Real vs. Theoretical problems and Grudging DMs

[CRG]

I think the real problem is that, coming off of 2e and other game systems, many DMs are already thinking about "oh god, what is going to be the must-have, unbalanced problem now?".

They knee-jerk react to something and house-rule it before even getting started.

Maybe its for a reason like they don't own the books or they don't like to play magic-heavy games. This is fine. Maybe though, its just because they can't wait to take the game and make it their own. This is also fine. It's hard to fight the knee-jerk reaction.

Then again, I often have a knee-jerk reaction. If its not in the 3 core books, you can't do it unless I approve it. Splatbook, other D20 book, etc. None of these are allowed unless I approve it - and I generally don't approve things without reading what they are as well as the overall context they were created in (as in FR or not FR) and even then, we'll probably try it on an NPC first or just for a while to see if it becomes really gross and just doesn't fit. In general, most things work out.

Now, if someone wants to play a lasher or a master of chains, my objection is NOT to the fact that the spiked chain is a reach/non-reach weapon but rather that it doesn't fit into the campaign world style. I appreciate players want to play what they want, but a game set in a norse-ish environment is not likely to have lots of masters of chains.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Being able to improvise requires taking into account what players want to do. The best RPG improvisation come from listening, during play, to what the players express as goals and (Ideally, in a seamless manner) working them into the game. That's exactly what improvising is.

You're separating the implementation from the input, I advocate integrating them.

I honestly don't think you're grasping what I'm trying to say. I never said, nor did I imply, that the DM should only be prepared for one thing at a time. I do not make adventures with blinkers on. This means one should not only provide a wide expanse upon which the PCs can move, but also that the DM should exert his social skills with the real, live players and determine what they like. What I quoted above is exactly what I was getting at. Let me correct a minor grammatical error from my post above: there is a huge difference between being able to improvise and not taking into account what the players want to do in the first place.

 

[CRG]

(duplicate post)

 

[Mark]

I honestly don't think you're grasping what I'm trying to say. I never said, nor did I imply, that the DM should only be prepared for one thing at a time. I do not make adventures with blinkers on. This means one should not only provide a wide expanse upon which the PCs can move, but also that the DM should exert his social skills with the real, live players and determine what they like. What I quoted above is exactly what I was getting at. Let me correct a minor grammatical error from my post above: there is a huge difference between being able to improvise and not taking into account what the players want to do in the first place.

That makes much more sense but I don't see how it isn't just supporting the things that I have said. We're already on the same page with our goals (running a better game) but your approach requires out of game integration of input from the players and it need not be the case. For anyone who likes to play at clubs, gamestore gamerooms, or as a pick up game at, say, a convention (beyond just playing with close friends), your approach just isn't practical. I'm suggesting ways to achieve the same goals in all of those cases through an approach to preparation that keeps all options open and gleans the input during game play. It's not really that difficult to achieve, it just requires different time management and focus during preparation.

BTW did you catch that link I added to our first exchange? It's a Middle Earth d20 kinda thread.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Basically, I was responding to the fact that you were polarizing things. This is a quote by you from above that illustrates this:

"The point being that a DM shouldn't approach building a scenario with the characters in mind, from the standpoint of their strengths and weaknesses, beyond level and relative party strength compared to that flat level. It's the only way to avoid META thinking from a design perspective"

To which I replied:

"I think that a DM should always be aware of what the players would like to do. A good indication of this is in choice of class, and what skills and feats they take. "

To which you replied in turn:

"You seem to be the working from a misconception that a DM should only be prepared for one thing at a time. "

Well, no, I'm not. You advocate that a DM should not take the characters in mind - which therefore has to include the players - when designing a scenario. I specifically said above that I was talking about this from the standpoint of a huge number of gamers, who do not attend cons or run public games - here's a quote from me:

"I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who wants to hang out with friends and have a good time by playing a game."

I'm guessing that the vast majority of people who play also come from this perspective. If I was trying to design a module for publication, then yeah, I guess I couldn't take the players PCs into account. If I was DMing at GenCon, using a "generic" module and relying totally on improvisation would be the way to go. But I, and I would guess most other DMs, are doing neither. We DM or DMed a group of friends with whom we were very familiar. Therefore, creating adventures without regard to the PCs and players all the time - which you seem to be advocating - would result in a game that could become frustrating for players. That is why your method is impractical for us. It would begin to feel like the DM was a frustrated game designer, and wasn't in the here and now with players that he or she knows, but rather on an audience of strangers.

 

[Mark]

Basically, I was responding to the fact that you were polarizing things. This is a quote by you from above that illustrates this:

"The point being that a DM shouldn't approach building a scenario with the characters in mind, from the standpoint of their strengths and weaknesses, beyond level and relative party strength compared to that flat level. It's the only way to avoid META thinking from a design perspective"

To which I replied:

"I think that a DM should always be aware of what the players would like to do. A good indication of this is in choice of class, and what skills and feats they take. "

To which you replied in turn:

"You seem to be the working from a misconception that a DM should only be prepared for one thing at a time. "

Well, no, I'm not. You advocate that a DM should not take the characters in mind - which therefore has to include the players - when designing a scenario. I specifically said above that I was talking about this from the standpoint of a huge number of gamers, who do not attend cons or run public games - here's a quote from me:

"I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who wants to hang out with friends and have a good time by playing a game."

I'm guessing that the vast majority of people who play also come from this perspective. If I was trying to design a module for publication, then yeah, I guess I couldn't take the players PCs into account. If I was DMing at GenCon, using a "generic" module and relying totally on improvisation would be the way to go. But I, and I would guess most other DMs, are doing neither. We DM or DMed a group of friends with whom we were very familiar. Therefore, creating adventures without regard to the PCs and players all the time - which you seem to be advocating - would result in a game that could become frustrating for players. That is why your method is impractical for us. It would begin to feel like the DM was a frustrated game designer, and wasn't in the here and now with players that he or she knows, but rather on an audience of strangers.

