If our Hobby has a problem, it is the difficulty of interpersonal communcation.
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Teenagers often feel great pain, because it is so difficult to be a teenager. (We all know; we were all there.)
Yet I think adults get maligned by teenagers, who often don't appreciate just how truly painful it can be, to be an adult. (You think doing your homework is hard? Try holding down a job, raising you, and keeping the house and car in shape!)
I was asked to clarify why I thought D&D punished creativity and the imagination.
I will give my best and most honest shot on answering this.
If you are a DM, and I am a player - amongst 4 other players - and we have 4 hours of time, there are not limitless possibilities for what we can do. Why? Because there is not time for those possibilities. It is that simple: we just don't have the time. If we are lucky, we can have a good game, enjoy ourselves, and create some great memories ... but within limits. We can't do everything we want to do.
Imagination and creativity create detours within the game. Detours are great and fun, but they take time, and we don't have that much time to give.
Let me go back to Tolkien. He took a detour from his main story. He had Frodo and Company in Woody End, then at Farmer Maggot's, then in Buckland, then Old Forest, then Withywindle Valley, then at Tom Bombadil's, then in the Barrow Downs, then in the Barrow Tomb, then rescued from the Barrow Tomb and escorted to the Great Road.
Now * I * thought that whole series of chapters was fantastic. It was one of the best parts of the whole trilogy, to me. I think it was very creative. It was very imaginative.
Let's say that Peter Jackson decided to include all of it in his films, and to be true to the story. It would only have taken the entire film - the ENTIRE 3 1/2 hour film - to do this segment of the story justice (well, ok, maybe 2 hours?)
Did Peter Jackson have time for this? No. Would it have totally ruined the film, if he had spent 2 hours there and 1 1/2 hours for everything else? Yes. (Whether you liked or hated the films, can't you see where I'm coming from here?)
Do creative and imaginative detours created by the players use up time, when there is not time? Yes. And if there is not time, doesn't this ruin the game? Yes. Does the DM and don't the other players clamor for this to be supressed, so they too can have some fun? Yes.
If ALL the players and the DM alike decided to go the Tom Bombadil route, the game would never get anywhere! Which is perfectly fine, if you have unlimited time: none of us do.
If we are heading into the Temple of Elemental Evil, but I decide to build a Druid's Fortress first on the outskirts (in order, supposedly, to begin a long term crusade against the evil within) won't that take up time, as you the DM have to adjudicate it? Won't it create contingency situations (such as scouts from the Temple discovering it, and thus a whole new storyline beginning) that takes up time? Won't the other players be encouraged to dream up improvements to the 'Druidic Fortress' (the mage: I throw Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion and Permanency, and I'll start moving all my stuff from the Forgotten Realms in! The fighter: I'm sending back for my henchmen: we'll build an army right here! The cleric: I'm setting up a Holy Shrine here, a counter to the evil Temple! The druid to the cleric: No you aren't: set it up nearby! The monk: This looks like the perfect place to build a monastery ...) ?
So, before you know it, the 4 hours your had for the game is over. Gone. Because everyone spent it building (or talking about building) the Druidic Fortress, and not adventuring in the Temple. Of course, the Druidic Fortress never gets built, but your 4 hours is shot. The adventure is over for this week, ruined, and nobody had any of the fun you the DM wanted them to have.
Now, if you had 20 straight hours to game (ala one of those long ago conventions, where you gamed and watched the sun rise after a long night's worth of gaming
) then that Druidic Fortress might have been workable. But you just don't have that kind of time now. Nobody does ... or, at least, very few do.
Even if you have that 20 hours to spend, would you rather spend it dealing with Druidic Fortresses that might or might not be built, which might or might not advance the plot and the fun, and which might or might not completely sidetrack the whole adventure, or would you rather devote it to ... the players adventuring in the Temple of Elemental Evil?
I think most of us would prefer the latter. And that's perfectly reasonable. Why should one player's whimsical imagination be allowed to derail the campaign?
I say: it shouldn't.
But this does show that creativity and imagination tend to get squelched in AD&D and D&D. It's a simple matter of time: creativity and imagination require time, cost time, and we don't have time (any author will tell you that writing a book or gaming product - a supreme act of creativity and imagination - takes a LOT of time.)
-
The difficulties of interpersonal communication, and the problems from Real Life the players bring to the table, interfere further in creativity and imagination.
I will be honest here: you are playing, and doing your best, and Mr. Bigshot comes along with some way out idea, gets away with it because of a permissive DM, crows like Peter Pan himself, hogs all the attention and gets all the credit for winning, while you have to sit there, shut up, and drink your pepsi.
