Maladaptive RPG behaviors (PL, nocker, stay out)

[Dean]

This is wrong. D&D is not a storytelling game, people may play it like it is but those people are wrong about the intent of the game.

You have said something interesting to me. Now explain yourself. What kind of game is D&D and why do you believe I have mischaracterized it?

[MGuy]

This is wrong. D&D is not a storytelling game, people may play it like it is but those people are wrong about the intent of the game.

You have said something interesting to me. Now explain yourself. What kind of game is D&D and why do you believe I have mischaracterized it?

+1

[Wrathzog]

Are you saying that these people would still be mad about one player getting to play a 20th level Monk while another player is an 8th level Wizard, despite knowing that the Monk isn't really stronger?

Basically. Maybe other people have groups that are more accepting of something like that, but I know that my group, which is filled with pretty smart and logical people, would start flipping out if I tried to bring it up.

And if you can get past the first hurdle, the second hurdle is to then figure out that Bob's Monk is going to be level 20 and Phil's Beguiler is level 10 and Harry's Cleric if 8 and Monty's Paladin is level 14. And Good Luck with that because you're comparing Apples and Oranges with Tires and Lozanges.

[ishy]

What is even the point of having levels if every single class has their own level progression?

- Edit: I thought moving away from this to a unified level progression in 3e was one of the things people loved about D&D. I really see no benefit at all in bringing this back.

[Mistborn]

You have said something interesting to me. Now explain yourself. What kind of game is D&D and why do you believe I have mischaracterized it?

D&D is a game about as Stubbazuba said fantasy combat, fantasy logistics, and to a much smaller extent "puzzle solving". That doesn't mean that D&D campaigns never tell a story it's just that isn't the primary purpose of D&D. The fact that the printed rules have PC death in them in fact they even have effects like Raise Dead show that PCs are supposed to bite it even when the don't want to. Seriously if want to tell your magnum opus don't MC a game of D&D write a book.

[Foxwarrior]

What is even the point of having levels if every single class has their own level progression?

- Edit: I thought moving away from this to a unified level progression in 3e was one of the things people loved about D&D. I really see no benefit at all in bringing this back.

If one person in unhomebrewed 3e wants to play a Monk, and another person wants to play a Druid, obeying the unified level progression will get you nothing but tears and regret.

Seriously if want to tell your magnum opus don't MC a game of D&D write a book.

I'm not sure it's serious any more after being repeated that many times. Anyways, a game where players can choose tactics and pick which lines to say, but ultimately don't really alter the plot is more like Mass Effect than like a book.

Edit: I suppose that's not a very good analogy, because it's the tactics that don't matter, but the ability to affect the plot exists in some form.

[crasskris]

Seriously if want to tell your magnum opus don't MC a game of D&D write a book.

Books tend to be one of the worst forms of cooperative storytelling imaginable, unless of course several authors cooperate in writing.

Just saying.

[Wrathzog]

If one person in unhomebrewed 3e wants to play a Monk, and another person wants to play a Druid, obeying the unified level progression will get you nothing but tears and regret.

If you have a person who seriously wants to play Straight, Base-Monk in a 3E game, you're going to have as hard of a time convincing him that he NEEDS to be a higher level than everyone else in the party as convincing everyone else in the party of the same.
It's a bad idea and Ishy makes a very good point that 2E D&D used to do this and it was silly then too.

[Foxwarrior]

Yes, which is why it's easier to just get rid of character optimization (by not letting options as weak as base Monk exist, for example).

[ckafrica]

You have said something interesting to me. Now explain yourself. What kind of game is D&D and why do you believe I have mischaracterized it?

D&D is a game about as Stubbazuba said fantasy combat, fantasy logistics, and to a much smaller extent "puzzle solving". That doesn't mean that D&D campaigns never tell a story it's just that isn't the primary purpose of D&D. The fact that the printed rules have PC death in them in fact they even have effects like Raise Dead show that PCs are supposed to bite it even when the don't want to. Seriously if want to tell your magnum opus don't MC a game of D&D write a book.

