One thing to note is players whether 1st or 40th level need to know that there are always bigger and badder NPC's and monsters in the world. If they are killing a higher level encounter in two rounds then the actual encounter level needs to be adjusted up even further to make it challenge.
I also award from a third to half of my XP awards to roleplaying and proper use of class skills and role playing to proper alignment (and even solving puzzles or plot lines.) Combat is only a portion of XP.
If a Neutral good cleric attacks a good king or is party to such an event and doesn't react to stop it, not only would he not get any XP for the session but he would also be changing his alignment and lose his cleric abilities with the loss of his god.
If you're running one-shot games, then yes, you're going to end up with munchkins. That's one of the reasons I don't like running or playing one-shots. :-)
It is pretty dependent on who you game with too... With the groups I game with, we're all pretty good at coming up with cool backstories and such. In a Rifts game I'm in, the GM even helped me min-max the character to a ridiculous extent (nothing like being able to throw a car at people!) but we then explained it all with a really phenomenal backstory that's become one of the driving forces of the campaign. And yes, he then min-maxed our opponents... We have run away in the past. ;-)
As for encouraging role-playing rather than just hack 'n slash... First, make sure your players are interested. If they're not, find other players. It's been said, but it bears repeating. If you and your players aren't interested in the same type of game, someone's not going to be enjoying themselves.
Assuming that your players are willing to do more role-playing, reduce the experience bonus from straight-up combat, but provide bonuses for good role-playing, or even for out-of-game things like bringing snacks or whatever. Definitely start providing XP for clever or effective skill use, and make sure that you set up in-game bonuses for some of the less-used skills... My DM keeps throwing bizarre magical things at us, and my sorceror keeps using Knowledge (Arcana) to help pick out what's going on. It's saved the party's butts on several occasions. He's also provided in-game bonuses to one of the characters who spent extra skill points to improve his Craft skill (something to do with brewing).
As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. ;-) If you want to encourage your players to role-play more, don't just penalise them for not role-playing, make sure you reward them for good role-playing, for taking an option that makes more sense for the character even if it doesn't give the best stat bonus, etc.
The level of Min/Maxing and Power Gaming is entirely set by the DM.
Overly high ststs?
-- Make the players roll up the PCs infront of you or use the Point Buy system.
Super races?
-- Not if you don't allow them?
Over Powered Spells?
-- Make sure you approve any spells your players bring to the game.
As a DM it's your game and you have the power to shape it and the PCs.
Set the rules straight off the bat.
Some of my rules:
1. Characters are made via point buy method. Depending on the party I set the level at 28, 30 or 32.
2. Starting Races/Classes must come from PHB or a WotC book that I approve. (WoTC could be any company, the thing here is to limit the scope of what the Players have access to, to what you as the DM are familiar with. There are lots of other good products out there, and some that come with a Munchkin ID. "The Quintessential X" books are of the latter category and I as a DM caution against allowing anything from them in a non-power game)
3. Only WotC products may be used at PC creation
4. Any other sources that a Player wants to introduce to the game must be reviewed and approved by me at least a session prior to play.
5. I determine what magical Items are available. PCs don't get to go shopping through the DMG.
Using these 5 rules, I've never had a problem with Min/Maxers or Power-Gamers negatively impacting my game.
ASEO out
I have been in this situation. It usually is only fun for the one or two people who do it.
I have, however, also been in the kinds of campaigns where everything gets taken away from one or two people by the malicious whims of the GM, and that made me a munchkin for a time.
As a player, I do my best to make a character interesting and fun; I throw away really low rolls, but I also throw away rolls higher than a 16 as well during character generation.
As a GM, I carefully monitor what the players do to create their characters, and from time to time say "no". Being a rules lawyer as both a player and GM, I am usually right about what players can or can't do by the books. If I'm playing, I occasionally have to wave the BS flag on another player or GM if they're being too monty with something. Fair's fair, and the game has to be fun for EVERYONE...
OK, this may sound harsh, but here goes....
As DM, you are the Grand Imperial Pooh-Bah of the campaign. If the players and you don't mesh, then it's not up to you to change the campaign for them. Frankly, most players don't pay enough for that.
I'm an old-school D&Der (since 1978), and I've noticed that the younger players (as a gross generalization) are more interested in character optimization than roleplaying. That's cool; some people like low-rider bicycles, too.
Ok I understand where you are coming from, maybe. But since the "Old School" [I much prefer the term Old Guard btw] DnD basically only had rules to cover hacking things, [excuse me except for the theif they got some skills - wtf why didn't any one else] I don't really see how you can say that the old school forced roleplaying any more than the new edition.
In fact the only thing I can say about it, was you had to roleplay to convince the DM you could do something since there were *no rules* to cover it.
How many modules did you read where the rules for this or the rules for that had to be included 'cause the core books missed them.
IMHE - "Old School" was the pinnacle of "powergaming" all you did was whack em and stack em. The rules were written for it. In fact most "old school" gamers I meet have very little interest in "roleplaying" just talking about the good old days of ToEE and KOtB.