Real fun, no? I'm guessing most of you would say: NOT. And I'm guessing most of you would say: Been there, done that (that is, you've had to sit there, shut up, and watch Mr. Bigshot go on crowing for a bloody hour.)
I'm sure all of us want recognition. That's just the normal thinking of normal people.
We want to be appreciated for what we do. We want a fair reward for our efforts. We want to feel good about ourselves after hard work. I say there is nothing wrong with that. I say we are in the right to want these things.
But if Mr. Mage solves all the problems with creative solutions, where do we come in?
If Mr. Cleric drives off all the undead, what's left for us?
If Mr. Fighter kills all the baddies, what role remains for us to play?
If Mr. Thief opens all the doors and chests and entraps all our foes for us, what job other than mop-up is left for us?
Of course, if Mr. Montyhall decides to take over the game (and he all too often does) we might as well go watch TV. The DM and Mr. Montyhall can play. But why did we come to game in the first place, then, and what's the point of coming again?
This is NOT jealousy, on our part. It is NOT poor behavior or spoilsporting on our part!!!
It is perfectly REASONABLE for US to want a fair part in the game, in the action, in the risks, and in the rewards.
-
But D&D, like books, is inherently unbalanced. It was created that way, and it remains that way, despite all efforts to balance it (the plethora of Prestige Classes is a new form of unbalance, IMO ... waits to get it now for saying that! )
Consider the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. (I'm sure you've heard of HIM, and I'm sure half of you flinched just upon hearing that name. But there he is, in this post!)
Thomas Covenant has the Wild Magic. He's the toughest dude around. Compared to him, everyone else is a weakling (even Lord Foul.) Yet he's a whiny, insufferable person, the kind of man who would surpass the patience of even Tasslehoff Burrfoot. Not to mention the evil things he does: no party could reasonably expect to tolerate such a character in their midst.
And yet ... the different classes in D&D have their own individual strengths and weaknesses, different backgrounds, and different personalities by default. And these are not necessary prone to getting along, anymore than Thomas Covenant got along with anyone else.
Paladins must be lawful good. Assassins must be evil. Not compatible. Obvious.
Mages are ultra weak, then game breakingly powerful. No in-between. Also obvious.
How about this: a thief comes from the poorest part of town, and she's starved her whole life. The cavalier led the high life, and he expects pampering and deference and bowing and scraping. Not so compatible.
How about this: The party expects the thief to go open that trapped chest, but expects her to share all the goodies. The thief thinks otherwise. The cleric is expected to heal everyone. The cleric memorized no healing spells, envisoning himself as a great warrior. The mage is expected to pull artillery duty. The mage is a coward, and memorized Fleet Feet. The fighter expects to be given any magical armor and arms found, because he needs them to survive (and thus the party to survive), but the elf yonder (he claims to be the party's savior with his + 5 bow and Bracers of Speed) says HE'S taking the arms and armor.
There is a little of Thomas Covenant, Lord Foul, Fleshharrower, Satansfist, Drool Rockworm, and all their failings and differences in all the core classes. (No, the core classes are not criminal, as Thomas Covenant was: that's aside from the point.)
Can you imagine a party being run by players consisting of the characters above? Do you even WANT to go there? Or does your imagination shrink away from such horrors?
To a much, much lesser extent, though, that horrible image is built into the D&D system.
I see Thomas Covenant, Lord Foul, Fleshharrower, Satansfist, and Drool Rockworm in the core classes. But I also see Lord Mhoram, Bannor, Saltheart Foamfollower, Atiaran, Manethrall Rue, Hirebrand Tohrm, and all the other good guys in there too.
The good guys are built into the system too.
All the complexity and grey areas and maddening, infuriating fallacies of normal peoples (you know, the reason you want to throw Lord Foul's Bane across the room?) are built into the system. (Wait, you mean Covenant wasn't normal? He was a criminal? That's why you threw the book? Well, consider the Blackguard! The Assassin! The Dark Cleric! The insufferable Cavalier! The even more insufferable bigoted Elf! Or just your everyday adventuring party that breaks in to some poor den of critters just minding their own business, kills them all without mercy, takes all their stuff, and walks away whistling, and calls it a Good Thing. Or, consider any evil party: torturing paladins, pillaging towns, kidnapping maidens, engaging in monstrous rituals, and ... )
You might not all agree that the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant were good books (I thought they were very good books ...) You might think highly or poorly of Thomas Covenant (I think he should have been summarily executed ...)
