Low Magic Campaigns?

[Ebony]

That's four.

 

[Mallus]

If you want to play a game that is about humiliating rivals, then RPGs are a very poor choice and you are likely to ruin everyone elses fun as well.

Obviously. Which might be why I modified the lines you quoted with...

At least with RPG's the framework isn't zero-sum. We're supposed to take turns indulging in our power-displays. Even lend a hand (which is exactly how my gaming groups tend to operate. I've made some memorable characters, but I couldn't have done it with the support of the other players and their characters... aww... I feel a group-hug coming on...)

You're usually better than this, Cel. Having a tough day at work?

I'm deliberately playing to lose, and unlike any competitive game this isn't considered to be poor sportsmanship. On the other hand, if I were to play to win then it would be poor sportsmanship!

Yes, of course.

My experience of many of the players that are primarily 'playing to win' is that they are playing the wrong sort of game.

Playing to win is fine so long as a 'winning' doesn't imply 'at the exclusion of the other players'. You could just as well describe this impulse as 'players wanting their moment to shine'.

That sort of game would actually satisfy that craving to prove themselves.

You never feel the enjoyment that comes from 'proving yourself' at the gaming table?! You?! Really?!

Riiiigggghhhttt.

Are you at a loss for words? You?! Really?!

 

[Celebrim]

No...If the urge for self aggrandizement didn't exist, there would be no motivation to complete any project, build a house, or raise a family.

So, "No. Yes."?

 

[Ebony]

So, "No. Yes."?

Or, "Up. Down."

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Mallus]

No! You're lying! I drink tequila because ... because ... because of the TASTE! That's it! It tastes good!

Patron Anejo does taste good. Fortunately, it also gets you soused.

If it did, you'd be a shoe-in for that Droll Commentator prestige class.

Nice one!

 

[Desdichado]

Holy crap, this thread has wandered into very strange and bizarre territory. So, here we have Ebony--who's clearly just a croney molonel dredged up from his local gaming group to come support him in this "argument" that he's having on the internet trying to claim that without ego-stroking, we'd all fade away into some kind of nihilistic non-existence, essentially. Since that's the only reason to do anything at all, after all. And he makes bizarre ad hominem attacks about how stupid people he's arguing with are just because they don't think his little joke about the "locks" on the DMG is nearly as clever as he does.

While molonel--who after all is running two low magic campaigns, therefore he's decided that he's qualified to tell complete strangers on the internet what their deepest, darkest, most secret motivations and reasons for gaming is, thinks vainly that he qualifies for the "droll commentator" prestige class.

Is there any chance we can all drop the condescending armchair psychoanalysis and go back to talking about gaming any time soon?

 

[molonel]

Patron Anejo does taste good. Fortunately, it also gets you soused.

I prefer Patron Silver, myself. And yes, it does taste good.

Thank God it gets you soused, though.

How does Anejo compare to silver, in your opinion?

So, here we have Ebony--who's clearly just a croney molonel dredged up from his local gaming group to come support him in this "argument" that he's having on the internet trying to claim that without ego-stroking, we'd all fade away into some kind of nihilistic non-existence, essentially. Since that's the only reason to do anything at all, after all. And he makes bizarre ad hominem attacks about how stupid people he's arguing with are just because they don't think his little joke about the "locks" on the DMG is nearly as clever as he does. While molonel--who after all is running two low magic campaigns, therefore he's decided that he's qualified to tell complete strangers on the internet what their deepest, darkest, most secret motivations and reasons for gaming is, thinks vainly that he qualifies for the "droll commentator" prestige class. Is there any chance we can all drop the condescending armchair psychoanalysis and go back to talking about gaming any time soon?

Flamebait taste, quality and consistency: 2 out of 10
For trying hard and meaning well: 6 out of 10

 

[Celebrim]

Obviously. Which might be why I modified the lines you quoted with...

Oh, I read them, I just didn't think that they made alot of sense, but didn't see the point of highlighting that. Either, "all games are all about power. I'm trying to beat you. It's locking horns, humiliating rivals, practicing for war, the whole nine yards.", or else, "Oh yeah, some games may be about something else completely the opposite." You can claim that you can reconcile those two positions - that a game is all about being competitive but also it can also be about being cooperative - but if you want to claim that, there isn't much point in responding to that claim.

You're usually better than this, Cel. Having a tough day at work?

Now that you mention it, I could use a drink.

Playing to win is fine so long as a 'winning' doesn't imply 'at the exclusion of the other players'.

