The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[Bumbles]

There's a lot of middle ground between just saying, "I use Skill X," and reciting some lines in blank verse.

Indeed there is. Myself, I'm quite comfortable being in the middle ground, with either extreme coming up as they may.

Cutting out that middle level of description seems actually to increase emphasis on the theatrical latter, perhaps because the void left by cutting out the more fundamental kind of role-playing is something people feel a need to fill.

I'd advise not completely cutting it out myself. Seems a lot of trouble with no discernible benefit. Of course, the only people I've seen cutting it out are those demanding the theatrics, so it would seem to increase the emphasis, because that's what they are demanding, being incapable of accepting a more inclusive standard.

I think that would be off-putting to non-gamers.

Our instincts evolved to deal with more visceral kinds of information than abstract probability equations.

And you would be saying this because? You'd like to find a way to put people's instincts into the game? Or some other reason?

 

[LostSoul]

Well, that would be fine if you had expressed it in terms of preference, however, your past replies did not contain such. They went in another direction, namely that of requirement. Are you now saying you misspoke? Because I don't think I misunderstood you quite that badly. Did I?

Maybe. Here's my first post on the whole subject - which was me talking about what I personally wanted to see in a hypothetical game:

I think that I personally would like a game where you were required to act out/describe your character's actions or words before you could pick up the dice, and what your character is doing or saying is at least as important as your mechanically-expressed skill.

Well, that's an interesting question, but if you want my experience, I think they'd find it tiresome and pointless if it were done to excess. I've had more people complain about the thought of having to dress up and speak in character than I ever have had from people complaining that they could just gloss over something where appropriate.

What has your experience been with others?

The few times I've played with non-gamers, they get into the fiction but don't understand the mechanics behind it (of course!). They naturally understand the game world, however. When they took actions, they didn't have the tools to describe it mechanically, they just said what they were going to do.

I think the easier it is to move from description to mechanics would make it easier for the non-gaming set to get into the game. But really, that's just pure speculation.

 

[Bumbles]

Maybe. Here's my first post on the whole subject - which was me talking about what I personally wanted to see in a hypothetical game:

So...you are standing by your adamant requirement of it? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

If so, then, ok, we're back where we were 2 pages ago. Why? What is the reasoning that the system or the GM must be that restrictive?

I am not asking for you to explain how one can benefit from such details, or utilize them. I know how you can. I've done it myself. What I am asking is why the system would require it. Need. Not how one can use it. Why it is needed. Absolutely. No excuses need.

The few times I've played with non-gamers, they get into the fiction but don't understand the mechanics behind it (of course!). They naturally understand the game world, however. When they took actions, they didn't have the tools to describe it mechanically, they just said what they were going to do.

I think the easier it is to move from description to mechanics would make it easier for the non-gaming set to get into the game. But really, that's just pure speculation.

There's description:

I'm going to go over to the guy and scare him off my woman!

And what you'd seem to be requiring which is more like having to say some of the examples you gave earlier. Not saying. But having to say.

Now I can see how you might use some of those things that could have been said, but I do not fathom your requirement of it. I can quite easily understand what the Player wants to accomplish with the description given, and figure out how to proceed from there. I can then explain to the Player how it'll be handled in the rules, and if we're in agreement over that, then we'll proceed from there.

Yet it would seem that'd not acceptable. I remain wondering why I must insist that the player be very specific and say something in character. I am not wondering how I could use it. I am not wondering how it could be beneficial to extending the story. I am wondering about the requirement of it.

 

[Ariosto]

Oy ...
Supposing LostSoul imagined that he knew the "acceptable" way for all to play, how could he "require" it of you? I don't think the RPG Police are going to demand that you drop your dice and come out with your hands on your head, or else they'll send in tear gas.

Back to the subject of interacting with the imagined world.

In first edition Advanced D&D, a first-level thief with no bonuses has a "Find/Remove Traps" rating of 20%. As a trap must be located before removal (or other rendering harmless) can be attempted, reliance on the dice alone gives but a 4% chance of success. Put another way, the odds are 24 to 1 against the thief.

In such a circumstance, the dice are not Plan A but a backup, a second chance. Clues via any of the character's five senses can bring player skill into play.