Now granted there are certain aspects of the old school game that made it grittier. But in general, the problem is the players not the game. I find that *in general* a modern DnD game is generally not hack em and stack em, while in the old guard that is all we did (oh yeah plus figure out weird puzzles - again wtf, why does an evil arch villian put a giant chess board in his dungeon?).
Back On topic - I think the following are the best for reducing power gaming -
1) IF you have a powergamer problem - go back to basics. By basics I mean utilize the Three Core Books only. Use the core races only. Use the 4d6 roll em up in front of you.
2) Start at 1st Level!! - How many "powergamers" problems are out there because DM's fail to start at first level. Make em earn those xp's. You control the treasure v. risk reward ratio when they start at 1st level. When they say we go to the magic shop, you say 'huh? what's a magic shop?
3) Motivate them with what they want - Treasure and XP - by that I mean ad-hoc expierence and treasure. Example, if they get by something using wits, and creativity, give em an adhoc XP on the spot. Give it just to that player, that will encourage the others. Give em gold for doing roleplay things. Reward skills that they have. Perhaps there is a contest in town based on a religous ceremony that who ever can identify all the holy writ they get gold or something.
4) Motivate with negative reprocussions - at first level no way if they put up a stink with the locals are they going to tolerate it. Also don't allow metagaming. By that if they say, damn that was a werewolf, we need silver weapons. Ask them how they know that. If they don't have the right skill then tell them that they don't know that. If they do, make em roll for the skill (how many powergamers load up on knowledge skills?). Make it a little side quest to find out.
Finally - I recommend running the latest Adeventure Path Series - it has that "old guard" feel that I love, which will appeal to powergamers I believe, while encouraging roleplaying at the same time, and not be a simple hack em and stack em game. There are some puzzles. Lots o' Traps. And lots of alternative ways around problems that don't involve bashing something, although you can still go that way. Plus plenty of beefy NPCs so that if the players start wreckin' havoc they will be forced to deal with the represcussions of their actions.
A few fixes I use:
-Talk to them. Explain that this is a game of adventure and fun, and not a video game. Get them to read Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Conan, and the like. The games are fun when they are challenging and you can't neccessarily beat everyone.
-Always start at 1st level. A player who makes a level 6 guy can take the crap feats he doesn't need to build to the good ones because he won't ever to have to suffer through using them. A level 1 guy will sacrifice long term viability for something they can use right away, usually.
-Elite array. Live by it. It is the stats they use to generate most NPCs, and it makes really balance characters. Believe me. 15, 14 ,13 ,12 ,10, 8. Have something good, something not so good.
-Punish stupidity. Killed the King? You may be level 10 evil uber munchkins, but you can't beat 1000 cavaliers. Attack innocents and good people? Someone bigger will come and show you why not to do that.
-Reward good play. Make it very clear what you want by rewarding those who do the right things. They will come around.
-Insert realism. If it gets too munchkin, do the realistic thing and have some bigger, badder guy come looking for that multi-barreled wand of multihued megadeath. With an army.
-3.5 can make crazy heroes; but much crazier bad guys. Add some serious levels and feats to already bad ass bad guys. You can turn out ridiculously more powerful monsters, or scale the challenge up to the munchkins. They can handle the Beholder, but can they handle the Fiendish Beholder Psion/Thrall of Orcus?
-Finally, if all else fails, find a new group. It sucks, but why play if you aren't also going to have fun?
I have an update to my situation. Around the time I started this thread I started putting out notices that I was starting up a new Greyhawk campaign that would emphasize role-playing over power-gaming and character development over munchkin development. I put the word out at a local game shop and a couple gaming clubs in town and eventually got together four guys for this new campaign. One of the guys I play with pretty regularly, and although he's rather quiet, he's a decent role-player and not dedicated to the idea of power-gaming. Another guy is an old buddy of mine I used to game with long ago who is a great role-player. Two of the guys I hadn't met before.
At the outset, I laid out some ground rules. Have fun, role-play, be on time to games or let me know in advance if you can't, and keep up with the storyline. I've been keeping a blog of the campaign to help with this. I've also offered role-play incentives, starting with backstory. Players who give me a great background get comparative rewards, including bonus feats and magic items. Sometimes these are just nifty (one guy got an everfull mug, appropriate since his family reveres Wenta, the Alewife) and other times moderately useful (one character included in his backstory that his mother left him a locket, I made it a locket of shielding). I also offer a 5% XP bonus if you bring a personalized, painted miniature to represent your character. I use Honor and Reputation rules from Unearthed Arcana and had them generate characters using an unusual rolling method designed to give them a couple good scores and at least one poor score. I also limited them to PH races (although I offered to let one player play a tiefling based on the background he developed as a scion of House Naelax).
I've also reverted a few rules in my campaign back to more of a 2e style. I've divided all the base classes into types: warrior, priest, rogue, and mage. Each player is allowed to learn only one class of a specific type. Hence, if your character learns wizardry, he can never discover sorcerous talent and vice versa. Multi-classing is closer to previous editions as well. Demi-humans have to multi-class from the beginning and keep their class levels even with each other (prestige classes are an exception). In addition, they can only multi-class if one of their classes is favored for their race. Humans and half-elves can pick up new classes at any time, but have to even up new classes with previous classes before leveling in the others again. I completely did away with XP penalty rules. In addition, I use a variant rule that keeps save bonuses from stacking up ridiculously fast (always hated that). Plus, only one prestige class at a time; finish the one you have before starting another, if I allow the prestige class you want at all.
