Save My Game - Goes off like a bomb!

[Ourph]

You are comparing D&D to Super Mario Brothers, a game released in 1985, and using the latter as a representative sample of contemporary video games and you can't possibly understand how I see that as negative or inaccurate?

Are you serious?

When did I say I was using it as a representative sample of all contemporary video games? It's certainly representative of a certain style of video game that is still very popular today. I did, in fact, mentioned two video games (one old and one quite current) and you are reacting as if I only mentioned the old one. It seems as if you are picking nits rather than actually having a civil discussion. If that's the case, please let me know and I'll simply drop this.

:edit to add:

Perhaps there's simply a misunderstanding here. When I said players were "approaching D&D like it was a video game", maybe what I should have said was "approaching D&D like it was a specific type of video game (and then included the examples of Super Mario Brothers and Ratchet & Clank). Would that change to my comments have addressed your issues with what I said?

 

[Jhaelen]

Puzzles do and should have a place in a roleplaying game. However, as a DM you have to make extra sure there'll be enough hints to find a solution without having to resort to wild guessing or random experimentation.
It's always a good idea to provide for a contingency plan, if none of the players can think of a solution. A puzzle that absolutely must be solved to continue or solve an adventure is rarely a good idea. They're better used to provide the adventurers with an additional 'bonus' or advantage.

I've found that about ten hints per puzzle is a good number to strive for. This seems like a high number at first glance, but half of the hints will never be discovered and half of the rest will be ignored and/or misinterpreted. The remaining two or three hints must then be sufficient to arrive at a possible solution.

And it's often required to just go with the flow: If the player's are completely on the wrong trail, but have used sound reasoning to arrive at their proposed solution, it's only fair to treat it just like one of the 'correct' solutions you had in mind. Improvisation is key!

 

[molonel]

And that is a provably false claim. I'll go with another example and hope that my point comes across with it.

Let's say I'm playing Grand Theft Auto 3. My choices of what I can do in that game are vast, but not unlimited. If I were playing a similar themed campaign in a table top RPG, I could stop and buy a cappuchino, pick up a lottery ticket, go to my 9-5, buy a newspaper, etc. Pretty much all things I can't do in the video game. Sure, they have no game effect, but they are options available to me on the table top that aren't available to me in the game.

Does that make my point more clear?

How many DMs will let you merely wander about a world, and explore? You don't need a quest, or a theme, or something you have to accomplish. You don't have to fight.

You can just explore.

I've watched friends discover underground caverns and old ruins in games like Morrowind and WoW that had no reason for being there other than to merely explore, and wander.

That is every bit as much of a choice as bantering with the inn keeper about grain prices.

It also has "no game effect" but it's not something you can indefinitely in any tabletop RPG. The DM or GM eventually starts drumming his or her fingers. There are directionless DMs that might not care, but then, on the turn of a dime, you can suddenly join a raid where the action is non-stop and breathtaking.

It's your choice, either way.

Perhaps there's simply a misunderstanding here. When I said players were "approaching D&D like it was a video game", maybe what I should have said was "approaching D&D like it was a specific type of video game (and then included the examples of Super Mario Brothers and Ratchet & Clank). Would that change to my comments have addressed your issues with what I said?

Yes, it would.

 

[Ourph]

Yes, it would.

Great! That's all I was saying. I've seen lots of players approach D&D as if it were Super Mario Brothers, where you have only two choices (go forward or stop playing). Usually jolting them out of that way of approaching the game vastly increases their enjoyment. That was my one and only point.

 

[molonel]

Great! That's all I was saying. I've seen lots of players approach D&D as if it were Super Mario Brothers, where you have only two choices (go forward or stop playing). Usually jolting them out of that way of approaching the game vastly increases their enjoyment. That was my one and only point.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Perhaps there's simply a misunderstanding here. When I said players were "approaching D&D like it was a video game", maybe what I should have said was "approaching D&D like it was a specific type of video game (and then included the examples of Super Mario Brothers and Ratchet & Clank). Would that change to my comments have addressed your issues with what I said?

To bring it back to the article, though, the players approaching it like a videogame are only a problem if the DM is expecting them to *not* approach it like a videogame. If they're both on the same page, they're getting all they can or care to out of a night of D&D. It's when the players and the DM have different expectations that the trouble starts.

And that's really what the article is talking about. The players didn't lack creativity, they just weren't on the same page as the DM. The DM wanted them to plumb the depths of the room and discover his clever twist on a secret door, as the one true way to proceed (and the game didn't proceed until they puzzled it out or the DM told them). They didn't. They couldn't. They didn't know what they were "supposed" to look for. Without that knowledge, they couldn't have been expected to know that the only way to open the door was X. The DM expected them to know (or figure it out). They didn't.

When someone is ready and willing to learn, but fails to, that is the fault of the teacher (the DM), not the student (the players). A teacher must adapt their lesson in many ways to get the information into the student's head. A DM's hints need to be frequent, worded in many different ways, and provided in many different venues, over and over again, if they want the players to "learn the lesson" and solve the problem.

 

[IcyCool]

How many DMs will let you merely wander about a world, and explore? You don't need a quest, or a theme, or something you have to accomplish. You don't have to fight.

You can just explore.

Plenty, but I'd be willing to bet it's still a small percentage. Be that as it may, you have more options in a table top environment.

I've watched friends discover underground caverns and old ruins in games like Morrowind and WoW that had no reason for being there other than to merely explore, and wander.

That is every bit as much of a choice as bantering with the inn keeper about grain prices.

But it is not unlimited choice, which was my point. Actually, I think I've figured out where our misunderstanding is coming from. I'm not advocating that video games are linear things where you must go from A to B to C. There are plenty of "sandbox games" out there that offer you a huge array of choices. They aren't unlimited, but you've got a whole boat-load of things you can do.

But in a table top game, you can do (or rather, attempt) anything you can think of (barring a railroading GM).

That was my point. Sorry if I was unclear on that.

(Now, off to some Gears of War for me, and then this weekend, Oblivion! )

 

[DungeonMaester]

I have never had the problem in my D&D campaigns because Traps are tied to a Knowelege or spell craft or other type of skill check.

Rather then play the popular tv game show 'Metagame what the DM is thinking' 9 times out of 10, players make a knowledge check to see how much of the trap they can figure out.

This works well with puzzles too.

---Rusty

 

[I'm A Banana]

But in a table top game, you can do (or rather, attempt) anything you can think of (barring a railroading GM).

Honestly, I think this is a vastly over-stated benefit. Because what you can do is limited, it's just limited by a DM not a CPU.

Human beings are limited. In D&D, running a combat between 40 individual units of 3 different types would crush most DMs under a weight of numbers. So the DM limits his games so this never happens.

DMs also often choose to limit their own games. I can't be a beholder at 1st level. I can't play a warforged ninja in a low-magic Tolkeinesque grim-n-gritty game. I can't be 25th level in a 4th level party. I can't cast sonic damage spells at first level. I can't be a drow, I can't be evil, I can't fly space ships...

They're all reasonable limitations, but they are limitations. You can't do anything you want in a tabletop game. Specifically, there's probably not very many tabletop games where you can just rampage against the locals of a town like you can in GTA. There's no tabletop game I know of that allows you to demolish the world like Katamari Damacy.

Tabletop is plenty limited.

 

[Ourph]

Honestly, I think this is a vastly over-stated benefit. Because what you can do is limited, it's just limited by a DM not a CPU.

Yeah, but you can't bribe a CPU with beer and pizza.