Semi-Rant: Maturity and dumbing down a game

[Mishihari Lord]

While Dremmen wasn't exactly diplomatic, I did enjoy hearing someone say that not all styles are equally good. They "every way to play is equally good" is helpful for everyone getting along. It's not so good for improving play. I would like to make my games better, but if no one will admit that some ways of playing are better than others, we can't have a meaningful conversation along those lines. "Any fun game is a good game" is true, but not terribly useful for trying to improve my game. I can't just "make it more fun;" I need more specific ideas as to how to do that. Some things really are just style, but I would like to think that there are some universal principles that make better play. What are they? I don't know, and if I won't admit that some things are better than others I won't find out.

 

[barsoomcore]

While I respect that many gamers want to avoid making value-judgements regarding play-styles, I believe that some gaming experiences are qualitatively better than others.

Well, sure they are. But that's a very different thing than saying that one play style is better than another. The degree to which an experience is rewarding depends equally on the expectations of the individual involved as they do on the actual quality of the experience. For some people, the Brandenburg Concertos are the peak of musical accomplishment. For others, Public Enemy is. If you can describe a "qualitative" way of ranking those kinds of experiences that everyone will agree with, then you've accomplished something that nobody else in the history of civilization has accomplished.

"Good roleplaying" is a style of play. Is it objectively BETTER than, let us say, a "hack n slash" style of play? Obviously not. The very idea is nonsense.

Do you LIKE it better? Sure. Is it a good way to play? Absolutely. Is it better? No. The problem with trying to establish one mode of play as being better than another in some objective manner is that what you're REALLY doing is trying to establish that one mode is WORSE than another. And what can you say to somebody who says, "Well, I've tried both, but I disagree with you. I think THIS way is better."?

You can't say anything. You can't argue with that. You can't prove them wrong. You can't convince them. And therefore, you cannot argue that there exists any objective measure between two styles.

I don't think that same encounter and that same dungeon are qualitatively the equal of the adventures and settings that I write today

But "encounters" and "dungeons" exist solely to assist in the experience of the game -- and the only meaningful criteria they can be held up to is the degree to which they facilitate the type of game you and your friends wish to play.

More sophisticated dungeons facilitate more "realistic", more "role-playing" type of games. That doesn't make them a priori better than goofy grid-map dungeons that make no sense.

I believe that the qualitative attributes of good roleplaying go beyond mere taste.

You may be right; I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that "good roleplaying" isn't the only worthy objective of these games -- nor is it the BEST objective. Somebody might play D&D for entirely different reasons and for them, other styles of play would fulfill their needs better.

Honestly, you're just setting yourself up for bitter disappointment if you want everyone to agree with you that style X is superior to style Y. So don't bother. Figure out what you like and get good at it and find folks who like the same sort of stuff you do, have crazy fun games and tell us all about them. That strikes me as a much better use of your time.

 

[The Shaman]

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?

In the games that you run, no, it's not, if you're willing to accept that your personal style may turn off some players.

I expect a certain level of roleplaying effort in the games that I run, and I prefer to play alongside other gamers who take a similar approach.

Is it just me that feels this way?

That depends on what you're asking.

- Is a roleplaying game about more than character optimization and counting loot? Sometimes.

I never lose sight of the game aspect of roleplaying games, so players that ignore the importance of developing effective characters for their role in the adventuring group tend to irk me - if we're supposed to be a team, then each player and character must pull a fair share of the load.

This is not the same as saying a character must be a minmaxed powerbunny - usually such characters have a glaring weakness that completely undermines their actual effectiveness.

In any case I agree that a character should be more than the sum of the stats.

As far as "hack-and-slash" being anathema to roleplaying, I would strongly disagree - killing things and taking their stuff does not obviate character development and roleplaying IMX.

- Should roleplaying be a part of roleplaying games? Yes.

