There seems to be a shortage of interesting threads lately, so i'll generate one that should at least stir up some debate. I don't know how to copy a link to the boards, but here is the one that i'll be referring to in this thread (maybe someone else can link it later):
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060901a
One of my very good friends pointed out this article to me a few weeks ago and i'm glad he brought it to my attention. In sum, here's Andrew Finch's idea for starting every adventure in a campaign:
"The idea was simple: start every game session with those magical words, “Roll Initiative”. Yes, that’s it. No matter what happened last week, last month (or however long ago it was) you start the new session with a fight." (Finch, 2006)
Consider that Wizard's Design and Development department has chosen to post this to their site (i don't know if Andrew works there or not). I find this article, the idea itself, and the impitus to be able to forward it to be at the very heart of what the core rules of D&D 3.x caters to. Chiefly, a mineatures wargame.
Make no mistake about what the rules set for D&D applies to even from the origins of the game...it is common knowledge that the game is based on mineatures wargaming (Holmes, 1981, Praxton 1971). Even for the novice DM and group who are marginally interested in role playing, the push to stat block out every detail of the game in the 3.x versions of D&D further draw distinct lines of seperation between tabletop mineatures gaming and role playing games, making it increasingly difficult to merge the two in a campaign setting.
If what attracts you to the hobby of role playing games is (in fact) role playing, than the ideas that this article forwards should be considered rediculous. Pay particular attention to the four main points that Andrew makes in his arguement for this idea: Focus, Love, Preparation, and Broadening.
What? If you read and consider the descriptions of these four points set forth by Finch, what he is really saying boils down to:
1. Focus: The players won't remember crap from the last game and can't bring dice or their character in from the car.
2. Love: The players want to fight (minis game).
3. Preparation: You, as the DM, are never prepared enough.
4. Broadening: You, as the DM, need battle action to drive a campaign.
Because tabletop gaming is experienced in a social setting and(Fine, 1983) (which, by the way, is a touchstone sociological study on RPGers) regardless of if your group is interested in playing a minis wargame, a role playing game, or a combination of the two; it is imperitive that the group recognizes the mode of game that he/she is playing in with the group.
Just understand that a strict adhearation to the core rules of D&D generate a game that is much more akin to tabletop wargaming (minis) than role playing games. This article by Andrew Finch further encourages that tabletop minis mode of gaming.
To the avid role player or one who enjoys a mix of both kinds of gaming, the ideas forwarded by Finch in this article will make them cringe. I would encourage all to recognize the published 3.x game mechanics for what they are - an excellent mode of mineature wargaming. I would also encourage all role players to either search for a better system (because they are out there) or appropriate only those D&D rules that forward their role playing experience and drop the rest (whatever is appropriated must be clearly outlined from the beginning of a game or campaign).
References:
Finch, Andrew: Roll Initiative, http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060901a Wizards of the Coast Website, 2006.
Fine, Gary Allen: Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Holmes, John Eric: Fantasy Role-Playing Games. New York, Hipporcrene Books, 1981.
Praxton, E.W. "War Gaming" Pp. 278-301 in Elliott M. Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith (Eds.): The Study of Games. New York, Wiley, 1971.
As Ever,
ACE
I agree that I heartily disagree with most of what said article espouses. However, as a longtime fan of D&D throughout its incarnations, I must put forth my voice in support of this game.
D&D can have as much roleplaying in it as a play group chooses to put in it. You phrase your post in a manner that implies that table-top wargames are bereft of all manner of roleplaying, and that the similarities between D&D and wargaming carry over, so that D&D is similarily bereft of role-playing.
Bull. As a D&D player, it shames me to say that the best role-playing I ever saw was between three commanders at a Warhammer 40k tournament. The long running vendetta betwixt the Terran and Eldar forces of two, coupled by their mutual "hate" for the Chaos forces of the third, made sitting through three hours of watching other people play a wargame an enjoyable evening. What I'm saying is that role-playing is the hardest part of the game to actually have happen, regardless of system. Because while there may be a system for combat, and spells, and this and that, there is no mechanical system for roleplaying. Its the one part of the game where everyone has to mutually "wing it".
