Geriatric Grumbling

[Drifter Bob]

It may make things unpleasant for the guilty character, but not his comrades. When that barmaid from 12 sessions past brings in the quarter-ork twins, his partners have a great time! (They've got your eyes, Gorach!)

As far as orphaned kids go, that's how many of my characters get their families. (One former paladin player had a monastary full of children and three slightly used wives. His share of the loot went primarily into the feeding and care of this massive family!) Families are in turn great for advancing story lines (angry son of slain enemy hates his new father, family member wants to join pa on adventures as a 'henchman', kidnaped family member, etc)

I agree 100%... realistic consequenses, negative and otherwise, are often the a superb way to introduce nuance into the characters backgrounds, and to introduce all kinds of great plot hooks into the game. These bring out much more sophisticated, immersive story lines.

Consequences don't need to be horrible and gloomy, they just need to be realistic. And for "wrestling with personal-demons"; some people (chaotic people) just ignore their demons. That doesn't mean you shouldn't hand some out!

Why do you assume chaotic people ignore their demons? I don't view them that way at all.

DB

 

[Zaruthustran]

I have often felt that the detect alignment spells in particular, especialy since they are so low level, are quite a stumbling block on creating more mature adventures. If you want to adapt any number of murder mysteries to a DnD game, for example, you have to invent all kinds of plot devices to work around this, which I frankly find a pain in the ass.
DB

Like, the murderer was non-lawful Good and the victim was Lawful Evil?

Sounds like a fun mystery to me!

-z

 

[Drifter Bob]

I don't have anything against those shows. I have seen a few episodes of Deadwood and most of The Sopranos. I just don't go for quirky personalities or interpersonal dynamics much in my gaming preferences. I prefer most PC to PC conversations to be about how we're going to find more treasure, get past a trap or kick some monster's tail.

Quirky personalities and interpersonal dynamics can be a lot of fun in RPG's, IMO. Certainly, to cite the literary source we have been discussing, both Fafhred and Gray Mouser have both....

No! "Role Playing" means playing a game in which you assume the role of a heroic fantasy figure. It doesn't have anything to do with acting or storytelling. Role assumption /= acting. Role assumption /= storytelling. Does the game sometimes create interesting stories? Sure! Is "creating a story" the purpose of the game? Not as far as I'm concerned. People seem to

Ultimately, having fun is the purpose of the game. But I disagree with your premise, role playing doesn't automatically mean playing a "heoric fantasy figure". I've had a lot of fun with some pretty unheroic characters. All role playing means is playing a role.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with the way you want to play the game, that is certainly the original basis for DnD. I just think a given rules set should encompass a broad range of playing styles.

If you think Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser were engaging in "romance", then I think you and I have vastly different understandings of the definition of the word "romance". The women in their lives were there as window dressing and plot devices. They provided reasons to do stupid adventurous things and motivations to move on from a certain location.

Regardless of how you interpret the literary merit of the women in those stories, Fafhred and Gray Mouser repeatedly became obsessed with various love interests, which in many cases derailed their lives. This is what people do in real life as well, albiet not necessarily for invisible skinned ghoul women. It is therefore an adult issue. By 'romance' I don't mean the Harlequin type, necessarily, just that it is a factor.

The same goes for "day to day life issues". Fafhrd and the Mouser spent a lot of time boozing, arguing and disposing of their ill-gotten goods, but that's part of the adventurous life to me. "Day to day life issues" sounds like paying taxes, haggling with the repairman and deciding who gets to carry the luggage. You know...the things we play games to forget about. We learn in t
(snip)
...The device is just THERE when it's important for the story.

Once again, you are missing my point, or we are talking past each other. Fafhred and Gray mouser did constantly deal with real life issues like being broke, or being hungry, or being on the lam, or getting religion, or falling in love, whatever. Of course it's there when it's important to the story. I don't advocate a game where you pay bills all day, but introducing some of these mundane elements can make a game seem more internally consistent and immersive, and can also bring in all kinds of plot hooks.

I once had a great session with a party who, having emerged dirty and tired, and due to a collosal blunder unfortunately broke, from a long adventure, showed up in a strictly disciplined, well organized lawful neutral town, where they couldn't find any supplies. They were basically homeless and starving for a few days, trying to avoid the authorities, it provided quite a good motivation for them to get some bread and a roof over their heads!

To me, it was precisely this realistic element which made novels like the Fafhred and Gray Mouser books so much better than todays rated G pablum.

DB

 

[I'm A Banana]

with some preferring the high powered, balanced mechanics, and others perferring role playing, realism, and more mature themes.

I think it's important to realize that these are not mutually exclusive. My group of twentysomethings adores high-powered, balanced mechanics, role-playing and realisitic consequences (and the occasional mature theme, though we more play D&D as escapism, so I've gotta be careful not to kill the buzz).