But the core classes of the D&D game, reflect all the good aspects, bad aspects, failings, triumphs, hateful things, loveable things, and human things of the characters of those books.
Or substitute your favorite fantasy books instead. Consider the Dragonriders of Pern. I would say the core classes reflect the strengths and weaknesses of characters like Moreta and Menoly. Or the characters of the Black Company. Or the characters from the legion of books by Frank Herbert. Or the books of Isaac Asimov.
I could even say the core classes of D&D reflect us, the people of the Real World, with all our complexities.
-
When you take into account:
1. The lack of time ...
2. The propensity of some players to head off into Left Field ...
3. The genuine desire of everyone to have fun ...
4. The built-in inbalance within the core classes (and all the current classes, core and otherwise) ...
Bad things happen. And interpersonal communication skills may or may not be sufficient to halt the process. People are fallable, people have problems (we all have problems ...), and people make mistakes.
We see phraseology (Music Man!) like this start to appear:
He's a show-off.
Mr. DM, could you please shut him up?
We want to get on with the game.
We're wasting time here, folks! (how often have you heard THAT one!?)
There's nothing for us to do, because he's doing everything.
I'm going for a soda. Tell me when something actually happens.
He wants to do WHAT?
You aren't being reasonable.
This is the danger point, when one hears these things being said. The game is seriously threatened. People are in serious danger of having what little free time they have in their lives thrown on the garbage heap.
If the DM cannot stop the situation from escalating, it worsens and we hear things like this:
His character is a munchkin.
His character is a snert.
He thinks he's smarter than the rest of us.
He thinks he's better than us.
The DM thinks he's better than us.
This game is a waste of time.
This game sucks.
This group stinks.
These people will never get along.
Now, there ARE such things as jealousy, anger, viciousness, and the like in this world.
The more things become antagonistic in the game, the more these traits in us raise their ugly heads. Of course, jealousy, anger, and the like, only make the situation worse:
He's a cheater.
All mages are broken. All clerics are broken. All fighters are broken.
Ban all thieves.
We don't want anything but the script, please (because anything else makes the growing antagonism worse.)
It's my way or the highway, dude.
I'm the DM, so I'm God. Get it?
This entire edition of the game sucks.
That entire complement of gaming supplements stink.
That person is bad.
That person should be thrown out.
That person had better do what I tell him, or on the way home ...
Now you have a Poisoned Atmosphere. People come to the game EXPECTING conflict, party infighting, and all the mind-numbing, wearying bad behavior we have all come to know and hate.
We wouldn't find Knights of the Dinner Table so funny if we had not all come to know and hate it.
Yet, people still come to the game. Because there is that sense of magic, the sense of fun, that is still remembered, and people are willing to fight for it. People really, truly, want to experience it again.
Why else does the Hobby still exist, if we did not derive great joy from it, and hope to find that joy again, in spite of the sometimes dreadful tables we have to sit at?
But in our effort to find that fun, in recognition of the limits of time, and in recognition of where the imagination and creativity lead (to disruption of the game, then angry players, then a broken up group) we quell imagination and creativity forcibly, and we go by the script.
We have to. We've all experienced the alternative, and it's dreadful. You can throw the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant across the room, if you hate that character, and quit reading the book. But it's quite another matter if you are having to sit AT THAT TABLE, trapped between Covenant, Sherrif Lytton, Lord Foul, Jennanum and Satansfist Ravers, the Kemper, the Croyel and it's Arguyle, Drool Rockworm, and all the others (even if the better players are trying to be Lord Mhoram and Saltheart Foamfollower and Atiaran and Bannor ...)
Allow creativity and imagination to run amok, to go unchecked, and we always end up at that table.
And that is why creativity and imagination are suppressed in fantasy role playing games.
Ok, I've gone so far out on the limb, I have to stretch my fingers to reach the tips of the outermost leaves. Methinks I'm going to fall now.
I merely give my opinion. It's the opinion of one person, with limited experience amongst a limited number of players. Take it for what it's worth (not much.)
I would love to have a gaming world where creativity and imagination ran amok, utterly unchecked, off into the Wild Blue Yonder.
But that's like that teenager who doesn't like homework (top of this post.) The DM has the responsibility (like the adult, top of post) , and how can he possibly arbitrate such a thing?
And if everyone wants to go galloping off in their own direction, heedless and free as the wind, how can there be a group of characters? How can there be a game for them?
