Guide to Adventure Writing

[sinecure]

So is it just semantics we are discussing? It seems so.

If we're simulating life and you say all life has plot, then the game has plot. But wouldn't all games have plots then? I'm not accustomed to this particular word in game design coming from a boardgaming perspective. Perhaps we are both referring to the Object of the Game, which changes depending on the role you play and the thing you simulate in the game design? When boardgames have a simulation aspect and are not abstractions like Go or Tetris.

Exactly. Although a surface analysis of the risk/reward factors in the game might lead one to believe that they will be rewarded by competing against their own party, a deeper analysis shows that this is not a successful way to play -- the game stacks against this behaviour.

That smart play should lead to satisfying play isn't a bonus -- it's what makes the game worth playing.

RC

Sounds cool to me. I think dumb play can be satisfying too, but it is not the norm. I had a friend who would lose at Poker and Hearts against the rest of us in High School. He wasn't a great player, he didn't care if he won or not. He wanted us to feel good because we wanted to win. I think this sort of selfless play may be the kind of play eric mcloins and xechao and others are talking about.

 

[xechnao]

If we're simulating life and you say all life has plot, then the game has plot. But wouldn't all games have plots then? I'm not accustomed to this particular word in game design coming from a boardgaming perspective. Perhaps we are both referring to the Object of the Game, which changes depending on the role you play and the thing you simulate in the game design? When boardgames have a simulation aspect and are not abstractions like Go or Tetris.

Sounds cool to me. I think dumb play can be satisfying too, but it is not the norm. I had a friend who would lose at Poker and Hearts against the rest of us in High School. He wasn't a great player, he didn't care if he won or not. He wanted us to feel good because we wanted to win. I think this sort of selfless play may be the kind of play eric mcloins and xechao and others are talking about.

It depends. It is possible for your role that at a particular instance it may seem more beneficial to choose to give a moment of pleasure to his friends rather than registering some score in a game of entertainement.
I think if we look beyond semantics we are probably talking about the same thing here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It depends. It is possible for your role that at a particular instance it may seem more beneficial to choose to give a moment of pleasure to his friends rather than registering some score in a game of entertainement.

Exactly.

All RPGS....indeed, very likely, all games......contain some pulling between "smart" and "satisfying" play. This is, in fact, so common that we have coined a term for choosing satisfying play over smart play (when appropriate). It is called "good sportsmanship".


RC

 

[Hella_Tellah]

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".

Wow, you've managed to completely miss the point of what I was saying. I don't give a flying flumph about the kind of game balance that inspired 4th Edition. I'm talking about narrative balance. The way I play roleplaying games, the most important thing is to make sure everyone shares the spotlight equally, and everyone gets to portray the character they brought to the table. When any player has abilities that keep everyone else from having a good time, that's a problem. If every class had an ability to kill everything in a room before anyone else has a chance to roll dice, that would still be a problem.

Players want to be able to say, "I beat Half Life" not "We had some cool scenes".

My group must all be excellent liars, and I must be delusional, because it seems to me that my group has played RPGs for the express purpose of having entertaining scenes for years now.

Speak for yourself, buddy. Narrative play exists, it's a legitimate way of playing D&D, and you don't have a monopoly on the "right" way to play. Simulationist play is a way of playing D&D. It is emphatically not the way.

 

[sinecure]

Well, then, strategy games and RPGs are exactly the same thing? The terms are interchangeable?

RPGs are one kind of strategy game and one kind of simulation game. It's more obvious on the computer RPGs. They are like wargames as both are strategy simulations, but players don't play roles in wargames. They play entire armies or navies. Roleplaying is about what strategy you take in a life role. A human (or human-like) role in society. In D&D that role is adventurer or maybe hero.

Tell you what, even if that's true (which I don't agree) then I wouldn't care. If the way I play the game is more fun than what was initially intended, who would stop me from playing a better game? RPG police?

It is true, but you don't have to care that it is. I'm not trying to anger you, if that is what is happening. It's hard to read emotions on screen. No game police are going to come to your door no matter how you play any game. But I wouldn't get angry because people are talking about enjoying a game in a way manner it was designed for - even if it is not a way you enjoy playing that particular game. Who cares how anyone else plays a game?

