D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, you are correct. That's why we see so much advice online on how making suboptimal choices on purpose can lead to "interesting" situations in game.

I might be on the minority when I straight up tell my players not to do it unless they are okay with the prospect of quick, gruesome death. I believe the story is more interesting when players try their beast to overcome the challenges laid in front of them. I also don't care about what people call "metagaming".

My players usually operate as a well oiled machine (referring to my main group, not my newbie group) but they sometimes make suboptimal decisions intentionally. It always seems to result in a lot of fun. It's like adding a dash of spicy peppers to kick the scene up a notch. I'd say that, for us, fun > survival, so if it achieves the goal of being fun it's a win for us, irrespective of whether all the characters survive (though they frequently do).

 

[Nefermandias]

My players usually operate as a well oiled machine (referring to my main group, not my newbie group) but they sometimes make suboptimal decisions intentionally. It always seems to result in a lot of fun. It's like adding a dash of spicy peppers to kick the scene up a notch. I'd say that, for us, fun > survival, so if it achieves the goal of being fun it's a win for us, irrespective of whether all the characters survive (though they frequently do).

What I don't like about "fun" is that it's so subjective a word that it doesn't really mean anything useful most of the time.

For instance, in my case, people making suboptimal choices on purpose just saps out all the "fun" for me as a DM. It just feels fake. That's why I always do robust sessions zero. Expectations have to be laid out from the beginning so I don't feel bad kicking people out later.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What I don't like about "fun" is that it's so subjective a word that it doesn't really mean anything useful most of the time.

For instance, in my case, people making suboptimal choices on purpose just saps out all the "fun" for me as a DM. It just feels fake. That's why I always do robust sessions zero. Expectations have to be laid out from the beginning so I don't feel bad kicking people out later.

I'm not really sure I agree. While we might disagree on what approaches result in the greatest fun, I think we all understand what fun is and why it's desirable. (Admittedly, I'm assuming that Oscar the Grouch doesn't post on ENWorld.) Ideally, we can also respect other's ideas of what is fun, even if it doesn't match our own.

I agree that session zero is important.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My players usually operate as a well oiled machine (referring to my main group, not my newbie group) but they sometimes make suboptimal decisions intentionally.

Hold on, doesn't this imply all of our groups who don't run games like you, are not well oiled machines only make optimal decisions some of the time

 

[Bedrockgames]

There certainly is.

Imagine if you and I were co-DMing a campaign together. Two players are given identical pre-gen PCs and assigned to one of us. We each go into a sealed room with our assigned play and run the same adventure for that player.

The PC and the initial fiction are the same, but do you have any realistic expectation that the emergent fiction will be the same? The emergent fiction will almost certainly differ, because you and I will probably make different calls, and the players will each make different choices for their (same) character.

I think both to an extent are true. There is a difference between the player and the player character. But the dividing line is something of a construct that you have to work to maintain (it can still be very important, but the point is the player or the GM can easily allow that dividing line to slip). Both players in your example, even if they are maintaining that line, will have different reads on the character, and play those characters differently at different moments (though I suspect there will be places where they make the same choices when it is obvious that is what the character would do). Whether the players play essentially themselves or play a character (or if they play a character but drop some of the gaming conceits---like acting on player knowledge instead of just character knowledge) is really just a question of style and preference. I really don't see a problem with either approach. I do both in different groups. I lean towards playing characters but also keeping that line a little on the fuzzy side (because just like I don't forget I am in a movie theater watching a movie, I don't forget I am at a table playing a character in a game, and the purpose is for the player, not the character to be entertained)

 

[Fanaelialae]

Hold on, doesn't this imply all of our groups who don't run games like you, are not well oiled machines only make optimal decisions some of the time

No, because I am only referring to my own players, not an entire playstyle. I would be surprised if anyone objected to you referring to your group as "skilled players", as opposed to using the term "skilled play".

I'm a white male. Saying "Fanaelialae is smart" is not only fine, but also demonstrates that you are a discerning individual of impeccable taste. Saying "white males are smart" is not okay, for a bunch of reasons including because it has a significant implication that anyone who isn't a white male isn't smart (which is undiluted horse excrement). See the difference?

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, because I am only referring to my own players, not an entire playstyle. I would be surprised if anyone objected to you referring to your group as "skilled players", as opposed to using the term "skilled play".

I'm a white male. Saying "Fanaelialae is smart" is not only fine, but also demonstrates that you are a discerning individual of impeccable taste. Saying "white males are smart" is not okay, for a bunch of reasons including because it has a significant implication that anyone who isn't a white male isn't smart (which is undiluted horse excrement). See the difference?

We are not talking about immutable characteristics like race, we are talking about something much more malleable: a style of play. And very importantly, I was joking thus the smiley face

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is there really any difference in the end? Is there a real separation between DM and fiction? Between PC and player?

To some extent; the question ends up being, would he have had the same success in playing in the Tomb of Horrors with a different GM? Because that means that what's going on has more to do with the perceptions and biases of the GM and how the player appeals to them then to the fiction per se, and that's true even with a well-meaning GM

I think it's a fuzzy and interesting subject. Angry GM has a wonderful article on this, but I'm not sure if I can post links here.

I agree. But it informs a lot of this discussion, because people who view the need to know the GM neutrally or in a positive sense are going to see this kind of process differently than those who don't.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that is reading way too much into a positive descriptor for a style. Like I said these aren't part of a zero sum game.

As noted, when talking to people who aren't already fans of the style, how those who are view a term isn't the whole story.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There certainly is.

Imagine if you and I were co-DMing a campaign together. Two players are given identical pre-gen PCs and assigned to one of us. We each go into a sealed room with our assigned play and run the same adventure for that player.

The PC and the initial fiction are the same, but do you have any realistic expectation that the emergent fiction will be the same? The emergent fiction will almost certainly differ, because you and I will probably make different calls, and the players will each make different choices for their (same) character.

Well, the differences in the player can be argued as being the whole point, but the fact the same player would get different results out of it with different GMs deserves a bit more of attention put on it.