Characters began the game not just at level 1, but level 0. They were allowed to select a class, but gained only half the benefits of that class (half the skill points, save bonus, spells, etc.) until they earned 500 XP. Not only that, I made them seek out trainers to complete their training. Now all the characters have ties in the city of Rookroost and feel like they are a part of a living environment as opposed to pariahs to the world.
The campaign has worked great so far. Everyone is enjoying themselves and the role-playing is excellent. They've clawed their way to level 2 and they've already had a shrine dedicated in their honor in a small mining town for heroic action. I got a lot of ideas for this campaign specifically from this thread and I appreciate the ideas other DMs have contributed. I plan to start up the Age of Worms campaign path next week with another group including one of the same players and I've used my current GH campaign as a guideline for how I'm going to start this one. I think it's going to be even more fun than the first campaign path was (which had a lot of power-gaming PCs but was still fairly enjoyable and quite epic).
The campaign has worked great so far. Everyone is enjoying themselves and the role-playing is excellent.
Rock on with your bad self. You were bound and determined to improve you situation, and you worked it out.
Kudos, man!
I know the different DMing styles have been discussed at length in the Magazines and other forums. I also recognize it's a bit off topic for this thread, but I thought I'd throw my two coppers worth in anyway.
I'm glad Airwalkrr's problems seem to be behind him but despite the player behavior he viewed as immature or undesirable, it's important to remember that the DM sets the tone and ultimately decides what does and does not exist in his/her world.
I disagree that the rules run the game and the DM is merely an instrument of those rules. The DM is creator and controller of his/her multiverse and can likewise choose which rules to include and which to disregard. Players who want to enjoy various races,classes, rules, or options from any d20 source (including the core books) need to first ensure that they are available in this DM's unique campaign.
Personally, I have intense feelings against the idea of a DM "fudging" rolls or stealing/destroying treasure or weapons that he/she allowed to enter the game in the first place! Even if this "furthers the storyline", I personally believe it violates the spirit and intent of the game. DnD is about fun but everything must be tempered,IMO, with fairness. I personally never fudge a roll or save a character/NPC. Yes, sometimes this leads to disappointment (both on my side as DM and the player's side when a favorite character dies). Yes, once I spent hours creating this awesome NPC baddie that through a fluke of the dice roll was anihilated in 2 rounds without ever striking a single blow. I was bummed!! But as Medesa said in her example, the joy is in the danger and in the PC's faith that they (and the dice) control their character's destiny (and that of their enemies as well). It provides the danger, uncertainty, and exuberance in an honest victory that makes D&D superior to any other game.
I completely understand the problem of power-gaming with a story-centric DM; I love my homebrew world and am constantly adding more detail, and I don't expect the party to remember all, or even most, of it, but at least the name of the local magistrate!
I have one player who HATES starting at first level, and always thinks it would more fun to stat at 20th and go Epic right off the bat (no exaggeration).
One of my friends started to DM one time, and he wasn't that good, but when we were making our characters, he expressed an interest in keeping his campaign story based. I jumped at the chance and wrote a one page background and summary of my character, with family ties and ambitions and such. He presented it to the others as an example, and all I got were strange looks from them.
One of my players acts as if he's being forced to drink poison anytime he has to talk in character. I hate this. Luckily, I'm finally getting a chance to change it with my AoW campaign (new style of game [pre-made], new style of play). They're doing much better now that they've had some experience actually getting into their characters.
Still, their characters are far beyond what I consider average, but only one two of them. I thought they were fudging rolls, so I watched more closely. They were, but now instead of 2 18's, they just have an 18 and 2 17's (Not kidding- one of them had a wood elf that started with 20 Str and Dex, without fudging rolls). If a character doesn't have an 18, they consider it useless. This is unfair to the other two, who roll "normal". They would scream bloody murder if I went point-buy, though, even the ones with more average rolls.
I've never had a problem with someone killing a king and getting away- and if they did, they now have not only everyone in that country after them, but every allied country as well. Not smart. And if that isn't enough, I'm sure there's enough money in all these kingdoms to pay for some high level mercenaries to dispose of them.
They had their phase of wanting to play evil, thinking that was the best because they could do anything they wat. So I let them have their chracters, let them have their fun, and ended the campaign as quickly as possible without it being obvious. If you're stuck with a group like mine, you just have to let them have their fun once and a while, then pull them back (and if they refuse, hit them where it hurts!).
Still, that doesn't make their style wrong, just wrong for me. We've found a medium now, but I'm still semi-searching for another playgroup with a more mature attitude.
I'd have to say it's your players. I've known "roleplayers" who wouldn't know a good story if it bit them in the rear, and "powergamers" who are the most talented storytellers and actors I've ever had the pleasure to know.
It's not the system, it's the players. IMHO.
-Amber S.
The first response to this thread said it all. What else is left?