See any time I've played in a game that focuses on combat and logistics, I've found to be barely enjoyable whereas the best are the ones that are story driven. Most game systems actually don't have a mechanism for bringing characters back to life; even in D&D you'll spend most of your campaigns without anyone able to cast it becomes a Deus Ex Machina that it is even available and becomes a functional equivalent of the DM retconning the roll. The best campaign I've ever been in was an oWoD Mage game and I had 3 pc deaths during the campaign. I didn't complain at any situation but when the last one got retconned because it was purely a really shitty role that had caused it and it was the final sessions of the campaign, I didn't complain because, at the end of the day, I wanted to be part of the story and didn't care that we had to bend WWs shitty rule system to allow me to continue. And to be honest the last one was the only of the 3 deaths that would have felt thematically meaningful, the other 2 were almost completely random (one was a paradox spirit from a backlash to trying to open a door.) My PC deaths in none of those cases added anything meaningful to the campaign. All of them caused problems for the campaign by having to incorporate new characters in the plotline while wasting the time we spent building up the old character's sub plots. Had the game designers created more alternatives other than death or cheat than it would have made a better game.

[Wrathzog]

Yes, which is why it's easier to just get rid of character optimization (by not letting options as weak as base Monk exist, for example).

You're not going to get rid of character optimization without also getting rid of character customization (on a mechanical level). I have a feeling that that's not your intent... but if it is, then good luck with that.

[Sigil]

See any time I've played in a game that focuses on combat and logistics, I've found to be barely enjoyable whereas the best are the ones that are story driven.

I've found just the opposite. The only D&D games I've ever had much fun in either focused on combat, or had equal combat and story. The fact is that almost every published rule is about combat, and unsurprisingly that's what it does best. Those D&D game's I played that focused on story might as well have not been D&D at all, but some other system that supports storytelling better, or even no system at all (which can be just as enjoyable).

[tussock]

Hey LM. Have you read the DMG2 for 3rd edition, with the player types thing? Written by Robin Laws it's directly ripped from his previous "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering" from Steve Jackson Games (still available in pdf).

Anyway, it defined the terms for these player and GM types for me. Nothing to do with 3e or earlier, it's just how some people are and always have been with RPGs. It bemused EGG that people other than hardcore tournament wargamers would ever play D&D, but they do. Lots of them do.

The key is that every one of us has a little bit of all of these. The trick for any game is to support as many of them as possible, so [a]all[/a] your game-friends can play the same game and keep turning up.

Storyteller: these people do not give a fuck about the rules. They read some flavour text, get an idea for a story around it, and they go explore your unique pastiche of that to find and take part in that story, or some surprising twists based on it. If they mention some bit of fluff, you need to use it in the plot, that's why they're here.

Specialist: these people do not give a fuck about your flavour or your rules. They play one particular character type, and will play it in GURPS, D&D, Traveller, Champions, and everything else. Letting whatever fetish they have partake in whatever you're doing is everything to them. Don't frown, they're happy, be happy for them. If Conan the swordsman is in space this game he needs a laser-sword, so make one for him.

Butt-Kicker: these people do not give a fuck about your setting, or any notions of balance or fairness. They are here to win fights, and they need cause to get into fights and to win those fights. They're not going to optimise, or pick their fights, they're just going to fight, and want to win anyway. Woohoo, motherfucker.

Power Gamer: these people want the biggest and bestest shit in the game for themselves and want enough challenge to prove how good it is. Powergamers need to be continually tested so they can keep working on their tricks. Note: doesn't require mechanical options, power gamers happily power-game the social MTP stuff too, as long as it gets them something awesome.

Tactician: unlike the power-gamer, who solves the strategic challenge of becoming awesome, the tactician solves interesting tactical problems. Lock them in prison with nothing but their food dish and they're in paradise, because that is a hard problem and they can try to think up a solution to it. For the power gamer that's a nightmare.

