Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[Aenghus]

Some players enjoy Capital "D" Drama and make a point of wringing every last drop of Drama out of a character. Some such drop characters like an empty juicebox once they have run out of juice. After all, there's always a new PC concept or ten, as yet untapped for Drama.

Other players exist who don't enjoy "Drama" in and of itself and are content to run a character more or less as initially conceived as long as they are permitted to do so. They may learn and develop in small incremental ways but massive change is neither expected nor wanted.

It can get confusing when a PC happens to have lots of Big "D" Dramatic potential, but his or her player isn't interested in investigating it. Players often haven't enough self-knowledge to indicate how much or how little Drama they want from a character, and what areas of roleplay are preferred, acceptable or unacceptable. So you can end up with a situation where a referee throws lots of Drama at such a player, who fumbles or rejects it, and probably results in a real world drama of misunderstandings and crossed signals.

IMO making players choose between their fun and in-game success is invidious and something to be strenuously avoided.

 

[pemerton]

You both seem to be strongly purists, and I am not at all convinced real play follows either of your prescriptions tightly enough to support your positions.

Umbran, I'm still in the room!

On "purism": I don't think it can be true both that my game is not distinguishable from Celebrim's (or anyone elses) and that my game is something that Celebrim (and others) reject. I know the latter to be the case, from threads like this one, plus a billion 4e threads, plus this thread, plus, plus, plus. Hence I infer that there is a difference.

My own view is that Edwards, in some of the passages I've already quoted in this thread, identifies some of the broad differences of technique and approach involved.

If you want to know what my actual play looks like, I've got plenty of posts on these boards - mostly 4e but also BW and MHRP.

It would appear your own evidence contradicts your theory that the contract to play your character doesn't exist in Burning Wheel.

The passage you quote as the contradictory evidence doesn't say anything about "playing your character". It talks about "wriggling out of a difficult situation". This is because difficult situations are intended to be at the heart of the game. The game awards "artha" - BW's term for fate/hero points - in the following circumstance (among others):

If a player comes to a point in the story where his Beliefs, Instincts and traits conflict with a decision he must make - a direction in which he must go - and he plays out the inner turmoil, the conflict within his own guts, in a believable and engaging manner, then he earns a persona point.​

This reinforces that the "contract" of the game is not to stick to character, but to engage with the dramatic pressures upon the character and actually play out the resulting transformation.

it is less that you don't intend to abide by your traits, and is rather more that since play is not pre-determined, you don't know which ones will change in what way, and their interactions impact the course of play. If you don't write them down, you don't have anything to play with!

This is the bit of Umbran's post that I gave XP for.

 

[Umbran]

On "purism": I don't think it can be true both that my game is not distinguishable from Celebrim's (or anyone elses) and that my game is something that Celebrim (and others) reject.

In the realm of, "not being able to tell what your point is," what you say here is an example.

I didn't say you were indistinguishable. That word never appeared. I said that you both spoke like purists - if I said one of you was Chaotic Neutral, and the other Lawful Neutral, you'd both be purists, but entirely distinguishable. And each of you would reject the other's theory of How Things Really Work. And, for both of you, what you spoke about would not match most people's everyday experience (if we take the standard that most people in the world are actually Neutral/unaligned).

I don't see how you got to your statement with mine as referent. So, I can't see what the point really is.

If you want to know what my actual play looks like, I've got plenty of posts on these boards - mostly 4e but also BW and MHRP.

What your actual play looks like is secondary. I'm comparing your *theory discussion* with actual play - not at your tables, but at the vague 'average table'.

Basically, I'm suggesting that when you two go at it, your lines get so rarified that they lose the more general thread of, "doing things to make the table fun". Much like Edwards, in that sense.

 

[pemerton]

for both of you, what you spoke about would not match most people's everyday experience (if we take the standard that most people in the world are actually Neutral/unaligned).

<snip

What your actual play looks like is secondary. I'm comparing your *theory discussion* with actual play - not at your tables, but at the vague 'average table'.

What my actual play looks like isn't secondary to me, though. It's pretty central.

It's central in at least two ways. First, it's what I'm trying to improve, and many posters on ENworld offer useful advice and commentary.

Second, it contributes to my understanding of what is possible in RPGing, in the simple sense that if I've done it, then I know it can be done.

It's not my goal, as a poster, to articulate anyone else's experience of RPGing, except in the sense of contesting characterisations of what is essential to RPGing that are overly narrow. Some of that contestation takes the form of posting my own experience. Some of it takes the form of posting passages from rulebooks, Dragon magazines etc (eg in a recent paladin thread one poster asserted that alignment debates were a new thing; my response was to post some alignment debate articles from late 70s through mid 80s Dragon).

I tend to think that, once you notice that these multiple ways of RPGing exist, about 90% of threads around "problem players", alignment and paladins, "dissociated mechanics", railroading and the like can be seen to have, at their base, differences of preference as to RPGing techniques. That's why I think it is helpful to identify and talk about different techniques. Instead of telling people that they're bad roleplayers, we can talk about different ways of achieving different RPG experiences.