The sticky part is the particulars. Do you expect players to adopt a character voice and mannerisms? Is all conversation at the table considered in-character speech? Must a player describe an action in the first-person ("I raise my sword...") or is third-person description ("Fufnag raises his sword...") acceptable? Must in-character speech always be first-person ("Good day and a blessing on your house, innkeeper!") or is a simple third person description("Fufnag greets the innkeeper") okay?

Personally I'm lousy at creating different voices and I don't enjoy acting out my character's mannerisms at the table, I tend to flip back and forth between in- and out-of-character speech, I'll use third-person descriptions more often than first-person (I don't think of my character as "I"), and I'll speak as my character about as often as I just describe what s/he says. How does my style of roleplay fit your "narrativist" approach?

 

[barsoomcore]

The "every way to play is equally good" is helpful for everyone getting along. It's not so good for improving play.

Oh, come on.

Improving play has NOTHING to do with STYLE. It does you no good, for example, to try and write detailed NPC descriptions and histories if you're running a hack n slash game. You'll just frustrate yourself and annoy your players.

I can't just "make it more fun;" I need more specific ideas as to how to do that.

Listen to what you're saying.

What do YOU think is fun? How can anyone offer you suggestions to "make it more fun" without understanding your idea of fun? How can you decide what suggestions make sense unless you have some idea as to what is and isn't fun for you?

This board is FULL of suggestions on how to make a myriad of game styles more fun. Are you running a high-level classic D&D game? Read Piratecat. Want ideas on gritty, pulpy adventure? Post a Grim Tales thread and wait for Wulf to chime in. Want some wild campaign suggestion that will make your players giggle all night? Go read any post by JPL. We've got Joshua Dyal with the Burroughs/Howard/Tolkein dispensary, woodelf with sophisticated rules analysis, HeapThaumaturgist with the Modern mojo and a host of others all over the place with plenty of ideas good bad and irrelevant.

But before you can make use of any of them you have to decide what play style you want to try. And to do that, what else are you going to use besides your own taste?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Something tells me you guys have been suckered by a troll...

 

[The Shaman]

I was about to reply to barsoomcore when I saw this:

They "every way to play is equally good" is helpful for everyone getting along. It's not so good for improving play. I would like to make my games better, but if no one will admit that some ways of playing are better than others, we can't have a meaningful conversation along those lines. "Any fun game is a good game" is true, but not terribly useful for trying to improve my game. I can't just "make it more fun;" I need more specific ideas as to how to do that. Some things really are just style, but I would like to think that there are some universal principles that make better play. What are they? I don't know, and if I won't admit that some things are better than others I won't find out.

Well-said, Mishihari Lord.

The degree to which an experience is rewarding depends equally on the expectations of the individual involved as they do on the actual quality of the experience....If you can describe a "qualitative" way of ranking those kinds of experiences that everyone will agree with, then you've accomplished something that nobody else in the history of civilization has accomplished.

And yet somehow we manage to do exactly that.

How do we decide what makes Shakespeare great? We analyze his technique, we compare him to his peers, we assess his influence over time, and we keep doing it over and over again. This is why Mozart will likely be considered great in another century while Lil' Kim is forgotten.

To be clear, barsoomcore, I'm not talking about the experience itself - I'm talking about those elements of quality that transcend personal taste. That may be where our paths diverge.

"Good roleplaying" is a style of play. Is it objectively BETTER than, let us say, a "hack n slash" style of play? Obviously not. The very idea is nonsense.

Part of the problem with this is that hack-and-slash is not exclusive of good roleplaying, so comparing them as if they represent extremes is meaningless.

"And what can you say to somebody who says, "Well, I've tried both, but I disagree with you. I think THIS way is better."?

You can't say anything. You can't argue with that. You can't prove them wrong. You can't convince them. And therefore, you cannot argue that there exists any objective measure between two styles.

Your use of the word "objective" in this context sets off a warning flag for me: do you accept that qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) data and analysis can provide "objective" means of measure? I find that many people believe that if something doesn't have a number attached to it, it can't be "objectively" analyzed, which is a mistaken presumption.

The fact that someone doesn't agree with an objective conclusion derived from qualitative data does nothing to invalidate the conclusion - it just means the someone refuses to accept the results since they don't jibe with personal experience.

