The Flavorless Game?

[Galloglaich]

Well Mark, we've run for a long time in a flavor (if that is the right word) intensive game.

It's set in our real world in Constantinople with plenty of realism. We use real world weapons, political organizations, institutions, governments, rulers, historical figures, war-situations and enemies, religions, etc. The players love that they tell me. (And I love it cause it makes writing interesting adventures and missions, as well as campaign plots, really easy to construct. Though complicated to construct.)

So "realism" and historical involvement are big factors in the game. It adds to how well and how deeply the characters can become immersed in and personally involved in the world, campaigns, and plots. My personal theory is that it is much easier for players to personally "associate" and be sympathetic with cultures and groups and peoples and nations and religions they know and have something in common with. I also let my players use their own real-world skills in game. For instance if they are good at survival skills, or know how to track, they can use those skills in game, as if they and the character are the same person. This also adds to what I call Player-Character Sympathy. In some ways the characters are characters and in some ways the characters are the players. So real world issues (current affairs are written into adventure and campaign plots, just in historical form), realism, player-character overlap, etc. are all fundamental to the milieu.

That being said there is also another world, like ours, filled with non-humans, Elves, Dwarves, Giants, etc. That world is filled with magic and staring things and overlaps our world. In that world very bizarre and "otherworldly" things can and do happen.

The "interplay" between our world and the other world is what makes the setting able to do multiple things at once and allows humans and the human world, and non-humans and the non-human world, to operate very differently. One aspect of play I always enjoyed from the video-game Tomb Raider was the difference between things working "normally" (and yet still dangerously) in the regular world, and yet once she penetrated into the "underworld" of the bizarre, things operated completely differently. So I've tried to replicate that in my D&D milieu, and in the other games I've invented or written.

There are two competing aspects occurring at once, normal life, filled with national, tribal, and ethnic enemies, thieves and criminals, dangerous and cunning people, political forces, intrigue, tyrants, human monsters and human evil and good, etc. - and then there is the other world filled with monsters, angels, demons, dangerous magic, strange creatures, and so forth, and it is concerned with supernatural, preternatural, and unnatural and non-human evil and good.

I like the overlap and the conflict between these two different types of "flavor." You might call it.

But it makes demands that I greatly modify the "normal editions" of games. For instance our fantasy game is mostly D&D based, but some might consider it an entirely different game (and I am revising and writing it up in that way - I've been wanting to do that for years) though others might call it just an extremely complex and highly house-ruled D&D milieu. I guess it would depend on your point of view.

I'm not sure I answered your question in exactly the way you're shooting for.
But that's my stab at it.

I like "flavor" and find flavorless games boring, and I like role-play and find killing things just for the sake of killing things boring as well. Especially over time. (Though killing really evil, clever, cunning, crafty, and powerful things can be an awfully exciting tactical challenge, it is not what role play is ultimately about to me.)

This sounds like a great campaign. This is similar to the way I try to run my campaigns, though I probably don't do it as well. I use the familiarity (at least on an intuitive level) of a rich historical background as a dangerous and nuanced world which is interesting in it's own right, and introduce the magical and horror elements hopefully in surprising moments that heighten drama.

I find that because of the expectations of experienced gamers, I learned that when I'm starting a new campaign I will have more fun when I start with at least half my players being non-gamers, to enable the paradigm shift to the kind of immersive game I like. Experienced gamers especially DnD players, come in thinking much more in terms of rules mechanics and numbers, with so many expectations of a 'hack/slash/take' type of play much in the manner that Wulf Rathbane described in his post above, and many demands of how they want the world to work (encounter levels / CR etc.) it can be problematic to get them in the groove.

We try to play pretty loose with a lot of humor, adult themes etc. while retaining a high degree of immersion, what I'm aiming for is a little like one of those realistic grown up soap operas such as Deadwood or Rome from HBO. What I end up with is maybe one notch down in terms of coherence but still engaging and fun, maybe on the order of Lost or Battlestar Galactica. If I had more time for preparation I think I really could run games on a higher lvel, but prep time is scant and even game days are sporadic, (once a month to six weeks or so) so I always have to wing it to some extent, we still do have a lot of fun.

When dealing with violent encounters, I tell my players to just think of what they would do if they were a character in a horror movie (and then we try to let the rules model their actions, hopefully in a realistic manner). Once they have an idea of what to expect, it works quite well, though it's a lot of work to set it all up so you have a sufficiently setting rich environment.

I think Call of Cthulhu is a good model for this kind of game because of the heavy emphasis on the setting compared to the rules. Of course

G.

 

[Jack7]

I find that because of the expectations of experienced gamers, I have more fun when I start with at least half my players being non-gamers, to enable the paradigm shift to the kind of immersive game I like. Experienced gamers especially DnD players, come in thinking in terms of rules mechanics and numbers, with so many expectations of entitlement (continuous progression of wealth accumulation etc.) and demands it can be problematic to get them in the groove.

Yeah, I try to avoid math and break expectations in fantasy RPGs.
Mechanics and math are necessary and have their place, but it isn't worth sacrificing a good story or setting to them.

