Guide to Adventure Writing

[xechnao]

I do not know what the difference really is. All PCs must face a threat or risk that makes them band together. How do you call this: plot or location-situation?
Perhaps by plot he means something that goes beyond this?

 

[WayneLigon]

There's some good advice in there, but I disagree with virtually everything in the first two sections, pacing, and the last two sections. There's a very good reason that the 'old school' advice is old school.

 

[sinecure]

I never thought of playing D&D in terms of "winning" or "competitive". I always thought that the DM and the players should work together to have fun, and not against each other. When I DM, I want the players to have fun, and to create, along with the players, an exciting story. When I play as a PC, I want to have great roleplay and of course, the magic word, fun. I guess that's where the difference between our views stems from, because you view D&D as some sort of competition, and I view it more like a cooperative psychodrama. I'm not saying that one view is better than the other, mind you, just that it's a different attitude.

As for Paranoia, I was referring to (and I won't quote it because I don't have the book here) some passages in Paranoia XP that say "if you want something to happen, and the dice say it doesn't, ignore the dice".

That Paranoia rule isn't a rule. It's basically, "If you don't like our game, just do whatever you want". That isn't a rule. That is advice. Telling players not to follow the game rules can never be a game rule.

But D&D is a competition game. You can make it less of a competition game by rewarding all XP collectively, but even then the items and rewards gained in the gameworld are still singular in almost all cases. Going out of your way to have exact parity between all players is a fool's game. Exact same XP totals, exact same equipment/magic item "utility", exact same Powers rating, exact same reputation, exact same attitudes from NPCs. Why even bother doing anything when the rest of the group will do it for me?

D&D is actually a perfect example of the prisoner's dilemma from Game Theory in a real game. At any time you could kill another PC. If you "befriend" the PC, it turns out to be pretty easy. Take a sword and coup de gras the character, while you are on watch. Instant XP. Kill the whole party. That way you don't have to worry about questions later. This is not something wrong to do in a D&D game. There are no rules against it. But what happens is players learn they cannot gain nearly as much XP and gold adventuring solo as they can with in a group. So they look for other people to help them out. If you have a solo game, one PC, you probably will hire help or try and make friends (henchman) who will assist you in your endeavors.

Cooperative play amongst characters (no matter how many players there are) works because it means more treasure can be attained by each individual overall. It is a sound strategy by each individual involved... as long as it benefits them. If it does not benefit them, then characters should leave the group. Cooperative play isn't a metagame agreement. At least it doesn't have to be. It's just smart play.

EDIT

RPGs in general and D&D in particular are a strange beast when it comes to "competition."

It really isn't a competition, because if it was, the referee wins. Every time.

But referees as you call them are not players. If they were, this wouldn't be a game.

but i will not make it impossible for them...

That's not fun to anyone.

If that is what Jim is saying, then I agree with you. A game where players can not possibly succeed is not a game in my mind. You should be able to change the system to alter game difficulty like in most computers. But I don't think increasing or decreasing monsters is really how that is done. It has to do with the strategies they use. Old Guard Kobolds and all that.

 

[eric mcloins]

Not convinced.

You view D&D as a competition, I simply don't (as i believe most people).
I don't care whether some other character has a stronger character than mine, or if he kills more monsters than my character, nor do I care if he has more XP than me, or better equipment. The game is not over once we all reach the highest possible level (whatever that is) and the first to get there is not the winner.

What I want from the game, as do most of the players I know is for one night each week to be immersed in a fantasy (or whatever) world, and play the role of someone that is different than me (hence the Roleplaying in roleplaying game).

Nor is D&D a good example of the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's Dilemma, people benefit from the loss of other people. D&D is also not a zero-sum game. It is a game that everyone can win and no one can lose because we're all having fun!! And this is actually NOT a new-school advice. Take a look at the BECMI basic set (IIRC, if not - then some other old school core product).

Cooperative play between characters is not possible because it means more trasure can be gained, unless the only thing that interests the character is gaining treasure. There are many more things a character can be interested in. Friendship, just to name one.