I'm saying that "good roleplaying" isn't the only worthy objective of these games -- nor is it the BEST objective. Somebody might play D&D for entirely different reasons and for them, other styles of play would fulfill their needs better.

Fair enough as far as it goes.

Would you agree that we could look for common memes in different play styles? What I'm suggesting is that common elements are what we collectively define as "best," whether we are conscious of it or not.

I would also say that we can identify something as "best" and make a choice not to adopt that play style anyway - the fact that "best" is defined solely by what we do ignores the role that our values play in decision-making. I may think that Dremmen's "narrativist" approach is "best," and I might even be able to drum up some data to demonstrate that it's so, but that doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily strive to emulate it. What we believe and what we do are not always in lock-step the way we might like them to be.

"Honestly, you're just setting yourself up for bitter disappointment if you want everyone to agree with you that style X is superior to style Y. So don't bother.

I'm not trying to get anyone to adopt any particular play style - I'm simply saying that what defines quality is more than a matter of personal taste.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Something tells me you guys have been suckered by a troll...

Dang, beat me to it. Not especially good though. He has to come back and slam those who dare disagree with him. 6/10 for creating drama.

 

[Dolom]

In a "narrativistic" game like Dremmen espouses as the platonic ideal, there is a heavy burden on the DM to create and maintain that environment. In my own humble gaming experiences, I've yet to see a single gamer that can live up to Dremmen's idea of the "one true way," much less an entire group.

Fewer still are those that want to. It's called chewing the scenery, and it doesn't earn the perpetrator any friends. Especially since game time to most people I know is down time from a busy work schedule.

It sounds like Dremmen is unhappy with his current gaming situation and came here to bitch. Not that that's wrong. A good vent is a healthy vent.

He may be trolling, but I bet he's an honest troll.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

While Dremmen wasn't exactly diplomatic, I did enjoy hearing someone say that not all styles are equally good. They "every way to play is equally good" is helpful for everyone getting along. It's not so good for improving play. I would like to make my games better, but if no one will admit that some ways of playing are better than others, we can't have a meaningful conversation along those lines. "Any fun game is a good game" is true, but not terribly useful for trying to improve my game. I can't just "make it more fun;" I need more specific ideas as to how to do that. Some things really are just style, but I would like to think that there are some universal principles that make better play. What are they? I don't know, and if I won't admit that some things are better than others I won't find out.

Better to whom?

My old group had an amazing mix of players. I had your classic min/maxer, a pure hack and slasher, a class clown, a narrative roleplayer, a rules maven and three people who were a blend of these. We didn't have problems with the game, we all had fun.

Would I as DM have preferred that the players tried a bit more roleplaying? Sure, but that is what I am trying to improve in myself, it may not be what everyone was there for.

Our hack and slasher is a labor and delivery nurse. She came to games to deal out some hurt and get out some frustrations, not to escape into immersive roleplaying. During sessions that had more roleplaying emphasis, she was more in the background and that was fine with her. In order to make sure everyone is enjoying themselves, I tried to make sure that we haad at least one decent fight each session and to work in some good roleplayng situations.

 

[Umbran]

I do think its more of a level of maturity over play style.

I think you're dead wrong there.

If I were to be similarly elitist, I could say that really and truly mature gamers find combat boring, and so shorten the description down to get through what is seen as a necessary evil in the game. I won't, because I don't believe it.

Your error is simple. You equate "want to give dramatic description of pysical action" to "maturity". What you are missing is that the playing of the role and the description of the physicality don't go hand in hand. The Role can be entirely internal, dealing with the emotional and rational choices of a fictional person.

Don't confuse, "I like to floridly describe fight scenes" with "I am mature". Maturity has to do with growth as a person, not how well you can use your vocabulary to sketch out a few physical details of a scene.

And honestly, if my players started desicribing combat like that, it'd take about three times longer than it already does, and that'd not be fun for anyone. Long description can and will kill the dramatic tension of a fight.