Guide to Adventure Writing

[xechnao]

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 solving that problem can be defined in 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.

Lol. You misuderstood me. Symmetry relation in mathematics is a relation among members that if it exists it preserves itself whatever combination of these members you might display. Anti symmetry relation is a relation that if it exists is valid only by certain members to other members and not the other way around.
I guess abstract mathematics wrong way to make an example. But I have difficulty explaining it. It is like that what you narrate depends from others narrate and what others narrate depends from what you narrate.

 

[eric mcloins]

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.

If what you describe is roleplaying an adventurer, then playing monopoly is roleplaying a real-estate tycoon. Actually, playing D&D the way you describe it sounds exciting to me almost as much as playing monopoly...

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.

I did. Gaining XP was never my goal when playing D&D. Of course, Xp is a way for me to develop my character through game mechanics. But the game mechanics are secondary, the development of the character is my primary goal.

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.

And what a long way we have come since then. You can keep on playing as Tim #2 as long as you like, but I really think that there CAN be more to this game. I really can't understand why you refuse to see that roleplaying a character (and not a cliched archetype of an adventurer) can be a much more rewarding experience. Roleplaying a character whose sole interest is Xp and equipment is playing a shallow character. D&D characters can have much more complex goals than that. Also, gaining Xp will always be the goal of the player, not the character, since in the game world there is no meaning to Xp. Those exist only in our real-world representation of the game world.

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.

Have you tried reading a campaign journal? Some of them are really not crappy. The ones that are not crappy are based on a campaign that has a plot. Of course the plot is not created by a single narrator but by cooperation of DM and players, but still, the DM has an idea of how things mught turn out. His ability to expect the reactions of his players' characters is what makes him able to plan ahead and create an exciting game.

 

[sinecure]

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 still think this means Players play cooperatively because it is a more successful way to play. That it is also a more enjoyable way is a bonus. Having a dangerous environment does not mean it is the only danger. Just like in real life every person is a potential threat.

Lol. You misuderstood me. Symmetry relation in mathematics is a relation among members that if it exists it preserves itself whatever combination of these members you might display. Anti symmetry relation is a relation that if it exists is valid only by certain members to other members and not the other way around.
I guess abstract mathematics wrong way to make an example. But I have difficulty explaining it. It is like that what you narrate depends from others narrate and what others narrate depends from what you narrate.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking that was an odd thing to want out of a game. But what you are describing now sounds like typical conversation between players. It is like your or I living our lives normally. We each determine our portion of reality as persons. That is any game of D&D, a simulation of reality.

 

[sinecure]

If what you describe is roleplaying an adventurer, then playing monopoly is roleplaying a real-estate tycoon. Actually, playing D&D the way you describe it sounds exciting to me almost as much as playing monopoly...

That's exactly true. You can give your little token a personality too when playing Monopoly. It is the same thing as D&D and minis.

I did. Gaining XP was never my goal when playing D&D. Of course, Xp is a way for me to develop my character through game mechanics. But the game mechanics are secondary, the development of the character is my primary goal.

It sounds like your goals in D&D were never supported by the game then. Character development comes through level advancement. Player development comes from learning how to be a better adventurer. For D&D at least. For a game like Call of Cthulhu it should make you a better investigator in real life. But I don't think CoC does that very well.

And what a long way we have come since then. You can keep on playing as Tim #2 as long as you like, but I really think that there CAN be more to this game. I really can't understand why you refuse to see that roleplaying a character (and not a cliched archetype of an adventurer) can be a much more rewarding experience. Roleplaying a character whose sole interest is Xp and equipment is playing a shallow character. D&D characters can have much more complex goals than that. Also, gaining Xp will always be the goal of the player, not the character, since in the game world there is no meaning to Xp. Those exist only in our real-world representation of the game world.

Shallow how? A player of Tim #1 could be an awesome roleplayer. One of the best adventurers to have on your side if you were ever in a tough situation in D&D. Personality and character development have no rules in D&D. A Player receives no rewards for doing these things other than self satisfaction. Sure acting is fun, but why do you think it is part of D&D when it has never supported it?

Have you tried reading a campaign journal? Some of them are really not crappy. The ones that are not crappy are based on a campaign that has a plot. Of course the plot is not created by a single narrator but by cooperation of DM and players, but still, the DM has an idea of how things mught turn out. His ability to expect the reactions of his players' characters is what makes him able to plan ahead and create an exciting game.

I do not doubt some journals are awesome. But they are like telling stories about games we have already played. It is much better to play D&D than read about D&D in my opinion. As a DM I steal ideas from them, but they are generally no better than any other kind of fiction to steal from.