As for Paranoia, well, don't blame me - I didn't write that game. Nevertheless, there are many people who play that GAME and are enjoying it.

 

[xechnao]

That Paranoia rule isn't a rule. It's basically, "If you don't like our game, just do whatever you want". That isn't a rule. That is advice. Telling players not to follow the game rules can never be a game rule.

But D&D is a competition game. You can make it less of a competition game by rewarding all XP collectively, but even then the items and rewards gained in the gameworld are still singular in almost all cases. Going out of your way to have exact parity between all players is a fool's game. Exact same XP totals, exact same equipment/magic item "utility", exact same Powers rating, exact same reputation, exact same attitudes from NPCs. Why even bother doing anything when the rest of the group will do it for me?

D&D is actually a perfect example of the prisoner's dilemma from Game Theory in a real game. At any time you could kill another PC. If you "befriend" the PC, it turns out to be pretty easy. Take a sword and coup de gras the character, while you are on watch. Instant XP. Kill the whole party. That way you don't have to worry about questions later. This is not something wrong to do in a D&D game. There are no rules against it. But what happens is players learn they cannot gain nearly as much XP and gold adventuring solo as they can with in a group. So they look for other people to help them out. If you have a solo game, one PC, you probably will hire help or try and make friends (henchman) who will assist you in your endeavors.

Cooperative play amongst characters (no matter how many players there are) works because it means more treasure can be attained by each individual overall. It is a sound strategy by each individual involved... as long as it benefits them. If it does not benefit them, then characters should leave the group. Cooperative play isn't a metagame agreement. At least it doesn't have to be. It's just smart play.

EDIT
But referees as you call them are not players. If they were, this wouldn't be a game.

If that is what Jim is saying, then I agree with you. A game where players can not possibly succeed is not a game in my mind. You should be able to change the system to alter game difficulty like in most computers. But I don't think increasing or decreasing monsters is really how that is done. It has to do with the strategies they use. Old Guard Kobolds and all that.

No, the competition you are talking about is not relevant in D&D. If that be the case PCs could always kill their other colleagues and hire mercenaries that could cost them less than share the loot.

People by nature are constantly in front of dilemmas that they need information to eliminate. So they are constantly dependant to information. This is what PCs provide: information. The deal now is that their dilemmas must be such that push the PCs to physically band together as adventurers. Of course this would be somewhat hard without another source of information -an independant one that properly functions as an independant point of reference (the adventure). This source is the DM.

 

[Janx]

If you want to play old-school cut-throat D&D, follow the advice in this article.

Just be advised, that not everybody finds this style enjoyable, either to DM or as a player.

 

[sinecure]

Not convinced.

You view D&D as a competition, I simply don't (as i believe most people).
I don't care whether some other character has a stronger character than mine, or if he kills more monsters than my character, nor do I care if he has more XP than me, or better equipment. The game is not over once we all reach the highest possible level (whatever that is) and the first to get there is not the winner.

What I want from the game, as do most of the players I know is for one night each week to be immersed in a fantasy (or whatever) world, and play the role of someone that is different than me (hence the Roleplaying in roleplaying game).

If players did not view D&D as a competition, there would be no call for balance between classes. Classes are not balanced to fit pre-molded monster encounters. I agree with the OP about that. Right now classes are balanced so players do not argue amongst themselves about who has the more powerful character. How elements of it are "broken". And broken for a PC, rarely if ever for an NPC monster.

Nor is D&D a good example of the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's Dilemma, people benefit from the loss of other people. D&D is also not a zero-sum game. It is a game that everyone can win and no one can lose because we're all having fun!! And this is actually NOT a new-school advice. Take a look at the BECMI basic set (IIRC, if not - then some other old school core product).

Cooperative play between characters is not possible because it means more trasure can be gained, unless the only thing that interests the character is gaining treasure. There are many more things a character can be interested in. Friendship, just to name one.

