Semi-Rant: Maturity and dumbing down a game

[Dremmen]

I was reading the post that discusses gay PCs and NPCs and couldn't help but note how often the issue of maturity kept coming up. In one of my previous posts ( Discourse on Gamers ) I was discussing the types of gaming I'd seen using High School to Doctorate to describe a progression. I made sure to include lots of disclaimers when using those labels since I didn't want to step on the toes of players that play the game differently, but now that I think about it and read those posts concerning maturity, I do think its more of a level of maturity over play style. I do think gamers that play at what I discribed as High School level, others call hack and slash, have some maturing to do within the game regardless of how old they are. And in SO many games I've run the majority of the players do play at that High School level. This eventually causes the Lowest Denominator effect in that since those players are not putting in the effort, the quality of all the players in that game begins to erode. The better - yes, BETTER - RPGers begin to play down and combat becomes - "does it attack?" "attack of opportunity" " me too" "what's its AC?" " I miss" " I hit. 8dmg." - stale, insipid, uninspired gameplay that is the antithesis of RPG. Role-Playing. Playing a Role. This involves by its very nature some level of acting as you take on a role. There is a fourth wall there that gets no respect and an immersion that is necessary to experience the game fully. In my opinion, which I'll defend with my own 20 years of experience, true role-playing is narrative style gameplay where mechanics become secondary to the plot and the story and the "play" that is being put on by the people playing roles. And in most core books it explicitly states how rules are meant to be bent and the important thing is to have fun.
Take the above "I hit 'im, etc." In narrative game play this becomes;

DM: The massive hulk of fur and claws rises on its hind legs to tower above all of you. It bellows a primal cry before it comes crashing back down to all four with an impact that jars your legs before hurtling forward towards you, teeth bared and mouth frothing.

Player 1: I spit on the ground and wipe my mouth with the back of my arm. I go to a side stance, clasping my battle axe in two hands like a club. My weight shifts back and forth from foot to foot as I sway with anticipation.

Player 2: My breath catches at the sight of the incoming beast. I swallow hard and brace my spear against the ground, leveling it at the creature's chest. My hands keep shaking but I tighten my grip to hide that and hope the others don't see it."

DM: The beast gallops towards you, a chaotic shapeless mass of hair and power and mean. It covers half the distance to you and now you can smell the stale dead of its previous kills. And then the world darkens as its huge shape comes between you and the morning sun, draping you in its shadow, and then its but an arm's lenght away..

Player 1: I brace my feet and twisting my hips and my back swing my hammer with everything I have letting out my own primal yell.

Player 2: I sidestep the beast as it comes close, my nerve breaking at the last minute, and jab at its side.

(there is some dice rolling. there was no reason for player 2 to sidestep other than his character has a background that doesn't afford the courage needed to stand before such a beast. because of it he won't get to double damage for bracing his spear against a charge. he takes a negative in game mechanics to satisfy the story telling. he actually does hit, while the barbarian misses and gets trampled by the oncoming bear.)

The mechanics have to be imbedded under the storytelling or it becomes a boardgame, or a video game. And if all this extra talking slows the game down - so what?! In a true RPG it is NEVER about the ending, about the outcome, it is always about the road before you and the getting there, smelling the flowers. In a good RPG game the party should be sad to kill the end guy because it means they are done with the session. The times around the taverns and the jokes around the campfires and the tense moments in the dungeons- Its not about getting to 18th level or who's got the most toys at the end. What does that mean? Is a character better for it? Does it mean anything? "Oh my character can kill your character - oh look (scribble, scribble), my character has a 14" member, bow before how manly I am." A meaningless pissing contest. Its the well played, interesting character, the funny one, or flirty one, or clumsy one, or even cowardly one, that is memorable and lives on in stories told laughingly to gamers around the table. You can sit there and boast about how much damage you could do or how you killed Tiamat - there is always another PC out there that's stronger and more powerful. On top of that you missed the point. Its the interaction with the other people in the game under the guise of this alternate personality that allows one to explore what is like to be in someone else's shoes, to think things through from a slightly different perspective. That's part of the true value of RPing and what will always set it apart from Computer RPGs which do boil things down to collecting XP and toys.
This is rant-like because I do think narrative style gaming is becoming more rare, because finding players that will put forward that much effort - or even understand why that's necessary, is getting hard. And as a DM/GM/Storyteller, I've spent too many years in the hobby to spend too many more games that become a dice rolling contest.

Am I wrong? Is it too much to try to get players to play up to the narrative style instead of playing down to where they are comfortable? Is it just me that feels this way?

 

[barsoomcore]

I know it's tempting to think that people who enjoy a different style of play than what you enjoy simply haven't learned the lessons you've learned.