Maybe I've got a good group, but we can play a five hour session with only two combats that only take 30 minutes a peice to finish. The rest is dialogue and interaction with the world and NPCs. My players roleplay in combat, and I can't remember the last time I heard one say" I roll a Nat, and thats 20 damage." I get to hear "Nat! I plant my mace squarely in his face, letting the wrath of Cuthbert strike him for 20 damage!"
To sum up my rant (sorry, I dont actually like ranting) D&D, and any other role-playing game, is a field that the seeds of role-playing must be planted in. Some fields are rich, some are kinda barren, but in the end, it takes work on the player's part to make them grow, regardless of the quality of field. (darn, that was the best metaphor I could come up with? bleh)
Just my two coppers. But I do agree that the "Roll Initiative" article is five cups of crap in a three cup jar.
I do agreee that starting a few sessions with the words "Ok, roll for initiative..." sounds pretty exiting. I sometimes start out my games this way, specially when the previous game ended with a big monster comming out of a dark cave near the PCs... No time has passed since the last session.
But I wouldn't start every session this way. I go for a mixture of everything. (In my game) It depends on how much time has elapsed since the last session.
One session will begin with "You wake up in your room at the Inn; There someone knocking at your door...", when the previous session ended with the PCs reaching a small town. A few game days have passed since the last session.
Another will start off with a narrative text, describing either a season change, or even a city that the players wanted to visite at somepoint... The text ending on a PC doing something like entering a Tavern. I'll use this method when a few game months have passed since the last session.
If we haven't played in quite a while (sometimes this happens during the summer or around the christmas holidays, where it's difficult to get everyone in my garage at the same time), I'll use the 'In Media Res' technique. I'll put the PCs right in the middle of a chase, or a fight, or at the end of some unknown adventure, and we start from there. (Think of the Star Wars or the Indianna Jones movies). With this method, any laps of time could have passed since the last session, nobody has to remember what happend EXACTLY six weeks ago and we ca start off with some fast pace exitement right away.
Ultradan
I like to roleplay and rollplay, and I wouldn't mind starting out every session with a fight. Partly because there are players that tend to show up late/unprepared more often than others, so any way of preventing this is worth consideration. Also because sometimes I just NEED a fight. Some sessions, the DM will have us in a town with several interesting NPCs to talk to and discover a plot but I just get impatient. I get this itch for a fight, and the only thing that stops me from picking a fight with some random NPC is my character's Good alignment.
Naturally starting every game with a fight would emphasize the rollplaying aspect of d&d but as long as there's some roleplaying afterward, I'm okay with that.
hmm, I dissagree; I would never run a game where we start every game with a fight; I always start my game with the same words; is my trade mark and gets my players attention; it is a recap of the last activities in story form; "As last we left off intrepid adventures were doing x; in setting/place y; to accomplish z; then I start to my left or right and ask that player what his character is doing; once I talk to each player we start whatever action is planned; this works very well. it would seem to me that the roll intiative cry is only to get the players attention focused on the game; many pc are not combat oriented and thus would feel pressured to play more combat oriented characters.
I think an interesting question then is what IS a role-playing game? If you claim that Gygax's original D&D (as based on the Chainmail miniatures rules) was just a variant of miniatures wargaming, and that 3.x is simply a more complex version of something like Privateer's Warmachine or GW's Mordheim, then it looks like all RPG's are really miniatures wargames and have never been anything else.
I don't think that's true though. D&D has rules for adjudicating and playing non-combat situations, as opposed to something like Warmachine or Warhammer where any role-playing is nothing more than imagining you actually are your general to varying degrees to increase the fun of the game.
In my opinion an RPG is a strange hybrid of something like "The Sims" coupled with miniatures wargaming. There's no law that it HAS to be one or the other. I just think that the generation currently writing for Wizards tend to emphasize the wargame aspects of the game because that's what they find exciting, but the other aspect (the RP aspect I guess) can never truly be done away with without changing D&D from a hybrid (an RPG) to a pure tabletop miniatures game like Warhammer.
