Why the World Exists

[Jack7]

First of all this all became a lot more complicated than I had ever intended or imagined when I wrote the first post. That's fine, that's good as a matter of fact, but I'm gonna have to think carefully for awhile about some of my replies to some of the things addressed to me to try and avoid misunderstandings on my part. Sadly, as big as this has grown (I did not anticipate that) I'm not sure I'll ever, given time limitations, be able to address all of the interesting points brought up. Even all of the ones brought up directly to me. Don't feel slighted guys if it seems I am ignoring you. I have classes to teach and papers to write and work to do.

Let me just say these things though from my point of view:

I am not against in-game wish-fulfillment - but not all methods are the same, or have the same value.

This debate from my point of view was about the various reasons for the world existing, not whether careful preparation or no preparation were best in world design - situationally I'm agnostic on this point, but I think it is a separate debate at the very least. An interesting one, even a related one, but a different one than the one I intended. (I'm not saying "take it somewhere else guys," I'm saying it wasn't my original intent.)

I am not against world design elements that specifically service the character, anymore than I'm against real world elements that service and help me. I am under no illusions however that this world exists merely to service me, and I think heroism is a to a large degree not a demand made on the world, but a service rendered to it. In real life or in game.

I understand the difference between fun and entertainment as it has been proposed, passive and active for both. I don't think it would be a bad idea though to carefully distinguish between the two concepts in a specific way as regards game function.

I'd be glad to have others (as well as myself) set out to try and define a basic concept of game heroism. I think in this case though it might be bets to start out saying what heroism is not. After all if heroism is a real thing, if the point of the game is to be an heroic character, or to at least have characters who are heroic, then the opposite must be true as well. If there is heroism, then there is villainy and non-heroism. To have some idea of what heroism is then you have to at least have a clear conception of what heroism is not.

Personally I don't think killing Orcs or looting tombs is heroic at all if that is your only motivation. If orcs however are evil and committing crimes and atrocities, or if the tomb is the tomb of a monster who got his goods by theft and killing then killing orcs and raiding tombs can very well be heroic. It depends upon your motivations and those of your enemies. And being willing to risk your own life or face danger regularly is, in and of itself, not a mark of heroism. Even evil men often risk their own lives, especially at the beginnings of their career. Being willing to face danger and risk though is a necessary component of heroism. There are no cowardly heroes, but bravery takes on different forms just as it has different motivations. So when it comes to heroism I think you have to define motivation, possible forms, and even actions to a degree, but every definition must have bravery at the core. It's just that not every act of bravery is sufficient to rise to the standard of being heroic. Some acts of bravery are even outright evil and anti-heroic.

I am however enjoying reading many of these debates and side debates.
Keep it up.

 

[jim pinto]

When I DM, which is frequently, though not of late, I think of myself as entertainer, there to entertain, so to speak. This is no way implies that my players are merely a passive audience.

Is this opinion informed by anything other than a wish to ascribe less-than-flattering motives/mindsets to other people?

Sure. One way to facilitate this is for the DM to distribute some of the narrative authority. Item wish lists can be seen as an example of doing just that.

Why would I want to dissolve the wish-fulfillment in my wish fulfillment fantasy? That sounds like nerd masochism .

Hey Mallus. Let me address what I can.

I agree with your first point. There's a difference between being "entertaining" and being an enabler. I'm using the term "entertaining" in a slightly pejorative manner in my posts. The GM is not a TV show writer/producer being paid zero dollars to put on a show for an unappreciative audience. He is part of the apparatus (perhaps the pilot), but he's not the only one involved in the engineering of the campaign.

My comment about wish-fulfillment was in reference to Jack7's very first post about "wish lists." I was adding that they are, in my opinion, another example of the passive audience telling the writer/producer what to put on the next episode. It's condescending in some ways and I don't like it.

[And I don't see it saving all the time that people think it saves.]

I'm doing a post somewhere else about narrative authority, so I won't repeat myself here.

I kinda get your joke about nerd masochism, but I don't see how it applies. Enlighten me?

 

[jim pinto]

It's probably true. However, I was addressing the more general point that wishlists could actually result in less need for DM preparation, so it seems strange to me that you don't appear to like them. After all, in an earlier post, you mentioned that waiting for the mission to be revealed is no where near as fun as making the mission yourself. If the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for mission creation to the players, why not delegate the responsibility for reward assignment as well? And if the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for reward assignment, how different is that from a wishlist?

On an emotional level, I find the idea kind of gross. My birthday is coming up, here's a list of things you can buy me.

