I'm going to disagree with the OP in the base philosophy that the GM/DM needs to be impartial. In fact, the DM/GM needs to be very impartial towards the party and ensure that there is a high probability of success for the party. One of the key responsibilities of the GM/DM is to know the characters AND know the players. This means the DM should tweak the adventure to play to the players/characters strengths and weaknesses in so much that they are sufficiently challenged. A DM that creates an adventure without the players in mind are going to find a group of people grossly uninterested in the adventure at hand.
Guide to Adventure Writing
- Thread starter JimLotFP
- Start date
Ydars
Explorer
Ironfang and others on this thread; if I read him right JimlotFP is coming from a completely different viewpoint to you.
He is saying that, actually, the PLAYERS should contribute as much to the fun of the game and the adventure as the DM. He is saying that bad players (who can't be bothered to think or have bad strategy) will only get better with a dose of failure and that a kind of Darwinian evolution should operate with PCs. If you read the play example that Gygax wrote in one of the AD&D DM guides, he appears to agree, as the gnome PC in this short intro is killed by some ghouls within 3 rooms of the entering the dungeon.
This would work well when the players are dungeon crawling in an old style megadungeon because the none of the DMs work is wasted; another party will come back to that part of the dungeon again in the future.
I appreciate that this might come across a heresy but it IS the default Gygaxian D&D style (at least as far as I can gleen from EGG's writings) and is therefore the way its creators intended it.
Not everyone's cup of tea but I would really love to try this kind of game out now as it is how I started.
He is saying that, actually, the PLAYERS should contribute as much to the fun of the game and the adventure as the DM. He is saying that bad players (who can't be bothered to think or have bad strategy) will only get better with a dose of failure and that a kind of Darwinian evolution should operate with PCs. If you read the play example that Gygax wrote in one of the AD&D DM guides, he appears to agree, as the gnome PC in this short intro is killed by some ghouls within 3 rooms of the entering the dungeon.
This would work well when the players are dungeon crawling in an old style megadungeon because the none of the DMs work is wasted; another party will come back to that part of the dungeon again in the future.
I appreciate that this might come across a heresy but it IS the default Gygaxian D&D style (at least as far as I can gleen from EGG's writings) and is therefore the way its creators intended it.
Not everyone's cup of tea but I would really love to try this kind of game out now as it is how I started.
Hella_Tellah
Explorer
Paranoia XP has a nice section on conditioning players, and their philosophy is similar. I think GMing techniques have evolved (which is not the same as improved) and branched off over the years, and there are now many methods employed to condition players to play the game well. Killing their PCs is a good way to teach them caution, but it doesn't, by itself, teach players to narrate their characters' actions well, or to come up with creative plans, or to play along with genre conventions, or any other positive behaviors you want to encourage.
Mean-spirited as it sounds, conditioning humans is much like conditioning a dog: you have to reward or punish a behavior within 2 or 3 seconds, or the connection between behavior and punishment/reward doesn't register. Immediately after a player comes up with a brilliant plan, or gives a stirring description for a run-of-the-mill attack roll, reward that player with experience, a Mountain Dew, or just say, "that's awesome!" As soon as a player breaks character, metagames, or tramples on another player's fun, give them some form of discouragement: a roll of the eyes, a kind but firm statement of displeasure, or exclusion from the action for a couple of minutes--focus on another character for a bit.
The old-school model of killing your players' characters until they get it right is just one tool in a GM's toolbox. By itself, all you'll get are cautious gamers who explicitly state everything their character does. If you want other results, other techniques apply.
Last edited:
Obryn
Hero
I love gaming, and I love many kinds of gaming. As a player, I get different enjoyment out of playing different games, and as a DM I get a lot of enjoyment out of running different styles of games.
I think this is all great advice for someone looking to run an old-school game, and this is exactly what I'm doing with my monthly 1e game. 1e's modules make these sorts of games very, very easy so long as the DM and players are both game.
OTOH, I love running more plot-based games, too, like the SWSE campaign I'm running.