But you can notice these differences of technique, and talk meaningfully about them, without actually wanting to use them. I don't care if anyone takes the same approach as me, or not. I'm just inviting them to note that these other things exist, and in many cases have existed for as long as the hobby has been around (or nearly so).

 

[Aiwendil]

With a very few exceptions, most everything produced out of the Indy gaming scene reads and plays like the goal of gaming is to recreate the experience of being on a team working together on a B rate movie script.

I realize this is from way back in the thread (which I am only slowly reading through), but I just had to thank you for so perfectly encapsulating exactly the way I feel about most narrativist games, and FATE in particular, in that one sentence.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I realize this is from way back in the thread (which I am only slowly reading through), but I just had to thank you for so perfectly encapsulating exactly the way I feel about most narrativist games, and FATE in particular, in that one sentence.

And even as a fan of Fate I'm not going to disagree with that assessment of either Fate or Cortex+ (I am going to say that second rate movie is better than two thirds of Holywood's output, but that's a side issue). But that's only one strand -the Apocalypse World family manages to be more immersive than anything else I've played.

 

[Umbran]

And even as a fan of Fate I'm not going to disagree with that assessment of either Fate or Cortex+

I agree. I had a really cool experience with FATE Accelerated used for a horror/dreamscape game that had some far better than B-grade themes and character development.

 

[pemerton]

A friend has been cleaning out his old RPG stuff, and so I acquired and have been reading a copy of The Traveller Book. This is a compilation and slight update of the classic black books, dated 1982 (my copy of the black books is dated 1977).

One of the areas of updating is in the "how to play" text. The original black books are rather sparse in this respect, although they do have some things to say:

The scenario resembles a science-fiction novel, in that some basic goal or purpose is stated, and the adventure occurs as the group strives to achieve the goal. (Book 1, p 2)

A group involved in playing a scenario or a campaign can make their adventures more elaborate, more detailed, more interesting with the input of a great deal of imagination. . . .

One very interesting source of assistance . . . is the existing science fiction literature. Virtually anything mentioned in a story or article can be transferred to the Traveller environment. . . . with imagination being the only limit. (Book 3, p 44)​

The Traveller Book is a bit more elaborate. There is this on adventure design and play (pp 1, 9, 12, 123):

The referee presents the situation while the players are themselves the characters in this unfolding novel of the moment. Working together as a team, the players solve the riddles set out before them and play out the situation. All action takes place in the imagination of the players as they sit around the table and discuss the fictional events swirling around them. . . .

The enjoyment and interest of Traveller come from both the individual creation of imaginative futuristic scenes and from the participation in groups that react to these surroundings. . . .

Traveller is set against that background drawn from adventure oriented science fiction. The scope and breadth of this game are limited only by the imagination and skill of the players and their referee. . . . [A]lmost any situation which occurs in a science fiction novel, movie or short story can be recreated with only a little work on the part of the referee. . . .

Most Traveller adventures come from the referee's own imagination. Each new world is an opportunity for the referee to present a new situation to the players . . .

A scenario is like a science fiction novel; the players are given some specific goal and the adventure occurs as they try to attain it. . . . Create a scenario as you would a story, with something to be achieved and difficulties strewn in the path of that goal. Scenarios can be as complex as the referee feels necessary, ranging from the simplest plot devices to complex adventure worthy of a great adventure writer. . . .

The choreographed novel involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [starship, building, natural feature, world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and settings which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal.​

There is this on encounters (pp 98-99):

Encounters are the prime focus in Traveller. Through them, player characters meet and interact with non-player characters (NPCs), events, animals, and other interesting phenomena. The direction and the tone of adventures is inevitably influenced by the type of individuals encountered in the course of the adventurer's travels. . . . During the course of an encounter, the referee builds the situation, presents any appropriate reactions, and administers any activity that may be called for. . . .

Encounters with non-player characters serve as the referee's vehicle for direction and input during adventures. The proper presentation of non-player characters can provide players with transportation, information, or other assistance if reactions are appropriate. Non-player characters can also use violence (or the threat of violence) to redirect activity toward more reasonable goals. . . .

At times, the otherwise routine encounter may be used by the referee to further the events of the adventure. . . .

Often, the player characters acquire a goal and then proceed to accomplish it. In the course of this activity, they are necessarily thrown into contact with a wide variety of individuals who are somehow related to the mission. . . . Such encounters . . . are generated by the referee as required.​

And there is this on player characters (pp 1, 9-10, 14):

The rules also instruct the reader in the techniques of generating unique fictional characters with specific attributes and skills . . .

As role-players, readers assume the identities of their imaginary characters, seeing the future through those eyes and reacging as the captain of a starship, a down-and-out spacehande, an Imperial courier, or some other future adventurer. . . .

A character has a past and can be more than just a series of numbers on a sheet of paper. . . .