If you reread the full text of what you posted above in reply you can see where I was misled. Beyond what you've quoted in your last post, you also wrote, "If they take rangers and druids, or load up on wilderness-oriented skills, then it would become frustrating for the players, and ultimately frustrating for me, if I ignored that when creating adventures." With a wide open method of design you can account for that and a whole lot more without ever needing to spend time out of game discussing the first impressions of what your players might like (something not always available to most DMs, I believe). Sure it is nice when those chances for dialog do present themselves, but being prepared for when they are not is the point.

I think you'd be guessing incorrectly about the vast majority of gamers and are discounting that most people aren't always playing with the same group. People often find that over time that we play with a great number of people we hardly know. I was citing some of the many instances above where that is the situation but I know I didn't exhaust the potential. Sure it's great when a group of friends can all start to play at the same time and continue to do so for long stretches (I certainly have enjoyed those times). More often groups get to know one another over time, with some new people joining and others moving on, and those early games with a group (or new player) can be frustrating if the DM isn't prepared for all options. How many posts are about what "the new DM I've met is doing"? How many posts are about looking for groups or players in an area where someone can't find any? How many times have we all expressed the desire to bring new people into the game? There have been countless posts on this board from people who have moved from one location to another because of employment, college, etc. that wind up taking the plunge with new and interesting people. You really can't believe that most people only play with their close friends and never with anyone else. I know that isn't the case for most of us.

Because of that believe (you wrote, "I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who wants to hang out with friends and have a good time by playing a game."), you mention that asking people out right is the good way to prepare, when you must be aware that once play begins people find new things of interest to them. Being prepared for all eventualities, and prepared to improvise as I advocate, allows for this more readily than asking what folks want and gearing primarily for that. I've seen too many DMs get themselves into trouble because they've set up for one thing and five minutes into the game the players have a new plan. The "left turns" that people take when a idea strikes them during a game are legendary. Prepping primarily because of how players suggest they might want to procede prior to the actual game can often leave DMs painted into a corner. Too often I've also seen DMs unable to switch gears becuase of this type of prep work.

As to your characterization of some game designers, I can't speak to that. I've been playing since 75 and DMing since soon after that with no intention of ever publishing the vast amounts of material I've accumulated. That is, until about two years ago when the d20 license became a topic of discussion. Since then, I started slowly and have tried to lay the groundwork for my material with the same dogged attention to preparation that I've used as a DM. Keep it detailed, keep it open to possibilities and always keep it fun. I'm glad to say that I haven't found the process frustrating in the least and am sure that what I release meets standards with which I feel comfortable and proud. For me it seems like just one more way for me to enjoy a hobby I've loved for more than half of my life.

 

[Umbran]

Hrr. Enough here for a lot of discussion. At the moment, I'm going to mention only one thing.

mark, I think your contention that most gamers frequently play with "fresh blood" (at gaming-stores, cons, or just through high turn-over) is off. Way off.

I don't know if that information was part of WOTC's market research before releasing 3E, and I expect the folks in the know are probably busy choosing setting ideas. So, while it isn't scientific, I've started a poll on the subject here.

[edit - fixed broken url tag]

 

[Mark]

Hrr. Enough here for a lot of discussion. At the moment, I'm going to mention only one thing.

mark, I think your contention that most gamers frequently play with "fresh blood" (at gaming-stores, cons, or just through high turn-over) is off. Way off.

I don't know if that information was part of WOTC's market research before releasing 3E, and I expect the folks in the know are probably busy choosing setting ideas. So, while it isn't scientific, I've started a poll on the subject here.

[edit - fixed broken url tag]

Perhaps, but I think not.

Just out of curiosity, how many people have you gamed with through the entire time you have gamed? How many of those were friends prior to knowing that you were gamers? How many of those people are still the people you play with and are the only ones with which you play?

That looks like a good poll but it may not take into account the same answers that would be garnered by the questions I've just asked of you. *shrug*

 

[Umbran]

That looks like a good poll but it may not take into account the same answers that would be garnered by the questions I've just asked of you. *shrug*

Well, part of your argument seems to be that your planning style is superior because it more easily accomodates new people whom you don't know. But, unless this happens frequently it really isn't much of a strength. It is silly to base your general planning procedure on events that happen once every couple of years.

As for your questions - I must preface with the note that while experience helps, it does not necessarily make one an authority. A good position should stand on it's own merit, not the length of time the speaker has been gaming.

That being said, to satisfy your curiosity - I've been gaming for 20+ years. I'm no young whippersnapper. I got my first DMG in 1982, and played Tunnels and Trolls before that How many people? Considering only tabletop - somewhere between 40 and 50, I'd guess. Maybe a few more. That's the result of moving from high school to college to grad school, picking up a new group each time, picking up the occasional new gamer. My gaming groups last many years. Only about 4 of those people I didn't know from elsewhere before I gamed with them. And never had I not been able to talk to them about games before playing.

Add another 10 for playing at EN Board Boston gatherings this year. I've never played tabletop games at a convention, or a gaming store.

Add in the people from larps (theatre style - none of this Vampire or "whack 'em with padded sticks" stuff), and the number jumps above 200, I expect.

 

[Mark]

That's a large number of new people when you account for those additional venues. Mine are probably about twice your numbers with a couple of dozen I knew prior to gaming, fifty or so that I count as rather close friends and the rest gaming acquaintances (people I've met through the RPGA, online, conventions, gamedays, player searches, etc.) To speak in the extreme, I'd love to hear what someone like Piratecat would throw out as numbers.