Method Actor: some people (and some GMs) like exploring what it feels like to be something you can't be in the real world. These folk are massively into immersion and in-character stuff, and quite possibly into having their characters torture puppies. Immersion-breaking can come from rules-vs-fluff conflicts, so method-actors hate those.

Casual Gamer: very common, these people don't give a fuck about the game or their character or the fluff or any damn thing. They're here to hang out and talk shit and if you're all too serious about the game they may go find better ways to socialise. Being acceptable social companions is all this type asks of y'all. Be nice.

Enjoy. They're not really adaptations, it's just what people bring to the game. Same for a lot of games, people get different things out of them. I'd say Laws missed the Teacher in D&D, people that play the game mostly to help other people learn to play the game. They like sticking with things they know better than most people, don't like new rules.

[Stubbazubba]

This is wrong. D&D is not a storytelling game, people may play it like it is but those people are wrong about the intent of the game.

So instead of the product adapting to meet the needs of its market, the market should adapt to the decades-old limitations of the product? You sound like a literal Constitutionalist, and are making the same basic errors they do. You've got some justifying to do: Explain why D&D can't or shouldn't be anything other than what it was "intended" to be by one guy in 1974, or realize that what you said here is a product of your own ignorance, not truth.

[Mistborn]

Hey LM. Have you read the DMG2 for 3rd edition, with the player types thing?

No because those "list types of players" exercises are always brain-shatteringly asinine.

So instead of the product adapting to meet the needs of its market, the market should adapt to the decades-old limitations of the product? You sound like a literal Constitutionalist, and are making the same basic errors they do. You've got some justifying to do: Explain why D&D can't or shouldn't be anything other than what it was "intended" to be by one guy in 1974, or realize that what you said here is a product of your own ignorance, not truth.

Because D&D can't be everything. You can not have a game be a "Game" the way D&D is a game while at the same time being a "Cooperative Storytelling Tool". Now some people are going to ignore the rules and use your game as a cooperative storytelling tool anyway. I don't think it's controversial to question the validity of writing game rules for not playing by the rules of the game

[Wrathzog]

No because those "list types of players" exercises are always brain-shatteringly asinine.

You have no idea how ironic this is, do you.

[wotmaniac]

Because D&D can't be everything. You can not have a game be a "Game" the way D&D is a game while at the same time being a "Cooperative Storytelling Tool". Now some people are going to ignore the rules and use your game as a cooperative storytelling tool anyway. I don't think it's controversial to question the validity of writing game rules for not playing by the rules of the game

You're right in that no game can be all things to all people; but I think that you're taking that premise too far.
"Having a 'combat engine'" and "having a 'cooperative storytelling tool'" don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive things.
Now, obviously, different games are going to have varying levels of focus on different things. It's only a zero-sum in relation to a given page count (which is its own practical concern).

And while I am a strong proponent of "game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game", marketability is a real concern.

[Mistborn]

No because those "list types of players" exercises are always brain-shatteringly asinine.

You have no idea how ironic this is, do you.

Obviously, you do realize that when it comes to irony I'm the best there is.

So I'm going to some thing rare and admit that I'm wrong in the face of reasoned arguments. Then I shall attempt to rework my position (yes I know mark it down on your calender a genuine miracle just occurred)

I want to point out that Team Basketweaver as you are using it is a complete misuse of the term that has no relation to its actual definition.

This is right I have been misusing the term basketweaver, it has a real meaning and it isn't just a term for people I dislike.

Basketweavers are people who make purposefully suboptimal characters especially when relating to combat. They then claim that since they are obviously uninterested in the mechanical/combat aspects of the game that they are "Real Roleplayers" and everyone else is "Rollplaying". Now I'm still going to stand by my claim that this is a maladaptive response to the abundance of trap options in most games.