When a character is doing something very technical, such as picking a lock or writing a computer program, it is pretty natural to substitute a game "stat" (with or without a chance factor) for player skill. (There may be exceptions in games in which the players have some such expertise in common or take roles on the basis of their real-life skills.) It is still possible, and I think often desirable, to give some descriptive "handle" the player can use to engage the situation directly -- rather than being reduced merely to rolling dice (an activity that does not even require a human presence but could be automated).

Social interaction is something with which we are all acquainted starting in the cradle. Subtle skill, I think, largely involves things not easily applied in an RPG context, such as fine points of body language -- about as relevant in a tabletop game as fine points of fencing. (Experts may be able to "read" other participants around the table better, but they have that advantage in every aspect of the game. Learning a GM's "tells" is something every player probably does subconsciously.)

So, again it is pretty natural to bring game ratings and dice into play. However, there is a big body of common knowledge of general principles that players can bring to bear as readily as combat tactics such as outflanking.

If I want to scare someone, I can think of actual things to try. Different actions potentially have different consequences, regardless of whether they succeed or fail in achieving the primary objective. Apart perhaps from some magical means, they are physical phenomena in the imagined world.

 

[Bumbles]

Oy ...
Supposing LostSoul imagined that he knew the "acceptable" way for all to play, how could he "require" it of you? I don't think the RPG Police are going to demand that you drop your dice and come out with your hands on your head.

It seems you are confused. Let me assure you, once more, I am not particularly concerned about LostSoul or myself in particular. My concern is the logic in general. Did this escape you? Did you somehow interpret the pronoun usage as literal ones? Well, they weren't. Sorry if you got confused, hope you understand now. And I hope LostSoul won't make the same mistake and will be able to answer my questions as to the reasoning involved in the requirement.

For the rest, I invite you to read my prior replies. I've already addressed everything you've offered there, so if you please, I'd rather wait for LostSoul to offer me an explanation for the questions I've asked.

 

[Hairfoot]

Teflon Billy, for the whole thread I've been talking about gamers who don't prioritise on combat, but you have chosen to regard that solely as women. Then you chose to quote a post which allowed you to characterise all non-hack 'n slashers as shallow and infantile, and imply there's no room for them in our hobby.

Of course, this is the internets. It's easy to misunderstand what someone's saying and react inappropriately, in which case it helps to point out the miscommunication. It looked like you were doing that, and then you suddenly segued into a barrage of ad hominem - a tactic which has no other purpose than to divert the debate from the genuine topic. That was effective once, but we've all seen Bill O'Reilly now.

Accusations like that go both ways, though. Actively excluding women from "a traditionally masculine subculture" is about 40 years out of date, and a bit bizarre, though not as strange as the belief that feminism is "hip and edgy". On that basis, I would suggest that either you're posting from the early 1960s, or that you have a personal aversion to women which motivates you to oppose their participation in roleplaying games.

It's okay for you to not want women in your group. D&D has long been a geek's version of the boys-only poker night. You can just say you prefer the company of men, and don't have to justify it by arguing that RPGs and women are both something they're obviously not.

Is this where you start arguing about how a Chainmail Bikini wouldn't really protect a Womyn Warrior?

But it wouldn't!

 

[Rel]

There is starting to emerge an unacceptable level of snark and condescention in this thread that needs to cease. Thanks.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Teflon Billy, for the whole thread I've been talking about gamers who don't prioritise on combat, but you have chosen to regard that solely as women.

No, I haven't. The original post posed that situation, and I was addressing it...as I have already mentioned.

Then you chose to quote a post which allowed you to characterize all non-hack 'n slashers as shallow and infantile, and imply there's no room for them in our hobby.

I'll need to see a link for that as I did nothing of the sort.

I said that I didn't feel a game that was enjoyable to the players needed to change for the sake of new players. It's post #146. You can look for yourself.

You appear to be making up statements for me whole cloth now.

Of course, this is the internets. It's easy to misunderstand what someone's saying and react inappropriately, in which case it helps to point out the miscommunication.

Done. Post #146.You are either miscommunicating right now, are lying, or have poor reading comprehension. I've posted nothing that you have attributed to me thus far.

It looked like you were doing that, and then you suddenly segued into a barrage of ad hominem - a tactic which has no other purpose than to divert the debate from the genuine topic. That was effective once, but we've all seen Bill O'Reilly now.

Addressing the condescending tone of your response is not Ad Hominem.

I'll do you the favor of posting the quote from you that I am talking about instead of just inventing some phantom commentary and attribute it to you...