I think an interesting question then is what IS a role-playing game? If you claim that Gygax's original D&D (as based on the Chainmail miniatures rules) was just a variant of miniatures wargaming, and that 3.x is simply a more complex version of something like Privateer's Warmachine or GW's Mordheim, then it looks like all RPG's are really miniatures wargames and have never been anything else.
I'm sure that there are many different definitions of what a role playing game is and is not, and definitions are certainly debatable and change over time. It is useful to account for common characteristics when defining such a term and according to Williams, Hendricks and Winkler (2006):
"Most RPGs consist of a *setting* and a *system*. One person is designated to be in charge of the story...(e.g., the Storyteller, DM, or Referee). This person is responsible for all aspects of the game (setting and system) except the actions of the *players.* The players create fictional personas called *characters*...and then collectively engage in protracted storytelling."
words in * are italicized
In critical theory literature, the typical foil to a role playing game cited is chess (one of the origins of the Chainmail miniature rules).
What i am specifically arguing is that the *system* of D&D caters to and encourages playing chess much more than it encourages "collectively engaging in protracted storytelling." There are other *systems* out there that encourage such gaming as a part of the mechanics of the game (found in core rules).
Reference:
Williams J.P., Hendricks S.Q, Winkler W.K: Gaming as Culture: Essays on Reality, Identity and Experience in Fantasy Games, London, McFarland & Company, 2006.
As ever,
ACE
What i am specifically arguing is that the *system* of D&D caters to and encourages playing chess much more than it encourages "collectively engaging in protracted storytelling." There are other *systems* out there that encourage such gaming as a part of the mechanics of the game (found in core rules).
ACE
How exactly can a system *encourage* roleplaying? We all know ow to talk. We all know how interact with sentient creatures and our environment. We all have a general grasp in how a certain personality may react under severe pressures and stress. Why do we need them built into the core rules?
Would D&D be more *true* to roleplaying if we substiuted the AoO rules with a chapter on "getting into character". Or maybe we could add in a table telling DM's how many intense role playing situations a character should have at their current level? No, you know why? Because all of that is left for the DM and the players to decide for themselves. D&D does nothing to *encourage* hack and slash gaming it only *allows* for it because a comprehensive system that is easy to follow can be applied to combat. It can't be slapped on social events because that would turn real RPing into a less genuine experience.
If you want to kill everything that moves and gorge yourself on xp and loot, fine go ahead I've seen a couple of sessions like that and sometimes they were really fun. If you want to talk to dignitaries and immerse you're charater to the neck in espionage for 10 hours then thats just super. The great thing about the D&D system is that it supports both styles as well as any style in between the too. How the system is used and run is placed directly into the hands of the individual, right where it should be.
|
I read this article and, while I think that the "Roll initiative" idea was maybe a bit formulaic, took away a certain idea from it. Sometimes it can be a bit difficult to get the group from a "everyday" mentality to an "immersive" mentality where they actually begin to get into the campaign and their characters. Sessions usually start along the lines of:
DM (hopefully): So, um, can anyone remember what happened last time?
Player 1: Er, didn't we find that guy dead?
Player 2: What guy?
Player 1: That artificer bloke?
Player 3: No, that was someone else.
Player 1: Maybe I need an INT buff.
Player 4: Hey, how was the WoW run last night?
DM: The guy in the temple...
Player 1: Total wipe at the end, that end boss is HARD!
And so on....
An immediate, vivid entrance to the session will maybe help to focus their minds. So you can go straight in, but not necessarily to combat. My guys have just finished combat, so I am going to describe a vivid post-battle scene instead. It will also help to get the session rolling, and advance the plot and character of the setting.
I plan a hobgoblin head-viewing ceremony, where the victors survey the heads of their fallen foes (stolen from medieval Japanese warfare). Hopefully this will get the to focus more quickly.
Thank you, Sexi. I completely and totally agree. Charges that D&D isn't capable of supporting roleplaying are generally flawed, I find, because of my own personal experience on these boards and in actual playing. I don't need to sight a sociological study of RPG players or crap like that. I know my experience.