I never fudge in my 4e game, but at the same time, the adventure structure is much more linear than anything in my 1e game.
I guess what I'm saying is that there are tons of different ways to have fun with D&D. I'll always object when someone says there's only one right way to play D&D, or that one play-style is objectively superior to another. That way lies ridiculous nerd-fights, and it's just a waste of time.
With that said, this is an excellent primer on one of the many ways to have fun playing D&D.
good post.
-O
I think this is all great advice for someone looking to run an old-school game, and this is exactly what I'm doing with my monthly 1e game. 1e's modules make these sorts of games very, very easy so long as the DM and players are both game.
OTOH, I love running more plot-based games, too, like the SWSE campaign I'm running.
I never fudge in my 4e game, but at the same time, the adventure structure is much more linear than anything in my 1e game.
I guess what I'm saying is that there are tons of different ways to have fun with D&D. I'll always object when someone says there's only one right way to play D&D, or that one play-style is objectively superior to another. That way lies ridiculous nerd-fights, and it's just a waste of time.
With that said, this is an excellent primer on one of the many ways to have fun playing D&D.
good post.-O
Ydars
Explorer
Oh I absolutely agree; there is NO one DMing or playing style that fits all groups (or even the same group all the time for that matter).
I just think that everyone would benefit from experimenting and trying out different styles as there is alot to learn from old and new approaches. I would ask those who say "this is not for me" a simple question; "have you ever tried it?"
JimLotFP's approach will lead to very good tactics and strategy and a focus on group co-operation and organisation. This would tend to promote party cohesion.
I loved my first few games (actually of Tunnels and Trolls) because it was in a classic "killer dungeon" where you were lucky if you lasted 5 rooms. There was a sense of real achievement just from survival.
We then, with a different DM, went deeply into character and the game was all about roleplaying and thinking about complex backstories. We hardly ever had any combat. I have played and DMed alot of different ways now I think about it.
I would expand upon what others have said when they say gaming and playstyles have moved on; I don't believe things advance like that (except perhaps in the sense of mechanics, though some seem backwards steps to me for all their sophistication). I think styles just fall out of fashion and all I am saying is, revisiting different (incl older) playstyles can be rewarding.
I just think that everyone would benefit from experimenting and trying out different styles as there is alot to learn from old and new approaches. I would ask those who say "this is not for me" a simple question; "have you ever tried it?"
JimLotFP's approach will lead to very good tactics and strategy and a focus on group co-operation and organisation. This would tend to promote party cohesion.
I loved my first few games (actually of Tunnels and Trolls) because it was in a classic "killer dungeon" where you were lucky if you lasted 5 rooms. There was a sense of real achievement just from survival.
We then, with a different DM, went deeply into character and the game was all about roleplaying and thinking about complex backstories. We hardly ever had any combat. I have played and DMed alot of different ways now I think about it.
I would expand upon what others have said when they say gaming and playstyles have moved on; I don't believe things advance like that (except perhaps in the sense of mechanics, though some seem backwards steps to me for all their sophistication). I think styles just fall out of fashion and all I am saying is, revisiting different (incl older) playstyles can be rewarding.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Gaining XP and treasure is roleplaying. It is the Object of the Game in D&D. That is in the books or at least it was.
And in all honesty, World of Warcraft is D&D or at least a version of it. WoW is a version of D&D on a computer. That there is a billion dollar industry with over 10 million players roleplaying on computers right now demonstrates how awesome D&D and RPGs are. However, if you are one of the those who don't think World of Warcraft and all the other computer games derived from D&D are roleplaying, then neither should D&D be qualified as roleplaying. In my opinion, WoW, LOTRO, and Warhammer Online are all great roleplaying games. I know some don't believe WoW is an RPG because they have difficulty immersing themselves in the role. I've suggested to them playing a tabletop version of WoW, like D&D for instance, as face to face roleplaying adds more immediacy. And you don't have to wait out grinding times or travel times because 1000s of players are using the same timeline. There are plenty of reasons to play RPGs like WoW face to face rather than online.