Not in my book. A player of Tim #1 will never be someone that I would consider playing with, nor do I think he's roleplaying. Of course, it is possible to play D&D without roleplaying (or what I would call roleplaying), but then it WOULD be just another strategy game, and not a very good one, if I may add.

I think I see the problem. Roleplaying does not require you to pretend to be another person. It is putting yourself in another role, not putting on a stage play. People on TV and movies aren't roleplaying. Tim #1 could be run by an awesome roleplayer because he kicks butt at adventuring. Or he could kick butt at investigating a Call of Cthulhu mystery. Or doing both as a superhero in a superhero game.

I have a nice example to what I mean, that may shed some light on the differences between us. Sometimes, when I teach someone D&D I start him on a short scenario. His character is on his way from point A to point B and he meets a kobold on a hill. That particular kobold is minding his own business, which is counting the amount of gold coins he has in his pouch. There are two typical reactions a player can make his character respond in.

The first option (let's call that the Tim #1 option, for no particular reason) is that the player says "my character draws his sword and attacks the kobold". Since the kobold is weak and quite defenseless, the character kills the kobold quite quickly an takes the loot. According to your style of play this is the only plausible course of action. This way you gain XP and Gold, and you advance yourself in the game. Tim #1 is now on his way to reach 2nd level!!! That is actions were evil, as he killed a defenseless creature just for taking his money is inconsequential. Mind you, there are no rules that penalize him for that. The only way I would ever react similarly to a similar situation is if my character was evil.

The second typical reaction is to just ignore the kobold or even try to befriend him or ask him for directions or whatever. Usually, the people who make their character react this way are more mature, and have a more natural grasp of roleplaying. I would always prefer to play with people that use this second option, even though this might not be smart play. They might not gain gold or XP for this encounter (they could gain XP for the encounter if the DM decided they do) and not be as near to level 2 as Tim #1, but their characters are now more believable. Their character has shown the first sign of morality and an ability to make decisions that are not influenced only by game mechanics.

I would judge both examples #1 and #2 as roleplaying. #1 cannot be called evil either except by you or I outside the game. Evil is not something you can put into game rules just like "fun" can't be put into game rules. D&D rewards killing things that could kill you. In example #1 I suspect the XP for the kobold kill would be relatively small because it was unarmed. Not to mention the level of the PC determines how valuable that XP amount is too. But giving XP for killing the kobold is a measure of the danger the PC is in for such a combat. It is not an evil game mechanic or an evil action by the DM to give it.

If you were reading some of my other responses, you probably know I think your Example #2 is exactly what D&D promotes by way of the Prisoner's Dilemma. If the PC is alone, he is better off to join up with the kobold than to kill it. Raven Crowking disputed this saying that information gained by keeping others alive is the real reason not to kill others in D&D, but I don't think that is the only reason. But I disagree with you that it is "mature" play, but I think #2 is "smart play" because you can gain greater XP and gold and, more importantly, stay alive longer to continue gaining more. Befriending allies rather than killing every one you encounter helps you more in most all accounts.

I think Raven Crowking may call both #1 and #2 "smart play" depending upon the situation and the goals of the PC, but I can't really speak for him. If I were playing, I would say so as it depends upon the situation. When I DM I don't care what the players do. I prefer the OP's advice about being an impartial "referee". Otherwise you end up kicking people out of your game who might be good roleplayers, but prefer to roleplay differently than you or I. And in my experience there are as many preferences for RPGs as there are people who play them. So I try and accommodate by not judging them at the table.

Sure they can. My games are proof of that. Or maybe you're saying that my games are not RPGs? what are they, then?

Might I suggest without knowing what you mean by "plot" (given Xechao's definition of "any action taken" in a game) that you may be railroading your players? Which I fully understand some people like. Don't let my opinions stop you from enjoying whatever play you prefer in a game.

If you mean "plot" like Xechao does, than how is anything you design for the campaign world not "plot"? I don't think it is a very useful term. In my experience, DMs who talk about plot are the ones who are railroading. But I prefer 2eD&D and have had to ween many players off of the "guess what the DM wants us to do" style of gaming.

 

[sinecure]

It depends. It is possible for your role that at a particular instance it may seem more beneficial to choose to give a moment of pleasure to his friends rather than registering some score in a game of entertainement.
I think if we look beyond semantics we are probably talking about the same thing here.