I know. It's just this never-ending contest to be the most cool-looking and powerful. It destroys the campain. I have all my players insisting that i start the campain at epic level or at least tenth. Honestly, I loved the adventures at lower levels! Everything was fun, challenging, and gritty. Instead of drow assassins in black leather weilding +4 backstabbing heartseeking daggers of venom sneaking invisibly through cave complexes filled with dragonkin to get to the ancient magical City of the Spirits, our characters were simple humans in homespun tunics and the occasional cloak or tartan, with unenhanced longswords and little or no magic, out upon the sunny morrs in the afternoon heat, warding off the orcs or gnolls or werewolves or whatever was attacking the tiny village they lived in. I've played both scenarios, and i enjoyed the latter much more. I'd rather be an inexperienced rider with a low chance of success on a dangerous mission having some fun than a half-demon prince with eight levels in each of wizard, rogue, and fighter going through the villages of the weak mortals and slaughtering them by the dozens any day. It's more fun when the characters have their downfalls, and you can connect with it on a real-life basis. I understand the plight of the 2nd level human fighter trying to rescue the caravan guard from the gnoll cave a lot better than the glory of the 15th level paladin with the celestial armor, sheild of the lion, and +5 vorpal holy longsword doing battle with the undead hordes upon the eigth layer of the abyss.
Dude I hear you when it comes to that crap. Only they go one step farther by only wanting to play mid-level stuff and evil. Man its fustraiting when you try to make them the heros and they kill the damn king amd escape. Uhhhhh. I feel your pain.
If it's the players, then where do we find good ones? I've got about nine different guys around here to play D&D with, and I'm the only one who likes low-level adventures and spends more time on character cencept and creation than on character orc-killing power maximization. I'm the only one in the group who's ever voluntarily made a disabled character for the sake of a good yarn. And it seems like I'm the only one who ever actually cares about roleplaying, I mean, the other guys don;t even talk when they roleplay! they just say "I tell him about this" or "I tell him about that"! They should be acting! Getting into character and saying "My lord, the orcs draw near. We cannot hold them for another day. The town needs aid, my lord" or something like that, not "I tell the baron that the village is under attack". The only dungeon master i've ever known to deliver a successful cocktail of intrigue, wilderness adventure, city exploration, combat, and background is my cousin, Matt. I mean, the guys i'm playing with can;t even take the time to put a bit of culture into even a pre-made campain! If i were ten more people, i'd just always play with myself!
Personally, I think you're the one with the problem. If you have a problem with someone maximizing the potential of their character and minimizing the risk to it out of some archaic notion of 'proper' roleplaying, then I'd say it's high time you quit D&D and took up theatre.
But that just turns the game into a slaughterfest with no point! What do you remember from D&D the next week? The kobold you killed in one hit in the gatehouse? The time you graffittied the guardhouse because they couldn;t do anything to your characters? No! You remember the roleplaying! the plotline! these are what make the game great! Any beast can kill a room full of orcs, but it takes a human to roleplay! The act of social interaction and reasoning is the greatest gift bestowed upon the human race!
Somebody ended their post with "I'd just always play with myself!"
Finally, an honest person!!!!
i will not deney this.
Seriously, though. The guys I play with are so impossible to DM for, I just had to destroy the campain I've been creating for over half a year because it doesn't suit their tastes. And now i can;t make a decent one. I've been thinking about maybe a "The evil bad guy owns the world" idea, but then where would the adventures come from? It would just all be trying to waylay his guards, and that would turn boring. I thought of the "you are ignorant humans and there is a dark power lurking in the woods and lakes of your tiny village" idea, but i can;t make that long enough to do anything more than ten adventures, tops. So i might end up just trying to make a standard, generic campain, but that will mess up, i know it. The only thing worse than a gamer who is only pleased by power is the gamer that is pleased by power and leaves you with a complete lack of pleasure from the positiong of DM. DMing is what i've always done, and it should be fun. I am troubled.
Have you picked up DMG II yet? It has some pretty good advice in there, some of it especially geared towards your type of players.
There's also the Dungeoncraft articles that were published in Dragon long ago. Great stuff for helping a DM out. There's a website mentioned on another post (search: Dungeoncraft) where you can download those articles. Let me know if you have trouble finding them.
My favorite non Wizards D20 book that I've been using is Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe, which Paizo sells for about $23.
If you're not having fun DMing, then it will reflect in your game. If your players' style is bugging you this badly, you might need to have a serious sit-down discussion with them about playing style and about what YOU enjoy. I think you might find that if they realize how serious you are about what's troubling you, they might tone it down and play along a bit better.
If it doesn't work out and you're not going to damage friendships--scrap them as players and spend a year or two building your perfect campaign--then recruit a new gaming group (carefully, now). If there's a college near where you live, there should be plenty of gamers or wanna-try-it's, who are usually much more receptive to a more serious approach to role-playing/
Another trick to use--use e-mail in between game sessions to provide bursts of "role-playing" and "color" for your campaign. Often times the power-players (and I have a few in my group, too) don't want to waste time during the game hearing about the politics of Kingdom XYZ or which Princess is currently betrothed to whoever, or whatever.