And can I ask why you reduced the non-combat possibilities of the game to shopping, landscaping and love? Considering that this is an extension of the "is D&D sexist?" discussion, that seems like a resounding "yes"!

Asking a question, answering it yourself and then ignoring the answer I gave shows that you aren't really interested in a discussion.

That is condescending.

Accusations like that go both ways, though. Actively excluding women from "a traditionally masculine subculture" is about 40 years out of date, and a bit bizarre, though not as strange as the belief that feminism is "hip and edgy". On that basis, I would suggest that either you're posting from the early 1960s, or that you have a personal aversion to women which motivates you to oppose their participation in roleplaying games.

Wrong all the way through, so I'll assume that the answer to my above query was "poor reading comprehension". My weekly group has two women players out of 7.

What I meant by "hip and edgy" was probably poorly explained. I was referring to the personal attack you led with in response to my initial post. A lot of "Sensitive New Age Guys" get their backs up by proxy over perceived slights to feminism...so apologies, I guess I should have accused you of posting from the Early 1980s' and complimented you on your ponytail.

It's okay for you to not want women in your group. D&D has long been a geek's version of the boys-only poker night. You can just say you prefer the company of men, and don't have to justify it by arguing that RPGs and women are both something they're obviously not.

Again, you are attributing quotes to me that don't exist.

For the record--once more with feeling--I'm saying that their is no need to change a game for the sake of including anyone if that game is working as is.

The rest of this nonsense you've cooked up in an effort to white knight "women in the hobby" (both actually and conceptually) is just that.

Nonsense.

But it wouldn't!

No, but it looks damn sexy

 

[LostSoul]

So...you are standing by your adamant requirement of it? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

If so, then, ok, we're back where we were 2 pages ago. Why? What is the reasoning that the system or the GM must be that restrictive?

I am not asking for you to explain how one can benefit from such details, or utilize them. I know how you can. I've done it myself. What I am asking is why the system would require it. Need. Not how one can use it. Why it is needed. Absolutely. No excuses need.

The only reason that this hypothetical game would require a description of actions taken is because I would prefer it that way.

There's description:

I'm going to go over to the guy and scare him off my woman!

And what you'd seem to be requiring which is more like having to say some of the examples you gave earlier. Not saying. But having to say.

Now I can see how you might use some of those things that could have been said, but I do not fathom your requirement of it. I can quite easily understand what the Player wants to accomplish with the description given, and figure out how to proceed from there. I can then explain to the Player how it'll be handled in the rules, and if we're in agreement over that, then we'll proceed from there.

Yet it would seem that'd not acceptable. I remain wondering why I must insist that the player be very specific and say something in character. I am not wondering how I could use it. I am not wondering how it could be beneficial to extending the story. I am wondering about the requirement of it.

I'm just saying that I would like a game system to require the description. Not that it's necessary in all RPGs, but just that I prefer it that way.

We may still be having a communication problem; if so, let's try and clear that up. I like it when the description of things matters, so I would like it when a game would require that in order for one to play it.

 

[Bumbles]

The only reason that this hypothetical game would require a description of actions taken is because I would prefer it that way.

I'm just saying that I would like a game system to require the description. Not that it's necessary in all RPGs, but just that I prefer it that way.

We may still be having a communication problem; if so, let's try and clear that up. I like it when the description of things matters, so I would like it when a game would require that in order for one to play it.

Ok, so why do you like requiring it? Can the GM not get a desirable result without being so restrictive? Do you find the idea that "It's nice if the player can describe things, and let them matter, but the GM don't have to require them" unacceptable as you indicated you did earlier? If so, why? I can understand liking descriptions, truly I can, I can even understand giving them some weight, but demanding seems a bit strong.

Because really, if all we're talking about is your preference, then I can't get behind that when a more open way of approaching it is far less restrictive to non-theatrically inclined persons in the game. If you want to encourage descriptions, more power to you, but you seem to be going for the punitive denial approach instead. Why do you think that's the better way? Where is the benefit in being so unfriendly and demanding?

I think I'll refer back to something I said earlier:

As I said, if you want to give bonuses, that's cool. If you want to penalize...that is something I'd use sparingly. If you want to require it...that's a bit too far.

And I hope you are clear on why I do think it's going too far, but if not, I'll explain again.

It's one thing to prefer somebody to say something in character, it's another thing to prefer to require it. The former? I can get that. The latter is what seems to be an extremist position to me. One I'd like to see justified.