Suspense in RPGs

[Lanefan]

I agree with your points. So this is just me adding a nuance.

There are two types of target driven groups..
1. Those that always want to win and want to look good doing it. The process of being victorious over their enemies is enjoyable. If you make things hard for them, they aren't happy.

2. Those that want to work hard to achieve their goals and if they get it easy it's unsatisfying. And when I say "work hard", I mean the group using their wits and strategic planning to out smart enemies.


Gygax in teaching DMs in the DMG 1e had this sort of group because what he taught in that book was how to handle a #2 sort of group. I've since learned that there are more varieties than this one type. I've also noticed in newer editions of D&D that the presumed type of group has swung a bit in the direction of #1.

Still good points and each group likely falls on a scale between extreme #1 and extreme #2.

There's an extension of the two group definitions which I'll take the liberty of adding in here, as I see it as very relevant:

1. Those that always want to win and want to look good doing it. The process of being victorious over their enemies is enjoyable. If you make things hard for them, they aren't happy. Failure is not seen as a possible outcome and is not taken well when-if it occurs.

2. Those that want to work hard to achieve their goals and if they get it easy it's unsatisfying. And when I say "work hard", I mean the group using their wits and strategic planning to out smart enemies. Failure is accepted as a possible outcome, and taken in stride when-if it occurs.

The game overall is more or less set up to allow success. I think it's the handling and acceptance of failure that marks the biggest difference between 1. and 2.

And it's not just each group that's somewhere on this scale, but each individual player; and having in the past run games with players near opposite ends of this scale sitting at the same table I can say the difference causes headaches.

Lanefan

 

[Nytmare]

What have you got in mind?

The age old divide between people who feel as though a DM fudging a die roll is part and parcel of the D&D experience vs those who consider fudging a die roll anathema.

If wondering what happens and rolling a die on a chart is suspenseful for someone, but asking a person to be a temporary DM to effectively choose an item off a chart isn't, maybe the difference for those people just hinges on whether or not it's a person making the decision?

 

[Tony Vargas]

No productive idea has ever started "there are two kinds of people... "

That's just the basic formula for bigotry: Define an in group (so as to include yourself, of course). Drop everyone else in the out group. Build up the in group. Tear down the out group. Feel good about yourself on the basis of your group membership.

When I was much younger I had this delusion that RPGs innately worked against that sort of thing, that they gave us the opportunity to see things from radically different points of view, that the very process of roleplaying opened our minds...

 

[Emerikol]

There's an extension of the two group definitions which I'll take the liberty of adding in here, as I see it as very relevant:

1. Those that always want to win and want to look good doing it. The process of being victorious over their enemies is enjoyable. If you make things hard for them, they aren't happy. Failure is not seen as a possible outcome and is not taken well when-if it occurs.

2. Those that want to work hard to achieve their goals and if they get it easy it's unsatisfying. And when I say "work hard", I mean the group using their wits and strategic planning to out smart enemies. Failure is accepted as a possible outcome, and taken in stride when-if it occurs.

The game overall is more or less set up to allow success. I think it's the handling and acceptance of failure that marks the biggest difference between 1. and 2.

And it's not just each group that's somewhere on this scale, but each individual player; and having in the past run games with players near opposite ends of this scale sitting at the same table I can say the difference causes headaches.

Lanefan

Excellent and valid points. My groups have tended towards #2 overall and I definitely DM that way but like you said I probably had some at the table more gung ho than others. It's not that they weren't happy as is but they might have been a little more happier if it was a bit easier.

 

[Nytmare]

No productive idea has ever started "there are two kinds of people... "

If that was directed at me, I'd argue that, for the people involved in that argument, there are definitively two different groups arguing.

I am not saying that there are two kinds of people, I'm saying that for the people who have that argument, there are two sides.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If that was directed at me,

Not so much, no.

I'd argue that, for the people involved in that argument, there are definitively two different groups arguing.
I am not saying that there are two kinds of people, I'm saying that for the people who have that argument, there are two sides.

There are at least two sides to every argument, sure.

The age old divide between people who feel as though a DM fudging a die roll is part and parcel of the D&D experience vs those who consider fudging a die roll anathema.

Those are just two extremes of the range of opinions, I'm sure. I do feel the former is pretty fair, personally: it's just my experience that DMs who do a decent job are usually overriding the system one way or another (fudging secretly or openly, modding the rules up front or ruling notwithstanding the rules they go), and I find when I run D&D that it's usually better to trust your skills/experience as a DM rather than trust the system & the dice.
But there are many ways of coping.

If wondering what happens and rolling a die on a chart is suspenseful for someone, but asking a person to be a temporary DM to effectively choose an item off a chart isn't, maybe the difference for those people just hinges on whether or not it's a person making the decision?

I think there's an ideal of impartiality involved. It'd be rooted in the game's early wargaming history, IMHO, a tradition left over from when more complex wargames would use a 'judge,' an impartial 3rd party to fairly settle issues between competing players. While judge and GM are analogous (and still synonymous, apparently, in some regions), they're not identical: the judge must be impartial, because he's facilitating a competition, while the GM is facilitating a cooperative challenge (or even a storytelling exercise).

 

[Emerikol]

If that was directed at me, I'd argue that, for the people involved in that argument, there are definitively two different groups arguing.

I am not saying that there are two kinds of people, I'm saying that for the people who have that argument, there are two sides.

There are two types of people. Those who can understand the intent of the author of a post and respond to what he intended and those who want to nitpick every semantic nuance so as to cloud the original discussion. ;-)

In every individual argument (assuming it's a logically constructed argument), there are exactly two sides. That is not true in all discussions because of course we have multiple arguments going at once. The key is that an argument is asserting something so you accept the assertion or you rebut it. Of course the reasons an argument can be wrong are theoretically limitless.

 

[Lanefan]

There are at least two sides to every argument, sure.

In here there are often about five, roughly equating to one per D&D edition.

 

[Lanefan]

In every individual argument (assuming it's a logically constructed argument), there are exactly two sides.

Well, in fairness there are three "sides" with the third "side" having some subgroups; those three sides being pro, con, and both/neither/neutral.

For example, take the 3e-4e war from the 4e supporter perspective:

Pro - 4e is good, 3e is bad
Con - 4e is bad, 3e is good
Both - both are equally good / Neither - both are equally bad / Neutral - this debate is irrelevant

Lan-"neither"-efan

 

[Emerikol]

Well, in fairness there are three "sides" with the third "side" having some subgroups; those three sides being pro, con, and both/neither/neutral.

For example, take the 3e-4e war from the 4e supporter perspective:

Pro - 4e is good, 3e is bad
Con - 4e is bad, 3e is good
Both - both are equally good / Neither - both are equally bad / Neutral - this debate is irrelevant

Lan-"neither"-efan

You didn't make an assertion though. Sides can have all sorts of views.

The individual assertions are
1. 4e was good.
If you think 4e was bad or your neutral then for you the above is false.
2. 3e was good
Same as for 4e.

I said a logical assertion. It has to be stated as a truth statement. Thus it's always yes or no. (true or false)