They just want to kill stuff and loot stuff. That's fine...I usually offer some sort of "battle" within an hour of starting any game, even if it's just a random encounter of some sort..that I can finish in about 45 minutes. That satisfies the dice rolling--killing orcs--craving for many of my players....then I get a chance to run a little more relaxed game where some actual role-playing and exploration, information gathering and stuff goes on.
I usually try to end each game session at a point where I can continue to communicate with the players via e-mail, filling in details about what happened in the previous session, letting them ask me questions, etc. That evokes a lot more interest and I find that some of the power gamers are actually a little more interested in the campaign when they return to the gaming table.
Keep the e-mails short (shorter than this post, for sure :-)
but fairly frequent and you might stimulate their imagination to the benefit of your sit-down game.
You might also build a website for your campaign, with maps and short descriptions of places, factions, nations, things, major NPC's, etc. Even the power gamers will be bored between games and might surf to your site to read about your cool campaign world. Another tool to kick-start the imagination and increase role-playing participation.
I used to do this in the late 90's when I was still running 2nd edition, but I don't do it any more. I even used power point presentations to describe major locations in my campaign by imbedding graphics and simple, but catchy descriptors.
We gamers are an odd, odd breed, methinks. And the DMG II is really good. I mean REALLY good. I took one look at it and had to scrape up all my allowance from the past month to see how much was left, then had to work on the farm for a few days to raise the rest, but it was bloody well worth it.
I know what you mean...sounds like your players know little about what role playing is really about. As a DM, you can set the boundaries. Although combat is part of the game, like in real life, players must realize that there is always someone or something bigger and badder than they are just around the corner someplace. As a DM, help them to understand that....I agree that maybe you should break their magical item, steal their spellbook, etc., so that for once, they might actually have to THINK their way out of a situation....Good luck.
When i tried to make them think, they got depressed and didn;t want to play. I'm not kidding. I took away the wizard's magic, which shouldn't be a big setback for an epic-level spellsword, and he practicly broke down in tears.
I know. It's just this never-ending contest to be the most cool-looking and powerful. It destroys the campain. I have all my players insisting that i start the campain at epic level or at least tenth. Honestly, I loved the adventures at lower levels! Everything was fun, challenging, and gritty. Instead of drow assassins in black leather weilding +4 backstabbing heartseeking daggers of venom sneaking invisibly through cave complexes filled with dragonkin to get to the ancient magical City of the Spirits, our characters were simple humans in homespun tunics and the occasional cloak or tartan, with unenhanced longswords and little or no magic, out upon the sunny morrs in the afternoon heat, warding off the orcs or gnolls or werewolves or whatever was attacking the tiny village they lived in. I've played both scenarios, and i enjoyed the latter much more. I'd rather be an inexperienced rider with a low chance of success on a dangerous mission having some fun than a half-demon prince with eight levels in each of wizard, rogue, and fighter going through the villages of the weak mortals and slaughtering them by the dozens any day. It's more fun when the characters have their downfalls, and you can connect with it on a real-life basis. I understand the plight of the 2nd level human fighter trying to rescue the caravan guard from the gnoll cave a lot better than the glory of the 15th level paladin with the celestial armor, sheild of the lion, and +5 vorpal holy longsword doing battle with the undead hordes upon the eigth layer of the abyss.
Not to mention the problem of making a descent adventure for such high level characters - though with enough Dungeons it could be pulled off.
If it's the players, then where do we find good ones? I've got about nine different guys around here to play D&D with, and I'm the only one who likes low-level adventures and spends more time on character cencept and creation than on character orc-killing power maximization. I'm the only one in the group who's ever voluntarily made a disabled character for the sake of a good yarn. And it seems like I'm the only one who ever actually cares about roleplaying, I mean, the other guys don;t even talk when they roleplay! they just say "I tell him about this" or "I tell him about that"! They should be acting! Getting into character and saying "My lord, the orcs draw near. We cannot hold them for another day. The town needs aid, my lord" or something like that, not "I tell the baron that the village is under attack". The only dungeon master i've ever known to deliver a successful cocktail of intrigue, wilderness adventure, city exploration, combat, and background is my cousin, Matt. I mean, the guys i'm playing with can;t even take the time to put a bit of culture into even a pre-made campain! If i were ten more people, i'd just always play with myself!
I had this problem many years ago when I was still just a pup as a DM. That said I have never truely resolved the issue. I had one player who was a big fan roleplaying but most of the others where much more marginal in terms of roleplaying. I tried spicing things up a bit but it never really was enough to satisfy my player that desired a roleplaying focused campaign.
That said if most of the players want to run in an action oriented campaign where they are the ass kicking hero's the problem is not them - honestly the problem is you. Your the odd man out that wants a game thats different from what the majority of players seem to desire. One can try and add some intrigue and roleplaying elements to see if it will appeal to the group but if not and if they enjoy the game they got its not really a black mark against them. I think this idea that their is one correct way to roleplay or that some versions are inherently more valid then others is a bit of a canard.
|
Evolution of Game Mentality:
In the "old" days the typical RPGer was an avid reader of fantasy/sci-fi. They were attracted to RPGs because it provided a basic mechanic for them to write their own character driven stories. The game mechanics were light which put more focus on what happened rather than how it happened.