I don't think that K, PL, Fuchs and nocker fit that definition they're more "Team Story-First". They begin with the story the and (hopefully) their players want to tell, then they overturn the rules whenever they get in the way of that story. They're not being maladaptive they just want RPGs to deliver something completely different than I do.

My problems with Team Story-First are threefold.

-their approach removes the G from RPG.
-they are committed to using dishonest tactics both at the table to get what they want and on this forum to shut down people who disagree with them
-three they completely unwilling to entertain the thought that other people want different things from RPGs

also I'll let K and Fuchs into the thread in accord with Franks request

[Darth Rabbitt]

EDIT: cut at Wrathzog's request.

[Wrathzog]

Dude, you're so close to holding a reasonable position.
But I am proud of you for making it this far.

The next step is to look at this:

My problems with Team Story-First are threefold.

-their approach removes the G from RPG.
-they are committed to using dishonest tactics both at the table to get what they want and on this forum to shut down people who disagree with them
-three they completely unwilling to entertain the thought that other people want different things from RPGs

And figure out which of these also apply to you.

-e-
Darth Rabbit, you can't just give away the answer like that.

[Darth Rabbitt]

OK, I'll edit it out.

[Dean]

I approve of "Team Story-first" but I want to contend point three. Granted I have been known to assume that a random other person wants what I want from a game. Which would seem to put me in line with your point. However I think that we need to make that distinction in order to speak with each other productively. When I argue that death should be an unlikely and incredibly difficult thing to make happen I'm making the assumption that my preferences are applicable to others. And while that might be contentious you should recognize that when we say that fighters are unbalanced and boring we are doing the same thing. If we follow the doctrine of "to each his own" then none of our conversations can achieve any end. So more often than not I think it is required for productive conversation to, to some degree, not accept that others want different things than you from the same product.

[Judging__Eagle]

.... I'll be honest, the only really new thing that I've learned from this thread is sadly, that an article by SKR on a survey of actual gamers, and the classification thereof by WoTC in and around the time they were working on 3e.... interestingly relates to the 4-Attribute system I'm kludgins HAS into, as well as the fact that there has to be a "flux" position between those four states.

I... er, have decided to relabel "Edge" into Luck/Edge/Flow; and have both separated and hard-locked skills to specific traits; mostly to make making the flowcharts for coding later on a lot less insane.

Instead of "justifying" why a person can Imaginatively Intimidate someone; they shift their Imagination (or other trait) into the trait they want to have increased (in the case of Intimidate, it's a Co-Operation skill, b/c you're trying to get them to want to take an action you want); limited to once per scene, and only as many points can "Edge" across from any stat to any other as the Edge value of the creature.

It's just messy in a different way; but keeps the whole thing from turning into a flow-chart that looks like centipedes crawling all over each other.


Honestly, if you just "want" an "Named Characters don't die easy" attribute, you could do worse than borrow the Edge trait of SR and HAS.

Then just give extras and monsters of the week a value of 0 in that attribute.

[ckafrica]

See any time I've played in a game that focuses on combat and logistics, I've found to be barely enjoyable whereas the best are the ones that are story driven.

I've found just the opposite. The only D&D games I've ever had much fun in either focused on combat, or had equal combat and story. The fact is that almost every published rule is about combat, and unsurprisingly that's what it does best. Those D&D game's I played that focused on story might as well have not been D&D at all, but some other system that supports storytelling better, or even no system at all (which can be just as enjoyable).

Perhaps I should have been clearer. It's not to play combatless DnD, rather that a game where little to no regard has been placed on the story. MCs who run published adventures with no thought to working in the players story, even working at joining them into a party. I like killing shit as much as the next person but if all I'm going to do is kill shit with no story I can pay video games.

[Red_Rob]

nockermensch, just so you are aware posting in a thread that has your name specified in the title is against forum rules.

Now, personally I think LM is a terrible person for attempting to create an echo chamber like this, and all it has done is inspire me to add (Lord Mistborn stay out) to every thread I ever start in the hopes that everyone else follows suit, but it is technically a forum rule.