What a paradox it is!
Fantasy roleplaying games are about imagination and creativity. I think that's a given.
Yet fantasy roleplaying games, by their inherent nature, stifle and suppress imagination and creativity.
Go figure.
Yet I think adults get maligned by teenagers, who often don't appreciate just how truly painful it can be, to be an adult. (You think doing your homework is hard? Try holding down a job, raising you, and keeping the house and car in shape!)
I was asked to clarify why I thought D&D punished creativity and the imagination.
I will give my best and most honest shot on answering this.
If you are a DM, and I am a player - amongst 4 other players - and we have 4 hours of time, there are not limitless possibilities for what we can do. Why? Because there is not time for those possibilities. It is that simple: we just don't have the time. If we are lucky, we can have a good game, enjoy ourselves, and create some great memories ... but within limits. We can't do everything we want to do.
Imagination and creativity create detours within the game. Detours are great and fun, but they take time, and we don't have that much time to give.
Let me go back to Tolkien. He took a detour from his main story. He had Frodo and Company in Woody End, then at Farmer Maggot's, then in Buckland, then Old Forest, then Withywindle Valley, then at Tom Bombadil's, then in the Barrow Downs, then in the Barrow Tomb, then rescued from the Barrow Tomb and escorted to the Great Road.
Now * I * thought that whole series of chapters was fantastic. It was one of the best parts of the whole trilogy, to me. I think it was very creative. It was very imaginative.
Let's say that Peter Jackson decided to include all of it in his films, and to be true to the story. It would only have taken the entire film - the ENTIRE 3 1/2 hour film - to do this segment of the story justice (well, ok, maybe 2 hours?)
Did Peter Jackson have time for this? No. Would it have totally ruined the film, if he had spent 2 hours there and 1 1/2 hours for everything else? Yes. (Whether you liked or hated the films, can't you see where I'm coming from here?)
Do creative and imaginative detours created by the players use up time, when there is not time? Yes. And if there is not time, doesn't this ruin the game? Yes. Does the DM and don't the other players clamor for this to be supressed, so they too can have some fun? Yes.
If ALL the players and the DM alike decided to go the Tom Bombadil route, the game would never get anywhere! Which is perfectly fine, if you have unlimited time: none of us do.
If we are heading into the Temple of Elemental Evil, but I decide to build a Druid's Fortress first on the outskirts (in order, supposedly, to begin a long term crusade against the evil within) won't that take up time, as you the DM have to adjudicate it? Won't it create contingency situations (such as scouts from the Temple discovering it, and thus a whole new storyline beginning) that takes up time? Won't the other players be encouraged to dream up improvements to the 'Druidic Fortress' (the mage: I throw Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion and Permanency, and I'll start moving all my stuff from the Forgotten Realms in! The fighter: I'm sending back for my henchmen: we'll build an army right here! The cleric: I'm setting up a Holy Shrine here, a counter to the evil Temple! The druid to the cleric: No you aren't: set it up nearby! The monk: This looks like the perfect place to build a monastery ...) ?
So, before you know it, the 4 hours your had for the game is over. Gone. Because everyone spent it building (or talking about building) the Druidic Fortress, and not adventuring in the Temple. Of course, the Druidic Fortress never gets built, but your 4 hours is shot. The adventure is over for this week, ruined, and nobody had any of the fun you the DM wanted them to have.
Now, if you had 20 straight hours to game (ala one of those long ago conventions, where you gamed and watched the sun rise after a long night's worth of gaming
) then that Druidic Fortress might have been workable. But you just don't have that kind of time now. Nobody does ... or, at least, very few do.Even if you have that 20 hours to spend, would you rather spend it dealing with Druidic Fortresses that might or might not be built, which might or might not advance the plot and the fun, and which might or might not completely sidetrack the whole adventure, or would you rather devote it to ... the players adventuring in the Temple of Elemental Evil?
I think most of us would prefer the latter. And that's perfectly reasonable. Why should one player's whimsical imagination be allowed to derail the campaign?
I say: it shouldn't.
But this does show that creativity and imagination tend to get squelched in AD&D and D&D. It's a simple matter of time: creativity and imagination require time, cost time, and we don't have time (any author will tell you that writing a book or gaming product - a supreme act of creativity and imagination - takes a LOT of time.)
-
The difficulties of interpersonal communication, and the problems from Real Life the players bring to the table, interfere further in creativity and imagination.