In the early/mid-'80's the video game culture began to pervade the RPG industry. While technology was still primitive, the games still focused on doing a lot of reading and the action of the game was minimal.
Then Nintendo happened. Final Fantasy. The action became more relevant than the story. Also about this time 2nd edition came out and there was more emphasis on the mechanics of the game than the story.
As video game technology improved and became more visually exciting, the story became a minor linear footnote to the heaps of magic, muscle, and metagaming that the players could apply to their character. The same happened to RPGs as more mechanics were created to allow for more uberization of the PC. The goal now was to create the biggest bad-ass with the minimal story effort.
As a player (either GM or PC) of a RPG in today's environment you'll have to expect that the Metagamer is more prevalant than the Thematicgamer. The number of years that video games dominated a youth's entertainment time rather than reading fantasy/sci-fi favours the Metagamers. It's up to the player to find a group that matches their "upbringing".
When a GM is putting together a game of strangers, it doesn't hurt to ask some questions to gauge the mentality of the players. Ask them about their favourite D&D related novel. Ask them about their favourite fantasy (non-D&D) related novel. Ask them about their favourite D&D related video game. Ask them about the favourite non-D&D related video game. The answers to these four questions should give you a good idea of what makes the player "tick" and whether they'll mesh with your DM/GMing style.
But that just turns the game into a slaughterfest with no point! What do you remember from D&D the next week? The kobold you killed in one hit in the gatehouse? The time you graffittied the guardhouse because they couldn;t do anything to your characters? No! You remember the roleplaying! the plotline! these are what make the game great! Any beast can kill a room full of orcs, but it takes a human to roleplay! The act of social interaction and reasoning is the greatest gift bestowed upon the human race!
Again I kind of disagree. Yes for some it is the exciting roleplaying aspect that is most memorable but certianly the epic battle with the 'end boss' Red Dragon can also be a pretty memorable experience. Personally as a DM I won't allow the most excessive versions of min/maxing but that mostly just comes down to not allowing Vows of Poverty with Monks or Druids and occasionally modifying some spells. My feeling is that if min/maxing is the whole point then there is something lost in translation and I'd encourage players to metagame a little less but a certian amount of min/maxing just shows interest. The bad guys are tough - you do need something of an edge if you want to stay alive out there. I'm a big 'let teh dice fall where they may' DM so I figure my players should be putting in a little effort to keep their players alive. That said most of the time most of the feats or stats or what not are pretty balanced and taking one for its roleplaying potential over another that might be slightly better is rarely that big a problem.
The only thing worse than a gamer who is only pleased by power is the gamer that is pleased by power and leaves you with a complete lack of pleasure from the positiong of DM. DMing is what i've always done, and it should be fun. I am troubled.
Maybe you should try playing then for a bit. It might help a little to get a feel for what its like on the other side of the screen. It could potentially help your DMing - also its a heck of a lot less frustrating.
If your making campaign worlds which just fall apart etc. then this is just not a good thing. I suggest you step back and let some one else handle the administrative details. Have some fun - get to know what the other players enjoy from a perspective that your on their side and let the idea's for a compatable campaign perculate from there.
You want political intrige and they want to rock the house and be totally cool uber ass kicking dudes. With some time for the ideas to perculate it may be possible to mix and match.
I've never played it but this combo makes me think of the look and feel of PlaneScape. I believe they have a city and the centre of the multiverse in that setting that might just allow powerful and unique characters to be both cool and be engaged in intrigue that has a tendancy to break out into street fights with a lot of flash and bang.
Really if your running out of good ideas and becoming frustrated make some one else DM for a change.
Evolution of Game Mentality:
In the "old" days the typical RPGer was an avid reader of fantasy/sci-fi. They were attracted to RPGs because it provided a basic mechanic for them to write their own character driven stories. The game mechanics were light which put more focus on what happened rather than how it happened.
In the early/mid-'80's the video game culture began to pervade the RPG industry. While technology was still primitive, the games still focused on doing a lot of reading and the action of the game was minimal.
Then Nintendo happened. Final Fantasy. The action became more relevant than the story. Also about this time 2nd edition came out and there was more emphasis on the mechanics of the game than the story.
NOTE: What follows is by neccesity a simplification of what was a much more complex event.
I'm really not sure I buy this line so much. From my experience reading the original modules versus what came out later and what we have today its almost the opposite. The fighting came first and the focus of roleplaying came a little later.
RPGing came out of wargaming - specifically table top miniture wargaming. In fact I think the original look and feel came from a game about infiltrating a castle or some such via tunneling and its sewer system which turned into vicious claustrophobic fights in the tunnels with the castles defenders.
My understanding is that scenario was a huge succsess among its players who, instead of doing the normal miniture wargaming thing of moving on to simulate other types of battles and situations a few weeks or months later, became obsessed with this scenario. They expanded on it started adding more rules, like rules for weapons and armour etc. and eventually even fantasy races - Eventually from this was born Chainmail and the begining of Tactical Studies Rules (TSR).