Exactly.

All RPGS....indeed, very likely, all games......contain some pulling between "smart" and "satisfying" play. This is, in fact, so common that we have coined a term for choosing satisfying play over smart play (when appropriate). It is called "good sportsmanship".

RC

I don't know. I think good sportsmanship has more to do with being respectful towards others and honorable as a player and not cheating when playing the game.

The Prisoner's Dilemma thing is not meant to be contentious by the way. It is used by many ethicists outside of gaming to explain human behavior that is selfless. It is certainly okay to believe altruistic behavior is not about self pleasure. And guess what comes up when I google selflessness? Cooperation

 

[sinecure]

Wow, you've managed to completely miss the point of what I was saying. I don't give a flying flumph about the kind of game balance that inspired 4th Edition. I'm talking about narrative balance. The way I play roleplaying games, the most important thing is to make sure everyone shares the spotlight equally, and everyone gets to portray the character they brought to the table. When any player has abilities that keep everyone else from having a good time, that's a problem. If every class had an ability to kill everything in a room before anyone else has a chance to roll dice, that would still be a problem.

You can't have narrative balance as you define it in an RPG. Sharing the spotlight is basically an aspect of communication, not playing a game. Players need to determine for themselves how they work together. A game designer would need to write a script for players to follow like in a movie to divvy up equal playing time. But following a script is for making movies, not playing roleplaying games. A roleplaying game cannot make a player play the game a certain manner. It only allows for playing a character in a simulation. That the simulation leads to interesting effects like the Prisoner's Dilemma effect is secondary.

And every character having the ability to kill everything in the room is a party full of Wizards. I don't see how any one or all players having the ability to cast Sleep on a room full of orcs ruins anyone's day. This is the first I've heard of such a complaint on ENWorld. What about Cloudkill or all the other area effect spells that are designed to kill monsters? Are those all game ruining effects? It's just odd to me that you would play D&D if that is something you do not like as Wizards and spells that kill everything in a room have been in the game for a long, long time.

My group must all be excellent liars, and I must be delusional, because it seems to me that my group has played RPGs for the express purpose of having entertaining scenes for years now.

Speak for yourself, buddy. Narrative play exists, it's a legitimate way of playing D&D, and you don't have a monopoly on the "right" way to play. Simulationist play is a way of playing D&D. It is emphatically not the way.

But RPGs are simulation games. I'm not calling you a liar or anything. I'm saying the game supports playing it as written.

 

[Ydars]

Sinecure; now I don't agree with you. If your character sheet says lawful good and you kill any monsters that don't actively threaten you or someone else, you are not roleplaying; you are just acting like a machine and ignoring what your character would do.

D&D has always had alignment and this means that smartplay and roleplaying do not always co-incide, in the game as written. I have read that Gygax only wanted Law and Chaos and did not want to include concepts of good and evil but this is not how D&D is written today. Alignment tells us that at least someone wanted us to include the morality of our characters as part of the way we play.

Presumably you would see no reason to ever play a good character as it would inhibit smart-play? In my game, if a PC who is good does not act selflessly and without regard for himself. then they are punished with XP penalties.

I think your definition of "winning" in an RPG is extremely narrow. It reminds me of a blind man trying to describe the sun. Older versions of D&D actually disputed that there was such a thing as winning in an RPG and explicitly stated that this was not the point of the game. I agree that no version of the game has ever rewarded Roleplaying well enough, but this is easily house-ruled.

 

[sinecure]

Sinecure; now I don't agree with you. If your character sheet says lawful good and you kill any monsters that don't actively threaten you or someone else, you are not roleplaying; you are just acting like a machine and ignoring what your character would do.

Interesting responses. Thanks for posting. I don't think Alignment is telling a player how to play the game. I think it is how his PC registers on Detect Alignment and how the Gods view him. Acting evilly changes your alignment. It doesn't hurt your XP rewards. Alignment tracking by the DM is in the rules. Docking XP for "evil actions" is not.

D&D has always had alignment and this means that smartplay and roleplaying do not always co-incide, in the game as written. I have read that Gygax only wanted Law and Chaos and did not want to include concepts of good and evil but this is not how D&D is written today. Alignment tells us that at least someone wanted us to include the morality of our characters as part of the way we play.

