Semi-Rant: Maturity and dumbing down a game

[John Q. Mayhem]

But to the DMs that see even a little of what I'm talking about, or players who finish a die rolling session and wish there was more, I encourage you to develop that narrative style and find those out there that share the love of the game.

This is exactly it. Narrative style play is a good and fine thing, and it can be a welcome and refreshing change from hack'n'slash-but that's what it is, a nice change that can hopefully revitalize someone's flagging interest; it's a change to a different style, not an evolution to a better style. By my definition, the "best" way to play a game is the way that is most fun for you and your buddies.

Also, regarding the authors' intent...the intent of D&D is hack'n'slash. A lot of people don't play it like that, though, and that's fine, and with 3.0 and 3.5 more narrativist gaming is officially supported in the DMG as one of the ways to play
Check it out...it's right after to "kick-in-the-door gaming," IIRC.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Nice choice to quote from Monte's article. And indeed in another ten years, or heck, maybe another year I'll have changed my mind on the subject due to experience or comments like the above, or the one by the Auld Grump (good to see you take some time off from the WorldWerks boards ).

Yes, I do appear in other places...

While (perhaps) slightly snide in my original response I am serious that you may want to check out Adamant's Narrative Combat supplement, it may fit your bill.

But really I think that the problem that some people (myself included) are having is not with narrative RPGing, but the stance that it is inherently superior. It is a game, whichever way people find for it to be fun as a group is the right way for that group.

Sometimes a group or a GM do not belong together, either because of play styles or the way one or the other feels about the sytem being played. While I did not much like Tunnels & Trolls a lot of people did, if I were to run a game of it then I would likely make a hash of the proceedings. For the old WoD I did not much like Werewolf or Mage, but could enjoy Vampire, and loved Changeling (source of my handle in fact), and while I could run a Mage campaign I would make both myself anf the players unhappy. (And I will not touch the new WoD with a 10' pole.) Forcing the issue would be counterproductive at best.

The Auld Grump

 

[LostSoul]

But if this theoretical purist is about aiming for an entirely narrative run, Amber-eske diceless game, then yeah, maybe I am.

You might want to try something like Dogs in the Vineyard. It's one of those indie-RPGs with a narrativist bent.

Basically, gameplay works like this: Someone initiates a conflict and sets what's at stake. (eg. From the book: "Does your character's brother shoot the woman?") You roll a bunch of dice and, for each action you take (called Raises and Sees), you have to narrate your action. (eg. From the book: “Hey, Zeke, you don’t just go shoot people. Let’s talk about this.” Raise with a 4 and a 3, for 7. [The GM puts] forward [his] own 4 and 3 to See. “Get out of my way, boy. In fact, if you had any conscience of your own, you’d be with me.” That’s [the GM's] Raise, so [he puts] forward a 5 and a 6, for 11.)

It gets really interesting when you have to decide what you're willing to stake your life on.

 

[Illirion]

When talking about miniature painting I'd say my skill level could mature further, that I'm not reaching the potential of what I could do with the mini. Those other guys put much more time and work into their minis, and theirs are BETTER than mine. And I'm perfectly fine with that becaue I don't want to invest any more time into minis and I am very satisfied with doing it the way I do and the outcomes. I also wouldn't find it fun to spend so much time on them. And if one of those hardcore mini painters said I could be doing better and he felt I should do more, I would understand where he was coming from and respect what he was trying to do. But then I'd ignore him and do it my way. Or if I decided to get into painting minis more seriously, then try his advice.

I don't really think you can compare your D&D playing style to detailing a miniature. And I think this is primarily because I've got the feeling you're confusing playing style for having an effect on the quality/potential of a game. First of all you have to ask yourself what exectly do you mean with quality of a game...

A lot of people here define quality of a game with the ammount of satisfaction gained from a session of play. This IMO is an extreme subjective measure if defined individually. I am truly convinced you got an enormous amount of satisfaction out of a narrative gaming experience, but if that convinces you that you have seen the light and that others will gain equal satisfaction from playing a narrative play style, you are IMO mistaken. I believe that satisfaction depends sorely on that person's taste and stomach.

Because I'm a musician myself I'd think of it this way: I see RPG here as a guitar (which I believe goes as far as being an instument to create something and meanwhile satisfy the player). I've heard people play some really intricate classical stuff on a guitar while I've heard others play equally virtuose rock music. Whether you'd like to play classical or rock music very much depends on personal preference, but I think neither guitarist has the right to call his playing more virtuose or more intricate than the other, just based on the style of music they're playing.

 

[Mark Chance]

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.

Quite right. Claims that one's gaming style (narrative, for example) or game elements (homosexual NPCs, for example) reflect a level of "maturity" is really just a backhanded way of insulting people who prefer a different type of game.

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes:

Doc Awkward: if you cannot make your point in a civil, respectful manner, then you may not make your point on this board. Do not post again in this thread, and do not post in any thread in a snarky fashion.

Breakdaddy, if you see someone breaking the rules, you need to report them and NOT respond to their post. You too may not post again in this thread.

Everyone else, please keep it civil; I don't want to have to close this thread down.

Daniel

 

[Dremmen]

Quite right. Claims that one's gaming style (narrative, for example) or game elements (homosexual NPCs, for example) reflect a level of "maturity" is really just a backhanded way of insulting people who prefer a different type of game.