I will be honest here: you are playing, and doing your best, and Mr. Bigshot comes along with some way out idea, gets away with it because of a permissive DM, crows like Peter Pan himself, hogs all the attention and gets all the credit for winning, while you have to sit there, shut up, and drink your pepsi.
Real fun, no? I'm guessing most of you would say: NOT. And I'm guessing most of you would say: Been there, done that (that is, you've had to sit there, shut up, and watch Mr. Bigshot go on crowing for a bloody hour.)
I'm sure all of us want recognition. That's just the normal thinking of normal people.
We want to be appreciated for what we do. We want a fair reward for our efforts. We want to feel good about ourselves after hard work. I say there is nothing wrong with that. I say we are in the right to want these things.
But if Mr. Mage solves all the problems with creative solutions, where do we come in?
If Mr. Cleric drives off all the undead, what's left for us?
If Mr. Fighter kills all the baddies, what role remains for us to play?
If Mr. Thief opens all the doors and chests and entraps all our foes for us, what job other than mop-up is left for us?
Of course, if Mr. Montyhall decides to take over the game (and he all too often does) we might as well go watch TV. The DM and Mr. Montyhall can play. But why did we come to game in the first place, then, and what's the point of coming again?
This is NOT jealousy, on our part. It is NOT poor behavior or spoilsporting on our part!!!
It is perfectly REASONABLE for US to want a fair part in the game, in the action, in the risks, and in the rewards.
-
But D&D, like books, is inherently unbalanced. It was created that way, and it remains that way, despite all efforts to balance it (the plethora of Prestige Classes is a new form of unbalance, IMO ... waits to get it now for saying that!
)Consider the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. (I'm sure you've heard of HIM, and I'm sure half of you flinched just upon hearing that name. But there he is, in this post!)
Thomas Covenant has the Wild Magic. He's the toughest dude around. Compared to him, everyone else is a weakling (even Lord Foul.) Yet he's a whiny, insufferable person, the kind of man who would surpass the patience of even Tasslehoff Burrfoot. Not to mention the evil things he does: no party could reasonably expect to tolerate such a character in their midst.
And yet ... the different classes in D&D have their own individual strengths and weaknesses, different backgrounds, and different personalities by default. And these are not necessary prone to getting along, anymore than Thomas Covenant got along with anyone else.
Paladins must be lawful good. Assassins must be evil. Not compatible. Obvious.
Mages are ultra weak, then game breakingly powerful. No in-between. Also obvious.
How about this: a thief comes from the poorest part of town, and she's starved her whole life. The cavalier led the high life, and he expects pampering and deference and bowing and scraping. Not so compatible.
How about this: The party expects the thief to go open that trapped chest, but expects her to share all the goodies. The thief thinks otherwise. The cleric is expected to heal everyone. The cleric memorized no healing spells, envisoning himself as a great warrior. The mage is expected to pull artillery duty. The mage is a coward, and memorized Fleet Feet. The fighter expects to be given any magical armor and arms found, because he needs them to survive (and thus the party to survive), but the elf yonder (he claims to be the party's savior with his + 5 bow and Bracers of Speed) says HE'S taking the arms and armor.
There is a little of Thomas Covenant, Lord Foul, Fleshharrower, Satansfist, Drool Rockworm, and all their failings and differences in all the core classes. (No, the core classes are not criminal, as Thomas Covenant was: that's aside from the point.)
Can you imagine a party being run by players consisting of the characters above? Do you even WANT to go there? Or does your imagination shrink away from such horrors?
To a much, much lesser extent, though, that horrible image is built into the D&D system.
I see Thomas Covenant, Lord Foul, Fleshharrower, Satansfist, and Drool Rockworm in the core classes. But I also see Lord Mhoram, Bannor, Saltheart Foamfollower, Atiaran, Manethrall Rue, Hirebrand Tohrm, and all the other good guys in there too.
The good guys are built into the system too.
All the complexity and grey areas and maddening, infuriating fallacies of normal peoples (you know, the reason you want to throw Lord Foul's Bane across the room?) are built into the system. (Wait, you mean Covenant wasn't normal? He was a criminal? That's why you threw the book? Well, consider the Blackguard! The Assassin! The Dark Cleric! The insufferable Cavalier! The even more insufferable bigoted Elf! Or just your everyday adventuring party that breaks in to some poor den of critters just minding their own business, kills them all without mercy, takes all their stuff, and walks away whistling, and calls it a Good Thing. Or, consider any evil party: torturing paladins, pillaging towns, kidnapping maidens, engaging in monstrous rituals, and ...