On an intellectual level, I would rather the PCs have to be more creative with their use of the magic items I give them, then derive the benefit of a flaming sword that matches exactly with their 10-step feat tree.

On a game design level, Earthdawn got it right. And D&Ds magic item system is just archaic and uninteresting. Wishlists don't do it for me.

On the other hand, if the PCs are taking some of the narrative responsibility as well and playing active (and not passive) roles in the game world, why not throw them a bone based on their suggestions. But a wish-list… ick… see above.

It is possible that D&D cannot, but other games have shown that it can be done. And new editions that become MORE labor-intensive, while continuing to shy away from REAL, CONCRETE GM advice, are redundant. Instead of being a useful tool, D&D becomes a hammer that I use to open a bottle of champagne. Instead of evolving, it has caused the gaming environment to stagnant. Worse yet, in the case of 4E, it's devolved.

I get into all kinds of trouble when I say this, but there's a lot game companies can learn from the Indie movement. Not everything they are doing is GOLD, but the nuggets that exist in there, make D&D look like chutes and ladders.

New thread started on the other topics, Firelance.

 

[jim pinto]

heroism? cowardice? opportunist?

As an aside, Jack7…

what do you think of a game-world that just is… devoid of a moral compass, alignment, or any other superfluous measure of ethics and morals… what do you think of a game world where the PCs do what they want and ultimately live with the consequences of those actions.

And to be more fair about it, let the other players determine the consequences of a PC that pillages and murders, instead of leaving it to the GM — who will ultimately be seen as a bad guy anyway.

Answering this may help focus your question/analysis.

 

[Imaro]

There's no sin in admitting the setting has a purpose.

No, but I think it's a sin to limit "setting" to serving only one purpose and claiming it is the only or main thing it should serve when games and gamers are quite the diverse lot. That sounds alot like one-true-wayism to me.

Cad is right about this because, despite a DM's best intentions, that 'as much as possible' ain't much. It's a difficult thing to do. Many, many, successful, well-regarded authors can't do what you're suggesting.

Mallus I really feel like you might think too much in absolutes, especially when it comes to playstyles (and only a Sith deals in absolutes...). You also make alot of assumptions about the capabilities of DM's whom you have no experience with. How can you quantify what the results of a DM who strives to be impartial are, unless you've played in his particular game. Perhaps you don't do well or have trouble with a particular style but that in and of itself is not a basis for what another DM can or cannot achieve.

Personally I think it's easier for a DM as opposed to an author to disassociate himself from NPC's as opposed to the author's characters (whom the story is actually about), especially if they are created beforehand and have their motivations and relationships mapped out independently of the choices the PC's will make. It then becomes a logical process to create consistent and logical actions for them as the world changes around them (I mean we're taught to think logically from 1st grade up). Since I have no interest in these characters besides if, when, how and why they might interact with the PC's... what exactly is the agenda (especially in a non-scripted campaign) for pre-determining their actions in a way based solely on the state of the PC's as opposed to the world or setting... especially if my purpose is to run an organic sand-box campaign?


As an example... I set it up beforehand that in round 3 of the PC's battle with an Ogre (barring precautions that keep the battle silent) the noise attracts 3 Orcs in another room to come and investigate, and it takes them 4 rounds to reach the room. Now, since this encounter is set up before the actions or motivations of the PC's are known to me, and/or interact with it, it is a neutral situation and not based on the state of my PC's because I have no idea what that will be at the time they interact with it. Instead it is based on the logic and consistency of the "setting". the noise will attract the Orcs because it's loud and the sounds of battle... it takes n rounds for them to get there because they are that far from the room. The orcs will investigate because it could mean danger for themselves... etc.

Now if I decide the Orcs don't come because the PC's may not be able to handle the fight this is where my reasons are not logical, impartial or consistent. There are Orcs close enough to hear the noise that, regardless of what it may mean for their own safety choose not to investigate??? Now we step into the realm of illusionism, as I can (through various shennanigan's, lies, or manipulation) make the players think this is what was suppose to happen all along... even though I know that's not true and it doesn't make sense logically, if the Orcs are still in the nearby room.

To me this is illusionism, not the first situation above... it is also not a way I enjoy playing the game in sand-box campaigns, it increases and makes arbitrary the fact that the state of the world at any given moment is in flux depending on my whims, makes the actions and choices (good or bad) of the PC's matter less, and it cheapens the fun of the sandbox playstyle... of course this is all with the understanding that we have agreed to use this playstyle. My group in no way limits itself to only one playstyle all the time.