Read the old modules and one gets a sense that in many ways most of them are little more then this original scenario done in different environments. Players take characters (now usually sans the actual miniture) move into the sewer (now called a Dungeon) and procede to kill the badies and loot the place. The big difference here from miniture warganming was less the roleplaying and more that the dungeons became kind of like strategic puzzles to be solved. They where full of riddles and traps as well as nasty critters. At this point what made this not a wargame was not the role playing aspect but the strategic puzzle aspect. To loot the tomb you needed your brawn sure - but you also had to use your head and your wits...and this was something completely different that had never been seen before.
Roleplaying to a certian limited extent has always been a part of miniture wargaming - in a good wargame one can almost smell the smoke from the discharged muskets and hear the crack of gunfire. Players jump up and get excited when fun stuff happens. The wave their arms around in a geeky manner to play out whats happening on the table top battlefield. So in some sense wargaming is already about the players creating a shared world to play in - its just a shared world in which one of them wins and the other looses, but they play another game next week.
But at this point in RPGs the roleplaying aspects seemed to expand more and more. Players and the DM wanted to know what happened to their characters between looting and pillaging dungeons and DMs particularly needed to come up with rationals as to why the next Dungeon needed to be looted and pillaged. Its tough to have an ongoing game without some kind of a world to act as a setting so it did not take long for the first worlds to be designed and once you make a world you start fleshing out all sorts of things that provide ever more non-violent roleplaying opportunities in terms of politics and intrigue.
Eventually we got into second edition. Now the modules had moved away from the major hacking and slashing all the time - even the Dungeon had ceased to be the main environment. Roleplaying had become some kind of an ideal and gamers bragged about how long it had been since they had actually killed something - simulated love affairs and even roleplaying things like weddings had become part of the game - maybe not much at most of the actual tables but people read about those that had been involved in such games and it was seen as a kind of ideal for many.
Ultimatly though this was to much of an extreme and we end up in a bit of a backlash. 3.0 and 3.5 where more about mechanics and combat - there was a 'back to the dungeon' movement and some populer 3rd party products tout their material as 3rd edition mechanics with 1st edition feel - by which they mean NPCs are there to be killed. But thats another extreme - the backlash was a move against the extremes of roleplaying that had seemed to become the ideal of the RPG experience*. It was a movement meant to acknowledge that slaying Orcs really is fun and plundering tombs provides good gaming. There was still a fair bit of acknowledgement that roleplaying opportunities should be mixed in there as well.
Personally I think we are just about at the end of this 'backlash' and a focus on less dungeons and more story driven adventuring will dominate for the next little while. But unlike what seemed to take place part way through second edition there won't be a near complete abandonment of the dungeon or combat. Just more of an acknowledgemnt that other settings besides Dungeons can be cool and that not every adventure has to be focused on killing some big bad dude at the end.
* and an experience unobtainable by most of us since simulating weddings when the players consist of five overwieght balding guys who are sitting around chugging bear and rolling dice would just make most of us feel really uncomfortable - I don't want to look into my buddy Joes eyes and swear wedding vows, even if my ranger should totally fall for his completly hot female Samuria...Its only barely better if the object of ones eternal love was an NPC controlled by the DM. For this kind of game you really need to have a lot of female players (and its best if one has a female DM, IMO) as well and only a minority of tables would have had more then one female player (if that) in attendence.
|
Maybe it's just the area I live in, maybe it's the zeitgeist of gamers these days, or maybe it's the change in focus the game itself has taken, but whatever it is, I'm sick of it.
Every time I sit down to play a D&D game in my hometown (College Station, TX) ... <snip>
First, my apologies for arriving to the thread late. I live in Houston and there's traffic... ;)
Next, part of the problem you were/are expriencing (I've read your update post) is, in fact, the area you live in. I say this as someone who lives in Houston; has lived in Bryan (for work, not school) and Lubbock (attending TTU); and gamed with people from all across the state (from the Valley to the Panhandle) over the last 25+ years (suddenly, I feel slightly old). It has been my observation and the observation of many of the folks I've gamed with, that the Bryan/College Station area tends to produce powergamers and power-DMs (yes, they exist) who see the game as a competition that MUST be won.
That said, I've gamed with several people living in that area who enjoy character-driven gaming, it's just that they seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule and you have to work to find them. It sounds like you've found some of the latter group for your new game and things are going better for you. Congradulations and Good Work!
|
|
If it's the players, then where do we find good ones? I've got about nine different guys around here to play D&D with, and I'm the only one who likes low-level adventures and spends more time on character cencept and creation than on character orc-killing power maximization. I'm the only one in the group who's ever voluntarily made a disabled character for the sake of a good yarn. And it seems like I'm the only one who ever actually cares about roleplaying, I mean, the other guys don;t even talk when they roleplay! they just say "I tell him about this" or "I tell him about that"! They should be acting! Getting into character and saying "My lord, the orcs draw near. We cannot hold them for another day. The town needs aid, my lord" or something like that, not "I tell the baron that the village is under attack". The only dungeon master i've ever known to deliver a successful cocktail of intrigue, wilderness adventure, city exploration, combat, and background is my cousin, Matt. I mean, the guys i'm playing with can;t even take the time to put a bit of culture into even a pre-made campain! If i were ten more people, i'd just always play with myself!I had this problem many years ago when I was still just a pup as a DM. That said I have never truely resolved the issue. I had one player who was a big fan roleplaying but most of the others where much more marginal in terms of roleplaying. I tried spicing things up a bit but it never really was enough to satisfy my player that desired a roleplaying focused campaign.