)You might not all agree that the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant were good books (I thought they were very good books ...) You might think highly or poorly of Thomas Covenant (I think he should have been summarily executed ...)
But the core classes of the D&D game, reflect all the good aspects, bad aspects, failings, triumphs, hateful things, loveable things, and human things of the characters of those books.
Or substitute your favorite fantasy books instead. Consider the Dragonriders of Pern. I would say the core classes reflect the strengths and weaknesses of characters like Moreta and Menoly. Or the characters of the Black Company. Or the characters from the legion of books by Frank Herbert. Or the books of Isaac Asimov.
I could even say the core classes of D&D reflect us, the people of the Real World, with all our complexities.
-
When you take into account:
1. The lack of time ...
2. The propensity of some players to head off into Left Field ...
3. The genuine desire of everyone to have fun ...
4. The built-in inbalance within the core classes (and all the current classes, core and otherwise) ...
Bad things happen. And interpersonal communication skills may or may not be sufficient to halt the process. People are fallable, people have problems (we all have problems ...), and people make mistakes.
We see phraseology (Music Man!) like this start to appear:
He's a show-off.
Mr. DM, could you please shut him up?
We want to get on with the game.
We're wasting time here, folks! (how often have you heard THAT one!?)
There's nothing for us to do, because he's doing everything.
I'm going for a soda. Tell me when something actually happens.
He wants to do WHAT?
You aren't being reasonable.
This is the danger point, when one hears these things being said. The game is seriously threatened. People are in serious danger of having what little free time they have in their lives thrown on the garbage heap.
If the DM cannot stop the situation from escalating, it worsens and we hear things like this:
His character is a munchkin.
His character is a snert.
He thinks he's smarter than the rest of us.
He thinks he's better than us.
The DM thinks he's better than us.
This game is a waste of time.
This game sucks.
This group stinks.
These people will never get along.
Now, there ARE such things as jealousy, anger, viciousness, and the like in this world.
The more things become antagonistic in the game, the more these traits in us raise their ugly heads. Of course, jealousy, anger, and the like, only make the situation worse:
He's a cheater.
All mages are broken. All clerics are broken. All fighters are broken.
Ban all thieves.
We don't want anything but the script, please (because anything else makes the growing antagonism worse.)
It's my way or the highway, dude.
I'm the DM, so I'm God. Get it?
This entire edition of the game sucks.
That entire complement of gaming supplements stink.
That person is bad.
That person should be thrown out.
That person had better do what I tell him, or on the way home ...
Now you have a Poisoned Atmosphere. People come to the game EXPECTING conflict, party infighting, and all the mind-numbing, wearying bad behavior we have all come to know and hate.
We wouldn't find Knights of the Dinner Table so funny if we had not all come to know and hate it.
Yet, people still come to the game. Because there is that sense of magic, the sense of fun, that is still remembered, and people are willing to fight for it. People really, truly, want to experience it again.
Why else does the Hobby still exist, if we did not derive great joy from it, and hope to find that joy again, in spite of the sometimes dreadful tables we have to sit at?
But in our effort to find that fun, in recognition of the limits of time, and in recognition of where the imagination and creativity lead (to disruption of the game, then angry players, then a broken up group) we quell imagination and creativity forcibly, and we go by the script.
We have to. We've all experienced the alternative, and it's dreadful. You can throw the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant across the room, if you hate that character, and quit reading the book. But it's quite another matter if you are having to sit AT THAT TABLE, trapped between Covenant, Sherrif Lytton, Lord Foul, Jennanum and Satansfist Ravers, the Kemper, the Croyel and it's Arguyle, Drool Rockworm, and all the others (even if the better players are trying to be Lord Mhoram and Saltheart Foamfollower and Atiaran and Bannor ...)
Allow creativity and imagination to run amok, to go unchecked, and we always end up at that table.
And that is why creativity and imagination are suppressed in fantasy role playing games.
Ok, I've gone so far out on the limb, I have to stretch my fingers to reach the tips of the outermost leaves. Methinks I'm going to fall now.
I merely give my opinion. It's the opinion of one person, with limited experience amongst a limited number of players. Take it for what it's worth (not much.)
I would love to have a gaming world where creativity and imagination ran amok, utterly unchecked, off into the Wild Blue Yonder.
But that's like that teenager who doesn't like homework (top of this post.) The DM has the responsibility (like the adult, top of post) , and how can he possibly arbitrate such a thing?
And if everyone wants to go galloping off in their own direction, heedless and free as the wind, how can there be a group of characters? How can there be a game for them?
