Let The Players Manage Themselves Part 3, waitaminute...

[ExploderWizard]

I'm curious how those of you who don't agree with the way the games are run approach your own games. "I don't agree with this" and "This isn't how I like my games" is too vague if you don't talk about what you like in games, so here are some questions:

1. What types of game do you run?

2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?

3. Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?

1. What types of game do you run?

I run games primarily for guys I have been gaming with for 10-20 years. We are all adults with decent attention spans. Balance is achieved over the course of a campaign. Everyone gets a chance to come to the forefront and be the star but not everyone at every session and certainly not everyone in each round of combat. Balance for us isn't needed on a round to round basis because we are mature enough to understand that our turn will come. We are not dogs and we understand the concept of time and that there is a future.

2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?

The overarching goal is to hang out with good friends, roleplay our characters and have a good time. The feel for the overall campaigns in most cases is the zero to hero sensation. Taking a character from humble beginnings with modest accomplishments and reaching for greatness. The exact feel will depend on the type of campaign ( heroic, dark and gritty, evil characters, ect) but the player experience in all cases will be that there will be opportunity for action, problem solving, and appropriate risks and rewards. This includes actually enjoying a memorable character death.

3. Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?

If the game plays just fine and everyone is enjoying themselves there are no steps that need to be taken. If there are mechanics that the group feels are getting in the way of what we want, then we alter them or just decide to use a case by case ruling for things that don't come up often enough to need a defined mechanic. This contributes to our goal by spending little time fiddling with rules and more time playing.

 

[Adso]

While I agree 4e is less simulationist friendly (I used to be one when I started with 3.x and I would've hated 4e back then), I think it's even more suited to narrativist play than 3.x was.

I would say that simulation and narrative are opposites of each other - the gamist view is outside of this continuum.

Because where simulation tries to model real life, narrativist play tries to model stories. And real life generally doesn't make for good stories.

I think you are right about this. I love the story. I love the game. Simulation beyond does it pass the BS test doesn't interest me at all. And let's face it, with fantasy in general, and D&D in particular, it’s relatively easy to pass that particular test...especially when you are helped out by strong game and strong story.

 

[Benimoto]

It’s because I’m a fan of story consequences rather than rules consequences for this kind of failure.

I have to agree with SRM here. When my players are actually invested in their characters and their development is when I feel they most acutely feel the risk of dying. And when they are, that's penalty enough.

Saying that there's no consequences for death or failure just because they don't manifest themselves in loss of XP I think is missing the point. Focusing the risk of failure into loss of XP is reducing the concepts of risk, failure or success to a number.

 

[pemerton]

I read it the same way. It's been obvious for a while that WotC seems to have been taking over by a "gamist monoculture". Whether that's because they all honestly prefer to play that way or whether it was a corporate decision to focus on this particular kind of gaming (and exorcise the simulationists and storytellers) I can't say.

The point that made me stop and think about was the whole XP line of reasoning.

<snip>

As a player I actually enjoy risking real in game resources in the pursuit of accomplishing goals. How can you savor a hard won success knowing that had you failed you would simply put another quarter in the machine, write a "2" next to your character's name and do it again? I guess what I am really asking is how can one balance risk vs reward when the risk equals zero?

I think ExploderWizard shows that the article does not adopt a straightforwardly gamist approach. Because his complaint is a straightforwardly gamist one.

The logic of the "equal XP" thing is exactly what was said in the article: having your PC die is itself a failure provided that your relationship to the PC is as something other than an ingame resource - for example, the PC was the vehicle through which you were hoping to make some significant narrative point in the game.

If you compare 4e to a purely gamist game like Tunnels & Trolls, or even to a strongly gamist game like 1st ed AD&D as played by someone like Lewis Pulsipher, then you can see it is not straightforwardly gamist - dying does not set a PC back in power-level, no matter how hard you work at finding treasure the amount per level does not change, etc. The focus of the game seems to be primarily on the aesthetic experience of gaming (and the different player types described in the DMG seem to be diverging mostly along the dimension of aesthetic appreciation).

EDIT: I seem to have got the author right:

It’s because I’m a fan of story consequences rather than rules consequences for this kind of failure.

<snip>

They know failure brings outside powers that plot and scheme. They know that a new character also brings in new motives (there are always motives both outward and ulterior in my games) which could fundamentally change the story assumptions. They know it changes the story, but it doesn’t "Nurf" anyone's game play.

Then there is just the aggravation of dying.

<snip>

Characters are special. We fight to keep each one alive, and when they die, we raise them, or we move on to new ones that we craft with care and dedication.

All of this is about a type of aesthetic appreciation which has nothing to do with the PC as an ingame resource.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I agree whole heartedly with Snowell, 4e is the best narrative-driven D&D to date, and I adore it for that.

 

[Cadfan]

I run games primarily for guys I have been gaming with for 10-20 years. We are all adults with decent attention spans. Balance is achieved over the course of a campaign. Everyone gets a chance to come to the forefront and be the star but not everyone at every session and certainly not everyone in each round of combat. Balance for us isn't needed on a round to round basis because we are mature enough to understand that our turn will come. We are not dogs and we understand the concept of time and that there is a future.

*drinks a shot*

 

[ExploderWizard]

It’s because I’m a fan of story consequences rather than rules consequences for this kind of failure.

