What is "The Good of the Game" and "Playing D&D Well"?

[Desdichado]

I was about to write some kind of scathing (well, not really) reply that that was completely backwards, until Umbran posted the actual quote, which gives it some context I can appreciate more. I don't really differ as much from the quote as I initially thought I did.

I think focusing on the individual players, giving each of them what they want from the game enough that they're intrigued to keep playing it, is where it's at, though. Not necessarily what they say they want; you have to, as a GM, have a weather eye for what really lights up your players and makes their enjoyment of the game obvious. That's the building block; the foundation of a game that can last.

Secondly, you have to pull what all of the individual gamers want together into a coherent campaign that offers a framework for them to continue to get what they want. The game itself is the last and least concern of the three.

That said, a consistent running of the game, and being able to manage their expectations for success of any given possible action, is pretty crucial to most players enjoyment of the game, the final consideration turns around and feeds into the first as well.

At least for most players. In my experience.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A can of worms.

Now that I've got the obligatory joke out of the way...

I would say that the key idea behind "the Good of the Game" is D&D's survival as a hobby, and central to that is getting the right mix of challenge and reward, simplicity and complexity, familiarity and mystery. To elaborate:

Challenge: If the game is not challenging enough, and it soon becomes trivial and the players get bored. Too challenging, and the game becomes frustrating and the players stop playing. This is a simple fact of human nature.

Reward: This ties in closely to how challenging the game is because too much reward (especially in terms of XP and magic items) can cause the game to become not challenging enough, and too little can cause the game to become too challenging. Beyond this, rewards help keep the players engaged in the game because they have something to look forward to, but even in this, a balance needs to be struck. If rewards are too frequent, they lose their value, and if rewards are too rare, players will not find it worth their time to wait.

Simplicity and Complexity: Ideally, the game should be simple to learn, in order to make it easy for new players to get into the game. However, it should also contain enough complexity to keep players in the game and prevent them from getting bored before too long. Simplicity and complexity are not necessarily polar opposites. Chess has often been cited as a game which is both simple and complex. The basic moves of each piece are simple, but getting your pieces to work well together is highly complex.

Familiarity and Mystery: In a way, these two are related to the earlier concepts. Familiarity ties in to simplicity, but from the flavor angle rather than the rules angle. The closer the elements in a setting tie in to what the players expect, the easier it is for them to imagine themselves in that setting. In my view, this is the best argument for "simulationism" (or what passes for it in a fantasy setting). However, mystery (or unfamiliar elements in a setting) helps keep the game fresh for players and shake them out of their complacency that they understand how the world works (unchecked, this may lead to boredom). Mystery also ties in to challenge. The less the players know, the greater the apparent level of challenge.

In my view, most of the arguments arise because there is no one true way to balance all of the above elements. Some players like a game with higher levels of challenge and lower levels of reward, while others like just the opposite. And of course, both sides are convinced that the other is going to destroy the game as they know it.

Sigh, I cannot give props to Firelance. Can someone cover me.

I can't right now, but I think he nails it, or comes close to nailing it.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think he's more saying that the game is a sort of framework in which your campaign sits. The campaign will falter if that framework is not solid. Then, the PCs have to fit within the framework of the campaign. They aren't going to have much going if your campaign is not well constructed (in whatever mode you are choosing).

This also.

I think focusing on the individual players, giving each of them what they want from the game enough that they're intrigued to keep playing it, is where it's at, though. Not necessarily what they say they want; you have to, as a GM, have a weather eye for what really lights up your players and makes their enjoyment of the game obvious. That's the building block; the foundation of a game that can last.

This as well.


I think it should be remembered, too, that, in context, the players in a GM's game were expected to come and go....the campaign must be stronger/last longer than any given player's contribution. And, perhaps, the campaign would survive the GM passing, too, if well enough constructed.

Each of those players might play in more than one campaign under more than one GM, so they are best served if the game is stronger than any given campaign. Likewise, the GM who runs more than one campaign.

Therefore, also: Don't sell out the campaign to give any one player an undue advantage, and don't sell out the game by making your campaign too easy or too hard. Neither serves you well, nor does it serve the players involved, when all is said and done.


RC

 

[Bullgrit]

Was it an assumption that PCs would, if not regularly, at least not rarely, move from one DM/campaign/game group to another? I remember reading many anecdotes and notes about such things, and I even met people who did this.

If this is what EGG was thinking, then his request to think of the game first is sort of like Blizzard requesting various WoW server admins (if WoW servers were run by individuals) to not change things on their server too much because doing so screws up the system when a Player transfers his PC to a new server.

It's like he was expecting each purchase of the game to be sort of connecting in with the overall world-wide-web of the game. I don't think he expected it to be more like each game group really just being a LAN.

As EGG envisioned D&D: a single-server WWW game

As it more turned out to be: thousands of LAN parties

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

Was it an assumption that PCs would, if not regularly, at least not rarely, move from one DM/campaign/game group to another? I remember reading many anecdotes and notes about such things, and I even met people who did this.

It is discussed in the 1e DMG.


RC