Well, you do realize that normally, winning does mean 'to the exclusion of all other participants' or at least 'to the exclusion of the other side' (in a team sport). Despite what they might teach you in Kindegarden, you can't all be winners in a competitive endeavor. That 8th place trophy means you didn't win.

Playing to win except 'at the exclusion of other players' is not to be playing to win at all in any normal sense of the word 'win'. The game can't be fundamentally competitive and fundamentally cooperative at the same time, because those two things are the opposites.

You could just as well describe this impulse as 'players wanting their moment to shine'.

Well you can describe it that way, but you can't 'just as well' describe it that way because there is a fundamental shift in meaning here. In fact, saying that 'players want thier moment to shine' is a much better way to describe a cooperative game than 'players want to win'. We can describe the reason why players want to play cooperative games and competitive games as both 'wanting thier moment to shine', but we can't describe both as players wanting to win. RPGs are marked by not having a victory condition, and so players set thier own standards for what winning means (all of which have to do ultimately with 'having fun'). The point that I'm trying to make is that players don't necessarily define winning as 'getting a big sword' or 'casting big spells', as was previously claimed in this thread.

You never feel the enjoyment that comes from 'proving yourself' at the gaming table?! You?! Really?!

I didn't say I never felt that enjoyment. Obviously, when I play competitive games, that's part of the attraction. I will say that if that was the primary reason I played RPGs, I'd not DM, because its very hard for a DM to 'prove himself'. All the odds are stacked in your favor to begin with, because you get to stack the deck. As a DM, much of my enjoyment comes from other players 'proving themselves'.

Are you at a loss for words? You?! Really?!

You've known me long enough. Since when do I ever shut up? Some times I just feel the thing should speak for itself for a while, because sometimes people I debate against inadvertantly make my point more elegantly than I could.

 

[Ebony]

Is there any chance we can all drop the condescending armchair psychoanalysis and go back to talking about gaming any time soon?

That would be nice.

To reiterate an essential point, there are many ways to accomplish the worthy desire to challenge PCs. One can raise the level of their enemies.

For example, Tucker's Kobolds.

One can reduce the PC's abilities.

Whatever the PCs and GM enjoy... together... in the privacy of their own basement, is up to them. It can be done within the rules that already exist.





With regard to your other, more insulting turns of phrase, I can only suggest that you imagine that I responded to them in a biting and snarky, yet humorous manner.

And one more insult removed by admin ~ Piratecat

 

[AllisterH]

I think if we began pulling quotes from the 1e and 2e books, including the High Level Handbook, we could quite easily demonstrate that "standard D&D" has changed quite a bit. In fact, there is a bit I was reading the other night (and I'll relocate it and quote it if need be) that describes what sounds awefully similar to 3.X as being beyond the normal scope of D&D campaigns.


RC

This may sound harsh but I have to say, this is blatantly false.

What TSR used to say about magic items and high magic was VASTLY different than what they actually used to do.

As you mentioned, there were historical books (the green softcovers, the perfect counter to the complete book of XXXXX, my favourite was the charlemagne one) however, this wasn't STANDARD D&D.

Standard D&D were the adventures released by TSR for either Greyhawk or no specific camapaign world. This was the DEFAULT D&D campaign since if I ask the question, "What is a typical D&D adventure" the proper response would be "Well, the adventures published by TSR".

Do you really want me to check through r.g.f.d. for the posts when we used to go through each 1E module and listed all the treasures in them? The only low-magic item series was the original DL modules (and that had its own railroad problems).

Even the 2E adventures when compared to the same level in 3E have equivalent magic items in value or higher.

Now though there is a difference however, In 3E, people aren't going to be burdened with "useless" magic items thus unlike in 2E where you might have gotten 15 magic items where you couldn't sell them or use them, the 3E player might have only 5 but they are each being used.

E.g. Random page from the softcover Encyclopedia Magica
- Eternal Salt Shaker XP Value: 300, GP Value: 1500 gold; Looks like a regular salt shaker but never runs out of salt.

I know of people that got this and really this is magic but not one that registers with most people when they think magic items.

In 1E/2E, there were lots of treasures like this or say treasures no-one could use (rolled a magic axe and a wand of fireballs for a party that only has a longsword double specialized fighter and an illusionist) so they would just collect but since they never got used and couldn't be sold, most DMs forgot about them and basically the character was no stronger than before.

However, this is the problem IMO. Someone, somewhere commissioned an eternal salt shaker so someone somewhere would want it yet you couldn't sell/exchange it for something you wanted whereas the 3E paradigm is that if you find an axe +2 in a treasure horde, even if you don't want it, SOMEBODY would and you get something else instead.