Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
- Thread starter cross ofth carpenter
- Start date
Glad it served some purpose! Although it's [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] who looks to deserve the credit - he took the concept and made an engaging session of it
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
A more detailed analysis will have to wait, but I will say we lucked out to a certain extent. Indie centered play is extremely demanding on all participants. You really need to have a play group that is keyed into the emergent properties of play with a strong respect for the emergent setting and what the other players are trying to accomplish.
Manbearcat really pushed us hard and we pushed on each other really hard.
In the next day or so I'll take some time out to contrast my experience here with the more traditional Scion game I'm currently a player in. If I can work it in I'll also reflect on my current plans for a Demon the Descent game that will be set in Detroit.
Manbearcat
Legend
Yup. I think the post-play-effort analysis should bear a lot of fruit. Hopefully it is exemplary of how techniques and system that promotes player empowerment, low resolution setting and backstory that gets established through play, coupled with conflict resolution mechanics, can yield robust, productive gaming experiences.
I certainly can't take credit for any disproportionate portion of the quality of play it is producing. As I said in that thread; I've GMed for plenty of poor to average players and I've GMed for about 10 excellent players. The difference in the quality of play (and my fun as GM) has been significantly more impacted by the quality of the players than the quality of my GMing. I think our play session is pretty indicative of that.
I don't think there is anything so dispiriting as GMing unengaged, disinterested players who are just there for the social outlet. I put too much mental overhead into GMing for apathetic players to burn me out.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Not quite sure what that means. They're not asocial or antisocial, so I guess they're social.
If you're suggesting that they're not DMs and not interested in having any authorial responsibility outside of the scope of their character, that's probably true; even though we do trade around DMing there's no mystery who the DM is.
That being said, if I wanted more shared narrative control, I certainly wouldn't use a system like D&D that has so many onerous sim elements. As with all games, I start from a freeform perspective and ask what do I need the rules to add. If I wanted truly shared storytelling, I see nothing to be gained by having a player build a character using a class or roll a check at all. If I used rules they'd probably be very minimal and completely unrelated to D&D.
Hussar
Legend
See, to me, there are virtually no sim elements in D&D. And never really have been. The combat system contains a couple of nods to simulation, but, that's about it. The class system is not simulating anything in the game world. HD and HP simulate what?
Or, put it another way, why does killing orcs make me a better cleric of the god of smithing?
Thing is, you can certainly share narrative powers within the context of a class/skill system. I'd go so far to say that many of the more shared narrative games I've played still have class and or skill systems.
But, since you have flat out stated that you control when skills can be used, then, obviously, it's not going to work for you. If the players cannot dictate when their skills are being used, then sure, a skill system won't grant narrative control. But, narrative control certainly does not need to be free form. It's not binary - either no control or full control. There are many, many shades of grey here. 4e provides pretty limited narrative control to the players (more than perhaps other editions of D&D, at least for non-casters, but, still pretty limited), and things like Action Points in 3e also provide narrative control to players.
After all, I can spend an Action Point in 3e to say that I gain access to any feat for one round, despite having no prior training in that feat. That's about as narrative as you can get in D&D.
/edit to add
Yes, Ahn, the latter is what I meant. You have social gamers (from the sounds of it) who aren't terribly interested in diving under the hood of the game. Compare to my group where we regularly rotate DM's, and, of the seven people in my group, the one with the least DMing experience has still run games for years. Collectively, we're pushing two centuries of DMing experience in a very wide range of systems and play styles.
We are not social gamers.
Or, put it another way, why does killing orcs make me a better cleric of the god of smithing?
Thing is, you can certainly share narrative powers within the context of a class/skill system. I'd go so far to say that many of the more shared narrative games I've played still have class and or skill systems.
But, since you have flat out stated that you control when skills can be used, then, obviously, it's not going to work for you. If the players cannot dictate when their skills are being used, then sure, a skill system won't grant narrative control. But, narrative control certainly does not need to be free form. It's not binary - either no control or full control. There are many, many shades of grey here. 4e provides pretty limited narrative control to the players (more than perhaps other editions of D&D, at least for non-casters, but, still pretty limited), and things like Action Points in 3e also provide narrative control to players.
After all, I can spend an Action Point in 3e to say that I gain access to any feat for one round, despite having no prior training in that feat. That's about as narrative as you can get in D&D.
/edit to add
Yes, Ahn, the latter is what I meant. You have social gamers (from the sounds of it) who aren't terribly interested in diving under the hood of the game. Compare to my group where we regularly rotate DM's, and, of the seven people in my group, the one with the least DMing experience has still run games for years. Collectively, we're pushing two centuries of DMing experience in a very wide range of systems and play styles.
We are not social gamers.
Last edited:
Ahnehnois
First Post
I think maybe what he meant was more along the lines of "casual gamer". I was thinking the same thing; I certainly hope that "social gamer" is redundant because it's a social hobby.
However, the scope of participation that the players are interested in is a significant consideration, whatever language you use to describe it. It is a tough thing to account for.
My group, in terms of personalities and proclivities, has one film director, and has and has historically had a bunch of people who would be character actors or technicians behind the camera. Literally my first experience as a DM was the players asking me what they were supposed to do. Those players are gone now, but frankly none of the dozens of people I've played with has ever been remotely able to match my narrative ambition or my grasp of the internal logic of the rules or my reliability in hosting and running sessions. All of my players at this point are people who are slightly younger than me, who aren't jumping out of their seats to DM, and who I taught how to play. Given that context, it makes sense for us to play the game as we do, with clearly defined roles and a large power difference. Given a different set of personalities, a different power dynamic might emerge.
I might add though, that the (3e) books appear to be pushing "my way" rather heavily, and there is a reason for that. More than one, I bet.
It does not, however, use them to enforce a degree of sameness between disparate character concept.
However, the scope of participation that the players are interested in is a significant consideration, whatever language you use to describe it. It is a tough thing to account for.
My group, in terms of personalities and proclivities, has one film director, and has and has historically had a bunch of people who would be character actors or technicians behind the camera. Literally my first experience as a DM was the players asking me what they were supposed to do. Those players are gone now, but frankly none of the dozens of people I've played with has ever been remotely able to match my narrative ambition or my grasp of the internal logic of the rules or my reliability in hosting and running sessions. All of my players at this point are people who are slightly younger than me, who aren't jumping out of their seats to DM, and who I taught how to play. Given that context, it makes sense for us to play the game as we do, with clearly defined roles and a large power difference. Given a different set of personalities, a different power dynamic might emerge.
I might add though, that the (3e) books appear to be pushing "my way" rather heavily, and there is a reason for that. More than one, I bet.
Sure. I like the Cortex games as my second system of choice because that's what they're about. It's a skill-based system (not class-based), but has a lot more explicit metagame horse-trading between player and DM, and significant metagame mechanics integrated in.Hussar said:
It does not, however, use them to enforce a degree of sameness between disparate character concept.
Normally, I like talking about things in shades of gray, but these kinds of issues are an exception to my mind. My experience is that shades of gray in defining who has the power within this game lead to arguments. I hate those kinds of arguments. By making it clear who adjudicates and who's in charge, I've fixed a lot of problems.
Similar Threads
