players for gamist tendencies which can affect in-game roleplaying. This actually has been covered a while back in this thread.


I'm reflecting a player's predisposition for gamist tendencies which could influence character's actions which might conflict with a character's beliefs.

Someone who is good at playing a role will be good at playing a role regardless of their stats. Someone who is bad at playing a role will be bad at playing a role regardless of their stats.

I see no reason to assume a correlation between desire for mechanical effectiveness and an inability to play in a manner consistent with a character's beliefs.
It's particularly absurd if one then takes the inverse to be true, that players who intentionally pursue mechanical ineffectiveness are likelier to play in a manner consistent with their character's beliefs.

Are there players who only care about mechanical effectiveness? Sure. But unless the system actively provides mechanical rewards for playing in a manner inconsistent with a character's beliefs, I'm unclear on why we'd expect them to do so.

And frankly, on either side of the DM screen, the DM's sense of verisimilitude is rather low on my list of concerns (so that's probably a genuine playstyle difference).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not really talking about established rpg theory here. You don't have to know a thing about The Big Model or metagame mechanics to understand that you, Johnny and Suzy want different things out of play (eg; system complexity, serious versus silly, genre conceits, GMing techniques, player authority) and they appear to be at tension with one another.

Sure. That can happen. But as long as Johnny and Suzy are both in the group you need to find a way to keep them both at the table. Sometimes I feel like the kinds of categories that emerge online (through the big model, but also from people like me on the immersionist side of things) serve as an impediment to bringing these folks together, because the lines become like political party lines, where people refuse to cross over out of principle. In my experience, it is the people who have greater exposure to these gaming theory/forum ideas, that tend to present the bigger issue at the table. I don't know if it is too much self analysis, or self analysis that is just misleading, but I do see it in practice, and have even found for myself, I need to turn off that part of my brain. Self awareness is a good thing. Good can become bad though. I mean, education is also a good thing, I value higher learning, but there is such a thing as carrying it around with you too much. It is one thing to learn about history, philosophy and science to enrich your understanding of the world, but it is annoying if you allow that understanding to bog down your enjoyment of a movie or book. After my history degree, I was miserable to watch period films with (and I didn't allow myself to enjoy them for what they were). Wasn't until I turned that off, that I could watch things like Gladiator again and have fun doing so. I sense some of this occurring among gamers (even myself----had to step away from the forums and the rpg blogs for a bit, and remove a bit of the lens I had developed over time).

 

[N'raac]

As far as 18 point ability scores and point buy go ... how dare the players want to play the characters they want to play, eh? Back in the good old days, if you wanted to be a paladin you had to wait for the rolls that LET you be one. None of this new-fangled "playing characters you enjoy playing, for the fun if it". What do these kids these days think this is, a game or something?

Why do we need point buy at all? Why can't the players assign whatever stats they consider appropriate to their vision of the character? It sounds like you don't trust them to build balanced characters without constraining their resources.

While we're at it, let them decide when the characters level up. After all, the players will clearly have a better vision of when their characters have learned enough to advance than I can, with my limited grasp of their characters.

 

[Nagol]

This is an example of what I find confusing. Given that "best" means "most good", it seems somewhat contradictory to deny that the best is at least good.

It seems obvious to me. Best means "most appropriate or most wanted". Good is often synonym, but not is this case. Good in this case means "reflecting the precepts and attitudes of the alignment axis identified by the name Good".

Let me try a couple of examples.

When faced with a situation where seeming obvious ramifications will cause untold future woe the paladin may choose to commit an evil act (as in an act that reflects the precepts of the alignment axis identified by the name "Evil") in the present to prevent it and fall from grace as a result

When faced defending something precious to the PC (comrade, intimate, relic, honour, or anything else the PC holds dear), the PC needs to stay outside the precepts of the evil alignment for his actions or risk falling.

A paladin actions need not always be good; but they cannot be evil (and certainly a sufficient number of the actions should be good or lawful for the alignment to remain stable). Effectively, the ends never justify the means since each act is judged individually.

 

[Cadence]

Why do we need point buy at all? Why can't the players assign whatever stats they consider appropriate to their vision of the character? It sounds like you don't trust them to build balanced characters without constraining their resources.

Worked well in the 1e game we played last year -- although I angsted too much about what was reasonable and about what the 3-18 meant in the game world. And that was how we always did it in VtM (although in that one the GM would be harsher about other things if you were too greedy).

From other threads that mention exceptional strength, it also seems to be the way that all fighters were made back in 1e/2e

 

[Grydan]

Why do we need point buy at all? Why can't the players assign whatever stats they consider appropriate to their vision of the character? It sounds like you don't trust them to build balanced characters without constraining their resources.

While we're at it, let them decide when the characters level up. After all, the players will clearly have a better vision of when their characters have learned enough to advance than I can, with my limited grasp of their characters.

I haven't used either of these approaches myself, but I have no objection to either of them.

What exactly am I supposed to be afraid is going to happen if I grant the players these freedoms? Characters with ability scores over 9000? Levelling once per turn?

If players think that being able to kill the Tarrasque with a single punch will make for a fun game, then let's try it and see. I expect that, much like playing a video game in God-mode, the amusement factor will have a rather brief half-life.

If the players would rather spend our limited play time picking out new character options and filling out character sheets than actually playing their characters, I'd be pretty surprised, but if that's what they find fun I'm not going to hold them back.

 

[N'raac]

Worked well in the 1e game we played last year -- although I angsted too much about what was reasonable and about what the 3-18 meant in the game world.

Getting bonuses in 1e/2e needed much higher scores. 17 STR for +1 to hit & damage is a 12 STR in 3e. Other stats were a bit less over the top, but 16 DEX for a +2 and 15 for a +1 is a lot harder than 14 and 12, respectively. I wonder how someone with all 17 s and 18s would have been greeted. [Mind you, I rolled 18/18/18/17/17/16 once on 4d6, drop the lowest - random chance is, well, kinda random]

And that was how we always did it in VtM (although in that one the GM would be harsher about other things if you were too greedy).

So he saw a need to police it...

From other threads that mention exceptional strength, it also seems to be the way that all fighters were made back in 1e/2e

An outgrowth, I think, of the bonus structure, but I certainly saw a lot of 18 STR warriors and less than half with 01-50 on percentiles, I think. We did have a player roll 18/00 STR once, though (and had the 17 CHA to be a Paladin).