But the truth is we all learn DIFFERENT things from the same lessons. And what we enjoy depends largely on what we've learned we like.

The only rule is: If you're having fun, you're doing it right.

All else is nothing but taste.

 

[Ferrix]

I think it depends upon what you and your players want out of the game and want to put in the game.

Descriptive elements are great, however, sometimes players and DM's don't want to put that much effort in and can still have a great time playing the game. This shouldn't always be characterized as playing down away from proper role-playing, but as a variable archetype of what it is to role-play.

Additionally, statistical development as well as character development is a part of the game, thus seeing your character progress in power is also a rewarding experience for players. The balance between statistical development and character development will be different depending upon each group, as well as the circumstances each group decides to play in at that time.

Endings have the great potential to act as jumping points for new beginnings, and often times the biggest moments are those which involve endings. The climactic end battle with the dragon will often times be remembered more than someones watch duty while sitting around the campfire and making small-talk. Endings should be high points, sure they may be partly sad in that if the campaign is over new directions have to be forged or a new game started up, however, that's a secondary factor to the high point of a good ending.

If you run any sort of game, the story you create with that game will have an ending, or end-points. It's a story, stories progress from beginnings to endings, although that doesn't preclude their being a sequel.

 

[Crothian]

Am I wrong? Is it too much to try to get players to play up to the narrative style instead of playing down to where they are comfortable? Is it just me that feels this way?

I perfer to run the game my players are comfortible with. This way they actually are allowed to have fun and not worry about the DM having certain expectations on how well they play and describe their narrative. But I do know that not everyone places fun as the most important aspect in a "True RPG", but I try not to lecture them on how they play their game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oh look. Another "my way of playing is better" thread. Perhaps we should keep an archive of these somewhere so that no one feels compelled to post any new ones.

 

[FickleGM]

I know that I would be uncomfortable in a narrative game, as you describe it. Even amongst friends, but that is because I am reserved (at first). My style may move toward that as I become more comfortable, but I definately could not enter a game with strangers and game like that (ask Crothian, I had a hard time letting loose in the Paranioa game I played - my wife did as well, having played almost exclusively with me for the past decade).

I know some people that also wouldn't enjoy the style game you describe. It may make them bad role-players in your eyes, but they do have a lot of fun in my games.


Also, I noticed that player one went from a battle-axe to a hammer (but I like to nitpick).

 

[zalgar07]

*snork/chuckle* to Dr. Awkward

With that out of the way, I'm still trying to figure out why so many people play d20 as is and expect lots of roleplaying. The rules just don't encourage it. Sure, sometimes it lets you qualify for some prestige classes or provide occaisional circumstance bonuses. But what is most importantly featured on a character sheet? Stats and more stats. If there's a section for roleplaying stuff on a d20 character sheet, it's usually at the bottom.

Fact is, D&D has tons of number-crunching, especially once everyone has tons of magic on them...and those who like number-crunching and character optimization will probably fixate on that. I'm trying to add rules to encourage more narrative play, but don't know how far it'll go.

 

[Crothian]

With that out of the way, I'm still trying to figure out why so many people play d20 as is and expect lots of roleplaying. The rules just don't encourage it. Sure, sometimes it lets you qualify for some prestige classes or provide occaisional circumstance bonuses. But what is most importantly featured on a character sheet?

Why do you need rules to encourage role playing? Why would you need a character sheet that has a place for role playing? The character sheet and the rules don't role play; the people playing the game do.

It's been my long experince that people that role play do so no matter what game they are playing and people that don't role play are the same way.

 

[sniffles]

I personally love your descriptions of the action, Dremmen, and would really enjoy being able to play that way. But real-world matters intrude. I'm usually in a group of 5 to 7 people, and if each of us took that much time to describe our character's actions, we would get very little done during a game session. Some players are better at that type of description than others, as well. And we are often playing after work when we are tired and not at our best in the creativity department.

To a certain extent I also think that people who want all their roleplaying experiences to be that detailed are frustrated authors. I know I am. Why not write instead?

There is no "best" way to play RPGs, only the way that you personally enjoy.

 

[fafhrd]

Characterizing other styles of play as immature or flawed ain't gonna garner you a lot of love around here. Then again, there's a certain flavor of commentary that goes a bit too far in the other direction. You should feel free to find a group of gamers that play to your tastes. If you want to run a game, make it clear what you expect from your players. You needn't sacrifice your enjoyment just to accomodate people who might be perfect strangers outside of the game.

That's not to say you shouldn't compromise. Compromise can lead to new synergies in measured allowance, but when you find you've given up the essential ingredients to your enjoyment, it's time to move on. In short, if it's necessary to you, try and convince your group to play to the tone you set. If that doesn't work, look elsewhere.