The core mechanic -- am I doing it wrong?

[I'm A Banana]

The tension is as old as fiction.

Are you a plot-based game or a character-based game?

Most games are probably a bit of both, but some go to one extreme or the other, and have plenty of fun there.

Plot-based games are more "GM-active." GM says stuff happens. Orcs invade. Earthquakes strike. Bad guys do bad things. Players mostly react to whatever happens (though they can certainly react in their own ways and choose their own paths -- some characters might save NPC's in an orc invasion, others would go fight the orc chief, others would flee as far and as fast as they can).

Character-based games are more "PC-active." PC's have goals and desires and do things. Paladins seek the chalice. Thieves want to rob the temple. Fighters want to avenge the deaths of their wartime comrades. The DM mostly reacts to whatever happens (though she can certainly introduce her own twists -- a dragon guarding the chalice, a puzzle protecting the temple, a great necromancer raising the corpses of the wartime enemies...).

Again, most folks probably hit somewhere in the middle. Sometimes, the characters have an idea, and the DM says whether or not that's possible. Sometimes, the DM has an idea, and the characters have to react to what happens. But even at the extremes, you can find a fun game.

What Monte is talking about here is the micro level mechanic, though. How does anything get accomplished in D&D? How does your character hit the orc, or throw the switch, or otherwise interact with the world? You say you want your character to do something, and the DM says how it is done, and what happens as a result. Then, after the result, you say what you want to do next.

Since the DM doesn't dictate character actions (even in a heavily plot-based game), even a game where the characters are mostly reacting is a game that follows that micro-level mechanic. If an earthquake hits, your character gets to do something to react, and then the DM decides the result, and then your character gets to react to that result, etc...

 

[DMKastmaria]

Plot-based games are more "GM-active." GM says stuff happens. Orcs invade. Earthquakes strike. Bad guys do bad things. Players mostly react to whatever happens (though they can certainly react in their own ways and choose their own paths -- some characters might save NPC's in an orc invasion, others would go fight the orc chief, others would flee as far and as fast as they can).

Character-based games are more "PC-active." PC's have goals and desires and do things. Paladins seek the chalice. Thieves want to rob the temple. Fighters want to avenge the deaths of their wartime comrades. The DM mostly reacts to whatever happens (though she can certainly introduce her own twists -- a dragon guarding the chalice, a puzzle protecting the temple, a great necromancer raising the corpses of the wartime enemies...).

Again, most folks probably hit somewhere in the middle. Sometimes, the characters have an idea, and the DM says whether or not that's possible. Sometimes, the DM has an idea, and the characters have to react to what happens. But even at the extremes, you can find a fun game.

In my games the world does continue turning, apart from the PC's. While they're busy messing with that Thieves Guild I mentioned above, they might totally ignore the rumor that the Evil Magician Buttmunch is rounding up an army of orcs. Months down the road, they may hear that Buttmunch's humanoid army has wiped out a local halfling village.

Their inaction, in this case, has also helped shape the milieu. And without the PC's intervention, I would randomly determined Buttmunch's success, or failure. Perhaps, whether or not said Magician's 2nd in command had him assassinated and took over the army, himself. Etc., etc.

Also, just because I run sandboxes, doesn't mean that an adventure will never slap the PC's upside the head, as it were. I throw weird things into the game via Random Tables, quite often.

"Well, now! The Dice Gods have decided that a Fire will be sweeping through the city, today!"


As in real life, crap happens. For the most part, we decide the direction we take, where we go, etc. But, sometimes there are obstacles. That might, on occasion, even prevent us from ever getting where we were headed.

NPC's etc., will do what they do. Based upon their character, motivations and random determination, when desirable. I use things like Major Event tables, to make things interesting. How the PC's react to those events, is up to them.

Usually, things like Major Event Table results don't immediately effect the PC's at all. A war in a distant land. The local ruler becomes possessed by a demon, etc. The PC's may or may not become involved in such events directly. In the long run, there may be inconveniences.

And again, Random Tables determine quite a bit of what happens around the PC's, on a micro and macro level. Both to foster my own neutrality and because it's FUN! Surprising myself is one of the main reasons I use RT's.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I'd better make something else clear. I never have an interest in derailing the PC's plans. Those Random Events I mentioned might do so on occasion, though that's actually fairly rare. And players are determined little buggers!

Events I determine randomly, whether local, or effecting a much larger geographical area, are rolled for on a schedule. Usually, if there is an immediate response necessary, it's of a nature that takes only a little playing time, or that might start out that way, then possibly mushroom into something much larger.

The idea being to introduce interesting vicissitudes (as well as beneficial happenings - it's not all "bad" stuff) while remaining neutral. Again, crap happens. Often, the PC's can circumvent such things, if they don't want to take the time to deal with it. Sometimes, they have to deal with it, before continuing on their way. On occasion, they may find themselves more interested in the new happenings, than the old.

I've never totally fubared a party's goals with this sort of thing, though it is possible. If the party was planning on conquering the city mentioned in the last post and the randomly rolled fire (1% chance of occurring for example) totally destroyed said city and if the PC's couldn't find a way to stop that fire, then the city may no longer be suitable for conquering.

I would let the roll stand and see if the party could "fix" things. If not, they would have to resort to plan "B."