I also think there have been some very interesting threads recently, ranging from Kyr's questions on armor and weapons in cities and food on the trail, to the amusing "untitled" thread that gave good lessons in how to speak hill billy. This is a community, and it doesn't always have to be focused on intense debate over mechanics of the rules, flavor descriptions of games, and the merits of one system over the other.
|
Sessions usually start along the lines of:
DM (hopefully): So, um, can anyone remember what happened last time?
Player 1: Er, didn't we find that guy dead?
Player 2: What guy?
Player 1: That artificer bloke?
Player 3: No, that was someone else.
Player 1: Maybe I need an INT buff.
Player 4: Hey, how was the WoW run last night?
DM: The guy in the temple...
Player 1: Total wipe at the end, that end boss is HARD!...I plan a hobgoblin head-viewing ceremony, where the victors survey the heads of their fallen foes (stolen from medieval Japanese warfare). Hopefully this will get the to focus more quickly.
This head-viewing ceremony is choice. AND I need to work on saying "bloke" more often.
How exactly can a system *encourage* roleplaying? We all know ow to talk. We all know how interact with sentient creatures and our environment. We all have a general grasp in how a certain personality may react under severe pressures and stress. Why do we need them built into the core rules?
Firstly, please understand that I would never argue (and am not here) that role playing does not occur within the D&D system...that would be foolish to suggest.
To the point of discussion - consider how the D&D system as is encourages player involvement in the game. The rewards system is stacked heavily in favor of outcome specific actions such as defeating monsters, disarming traps, convincing NPCs to do something, solving riddles, etc. In the D&D system, the allowance for actual role playing rewards come in the form of ad hoc experience. Why is this important, you ask? Because of the nebulous nature of having a GM judge the net worth of role playing actions. There is little incentive for players who are not specifically interested in role playing for the sake of role playing to do so in this system.
If, however, there are system rules and rewards that support role playing as a driving force for character development, it not only helps level up stat blocks, but it encourages each player to take an active role in creating the collective game. There are various game mechanics that reward role playing including achieving set character goals, answering to a group of players instead of a GM, advancing conflict (which creates plot), and advancing character traits. These are a few examples of mechanics that other game designers have integrated into their core rules that help drive Role Playing.
Does that help?
As ever,
ACE
How exactly can a system *encourage* roleplaying? We all know ow to talk. We all know how interact with sentient creatures and our environment. We all have a general grasp in how a certain personality may react under severe pressures and stress. Why do we need them built into the core rules?Firstly, please understand that I would never argue (and am not here) that role playing does not occur within the D&D system...that would be foolish to suggest.
To the point of discussion - consider how the D&D system as is encourages player involvement in the game. The rewards system is stacked heavily in favor of outcome specific actions such as defeating monsters, disarming traps, convincing NPCs to do something, solving riddles, etc. In the D&D system, the allowance for actual role playing rewards come in the form of ad hoc experience. Why is this important, you ask? Because of the nebulous nature of having a GM judge the net worth of role playing actions. There is little incentive for players who are not specifically interested in role playing for the sake of role playing to do so in this system.
If, however, there are system rules and rewards that support role playing as a driving force for character development, it not only helps level up stat blocks, but it encourages each player to take an active role in creating the collective game. There are various game mechanics that reward role playing including achieving set character goals, answering to a group of players instead of a GM, advancing conflict (which creates plot), and advancing character traits. These are a few examples of mechanics that other game designers have integrated into their core rules that help drive Role Playing.
Does that help?
As ever,
ACE
Yes ACE it does.
D&D does not include a system to reward roleplaying because any attempt at such a system is going to be widely rejected by the D&D community. DMs and players that value roleplaying have systems of their own for rewarding good roleplaying, and if they want to they wil probably hand out bonus xp. Since role playing exists in so many forms a uniform system to reward it would be difficult if not outright impossible.
Players are supposed to role play to advance the story of their characters or the plot and when my group got into this mindset it was truely the most fun we have ever had playing D&D. If you set up a system of rewards to *encourage* RPing then you reduce a genuine desire for a character to develope into a rat running a maze to get to the cheese. I would rather see a player talk to a stranger in a tavern expecting no reward other than some information and the chance to introduce an NPC than a PC who tells his life story to everyone in town because he needs two more development points to increase his plot importance value to 11.
