Guide to Adventure Writing

[xechnao]

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 do not agree with your arguments. In WoW your goal is not just gaining XP and treasure. How you gain XP and treasure matters in the operation. In WoW big part of your goal is to explore the textures and models and perhaps music the programmers have done through the interface provided. There is also a game that accompanies this and also a community attached to it. But if one gets bored of the first(aesthetics) and the third part(community) of the goal of the game mentioned here I doupt they would bother with it in the millions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

What you are talking about here is what, recently, I defined as "smart play" vs. "satisfying play". "Smart play" is whatever the rules encourage (and isn't necessarily what the rules seem to encourage, or what the game designers think that the rules encourage), whereas "satisfying play" is what makes a player want to come to the table/field/whatever, again and again.

In a well designed game, smart play leads to satisfying play, so that following the rules of the game/using the reward structure of the game tends to make the game satisfying for all concerned. Certainly, a well designed game is not one in which you can only have satisfying play by working against the rules/reward structure.

There is no edition of D&D IMHO wherein the rules/reward structure actually rewards you for wantonly killing other PCs. In fact, in most cases, inter-party bickering is the surest way to a TPK. IME, at least.

However, a game with multiple parties can certainly enjoy competition against ofther parties. Even when the same players are part of multiple parties. And, in games where not everyone is playing together all of the time, reaching certain "milestones" first can be a kind of competition -- finding the way to a lost sublevel of a megadungeon, for example.

Many D&D games, OTOH, are competitive in that the players (through their PCs) are competing against artificial constructs (monsters and NPCs). This is no different than observing that, while a video game designer can include "insta kills" in a game, thus always "winning", it is the situation within the game world that the player is actually competing against. The game designer, like the DM, has to work to ensure that this competition is both challenging enough to be meaningful, without being so challenging as to be unfun.

All IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[xechnao]

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.

Again no. How you gain XP and equipment means a lot regarding if you roleplay an adventurer.

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.

This is because it is about improvisation of each member of a group regarding the rest of the group. The story or narrative is not about just one member's improvisation.

 

[sinecure]

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.

You're looking at things like the 4E designers. D&D is not about single combats. It is a wargame, a strategy game. Winning one fight has little to do with winning the war. One PC completely destroying the opposition in a combat cannot be removed from the game. Like dropping the ceiling on a dragon or suffocating a platoon of orcs in a barricaded room, there will always be a way one action can kill many. This isn't "blocking", it is successful play. If you find you are always left out of the action, think harder on how to beat your foes. Don't expect game rules to determine strategy (or even tactics like in 4E) for you in some unrealistic desire for "equality".

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.

I'm not talking about right or wrong. Neither do I think the OP is. It's about support in the rules. WoW and D&D do an awful job of supporting narrativist play because they were never designed to do so. It's like playing Capture the Flag and complaining that you never get to have any "cool scenes". It is completely missing the objective of the game. That doesn't make "cool scene" storytelling a good or bad idea in Capture the Flag (which is a Live Action Role-playing Game). "Cool scenes" simply were never thought to be supported.

 

[xechnao]

You're looking at things like the 4E designers. D&D is not about single combats. It is a wargame, a strategy game. Winning one fight has little to do with winning the war. One PC completely destroying the opposition in a combat cannot be removed from the game. Like dropping the ceiling on a dragon or suffocating a platoon of orcs in a barricaded room, there will always be a way one action can kill many. This isn't "blocking", it is successful play. If you find you are always left out of the action, think harder on how to beat your foes. Don't expect game rules to determine strategy (or even tactics like in 4E) for you in some unrealistic desire for "equality".

I'm not talking about right or wrong. Neither do I think the OP is. It's about support in the rules. WoW and D&D do an awful job of supporting narrativist play because they were never designed to do so. It's like playing Capture the Flag and complaining that you never get to have any "cool scenes". It is completely missing the objective of the game. That doesn't make "cool scene" storytelling a good or bad idea in Capture the Flag (which is a Live Action Role-playing Game). "Cool scenes" simply were never thought to be supported.

I can agree with some elements here. D&D is not a single battle wargame like warhammer. It is more like war-campaign game. The campaign is what it matters. But aint the campaign a form of narrative...like for example history?

 

[sinecure]

I do not agree with your arguments. In WoW your goal is not just gaining XP and treasure. How you gain XP and treasure matters in the operation. In WoW big part of your goal is to explore the textures and models and perhaps music the programmers have done through the interface provided. There is also a game that accompanies this and also a community attached to it. But if one gets bored of the first(aesthetics) and the third part(community) of the goal of the game mentioned here I doupt they would bother with it in the millions.