As for Paranoia, well, don't blame me - I didn't write that game. Nevertheless, there are many people who play that GAME and are enjoying it.

People do benefit by killing other people in D&D. It's called XP for killing NPCs/monsters. But the game offers more for each individual with less risk, if each joins a group.

No, the competition you are talking about is not relevant in D&D. If that be the case PCs could always kill their other colleagues and hire mercenaries that could cost them less than share the loot.

People by nature are constantly in front of dilemmas that they need information to eliminate. So they are constantly dependant to information. This is what PCs provide: information. The deal now is that their dilemmas must be such that push the PCs to physically band together as adventurers. Of course this would be somewhat hard without another source of information -an independant one that properly functions as an independant point of reference (the adventure). This source is the DM.

With all respect, I suggest you can only speak that it has been irrelevant to you. Have you ever played PvP in D&D? There are no rules against it. I believe it is not the default style of play because of the desires players bring to the game, not because the game forbids it. But D&D awards individuals, not teams. Teams arose (and stay together) because it makes sense individually to do so.

And hirelings are always an option, but they have NPC loyalty scores with modifiers based on shares of loot. You could get killed over how you divide treasure (and not just by your friendly Players sitting next to you). Not to mention NPCs offer information just like PCs do making that just another point for making it good to group during play, solo or otherwise.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Teams arose (and stay together) because it makes sense individually to do so.

Teams arose because it's the easiest way to have a group of people sit at a table and play the same game at once. It's not the only way--I run my games in 3-minute scenes, going around the table for much of the evening--but it's the Gygaxian Way.

 

[eric mcloins]

If players did not view D&D as a competition, there would be no call for balance between classes. Classes are not balanced to fit pre-molded monster encounters. I agree with the OP about that. Right now classes are balanced so players do not argue amongst themselves about who has the more powerful character. How elements of it are "broken". And broken for a PC, rarely if ever for an NPC monster.


People do benefit by killing other people in D&D. It's called XP for killing NPCs/monsters. But the game offers more for each individual with less risk, if each joins a group.


With all respect, I suggest you can only speak that it has been irrelevant to you. Have you ever played PvP in D&D? There are no rules against it. I believe it is not the default style of play because of the desires players bring to the game, not because the game forbids it. But D&D awards individuals, not teams. Teams arose (and stay together) because it makes sense individually to do so.

And hirelings are always an option, but they have NPC loyalty scores with modifiers based on shares of loot. You could get killed over how you divide treasure (and not just by your friendly Players sitting next to you). Not to mention NPCs offer information just like PCs do making that just another point for making it good to group during play, solo or otherwise.

I suspect that if I ask you what is the goal in D&D you would answer: "gain XP and treasure". If I was asked the same questions I would answer "have good roleplaying experience and immerse myself in the role of a character". Since these goals are so different in playing D&D, we might as well have been playing different games altogether, and there can be no real discussion between us. BTW, if I was to play a competitive game that its goal was gaining experience and treasure I would have played WOW or something of the kind, not D&D.

 

[Janx]

If players did not view D&D as a competition, there would be no call for balance between classes. Classes are not balanced to fit pre-molded monster encounters. I agree with the OP about that. Right now classes are balanced so players do not argue amongst themselves about who has the more powerful character. How elements of it are "broken". And broken for a PC, rarely if ever for an NPC monster.

Actually, playing an RPG with mismatched characters is the equivalent of "blocking" in improv theater. If we both have a goal of "kicking butt and looking cool" and the PC you built is MUCH better, I will fail at reaching the goal, you will not. If both PCs are balanced, then we both can kick butt and look cool.

class balance has multiple reasons. Competitive play between players has seldom been a game focus (every intro to RPGing I've ever read has said the opposite) by the designers of most RPGs. At most, an antagonistic style with the GM has been embraced.

Not saying players can't play competitively (in the same way xbox players do on Live). Only that taken literally, the outcome is often PvP and angry players. The result is, a lower probability of fun for players, ceteris paribus.