What a paradox it is!
Fantasy roleplaying games are about imagination and creativity. I think that's a given.
Yet fantasy roleplaying games, by their inherent nature, stifle and suppress imagination and creativity.
Go figure.
Last edited:
I'll get to the longer stuff in a bit. But first..
A "value proposition" is the statement of what good thing you get out of the product.
Some asdvertising is based on simple name recognition. Other advertising is based on saying "our product works well! It is better than all the others!" But it often isn't enough to be recognized, or to be better. That your product is better is meaningless if I don't feel I need the product.
A value proposition instead answers the customer's question, "How will I profit from using this product?"
There are a great many forms of entertainment out there. Each person will find a whole pile of them to be fun. So it isn't enough to say, "D&D is fun!" The person already has tons of fun stuff to do. What about D&D makes it more worth the person's time?
A "value proposition" is the statement of what good thing you get out of the product.
Some asdvertising is based on simple name recognition. Other advertising is based on saying "our product works well! It is better than all the others!" But it often isn't enough to be recognized, or to be better. That your product is better is meaningless if I don't feel I need the product.
A value proposition instead answers the customer's question, "How will I profit from using this product?"
There are a great many forms of entertainment out there. Each person will find a whole pile of them to be fun. So it isn't enough to say, "D&D is fun!" The person already has tons of fun stuff to do. What about D&D makes it more worth the person's time?
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
I do have an answer to that question. But it's personal. It describes me, but not necessarily anyone else.
It allows me to go into the books I loved so much, before I played D&D.
It allows me to play the characters of those books, metaphorically.
Metaphorically, it allows me to live the books.
Of course, I am writing my own book, in thin air. Which makes it even better yet.
I am doing this in spite of:
The lack of time
The inherent inbalance and complexities
The difficulties of freeform interpersonal communication
The oftentimes poisoned atmosphere
Well, ok, I'm doing it a LITTLE bit. SOMETIMES the magic is there, and the metaphorical description fits. Sometimes, there is one heck of a lot of fun. Sometimes, there is even - truly - a sense of a grand story.
Usually, not. The inherent limitations get in the way. But the times when the magic works, when the fun is there, and the story is written, make the whole effort worth it.
That's what makes Dungeons and Dragons special, and a cut above all the other games.
That's why no computer game, card game, strategic or tactical game, or whatever game, can be a substitute for Dungeons and Dragons.
Did I mention it's pleasant to get together with friends over pepsi, to socialize with and be with others who like you, and to have a pleasant weekend break throughly enjoying yourself?
There is that, too ...
It allows me to go into the books I loved so much, before I played D&D.
It allows me to play the characters of those books, metaphorically.
Metaphorically, it allows me to live the books.
Of course, I am writing my own book, in thin air. Which makes it even better yet.
I am doing this in spite of:
The lack of time
The inherent inbalance and complexities
The difficulties of freeform interpersonal communication
The oftentimes poisoned atmosphere
Well, ok, I'm doing it a LITTLE bit. SOMETIMES the magic is there, and the metaphorical description fits. Sometimes, there is one heck of a lot of fun. Sometimes, there is even - truly - a sense of a grand story.
Usually, not. The inherent limitations get in the way. But the times when the magic works, when the fun is there, and the story is written, make the whole effort worth it.
That's what makes Dungeons and Dragons special, and a cut above all the other games.
That's why no computer game, card game, strategic or tactical game, or whatever game, can be a substitute for Dungeons and Dragons.
Did I mention it's pleasant to get together with friends over pepsi, to socialize with and be with others who like you, and to have a pleasant weekend break throughly enjoying yourself?
There is that, too ...
tonym
First Post
Edena_of_Neith said:
Here is a quote defining phatic communion I yoinked off a website:
"The fact that human beings tend to talk when they meet, often leads to a sense of discomfort, even hostility, when silence occurs in such a meeting. Because talk is often a first step in establishing a relationship it is characterised by a stock of conventional utterances which break such silences and help to establish the participants in a mutual situation in which awkwardness and tension gradually disappear. Social contact is, in turn, liable to generate speech between participants who have nothing to say. The ability to produce such speech is, potentially, a social asset.
This kind of utterance was given the name phatic communion by Malinowski, the anthropologist who studied the speech and customs of the Trobriand Islanders. He described such talk as a means by which 'ties of union are created by the mere exchange of words.' Typically, in New Zealand, such phatic communion centres on comments about the weather, on personal appearance, enquiries about health, or affirmations about everyday things. It serves in an atmosphere-setting capacity.