I think our disagreement lies somewhere in seeing D&D as something other than a simulation strategy game with a little bit of human assistance to run it. I think simulations work better because of DMs though, so I prefer tabletop roleplaying to computer roleplaying. From what you say, it sounds like you want more of a theatre game with everyone acting in character versus trying to figure out what to do next... which is most of what people do in D&D. I think D&D is the better game, but that is only an opinion. I happen to think that this billion dollar industry exists because it satisfies its customers.
If you play a 1st level fighter and I play a 30th level fighter in 4ED&D, I'm blocking you from success? I don't believe that is true at all. Your PC traveling with mine will succeed far beyond what he could on his own. It's a benefit to your PC to join up with mine. It's a problem within 4E that the power difference between 1st and 30th is so great that a 30th level PC has virtually no benefit to adventure with a 1st level PC, but I think if you stay within a single tier the game should be workable.
There has never been a rule about PCs not killing PCs. If you choose to play that way it may be because of expectation, but the game never said otherwise. I stand by my assertion that if you play PvP, you will group together as evidenced in dozens of online RPGs. (of course, many have metagame rules for players who can't handle PvP and don't want to deal with it. But that is a size problem with so many players all playing heroes.)
eric mcloins
First Post
Do you mean that role-playing=gaining XP and treasure?
That's a weird definition of role-playing. It removes the "role" from it...
Also, the same books that you mention say that the goal of playing is having fun, not gaining XP. Of course, gaining XP CAN be fun. It can be even more fun if you're "role"-playing while you're at it.
I agree that WOW's roots are in D&D. However, in WOW the goal IS to gain XP and equipment. Almost no one bothers to roleplay, instead behaving as a computer fantasy version of themselves, usually calling their characters something like "AwesomeDwarfPali". Don't get me wrong. I like WOW, in a limited sort of way. I enjoy actual role-playing much more.
You are right. D&D can be much more than a simulation strategy game. It can be a vessel for role-playing, and for collectively creating great stories. Read any good campaign journal and you'll see what I mean (Shemeshka's for example). Man, you should even try it. You might even enjoy.
Hella_Tellah
Explorer
You're looking at it from a game-mechanic perspective; "blocking" in improv is a narrative term. In improv, "blocking" doesn't mean "stopping someone from succeeding." It means shutting down their idea ("offer") for how a scene progresses, which usually results in stagnant scenes. In a roleplaying game like D&D, combats are small scenes in which everyone comes together to tell a story about how they killed something. Implicitly, everyone is "offering" the idea that their character is a mighty warrior, and that their help is vital in defeating the party's enemies. When the wizard casts a spell like Weird and kills everything in the room, he blocks all of the other players' offers.
sinecure said:
Your way of playing D&D is not the only way of playing D&D. Many people use it to tell stories. Obviously, you dislike telling stories with roleplaying games, and prefer to use D&D as a simulation of a fantasy world. That's fine, and it's a valid way of playing, but it's not the only way. Some of us play roleplaying games because we enjoy playing pretend, and D&D also supports our style of play.
You must be joking. The role is Adventurer. Try and stop being a dungeon delving adventurer and the game doesn't work. But game rewards have always been the point of a game.
Take a long, long think about what you are saying. Have you ever in your life heard of a game or sport that did not claim to be done for enjoyment? Fun? The point of a game is the objective of the game. Fun is an incredibly subjective experience. It cannot be the goal of a game. You're sounding like the 4E D&D designers with "fun" being the point of D&D and totally losing focus on what D&D actually is.
Gaining XP and equipment is what it means to roleplay an adventurer. You seem to be misunderstanding what roleplaying means. Simply by playing a computer RPG you are roleplaying.
D&D began with Tim #1, Tim #2, etc. as characters. WoW is D&D on a computer.
Playing D&D is roleplaying no matter if you try and tell a story or not. I'd say telling a story is about as successful as it is in World of Warcraft: Crappy. Campaign journals are termed such for a reason. They are not stories written from the perspective of a narrator, but by a single character.