In an ideal world, it rains candy. This is why examples drawn from ideal worlds lack utility.

And yet you are unwilling to accept or give credit to those whose ideas and playstyles differ from yours. IMO, it seems you've created your own "ideal" world and it is based only on Mallus's experiences, expectations and definitions of fun. do you honestly believe that what applies and is best for you is best and should be applied to everyone else, if that's not the height of applying a certain idealization (based upon your own personal bias) I don't know what is.

 

[Mallus]

He is part of the apparatus (perhaps the pilot), but he's not the only one involved in the engineering of the campaign.

When you put it that way... agreed.

It's condescending in some ways and I don't like it.

Personally, I don't find it condescending. It's no more than a request to customize a PC further, something systems like M&M2e or HERO permit by default.

I kinda get your joke about nerd masochism, but I don't see how it applies. Enlighten me?

I'm of the opinion that there's an inescapable core of (primarily adolescent) wish-fulfillment (and power) fantasy in most RPG's, particularly games like D&D, with it's focus on 'leveling up' to demi-godlike, or at least, fantasy superheroic power. Not that there's anything wrong with that (and, given D&D's market dominance, there's obviously something very right about it).

Seen in that light, wanting to minimize the wish-fulfillment aspects of the game is a bit like wanting to minimize the amount of chocolate in a chocolate sunday, an act of deprivation that suggests a sort of masochism (have I explained the joke into a deep enough grave yet?).

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I use the term "entertaining DM", I don't talk about an DM that dances in front of me or juggles core rule books or whatever.

But he is an enabler.

Jim can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are making the same distinction (with different emphasis) that he intended to make.

Or, at least, that's how I read it.


RC

 

[Mallus]

No, but I think it's a sin to limit "setting" to serving only one purpose...

Agreed.

...and claiming it is the only or main thing it should serve when games and gamers are quite the diverse lot.

I said a setting's primary purpose is to house a D&D campaign ie, to facilitate the playing of a game.

That sounds alot like one-true-wayism to me.

Because you're misreading me.

You also make alot of assumptions about the capabilities of DM's whom you have no experience with.

My experience is that people, in general, aren't terribly objective.

How can you quantify what the results of a DM who strives to be impartial are, unless you've played in his particular game.

Mainly because my experiences tell me people aren't very objective.

And yet you are unwilling to accept or give credit to those whose ideas and playstyles differ from yours.

Because you keep misreading me. At this point I'm beginning to think it's deliberate .

 

[Imaro]

Agreed.


I said a setting's primary purpose is to house a D&D campaign ie, to facilitate the playing of a game.


Because you're misreading me.

Yes but your assumptions about what facilitates playing a game is quite limited to what you like, yet again gamers and games are a diverse lot.

My experience is that people, in general, aren't terribly objective.

= anecdotal evidence

Mainly because my experiences tell me people aren't very objective.

= anecdotal evidence

Because you keep misreading me. At this point I'm beginning to think it's deliberate .

I honestly don't think I am. Perhaps it is the way your are stating your thoughts.

 

[jim pinto]

catching up

Raven…

Yeah. That's pretty much what I mean. The GM who entertains instead of develops the stage on which the PCs can entertain themselves vs. the one who makes Plot A which leads to Plot B which leads to Plot C with funny voices in between and no decisions to be made by anyone.

Mallus…

When you talk about the marketing of D&D (wish-fulfillment, power gaming, high fantasy heroics) you nail it. And I cannot argue with the success of the model.

When Jack7 talks about Heroics, he refers to people making due with what they have. Very different from the character that is hewn from stone and shaped into the exact image the player requires to feel fulfilled. And while I can see the need for that kind of gaming (wow, isn't ninja zero cool, i want to play a character just like that), it rarely stems from a place of heroism or even quality story-telling... it's about the satisfaction of the id over the satisfaction of the gameplay experience.

I kinda addressed this part of it already before.

I'm not talking down about that style of play, only recognizing it's limitations and why video games are so much more popular.

Heck. I'm playing a web-based RPG right now, just because it's a fun distraction and I get to see my character progress. But to enforce that same policy of wish-fulfillment on a room full of people who might want to play D&D for other reasons…

… kinda selfish. I personally could never do it and I just don't game that way.

And yes. I see how for others, that's what brings them to the table.

What's most interesting about gaming now vs. then, is the level of perspective and vocabulary we have to analyze it and improve on what we know. 20 years ago, I'm not sure I could have identified why I wasn't enjoying a game in the manner of wish-fulfillment vs. storytelling approach to gameplay.