D&D does not encourage Role playing because role playing is storytelling and their is no wrong way to tell a story.
However, GAMES have rules and guidelines that can be defined clearly. So maybe D&D creates the rules of a GAME that is open ended enough to allow a group of people to tell a story using the mechanics of the system.
Hmmm... a GAME that allows for ROLE PLAYING. I wonder what they would call something like that?
Basically, rewards for role playing is totally up to the gm and how much emphasis they put on it; D&D supports it just fine. If you dont role play in my game you will lag behind the other players in experience. While it might be nice for some method to determine how much a monster is worth if you defeat him; it is really a poor guide as it does not show how well the monster was played, its tactics, or any of that stuff; therefore you could really say that D&D doesnt support the experience point system; but really this is all bunk; the DM determines exps for any action you do; if your gm only awards exps for monster deaths; well, find another gm, but nobody really needs a system for exp gains for roleplaying aspects or even monsters because no fight is totally predicatable for how easy or tuff the scenario might unfold; if it was; you wouldnt need a gm. The gm is the strength of the system which makes the pen and paper game far superior to any computer generated game.
The idea's not a terrible one-- it's just an exaggeration of a common idea, starting In Media Res. (Start in motion, in the thick of things.) Think of a Bond film-- the initial five minute in the thick of action teaser that barely ties into the rest of the film. It gets everyone into the right frame of mind-- suspending disbelief and accepting Bond as a much larger than life hero. Using the technique they discuss could encourage a very stylistic (action adventure movie emulating) play style.
In the past, Mike Mearls has mentioned running an all encounter series at lunch. For internal playtesting, it's probably the most concentrated way to playtest all the experimental rules.
While it isn't my ideal campaign (as presented), there's little about this idea that gets in the way of roleplaying. It jump starts you into character and gives you something to roleplay from-- the current action. As you "remember" (play out) how you got to the fight, the plot elements drop in... and you get to skip over boring elements and non-choices. After all, if the GM has only prepped one adventure why not skip to the fun part (being on the adventure), rather than roleplaying that hideously constrained "accept the mission" dialogue that everyone knows OOC how it must go?
After all, if the GM has only prepped one adventure why not skip to the fun part (being on the adventure), rather than roleplaying that hideously constrained "accept the mission" dialogue that everyone knows OOC how it must go?EXACTIMUNDO!!!!!
this comment really makes me curious, the only experience I have with this "accept a mission dialogue" is from pre made adventures that peeps buy and havent played one of those in decades. I never have this sort of thing in my game; with roleplaying the characters have so very many threads each to choose from that they decide whose to follow and when; it is rather free form and as I have given out the thread I am of course prepared to run it. If I have a player who is not really a roleplayer he typically only has one main thread and two side threads to follow; with roleplaying this can develope into many many threads. Maybe it is just me and my gm style; not sure which is why I am curious about this comment. As I have stated in other posts over the last year; my game has a waiting list and is packed to the gills with players so I must be doing something right.
|
|
this comment really makes me curious, the only experience I have with this "accept a mission dialogue" is from pre made adventures that peeps buy and havent played one of those in decades. I never have this sort of thing in my game; with roleplaying the characters have so very many threads each to choose from that they decide whose to follow and when; it is rather free form and as I have given out the thread I am of course prepared to run it. If I have a player who is not really a roleplayer he typically only has one main thread and two side threads to follow; with roleplaying this can develope into many many threads. Maybe it is just me and my gm style; not sure which is why I am curious about this comment. As I have stated in other posts over the last year; my game has a waiting list and is packed to the gills with players so I must be doing something right.After all, if the GM has only prepped one adventure why not skip to the fun part (being on the adventure), rather than roleplaying that hideously constrained "accept the mission" dialogue that everyone knows OOC how it must go?EXACTIMUNDO!!!!!