During the first adventuring session . . . take a moment to determine a little background data. Why are the characters where they are, and why are they together? Working out this background data will help the players get into their roles. A close examination of the characters themselves can often help with this. Are several of the characters former navy personnel? Obviously they met in the service and became friends, deciding to seek their fortunes after they were all discharged on the same planet. Perhaps the characters are distantly related, or have mutual friends, or are old schoolchums. A little imagination can come up with a reason why these people want to try a group effort, and will give the players some clues to later behaviour.​

The role of imagination is emphasised a great deal: it's there in 1977, and recurs repeatedly in 1982. Likewise the idea of taking inspiration from science fiction literature.

But in the 1982 text, a conception of the referee as making the pre-eminent contribution to the direction of the player begins to emerge pretty strongly ("fore-ordained goal", "reasonable goals", "direction", etc). The idea of players playing their PCs in accordance with a character backstory also emerges clearly ("a character has a past", "background data", "clues to later behaviour", etc).

The idea of a shared fiction is pretty clearly there in the 1982 text, and of RPG play having some fairly intimate connection to creating or participating in a story.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] - I noticed you've been reading a sandboxing/railroading/sdcene-framing thread and thought you might be interested in the post above. The stuff from 1982's The Traveller Book about the centrality of encounters, together with the uncertainty over whether its the function of encounters to let the players drive things or instead let the GM manipulate the players, could easily be found in any mainstream roleplaying book from the last decade.

As part of my friend's RPG cull I also got a copy of Best of White Dwarf Scenarios 3, which includes "Irilian", the city and adventure published over 6 episodes from no. 42 to no. 47. In the first episode (WD 42, 1983), the action commences with the PCs witnessing an orcish ambush of a dwarven caravan.

The writing assumes without comment that the PCs will aid the dwarves. After statting out the dwarves and orcs and giving some tactical commentary, it has the following:

If the party successfully aids the dwarfs, they will be thanked . . . and asked to act as guards . . . for a (negotiable) percentage of the value of the goods in the caravan . . . The percentage should be enough to convince the party that honesty is the best policy . . . The party should accept the offer.​

I haven't read the next five parts yet, but I'm not expecting the foot to come off the railroaded "story" accelerator. The first part, for instance, concludes with the city gates being locked so the caravan can't get in, a group of undead pursuing the caravan, and

a figure beckoning the party . . . dressed in a black shroud, the cowl of which is thrown back to reveal a death's head. The wind, whipping madly at the shroud, will show beneath, black armour emblazoned with a skull.​

Naturally this sinister-looking figure is a NG cleric of the local undead-hating death god! The adventure clearly wants to trick the players, or at least generate doubt as to this NPC's intentions, but also proceeds on the assumption that the caravan and PCs will take shelter in this NPC's graveyard redoubt.

This scenario combines the "hook" which the players are assumed to accept with an assumption that the PCs are rootless wanderers who have no knowledge of the local environment (at another point the writer says that "From conversations with the dwarfs and the owners of the Trading Post, the party will be able to learn the following about Irilian"), and have no other reason for being or for acting outside of these quasi-mercenary yet quasi-heroic hooks that come their way.

The "hook" could be straight from any WoTC adventure module, and I imagine wouldn't be out of place in at least some of Paizo's APs. The idea that the PCs are essentially strangers in the gameworld, such that they no know more than the players do, as doled out by the GM, but need that knowledge to succeed in the adventure, is another aspect of play that I think remains pretty common. Though the particular style of "trick" with the death cleric I think belongs more to the 90s style of adventure, that takes some pleasure in making the players (and PCs) look like incompetent dolts, than to the more recent WotC-style; I don't know if Paizo uses that sort of device in its APs or not.

Of course this sort of stuff is a million miles from classic dungeon crawling, but that distance had already been traversed by the early 1980s.

 

[S'mon]

Hi [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - yeah my sandbox Wilderlands 5e sword & sorcery sandbox game is going very well (up to session 44 - http://smons.blogspot.co.uk/ - NSFW) - for hints & tips I recently tried Googling "D&D sandbox", and mostly got links to ENW threads I'd posted in.
One reason this game is so compelling is the Dramatist content derived from my prior 4e Wilderlands game ca 2010, the whole Neo-Nerath vs Barbarian Altanians theme based on real-world ethnic conflict (I was thinking both 1990s Balkans & South Africa) gives it a lot more dramatic depth in play.

I ran Irillian back in the 1980s, it's a linear adventure set in a sandbox-detailed city. By 1990s standards the railroading is mild. Still it might be best to ignore the adventure and just use the city.
Paizo APs do not take pleasure in making players look stupid from what I've seen; Americans generally have low tolerance for such shenanigans.

Re Traveller, I've never had any idea how to run it, other than published scenarios (I ran the intro Travelle the New Era adventure, which was ok). I have the same block with Star Wars, Call of Cthulu, and other non-D&D genres.