I have no problem with DMs who do not want evil characters in their games. They are basically telling the Players to not do evil things when playing the game. I guess not everyone understands that being an outlaw only hurts you in the end. But what counts as evil is going to be different for different people. So sometimes games have problems. But not most of the time in my opinion. Most responsible players understand what it means to do bad things to others.

Presumably you would see no reason to ever play a good character as it would inhibit smart-play? In my game, if a PC who is good does not act selflessly and without regard for himself. then they are punished with XP penalties.

I don't think I have ever said I would not play a Good-aligned PC. I have said playing the game to win will eventually change a player's strategy towards cooperative, selfless play. Your house rule sounds fine, but I would make it known to the players beforehand (like any house rule). Personally, I have never seen negative XP accepted by players in any RPG. It means the DM is judging player behavior as good or bad like a priest or God. That has never been cool in my book. But I also understand groups saying no evil characters. I guess I see that as a group versus a DM judgment.

I think your definition of "winning" in an RPG is extremely narrow. It reminds me of a blind man trying to describe the sun. Older versions of D&D actually disputed that there was such a thing as winning in an RPG and explicitly stated that this was not the point of the game. I agree that no version of the game has ever rewarded Roleplaying well enough, but this is easily house-ruled.

Fulfilling the object of the game is winning a game. That's pretty basic. Winning in D&D is earning XP. And acquiring other things in the game world that can help you earn even more XP is "smart play" as I guess we're now calling it. I will say I don't reward XP for only killing monsters or D&D would really just be a game about killing things. I reward XP for succeeding in your role, by which I mean Class.

 

[Ydars]

I am not sure that the only object of the game is to gain XP; surely we play the game to have fun and enjoy ourselves since XP don't really exist?

I totally agree with your sentiments about the futility of legislating what is "fun" for any particular group, which is why it surprises me that you feel that level advancement is the sole aim of the game. It is one important part certainly, but for me not remotely all. In fact there is a side of me that dislikes more power because I love that seat_of_the_pants, running_around_in_constant_danger feeling of low-level games.

There is also a more grounded and realistic feeling to low level games because my character's abilities feel much closer to mine and for many people this leads to greater immersion and emotional connection.

You see I play D&D in many different ways; if the logical and rational part of me is "in command" then I love the powergaming and the level advancement and battles. The game can then become reduced to what you describe; a very complex tactical situation. I think it is interesting that when Gygax was writing one of the AD&D DM manuals he states that his games (played this way) often become stale after a while. If I always play with my logical brain, I can understand exactly what he means.

Whereas, I can also shift gear to enjoy exploring a situation and playing my character as a real persona and "feeling" like I am there. This is more emotional roleplaying and is about creating a shared story. There is more laughter and less worry about advancement etc.

I think it adds an enormous amount to the game to be able to switch between these two (and a few other) modes, even in the same session.

I would also dispute that all human behaviour can be understood by Ethicist theories. If I understand correctly, their theories actually originate in evolutionary biology; i.e. trying to understand apparent altruism in animals versus the selfish gene concept. I know this only too well as I run a research lab and teach biology and biochemistry to undergraduates.

This is what I meant about the blind man and the sun; selfish gene theory does describe animal behaviour very well because animals have very little capacity to reason. They only protect each other because of genetic programming that arises because evolutionary mathematics can show that postive _ for_tat type tactics are very successful in the eventual survival of a species; so as you say animal behaviour is mainly about "winning" even when it doesn't seem to be.

Man is different from animals precisely because we can choose to lay down our lives for perfect strangers, for animals, for friends even for abstract ideals. This makes no sense in evolutionary terms. It is true Altruism in many cases because the individual is not thinking of himself but of something outside him. Many of these actions cannot be accounted for by ethicists' narrow ideas of "apparent altruism" and I would argue that human behaviour in RPGs doesn't all come down to "I want to win and the best way is to co-operate" type of situations either.

Sometimes we risk our characters lives to save a character in game for the same reason it happens in real life. Our character is a very important thing to us and yet we risk it because of our humanity and nobility. I saved another character's life the other day by using benign transposition to switch places with him when he was drowning. I had a slightly better swim roll but we were both in similar straits, very close to death. Why did I do it; because I wanted the others to do the same for me? No; I did it because it was noble and that is what I aspire to both in game and out of game.