Yes, playing with other players does make D&D and WoW more enjoyable. As does new and interesting adventure modules or adventure locales. That does not mean players are confusing either with staging a scene for Days of our Lives. It is a completely different activity.

Again no. How you gain XP and equipment means a lot regarding if you roleplay an adventurer.

Exactly. That is why D&D and WoW are both strategy games. How you play matters to your success. Faster advancement means faster success. And it is all up to your preference on advancement. But preference doesn't make advancement go away. Otherwise WoW would make the foolish mistake D&D has and allow any level to be made at start. You have to earn those levels in WoW and old school D&D. Without that meaningful achievement you don't have nearly as many players. Players want to be able to say, "I beat Half Life" not "We had some cool scenes".

This is because it is about improvisation of each member of a group regarding the rest of the group. The story or narrative is not about just one member's improvisation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Could you please clarify?

I can agree with some elements here. D&D is not a single battle wargame like warhammer. It is more like war-campaign game. The campaign is what it matters. But aint the campaign a form of narrative...like for example history?

All history is narrative. How can you do anything that isn't? Trying to make a game a history making activity is a non-starter. It can never be made a non-history making activity.

 

[xechnao]

Faster advancement means faster success. And it is all up to your preference on advancement. But preference doesn't make advancement go away. Otherwise WoW would make the foolish mistake D&D has and allow any level to be made at start. You have to earn those levels in WoW and old school D&D. Without that meaningful achievement you don't have nearly as many players. Players want to be able to say, "I beat Half Life" not "We had some cool scenes".

I think I understand now better what you are trying to say with this example. D&D, a speed run competition to end level. Interesting some people see it this way...I haven't seen it this way and I guess I never will.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Could you please clarify?

I am saying that the narrative is a collective one here (in both output and input of the communicative relation (it is of a collective symmetric rather than anti symmetric relation(from mathematics))). Campaign journals cant do it justice. It is more like jazz than a concert.

 

[sinecure]

There is no edition of D&D IMHO wherein the rules/reward structure actually rewards you for wantonly killing other PCs. In fact, in most cases, inter-party bickering is the surest way to a TPK. IME, at least.

AD&D1E had XP rewards for killing other PCs.

The following table is for determination of x.p. to be awarded for slain opponent creatures.

It is necessary to stress that the usage of the term "monster" is generic for any creature encountered during the course of adventuring. A monster can be exactly what the name implies, or it can be a relatively harmless animal, a friendly intelligent beast, a crazed human, a band of dwarves, a thief - virtually anything or anyone potentially threatening or hostile.

Any PC that is not you is potentially a monster if you see them as threatening. And you will get XP for killing them whether they threaten you or not in return.

This is no different than observing that, while a video game designer can include "insta kills" in a game, thus always "winning", it is the situation within the game world that the player is actually competing against. The game designer, like the DM, has to work to ensure that this competition is both challenging enough to be meaningful, without being so challenging as to be unfun.

All IMHO, of course.


RC

I think you are talking about making a challenging encounter for the players. Of course a DM will make a different module and campaign world for kids than they would for adults, and amateurs vs. experienced players.

I agree with your smart and satisfying play distinction.'

Now it's turkey time for me.

 

[sinecure]

I think I understand now better what you are trying to say with this example. D&D, a speed run competition to end level. Interesting some people see it this way...I haven't seen it this way and I guess I never will.

Then you are playing against the design of the game. Like in my Capture the Flag example. XP is rewarded for killing monsters. Others reward XP for achieving other things defining of one's class(role). Thieves can get XP for monetary value of items stolen for instance.

I am saying that the narrative is a collective one here (in both output and input of the communicative relation (it is of a collective symmetric rather than anti symmetric relation(from mathematics))). Campaign journals cant do it justice. It is more like jazz than a concert.

So symmetric meaning aesthetic beauty not self-similarity? I think I see the problem. It is like defining a situation: We want to scale this wall. And then defining the problem in one of two ways. 1. in terms of success or failure. and 2. in terms of aesthetics.

I think D&D has historically always been what's termed a "beer & pretzel" game. So aesthetics come in the form of good description, not aesthetically pleasing action. This same distinction can be made in any game. If you try and play Agricola for an aesthetically pleasing farm you should never worry about whether you win or lose compared to anyone else. It's solitaire for you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

AD&D1E had XP rewards for killing other PCs.

True, but ultimately, as I said, the rest of the game causes this to be far more likely to result in a TPK than almost anything else you can do in-game. So, while there is a system that can grant you XP, the reality (IME, at least) is that you are unlikely to survive to get them.

I think you are talking about making a challenging encounter for the players.

Not really; I am trying to say that simply because the players are not playing against the DM or each other, it does not follow that they are not playing against anything.

Now it's turkey time for me.

Mine was in October.

(Canadian Thanksgiving)

RC