Just because a sorcerer can destroy the world with a Wish doesn't mean that we can't be role-play intensive.

 

[Drifter Bob]

I wasn't clear enough. I meant the orc kids you made orphans by killing their parents. Not "extracurricular" ophans, though those should be dealt with too.

That kind of thing can also make a good plot hook. Sounds like the beginning of a good spaghetti western.

Personally, most of the groups I've played with steer clear of the whole "romance role-playing" thing. The one time my bearded, 260 lb dm tried to role play a barmaid coming on to me was a little too hilarious for the session to continue. Call me shallow, but that whole believability thing smacked me in the face again ...

Thats a good point, as a DM I certainly don't want to be mimicking the intimate detals of some seduction! But there are other ways to handle that.


DB

 

[Fenes]

I consider my games mature themed, with a healthy dose of humor. I don't really need more complicated rules for it, just some tweaking and rewriting of the Forgotten Realms. Actions do have consequences, but that cuts both ways. If my players make a noble mad they will deal with it on all levels - from getting snubbed at some parties to getting fawned over by the noble's rivals to getting assassins sent after them. If they reach a powerful status in society then they won't be treated like low-born curs by the watch - they can throw their weight around and abuse the system, but they will also have to deal with those consequences - favor for a favor and all that, and trappings of station. I also don't make them adhere to the modern, democratic values I hold dear myself - a more medieval or antique set of values is perfectly acceptable without making them "evil". Same goes for NPCs.

Though I would think some on these boards would consider my game immature for various reasons.

But who cares? As long as everyone in your group has fun you are doing it right, and that's all that counts.

 

[Drifter Bob]

IMO the rules DO make a difference in the maturity level of the game. More rules takes power out of the hands of the DM and the players. It discourages imagination and creativity by channeling thought into certain pre-determined modes. A mature game assumes maturity in the players. A mature ruleset provides a framework for challenge resolution without overburdening itself with the minutiae of each individual situation. A mature ruleset encourages maturity in its players by expecting it from the beginning.

The problem with the current incarnation of D&D (in my crotchety old grumbling opinion) is that it has a very very strong framework for challenge resolution but ruins the simplicity and elegance of this sytem by including numerous situations and options that modify the simple base system sixteen ways from Sunday. This seems to have been a response to the immature gamer who either can't use the simple framework fairly and consistently or who can't trust someone else to use the simple framework fairly and consistently. Immaturity demands that codified rules take the place of good judgement because immature players are generally more worried about winning and/or getting screwed over than they are about having fun.

Brilliant! Bravo! I literally couldn't have said it better myself (and I tried!)

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

LOL! We've always had a bored female roommate or NPG (non-player girlfriend) set aside for those situations. (Lovingly refered to as the "Lusty Beer-Wench")

That is a good idea! \

One thing I will say that I like a hell of a lot better about D&D these days, is it seems much more women play than before, although I always had pretty balanced, non traditoinal groups even in the old days. There seems to be a broader acceptance of RPG's today due to CRPG's and the success of fantasy movies like LOTR, Matrix, Blade etc.

So all this cultural feedback is a two edged sword....

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

This puts it perfectly. It's your game. You're the DM. Want to make the game more mature? Go ahead and do so. There's no RPG Police out there to bust down your door to enforce a predetermined maturity level in your game. The only limits are those you and your players put on yourselves.

This is always true, but some of us feel that the rules do tend to push the game in a certain direction, and this has a cascading effect through all the products you can get for the game...

Db

 

[I'm A Banana]

Immaturity demands that codified rules take the place of good judgement because immature players are generally more worried about winning and/or getting screwed over than they are about having fun.

I disagree...I think more rules = more ease of play, and nothing negative is assumed about it. This codified set of rules allows me to allow everyone to use their imagination to it's fullest extent without having to be near-omniscient and mirco-managing all their options. I can be reasonably confident, with this ruleset, that if someone has a good idea, I can implement it in a way that will be fun for everyone. And if they don't have a good idea, they can still choose an option that's fun for everyone.

None of that could've happened under the 2e rules, at least. Without these codified and well-balanced rules, the thing required constant DM micro-managing, or it would devolve into cool ideas (like the Bladesinger) with extremely unbalanced mechanics (like...er...the bladesinger), and the only options being to tweak further (micro-managing and time-consuming and not really worth the effort), or to outlaw all together (wounding the creativity of the character who would be interested in playing an elven *artist* of the martial type).

3e's codified ruleset doesn't limit creativity. IMHO, it provides for the first time a very solid springboard for it. Now, with these rules already micro-managed for me, I don't have to mirco-manage every pointy-eared forest frolicker that comes into my campaign, and that's a VERY good thing -- it lets me allow creativity to flourish in place of trying to codify and balance the ruleset by myself.