That said if most of the players want to run in an action oriented campaign where they are the ass kicking hero's the problem is not them - honestly the problem is you. Your the odd man out that wants a game thats different from what the majority of players seem to desire. One can try and add some intrigue and roleplaying elements to see if it will appeal to the group but if not and if they enjoy the game they got its not really a black mark against them. I think this...
I have to agree with Jeremy here. It is important for the DM and the players to both want the same game. If all the players want Style A, but the DM wants to run Style B, then no one is going to be happy and the game will disintegrate.
As I see it, you have three general options:
1) Convert the players to your style. Not likely to happen unless you make a REALLY strong case. You may be able to do this by finding one or two players willing to try your style and setting a game up just for them on the side with strong ground rules. If they have a lot of fun doing this, the other players may want to try it, just to see what the appeal is. (More on this later.)
2) Find new players. The feasibility of this depends upon your circumstances. If you live in an area with few gamers (or all the players are all your friends), you might be stuck out. Try your friendly local gaming shop or (as mentioned by someone else) the local college or university to find others who want to play the same game you want to play.
3) Stop DM-ing and let someone else do it. There is nothing that says "Thou shalt beat thine head against a wall for all eternity". After a while, either the new DM will be happy doing all the work setting things up for the players to knock down or you'll have a convert to your way of thinking. Nothing gives people an insight to your world like having them walk in your shoes for a while. Do not take the DM seat back if the new DM just wants to "get back to the winning side". If the new DM wants to try your way, set up the side game mentioned in option 1.
The Side Game
Gamers can be a very jealous group if they think someone else is having more fun than them. If you set up a side group with strong ground rules that limit munchkinism and they have fun, they will tell people about it. The players in the larger group may want to join the side game once they see others having fun playing that way. If they don't want to join, at least you and your smaller group are having some fun. Everyone else can have fun in the larger game.
If the players from the larger group want to join, you are in a much better place. Keep firm to your ground rules - if they can't follow the ground rules, then they don't really want to play the game you want to run, do they?. Let them use test characters to see if they like your side game and can play under your rules. If they can't, damage to your side game is limited and they won't be back (either they won't want to or you tell them not to). If they can, you've taught the old dogs new tricks and everyone is having fun, not just everyone but you.
I am a strong believer in doing what you love, not what frustrates you. If you continue to DM both games, invest the majority of your time prepping the side game you and your roleplayers want to play in and the minimum necessary to run the larger game your power gamers want to play in. This reduces your personal frustration (preventing burn-out as a DM) and subtly encourages players to either want to roleplay or take over the DM chair for the power game. A win-win situation for you, I would think.
nice kobold. hehehe. I like kobolds.
Great suggestions here! I'm faced with the same problems... That's why I only have 3 players in my group so far. I have no choice but to be selective in who I include in my campaign, otherwise I have powergamers and munchkins, as well as players who BS and goof off during half of the gaming session. It's a nightmare where I'm at to find some decent, mature players.
I especially liked Airwalkr's ideas on giving players bonus XP and items and such as incentives for the players to make up their character histories, providing minis, etc.
I agree with Jeremy MacDonald's last post. In fact, I'm a little freaked out by how much of my own history with D&D has evolved along with the game (as he described in his post). When I started out with 1st Edition, my characters existed with their entire life's ambition to troop from one illogical dungeon to the next (with big bad guys and nasty traps behind each isolated and locked door), slaying the bad guys and scooping up the loot. With 2nd Ed. we were re-educated to really search for our characters' motivations and personal goals. My top character was, at the time, a paladin who did little other than involve himself in the endless minutia of governing his fifedom and enduring all the personal & political intrigue one can encounter when barely leaving one's own castle steps. As I've said in past posts, I personally have not adopted the 3rd Edition rules and playing style (although my campaign borrows heavily from some of 3rd Ed's finer points). I personally view 3rd Edition, 3.5 (and the inevitable 4th Edition which can't be too far in our future) as attempts to morph the game into something more appealing to the current video game/computer program generation of today (not that there's anything wrong with WOTC's adaptation - it just doesn't appeal to me personally). The beauty of this game is that it is intended to be personalized and customized by each player and DM. I personally do not require some $30 hardcover book to tell me how to design or run my campaigns. If some rule or game mechanic seems illogical or overpowered or complicated, I drop it like third period French! If I can personally come up with some rule or game mechanic that simplifies or adds excitement to the game, it's a done deal before it's barely put to paper.
The people I play with are a small but devoted group. The fun of today's game is that we can develop characters who are unique and colorful, with real talents and foibles, logical motivations and goals, that have the opportunity to slay the dragon and rescue the perverbial princess, climb aboard a ship and explore the seven seas, uncover and thwart the evil schemes of the king's traitorous advisor, and perhaps also marry the basketweaver's daughter and have a family to come home to when the day is done. A happy mix of all the possibilities (and use of brain, brawn, AND heart) makes the latest (and hopefully future) gaming materials the best yet.