Phatic communion is the initial linguistic attempt to relate to another individual. If this relationship develops, then small talk will take over, and that in turn may lead to serious conversation. In any real situation all three types of talk may be intermingled according to the circumstances. "
It was a long quote, but judging by the size of your musings, I predicted that you wouldn't mind.
Edena_of_Neith said:
Hrm...I don't know. If somebody is a jerk, alcohol might make him a bigger, louder jerk, sure. But a little wine or beer in the stomach of a nervous or shy fellow could be a good thing. You seem to be really down on alcohol, and that's fine; alcohol can cause all kinds of problems. But I wasn't saying drink until your personality changes or anything. Alcohol has been called a social lubricant because it's a popular way to loosen people up and get them talking. That's all I was saying.
Tony M
tonym
First Post
Edena_of_Neith said:
There's only one way to do exactly that.
Play in a very small group: just you and a DM.
The DM should be really, really good, too.
With that scenario in place, your creativity and imagination can truly run amok.
YOU: On second thought, nevermind the Temple. I'm heading to the Druid's Grove.
DM: As you turn, the first thing you see is a full moon, hanging low over the trees...
Tony M
DragonLancer
Hero
Wow, thats quite some read.
I don't think that communication is the problem here, I think its time. Theres only so many hours in the day and we all have so much to squeeze into those hours. In my experience the situation comes down to time spent doing something. Some people spend twelve hours on a weekend sitting on a riverside fishing, but may never catch anything, and just spend the day sitting there (true, its a form of relaxation I suppose). The same person balks at the idea of setting aside 4 hours a week to sit at a table with some friends playing an RPG.
We don't make enough time for ourselves in this day and age. Its all work, time with partner, time with kids, time in front of the TV... no time for anything else and while all that is important, folks put all that before time for themselves.
All this together is the problem that roleplaying games have.
I don't think that communication is the problem here, I think its time. Theres only so many hours in the day and we all have so much to squeeze into those hours. In my experience the situation comes down to time spent doing something. Some people spend twelve hours on a weekend sitting on a riverside fishing, but may never catch anything, and just spend the day sitting there (true, its a form of relaxation I suppose). The same person balks at the idea of setting aside 4 hours a week to sit at a table with some friends playing an RPG.
We don't make enough time for ourselves in this day and age. Its all work, time with partner, time with kids, time in front of the TV... no time for anything else and while all that is important, folks put all that before time for themselves.
All this together is the problem that roleplaying games have.
Edena_of_Neith said:
Hm. Edena, methinks you are in error here - there's a difference between creativity being squelched or suppressed, and it being channelled.
I, personally, don't want an RPG in which creativity and imagination ran amok, unchecked. Creativity amok has no rhyme, nor reason. After we were done, we'd have no cohesive story to tell. It would be chaos - like taking snippets of every movie ever made, and hooking them into a montage with nothing linking the elements together, wandering aimlessly. Creativity needs to have a channel or a focus in order to be constructive.
It is difficult or impossible to play a satisfying role in a universe run amok. I'd prefer my games at least be focused enough to meet the needs of a narrative. Channelling them down to meet the neds of a narrative told in 4-hour chunks isn't all that much more drastic, to me.
This is why we play a game - games have rules, and those rules define the universe and channel creative energies down paths that tend to yield satisfying results. People sitting around brainstorming or shooting the breeze can experience creativity truly unfettered, but it is a much diffeent experience, and you've less chance fo coming out of it really satisfied with teh results.
Droogie
Explorer
DragonLancer said:
The time required to invest in the game is a problem yes, but many people seem to have no problem spending hours playing World of Warcraft or fishing, as you say. Its also the logistical problem of getting 5 busy people together every week and learning several books of rules. People not only need the time but the dedication. A pen-n-paper RPG is one of the few pasttimes I know that requires some serious work to get to the fun, unlike the immediate gratification of video games. Not everyone is willing to invest their valuable time into work that seems so...pointless.
Hopefully, further refinements of the game system will help diminish the workload. I'm one of the few looking forward to 4th Ed. for this very reason.
Last edited:
Joshua Randall
Legend
Edena -- have you read the Dungeon Master's Guide II ? It has an entire chapter on the importance of communication to the game, and about the different types of things people enjoy regarding D&D. (Some people enjoy combat, some enjoy puzzle-solving, some enjoy exploration, etc.)
I think it's one of the best chapters ever written about D&D.
I think it's one of the best chapters ever written about D&D.