Okay, since Mark has mentioned this, a point that has been mentioned for about the upteenth time, I think I'll address it directly. This idea of different gaming stlyes - let me get to the root of my original post. We are talking about Role-Playing Games, not general games. If there is a group that Role-Plays when playing Role-Playing Games, and a second group that does NOT Role-Play when playing Role-Playing Games, then it stands to logic that the first group is doing BETTER when Role-Playing in Role-Playing Games. This narrative style - there are tons of styles to doing it narrative but the root of it is that you don't just roll dice, that you actually play using descriptors of the alter self instead of sitting back and describing actions independent of the character one is playing. And if you limit your activity in the game to the action and the dice roll, IMO, you are not playing a different style of Role-Playing, you're not even Role-Playing.

In football Phillip Rivers passes the ball sidearm instead of overhand. That's his style of playing the game. Its a preference but the game as a whole is the same and its just as valid a way of doing it. To me this group that says hack'n'slash is just as good as narrative style for playing RPGs are like the folks that think a Win is a Win in football, and how you get those points just doesn't matter. And if the QB brings out an Uzi, mows down the opposing team and scores touchdown after touchdown, then its still football. And I would argue that its not, that the game is as defined by the tedium of calling plays that use your players to the fullest and trying to outguess the opposing team and fighting for every yard - its in the getting to that touchdown as much as just scoring the points. Its what makes it exciting and interesting. Its not a different way of playing it - sure its fun, and..well, I won't say go ahead and use an Uzi in football but you get my drift. Munchkin, hack'n'slash, however you want to play it that's all you and more power to you. For the reasons above stated I do not equate it with RPGing. To me its not a different style, its something else. Its fun, you use the books, and there are dice involved. But its apple and oranges. And while there are tons of ways of playing RPGs in a narrative style, with mechanics imbedded or purely in character first person or third person past tense storytelling or whatever, hack'n'slash is a different entity all together and not equivalent to actually role playing. Is a narrative style a better way to have fun? No. Both can be just as fun. Is it a better way to play a game? No. Both are a great way to play a game with friends. Is it a better way to play RPGs? Yes.

Disclaimer: The author of this post is not condoning the use of Uzis in any sort of sporting event.

Disclaimer 2: My wife mentioned something that I thought could use clarification. RP-Lite, where PCs in the game only go narrative style at places like taverns or around a campfire or other appropriate place or situation, just every so often interject in the game with a quick one line or just a little something of flavor for the character - that's a narrative style. You don't have to be constanly descriptive. Sometimes folks don't have so long to play or whatever. But they still take the time to every now and then assure their character's individuality by doing or saying something in character. And if the rest of the game tends to be a bit RP dry and lots of dice rolling, at least the group has a good idea of who the PCs are as individuals and that's the big thing. Still loads better than straight up hack'n'slah dice contests.

 

[Aaron L]

What is this idea that it is either narrativist or munchkin dicerollling?

I roleplay in my games to the fulest extent possible. I write up extensive backgrounds and histories for my characters. I make lists of thier favorite colors, foods, drinks, what have you. I try to know them inside and out, so I will know in any situation what they, if they were a real living being, would do. I keep detailed track of thier property and equipment. I also keep track of what pages in a spellboook are occupied by what spells and how many volumes of spellbooks are required, and similiar nitpicky details.

I do this because it is fun for me.

But I would retch at the thought of describing my characters emotions as he swings his sword, or descrbe in detail the sweat running down his face as he faces his enemy, or anything similar. As Kahuna Burger said before, I believe, roleplaying for me is having the character itself act as it should, and speak as it should, and not making up descriptive text to grind the other players noses in.

When I play, I try to take into account my characters emotions and what knowledge he has, and try to have him behave accordingly. I would find it ridiculous to describe his actions in minute detail, and tedious. And laughably uncomfortable. Oh yes, I will certainly describe a dramatic combat moment, or mention a facial expression or similiar if it is called for, or descibe physical things that cant be portrayed with my characters own speech, but describing my characters emotions? If my character is angry, I will have him say angry things and wear a scowl on my own face. But Id never say "Grog is angry, his eyes blazing with fury as he swings his axe in a great arc to decapitate the kobold, blood and sweat streaming down hs face." Id fall over laughing.

But you enjoy it, and thats completely great for you. Keep doing it, and I hope you find others who enjoy it as well.

But dont tell me that my way of playing, which entails every bit as much roleplaying as yours, is somehow inferior, or not reaching the true potential of the game, because I dont use wordy and pretentious descriptive dialogue.

I find the idea of 3rd person narrative horrible, and can barely concieve of it as roleplaying. (Grog says 'arrrgh' and charges the kobold.) The idea of playing with miniatures makes me cringe, and for me it reduces the game from one of roleplaying to one of strategic combat and nothing more. But these are personal tastes of mine, and I know that they arent universally held, and others quite enjoy the styles I find distasteful. They arent less mature then me, and they arent "inferior" gamers.


Its a GAME. Games are meant to be enjoyed. Enjoy it as you will, but dont tell others that they arent as mature as you because they enjoy the game in a different way.

 

[the black knight]

If you're having fun, you're doing it right.

Otherwsie, spare us all these bombastic, self-inflated threads.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Alright, I think that post kinda cleared your position up for me, Dremmen. You're down on people using D&D for a miniatures combat game with no plot or characterization, where you might think up a name for your character and maybe make a sketchy map of the area if you're feeling really into it. Is that accurate?