When dealing with violent encounters, I tell my players to think of what they would do if they were a character in a horror movie (and then we try to let the rules model their actions, hopefully in a realistic manner). Once they have an idea of what to expect, it works quite well, though it's a lot of work to set it all up so you have a sufficiently setting rich environment.

I think Call of Cthulhu is a good model because of the heavy emphasis on the setting compared to the rules.

I hear ya Gall. That's my thinking too. Monsters aren't called monsters because they are mathematical models of straw men you've got to kill to get at the goodies. They're called monsters cause they are terrifying, vicious, dangerous, and unpredictable. Same thing with magic. If you know a monster like the back of your hand then he ain't a real monster, he's just a nuisance, you're probably not even afraid of him, and if you can control magic like turning on a faucet, it isn't magic, it's technology. And not very interesting technology at that.

To me monsters and magic and myth and story should be "goodies." In their own right. A good monster is a treasure of continuing possibilities, not just a one time speed-bump.

historical background as a dangerous and nuanced world which is interesting in it's own right,

I think that's quite true. Reality is extremely interesting, and dangerous at times too. Just in different ways than dragons. It's often more miraculous than magical. And I think when you mix reality dangers with imaginary dangers in-game then you can produce some really interesting stuff. But it isn't either/or, real or not, it's more like the not-real enhances the real, and the real makes the not-real seem possible. And I'm with you here too, magic is more potent when it is rare or exotic or uncontrolled or when it slams into and shatters your prior expectations, than it is when it is as common as the common cold.

 

[Galloglaich]

I hear ya Gall. That's my thinking too. Monsters aren't called monsters because they are mathematical models of straw men you've got to kill to get at the goodies. They're called monsters cause they are terrifying, vicious, dangerous, and unpredictable. Same thing with magic. If you know a monster like the back of your hand then he ain't a real monster, he's just a nuisance, you're probably not even afraid of him, and if you can control magic like turning on a faucet, it isn't magic, it's technology. And not very interesting technology at that.

To me monsters and magic and myth and story should be "goodies." In their own right. A good monster is a treasure of continuing possibilities, not just a one time speed-bump.

Very well put, the problem I run into with experienced DnD gamers in the last ten years or so, is that they actually get mad if they don't know what a monster is or how many points of whatever they need to defeat it. I agree with the underlying concept that things should be on the up and up, I figure out the stats on monsters I use very carefully and I'll not infrequently show the players the stasts of a monster after a fight, if they fought it. But veteran gamer types, and this is even more true of people who are used to playing games lke WoW, expect to hack their way through pretty much every monster or NPC they run into. Some people belive it's actually built into the DnD rules that they aren't supposed to be allowed to run into anything they can't handle in a fight. How can you have a game that is anything like a story if everything they run into is a 'speed bump' as you aptly put it.

To me this is a stunning concept in an RPG game. I remember arguments on this forum to the effect that you couldn't have an encoutner with a Sphinx, say, that asked riddles you had to answer or turn back because he was too tough to fight (not fair to have an encounter with an EL that high) you couldn't have a king arthur NPC who was the only guy in the world that could pull excalibur from the stone (because there had to be a way for the players to do anything the NPCs could do.)

I really don't get this. Same with all the nerfing in Magic. An entire story in the Arabian knights was built around one artefact that could turn you invisible. Many people familiar with DnD or WoW are used to thinking of invisibility as a common, temporary and very nerfed effect. A second level spell. I think it should be like a 5th level spell but not be nerfed at all.

Part of getting the flavor to have a real immersive feel requires that a fight is dangerous, something you have to think about whether or not to get into; enemies are unpredictable, magic even more so.

I give an RPG the 'fairy tale' test, if you couldn't portray a good story from Sinbad or an Icelandic Saga or something similar, it probably isn't going to be that good of a game.

I think that's quite true. Reality is extremely interesting, and dangerous at times too. Just in different ways than dragons. It's often more miraculous than magical. And I think when you mix reality dangers with imaginary dangers in-game then you can produce some really interesting stuff. But it isn't either/or, real or not, it's more like the not-real enhances the real, and the real makes the not-real seem possible. And I'm with you here too, magic is more potent when it is rare or exotic or uncontrolled or when it slams into and shatters your prior expectations, than it is when it is as common as the common cold.

Well put.

G.

 

[Pbartender]

I like killing bad guys and taking their stuff, and some reasonable pretense (motive, if you prefer) for doing so.

As I move through the levels finding new bad guys to kill, I prefer for that motive to change.

The players themselves and the group dynamic provide all the story/flavor I need.

The degree to which I will tolerate immersion and roleplaying that is not provided by the players is relative to the degree with which it interferes with the primary play experience of killing bad guys and taking their stuff.

I am afraid I am not the kind of player that "serious" DMs crave.

I'm right with you there, Wulf...

In general, my games tend towards starting "bland", with only very general guidelines for what the world as a whole is like. As the game progresses, wherever the PCs go, whoever they meet and whatever they they interact with is what gets the spice... As we play, the details get added to whatever interests the players or has a direct impact on the adventure.