I did it once in Cyberpunk just to blow everyone's mind. They were being attacked by k'zinti. Everybody had fun. In the story, it was a vee ree simulation, but the characters didn't know it because I started by saying, "roll initiative."
I did it to introduce everybody (including myself) to the deadly Cyberpunk rules without repercussions.I think in certain instances, little tricks like that can help set mood (in my case a general paranoia) and thus actually facilitate role playing.
As Ultradan ever so eloquently stated, cliffhangers are an excellent way to end a game session. I don't do it hardly enough.
I don't know....the longer I continue to play this 3.X version of D&D (as opposed to other totally different game systems), the more the game is slipping away from me. I am running AoW and burnout factor is pretty high - thankfully I am nearly done. I loved the story; Dungeon's quality is top-notch. Maybe I've got the high-level blues.
Question for theacemu:
For those of us who don't have experience with White Wolf or whatever, can you give us an example of the more structured way of rewarding roleplaying that you feel is superior to D&D's system? Without making it as mechanical as SexiGolem's parody of it, it seems to me that some fairly simple guidelines would help DMs know how to do this better.
I think many of us like to give out story awards, but its like 50 XP here and 100 XP there. Once in a while, for example when there are two alternative outcomes to an encounter depending on whether players fight or talk, it's fairly easy to gauge what kind of award to hand out based on the combat value of the encounter. So, what would be useful is guidelines that say, "for accomplishing X type of story goal, you should hand out approximately 1/10 of a level's worth of experience" or something like that.
On the flip side, I think there is another appeal (besides the sense of tactical mastery and exciting action) of having a fairly strict set of tactical miniatures rules to resolve the life-and-death aspects of the story. It allows players to feel that the GM won't just kill them or save them arbitrarily to move the storyline in the direction he wants to take it. In other words, there is a sense that fate or luck beyond the power of the GM is in play, and the roll of a die can take the story in completely unexpected directions. The fixation we have with dice and the luck they bring is a central element of D&D that is lacking or downplayed in other systems.
In this sense, D&D is marriage between the experience of a tabletop or computer game with fixed outcomes and improvisational theater or novel-writing, which have infinite possible storylines but are completely controlled by the whim of author or participants. With a good DM, and players interested in roleplaying, it's a happy marriage.
Question for theacemu: For those of us who don't have experience with White Wolf or whatever, can you give us an example of the more structured way of rewarding roleplaying that you feel is superior to D&D's system? Without making it as mechanical as SexiGolem's parody of it, it seems to me that some fairly simple guidelines would help DMs know how to do this better.
Ok, well, i'll suggest two game systems that both include game mechanics that encourage role playing as i mention above in this post (see above). One is very akin to the core rules of D&D 3.x in it's approach (d20 system) and it would probably interest most on these boards over my second example which deviates from the d20 system significantly. I choose these two specifically because i think they show ends (or close to)of a spectrum of role playing mechanics that deviate from the point of D&D 3.x system.
Example 1: If you are interested, check out The Burning Wheel game system. This should be a very germane system for any D&D gamer because of the similarities it has with the D&D core rules...and, it is easy to integrate the said mechanics in with the D&D system (because of the similarities). In short, each player chooses some form of character development arc (outlined in the rules) that helps progress each character's goals, his/her motivation, and development. While players can certainly check out mentally on this part of the game and still participate in the minis part, it encourages the role playing aspect of the game.
Example 2: Probably something that most folks here wouldn't enjoy because of the different system (non d20), Dogs in the Vineyard takes a collaboratave approach to gaming. The role of the GM is reduced greatly to basically only developing a setting (or using a prefabbed one) and playing NPCs for the players (who are collectively creating the story). The onus for story, character, and plot development is placed sqarely on each player...if any of these three subjects are floundering, it is up to the players to pick it up or the collective game suffers. The entire game is based on conflict...and escelating it.
I believe that some of the core rules can be found on the game developers' websites for these two games...check them out.
As ever,
ACE
The Palladium system presented a good rule of thumb for giving out XP. If someone comes up with an idea that saves the entire party, get Y xp. It's pretty good - I'd go more into detail, but I don't have my books at work (sadly).