This past weekend my Season of Long Shadows campaign had three character deaths. Two PCs came back, and one player decided to make a new character. All three know there will be story consequences for the failure. Some of them have already been hinted at (Lysander shouldn’t of made that deal with Acererak while in the Shadowfell! Tsk, tsk). Some are still to come (how come the dragonborn loses a healing surge for a level each time that ring revives him?). They are all dreading it, but they also trust me enough where they know they will be entertained by it (even in final defeat, they will be entertained...). They know failure brings outside powers that plot and scheme. They know that a new character also brings in new motives (there are always motives both outward and ulterior in my games) which could fundamentally change the story assumptions. They know it changes the story, but it doesn’t "Nurf" anyone's game play.

Then there is just the aggravation of dying.

One of my players has made it her goal to finally survive one of my campaigns. Usually her character doesn’t die until the last adventure—but thus far she has always died. Just dying is punishment to her. It’s punishment to most people. I know I could just write a “2” on my character sheet and keep moving, but that’s not how I roll, and I know that not how most (if not all) of the people I game with roll. Characters are special. We fight to keep each one alive, and when they die, we raise them, or we move on to new ones that we craft with care and dedication.

I find it funny that some have insinuated that I am in favor of turning my game into a video game. I absolutely don’t believe that creating an imbalance of player power level serves story, setting, or fun in a tabletop RPG. It’s in fact a terrible gamist device stuck tacked on where it doesn't belong…something you would see in a video game that doesn't have the benefit of a DM who can react to PCs action, success, and failure on the fly in interesting ways. But that's something I am going to talk about more in my next column.

Thats a fantastic way to handle things if it works for your group and never having sat at your table couldn't comment on any aspects of your campaign and how its run.

I do think that the way a game's rules are structured has an influence on the way characters and advancement are valued. The level and "power up" system really brings these differences to the forefront. A GURPS character that is a few character points behind everyone else is fully functional and still of equal value to the group.

The story method provides risk for the character but none for the player. Its kind of like playing poker without stakes, no one is going to fold....ever. This doesnt mean that because a player cant make a session because of work ,illness, ect that he should be punished. Allowances have to be made for the real world of course. Skipping the game to go see a movie is a bit different. Failure due to lack of planning, or trying the most absurd ideas can lead to consequences for both the player and the character.

If the entire party gets wiped out then there is effectively no risk or effect on the story from the character's point of view. With all the PC's dead the story effects are pretty much of no concern to the new PC's its simply the state of the world as they enter it. The players might realize that things are different and the new characters could experience fallout from the events but they never had a chance to influence the events brought about by the first group's failure.

So really the "right" way to handle the consequences of failure is really group specific and not something that needs to be addressed in the rules at all.

 

[howandwhy99]

Save My Game: Let Players Manage Themselves, Part 3

For the most part, I agree with the writer's opinions in the article with exception of this point -

You're not creating some tense piece of post-modern performance ritual, and you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere).

I disagree with this notion entirely, within the context it is presented. While the players take a vested interest as directors of their own characters, the production of these pieces resemble cooperative performance art more than anything else.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to build worlds and share it while emulating the deeper storytelling aspects of David Mamet, complex personalities, morality-based decisionmaking, the realism of our own world and bring villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason to the table. These things don't necessarily make the game "unfun".

The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind. And while this playstyle is fine and dandy if that's the sort of games people enjoy, I feel it's only fair for the author to note that not all people want to create "mini-instances of fun". Some people are looking for genuine braincandy as players and DMs through campaign-building where cooperative play contributes to a greater story as an exercise in having a good time...for fun.


Cheers~

I think you're confused as to what D&D is. It's a role-playing game. From your response, it sounds like what you want to play is an acting game. A theatre acting game to be specific. There are many fun and enjoyable acting games out there, but you're not going to get those experiences from a role-playing game. Disagreeing with a professional RPG designer for not describing their product as something the product isn't will only bring you heartache. Role-playing is functionally different than acting. You simply cannot tell stories while role-playing. It's an impossibility.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have to agree with SRM here. When my players are actually invested in their characters and their development is when I feel they most acutely feel the risk of dying. And when they are, that's penalty enough.

Saying that there's no consequences for death or failure just because they don't manifest themselves in loss of XP I think is missing the point. Focusing the risk of failure into loss of XP is reducing the concepts of risk, failure or success to a number.

I agree with this in principle. That connection and attachment to a beloved character should be more than enough of a penalty for death. A little bit of xp loss as real world "stakes" adds a little bit of extra excitement though.

The trick is achieving that connection with a set of rules that does its best to sever it with mechanics that reinforce the concept of gamism over all.

The game board focus, retaining rules that really stress just what a meaningless collection of powers your character really is, and rules that fall apart when examined by even fantasy logic, all help to keep that connection from happening.

I can feel the loss and disappointment when a character dies but that character needs to be part of an engaging game world that makes a bit of sense.

Its not completely rules related though. I can get the same lack of attachment to a pre-generated character made up for a one-shot that I can with a 4E character created for campaign play. Thats the kind of detatchment that keeps story related consequences from meaning much.

 

[Serendipity]

I think you're confused as to what D&D is. It's a role-playing game. From your response, it sounds like what you want to play is an acting game. A theatre acting game to be specific. There are many fun and enjoyable acting games out there, but you're not going to get those experiences from a role-playing game. Disagreeing with a professional RPG designer for not describing their product as something the product isn't will only bring you heartache. Role-playing is functionally different than acting. You simply cannot tell stories while role-playing. It's an impossibility.

Perhaps for you.
Many different people play RPGs many different ways. No particular way is "right" or "wrong". If it works for that group, then great, more power to them, whether I agree with that manner of playstyle or not.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?