So, for example, while the Isle of Dread may exist in my campaign world, the fine details of its locations, inhabitants and history are generally ignored until the PCs start showing an interest in going there.

In other words, I like my flavor along the lines of "salt and pepper to taste".

I try to encourage my players to the same with the personalities and histories of their characters... Start vague, and evolve details as we play.

 

[Mallus]

Let's just say my group --and our homebrew-- is lot like the Indian take-out we habitually order on game night: a rich mish-mash that's positively bursting with flavor. I mean, the PC's are currently a theater company and part-time church (who began as mercenaries who followed a failed motivational speaker). Our characters are real characters, to say the least.

Among other things we've fought for, and against, goblin rights, started a false religion, came into possession of a real, albeit tiny, god, accused powerful men of heinous crimes, and crossed over into the land of the dead, twice.

Does that make us deep-immersion role-players? I don't know. I like to use a funny voice for my PC. We like characterization, for certain values of the word. However, there's no shortage of killing things and taking their stuff. We're fond of fire (and rockets) as the solution to all life's problems. While we sure do talk a lot, we don't shy away from a good dismembering (for the purpose of moral instruction, of course).

 

[Jack7]

Let's just say my group --and our homebrew-- is lot like the Indian take-out we habitually order on game night: a rich mish-mash that's positively bursting with flavor. I mean, the PC's are currently a theater company and part-time church (who began as mercenaries who followed a failed motivational speaker). Our characters are real characters, to say the least.

Among other things we've fought for, and against, goblin rights, started a false religion, came into possession of a real, albeit tiny, god, accused powerful men of heinous crimes, and crossed over into the land of the dead, twice.

Does that make us deep-immersion role-players? I don't know. I like to use a funny voice for my PC. We like characterization, for certain values of the word. However, there's no shortage of killing things and taking their stuff. We're fond of fire (and rockets) as the solution to all life's problems. While we sure do talk a lot, we don't shy away from a good dismembering (for the purpose of moral instruction, of course).

I think Mall brings up a good point. There's flavor in background, setting, and milieu, and then there's flavor in execution and performance. (As well as other kinds of "flavor" I'm sure.)

Different "kinds of flavor" may or may not appear in the same game.

 

[xechnao]

May I say that rpgs are nothing but their flavor. And their mechanics make part of it. For example classic D&D finds most of its flavor in the classes and their balance or... unbalance. The warrior is the tougher dude that holds precious his weapons and armor, a wizard is in search for scrolls to add spells in his powerful spellbook, a thief is in search of treasure...etch. To make things more clear let me say here that gurps and herosystem offer flavor in the description of powers and skills and their balance with the effects of other powers and skills.

I think the question has surfaced recently due to the mechanics of 4e being about mini tactics. I am sorry Mark but I do not believe the subject can be discussed as if it were a matter independent to comparison among different products since as I said above rpgs are ultimately about their flavor. I do not believe it is correct to say there are levels of flavor but I understand you can rather have different flavors and that different flavors are not inspiring by the same level to different people. Eventually capture people's interest is what this is all about so I understand this whole discussion is about what people find inspiring. But I guess this is a matter tied to many factors and perhaps even their own specific combination. Art, stories, mechanics and even social and cultural situation of your public are all factors to bear.

 

[pawsplay]

The essence of game design is to capture as much flavor as possible in an efficient framework for resolving conflicts and narrating events.

 

[Galloglaich]

I'll keep this short since my long reply was eaten. Damn it is dangerous trying to write something on this site. Got to remember to write it offline and then paste it in when it's done.

i agree that gameplay should be to a large extent organic, you have to follow what the players want to do to a large extent, you shouldn't force them into a particular style of play just because that is what you prepared for. I never know at the beginning of a night whether our players (and even myself) are more in the mood for horror, humor, adventure or mystery. But it is useful to have a framework of something that feels like a real world that the players can interract with, a framework you can easily build on in a logical way when the players veer in a particular direction; and if you can establish a personality to that world that the players accept and feel a part of, then you can really get to a level of immersion and fun that people seem to really enjoy.

I have found that a deep, nuanced historical grounding is a really good way to create a recognizable personality to your campaign world that players will instinctively relate to and buy into on a deeper level.


I have also played in some games which were very generic DnD without almost any personality at all which were really boring, like a tediously slow tabletop WoW game, and also once briefly in a horribly railroaded Dragonlance campaign which felt like being trapped in a junior high school level fantasy cartoon or comic book, which essentially is what it was even though it was a bunch of lawyers and CPAs running the game . I don't think I could suspend disbelief enough to play in something like an Eberron setting.

G.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I like developing lots of rich background detail for my games. One player laps it up like a cat at a bowl of cream. The rest typically ignore it.

Strangely, when I'm a player, I don't pay a lot of attention to background. Now I used to devour everything a DM would toss out there. Unfortunately, age, a professional career that has carved out a lot of memory for matters not needed at the gaming table, and meeting less frequently, has contributed to my lack of interest in a lot of background details. Or rather, my ability to pursue them. I'm interested, but I'm too tired!