And plots cannot be in RPGs. There is a great article about this called "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast". You should not create plots for your games - IMO again. And the OP's too I believe. Because you cannot predict what your players may do. So it is better to create the simulation and let them wander about inside it attempting what they will. If you have smart players interesting things will happen just like in life. That's like the whole point of this thread.

 

[xechnao]

That's exactly true. You can give your little token a personality too when playing Monopoly. It is the same thing as D&D and minis.

It sounds like your goals in D&D were never supported by the game then. Character development comes through level advancement. Player development comes from learning how to be a better adventurer. For D&D at least. For a game like Call of Cthulhu it should make you a better investigator in real life. But I don't think CoC does that very well.

Shallow how? A player of Tim #1 could be an awesome roleplayer. One of the best adventurers to have on your side if you were ever in a tough situation in D&D. Personality and character development have no rules in D&D. A Player receives no rewards for doing these things other than self satisfaction. Sure acting is fun, but why do you think it is part of D&D when it has never supported it?

I do not doubt some journals are awesome. But they are like telling stories about games we have already played. It is much better to play D&D than read about D&D in my opinion. As a DM I steal ideas from them, but they are generally no better than any other kind of fiction to steal from.

And plots cannot be in RPGs. There is a great article about this called "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast". You should not create plots for your games - IMO again. And the OP's too I believe. Because you cannot predict what your players may do. So it is better to create the simulation and let them wander about inside it attempting what they will. If you have smart players interesting things will happen just like in life. That's like the whole point of this thread.

This is what I do not understand. In real life there is some sort of a plot comprised from our routines (normally periodic) and risk which is not. A simulation must take in consideration this. If D&D is sort of a simulation how does it not need some kind of a plot?

Just like in real life every person is a potential threat.

Not really. It depends from plot. Wearpon and war industries would want us to think like that but it mostly depends on lifestyles than anything else.

 

[Ydars]

I actually agree with Sinecure here; roleplaying, as most people understand it, was NOT invented by Gary Gygax.

The more I read his writings, the more I become convinced that his idea of roleplaying was closer to Raven Crowking's idea of "Smart-Play" than my idea of roleplaying.

However, I also agree that one of the most fun parts of D&D is ROLEplaying; by which I mean the act of creating and inhabiting a character with an emotional and spiritual makeup that is quite different from my own. I enjoy STORY although I do also agree with Sinecure that plot and story are entriely unnecessary in D&D, and in fact Gygax appeared to not to use them much.

His games appear to me to have been giant sand-box dungeons that did not level or alter challenge depending upon party resources or level and that rewarded "smart-play" type roleplaying.

This is what the D&D rules were meant to reward, which is why I find it interesting that SO many people (incl myself) use the game in such a very different way. In a very real sense, Gary did not invent roleplaying; WE, the D&D community did!

 

[sinecure]

This is what I do not understand. In real life there is some sort of a plot comprised from our routines (normally periodic) and risk which is not. A simulation must take in consideration this. If D&D is sort of a simulation how does it not need some kind of a plot?


Not really. It depends from plot. Wearpon and war industries would want us to think like that but it mostly depends on lifestyles than anything else.

A simulation has no plot except the place and people you are simulating. If simulating Greenland makes Greenland into a plot, then there is your answer. How players choose to interact with it is what is potentially interesting.

Other people are always a potential threat based upon theories of natural law. Hobbes, Locke, and other political theories are based on the principle. It isn't a scam from military theorists. Search for "cooperation theory" online. If there is no rule for attacking other players in a game, then it is either a natural expectation certain players have about they should play (no matter how many help enforce this expectation) or PvP games can be and are played by the rules. I say PvP games lead to cooperative play as a result of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

That D&D and other simulation games do not usually make fun PvP games means they are played cooperatively from Player desire which will always be PC desire in an RPG. The TPKs you are talking about halt PC XP gain too and that may be one reason why people are mad at your table. Whatever success they wanted is not working by being uncooperative and their PC died. You say the environment draws Players together. I say the environment includes monsters (both NPCs and PCs) and this banding together for survival and power can be seen in PvP MMORPGs. It's all D&D to me.

 

[xechnao]

...

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

I still think this means Players play cooperatively because it is a more successful way to play.

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 it is also a more enjoyable way is a bonus.

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


RC

 

[eric mcloins]

That's exactly true. You can give your little token a personality too when playing Monopoly. It is the same thing as D&D and minis.

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

It sounds like your goals in D&D were never supported by the game then.

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?

A player of Tim #1 could be an awesome roleplayer.

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 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.

And plots cannot be in RPGs.

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