 

[Sunseeker]

The interaction between player and DM is very give and take. Allowing players "free reign" within the game can cause difficulties for the game as a whole. If all the players do not take so kindly to such action it can cause distress between players. The common problem of Johnny taking up all the game time because he wants to go to the bordello, then the ampitheater, then kill some bandits(which the group can't help with because he's cross town), ect... Likewise, while not every DM has a story they want to tell, for at least those who aren't running a pre-made world, players running amok in their world can be seen as disrespectful to their creation.

In the end, I think what troubles me most about the initial "saying" is that it's a GROUP adventure. The other people at the table aren't cardboard cutouts who can just be ignored while you go all willy-nilly on the game.

It needs to be "We are going to do X" At which point the DM will determine how plausible that is and present the players with how that situation plays out. RARELY should people be saying "I will do X" outside of particular situations in which individual actions are required.

Now keep in mind I'm not really talking about combat here. Combat is pretty much laid out and if you're not incompetent to how to roll the dice, then that's about the extent of your "me time". Even still, as a cooperative game, many of your battlefield decisions should still take into account the group dynamic.

 

[DMKastmaria]

Likewise, while not every DM has a story they want to tell, for at least those who aren't running a pre-made world, players running amok in their world can be seen as disrespectful to their creation.

Not I!

"Here's the Campaign World. Now, Go And Destroy It!"

Ultimately, I'm creating the playground of the Milieu, for the Player's to Play in. It's theirs! I'm giving it to them. They can destroy it, remake it, whatever they want. Or, can. They're creating their story, not mine. It's about the PC's. Not my literary aspirations.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the end, I think what troubles me most about the initial "saying" is that it's a GROUP adventure. The other people at the table aren't cardboard cutouts who can just be ignored while you go all willy-nilly on the game.

It needs to be "We are going to do X" At which point the DM will determine how plausible that is and present the players with how that situation plays out. RARELY should people be saying "I will do X" outside of particular situations in which individual actions are required.

Well, I think Monte's quote was on a much more micro-level. It's not about goals and intent, it's about the players actually acting through the steps of those goals.

"I attack the orc."
"I climb the wall."
"I slide down the bannister."
"I kiss the frog."

That's what is meant by "core mechanic:" it's the main rule by which the game operates, the main rule by which a player plays, the main rule by which you direct your character.

Everything else -- even 1d20 + mods vs. DC -- is an optional rule that you can insert between the player saying "I attack the orc," and the DM giving the results of the action.

Come to think if it, it's kind of a micro-level random table, just with two results.

 

[Ratskinner]

Does not compute

Perhaps I am Asperger's or something; I don't feel like it's about interacting with the DM the way I do it. The DM is basically playing the role of the X-box in Dragon Age: Origins -- it would feel weird to say the core mechanic there is about "interacting" with the computer. It's about the player deciding things and seeing what happens.

I also tend to not do anything that isn't on my character sheet or in the rules... being able to do those things is what the game hooked me with, and that's what I want to do. If I can argue someone into something, but I don't get to roll an Intimidate check, I'm not happy.

I think is exactly why I don't 4e anymore. If I'm DMing, I want to be more than an Xbox. If we aren't collectively being creative and interesting, then this really isn't anything more than a skirmish board game. I think the core of 4e's issues is this "We're playing a computer game...without the computer!" mentality. Computers are much better at being computers than we can ever be. I don't think this games stands a chance in the long term if its relying on us to out-compute computers.

After I ran 4e for a while, I actually went to a few conventions to try and figure out why it didn't feel the same by playing a lot of different games...the answer was that lack of interaction between player and DM. It is, I feel, the root of what old-timers are talking about when they say "It doesn't feel like D&D." That being said, some folks apparently didn't find that 4e played that way for them. People! Go figure . Also, I did still play 4e for a while because I found it a fun game, even if it didn't "feel like DnD" to me.

I should say that this diminishing of the DM-player interaction started IMHO with 3.5 with roots in 3e. Tables of DCs for every skill and condition eliminates a lot of judgement calls. With increasing frequency, the DM couldn't say "yes", but instead had to respond with more technical vocabulary often while referencing rulebooks.

 

[Ratskinner]

I've built characters who wanted to make a pilgrimage to the site of the battle where their race was born, or who were adopted by humans and wanted to find their genealogy among the tieflings. It seems like the only way that could ever happen is to ask the DM "please can I go on a pilgrimage, can you make a plot for the other players?" or "next time we switch areas can my tiefling ancestral house be there?" Otherwise it's like "Hey DM and other players, can you throw away any plans you have and do my thing instead?"

One important point is not to develop these ideas in a vacuum, and do it way before play starts. As much as possible, do it in consultation with your DM and the other players. I love those ideas as a GM, and you're welcome to bring 'em to my table, anytime. As a player, I love 'em too! I often enjoy playing "second fiddle" characters. You might be surprised what the other players would enjoy. You might get other players involved in your story, but also, be willing to get involved in their story. If you're character has conflicting goals and responsibilities it makes for much better story. However, coming to the table with nine-sheets of backstory that don't involve anyone else is asking for heartbreak. (I've seen it happen. I'm a flexible DM, but it can be asking a lot to rewrite a big chunk of game-world history, and there is always the issue of rest of the party.)

Some groups prefer to have story develop as play progresses. That's good too, start as more of a blank slate and let the history and story unfold together. In such a case, don't be afraid to tell the DM what you might like to see. Often, the DM can give you direction and detail that already matches the game-world! Don't be afraid to leave things partially created. A good GM in this kind of game might hear you mention "the Battle of Nod Commons" during roleplay, and then a few sessions later you run into an old comrade or an old enemy from that very same battle.