Ok, that's funny.
|
OK, a bunch of things to reply to:
However, here's something to consider. I recall a lot of different campaigns that I played in "back in the day" and even in recent years that players simply were not comfortable with roleplaying. What I heard a lot of was, "My character tells (so and so's) character that..." or "My character directs a rousing, defiant speech at (insert villain's name) and draws his sword to attack." There were not a lot of players that were willing to immerse themselves in the actual RP part of the game at the risk of looking dumb. It seems that players are more into the RP side of the game these days. Of course, this is purely my own experience. It's going to vary from group to group.
This is difficult.
Yes, some people were uncomfortable with immersion role-playing.Other were just unsure of the degree of acceptable immersion.
Still others were into it for other reasons (the hack or the strategy), and didn't realize immersion was an option.
So understanding why people don't do it is more complex than just noting that they don't.
The thing is, focusing on that begs the question of whether or not you must immerse in order to role-play. We can have one of those extended discussions about the issues involved in role-playing vs. roll-playing interactive skills, but I'm pretty sure we all know where it will lead. (A big dead end.)
My own speculation (and assuming any of this holds water outside my own experience) is that we as a world-wide gaming community have gotten a bit older and with that have gained a more mature attitude towards gaming.
Possibly. I think there are other factors affecting it these days though, specifically the rising influx of CCG, CRPG, and Console Game players.
That's what I kind of got out of Sutter's essay, though he didn't quite say it in so many words.
So, I totally agree with you Sam, but I also see what The Kid was getting at.
Possibly. On that it comes down to me saying what I got from it, I'll leave it to him to elaborate on his intent.
I can understand pursuing a different view. I am a strong advocate of a "different" approach to background development that regularly attracts scorn. That just drives me to explain things better and put the onus on any detractors to come up with a coherent argument to challenge me. (Hint: They hate having to do so. >:))I don't think he has a problem with stirring up a bunch of old crotchety role-playing veterans.
Well he definitely succeeded with me!
I am on the old side, particularly at the venue I play at, and I think I've more than proven I can be crotchety. :-PSo you don't qualify any of the adventures in Dungeon nowadays as hack'n'slash? Just asking to clarify your above post.
I didn't quantify them as anything. That is very loose interpretation and paraphrase of the editorial, specifically the middle of the third paragraph where he cites the adventures in Dungeon as evidence that people want "rich intricate worlds with distinct flavors and interesting NPCs."
As you are named as an author of those, it would seem that James does not qualify (most? all?) of your work as hack-and-slash. I expect you'd need him to clarify that for you more than me.I didn't get that at all from the editorial. It seemed to me James was saying dungeon crawls without engaging plots are becoming obsolete. I think the above is an overraction.
Why is it an overreaction?
If people want the background, then why publish adventures without it?The whole concept of "dungeon crawl" comes with the implicit suggestion that there is no background, just hack. If the consumers really don't like that it would seem rather foolish to publish it, no matter the nostalgia factor.
I don't agree with the premise of your above post. You're saying that "roleplaying" adventures are bad because what if the PCs don't like the options presented them, but it's okay in hack n' slash because they HAVE NO CHOICE...they still have to fight. I don't see the point. It's like saying this sucks because what if I don't like Option A, B, C, D or E, but this is good because I even if I don't like Option A...I'll have to do it anyways. Not a strong case in my opinion.
Not at all.
If the encounter is just some monsters in a hack situation, the resolution actually remains completely open ended. You can hack them, bypass them, fast talk them, or anything else you might come up with, because the encounter is exclusively predicated on simply resolving the situation.Conversely, if the encounter is based on interacting with them, then it carries with it an obvious consequence of significant loss if you don't do so. You lose a clue, you have an unwinnable fight, or whatever other consequence is now hardwired into the adventure by virtue of establishing the encounter in that manner.
Furthermore, many interaction based encounters are directed at one type of interaction only. The player must guess just how the DM/author intends for them to deal with a particular situation.
The difference is not that a hack-based adventure requires only hacking. It is that a hack-based adventure presents the encounters as just obstacles and leaves the creation of options for resolving it to the players. Compared to that, I find your case of the DM/author presenting them with specific types of encounters where alternate resolutions are not encouraged by the presentation to be a very weak case. If you really want to tell me how to deal with this encounter, why don't I just hand you my character sheet and you can play my character for me?
If its a matter of word/page count as you suggest above, your argument is a double edged sword. If a tactical encounter is completely unsuited to my PCs I have to change the whole thing...or watch a boring TPK ensue that frustrates my players and brings the adventure to a grinding halt.
That depends on the format you use.
If we were talking about the new WotC Delve format, I'd be inclined to agree.If we are talking about the current Paizo format, not so much.
If we talk about the old 1st edition module format (such as it was), then not at all. G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief was 8 pages for 2 levels and over 50 rooms. And it had illustrations, and generous spacing. Checking the biggest and hardest encounter from the GDQ version, I get 312 words, 1,652 characters with spaces. That's too much space to "waste?"
Also, nobody is suggesting an adventure of nothing but background and interaction...James is suggesting a good mix of hack and background/interaction it seems to me. Fluff getting its well deserved due. You suggest people can make up their own fluff so don't put it in the mag...but people can make up their own crunch too. Let's put your argument on its head: Do you think anyone would buy Dungeon if it was boiled down to a list of stat blocks and tactics with no story whatsoever. I wouldn't.
Except he did predicate most of the editorial telling us hack-and-slash was dead, and that we now have role-playing.
And no, making up crunch on the spot is a lot harder than improvising fluff. I'm always amused that people who support immersion role-playing don't see the value in actually tailoring that role-play to the group, or expecting the DM will do it better.As for turning my note around, at best all you've done is prove that a book full of raw numbers won't sell any more than a book full of raw fluff. The thing is, we actually have a history of fluff light (or as some would quantify, fluff absent) material selling quite well, but no history of fluff heavy material matching it. So I think the onus is on you to prove that such materials have a sufficient market first, especially before dismissing the hack-based products.
I will end with my favorite story about hack-and-slash vs anti-hack-and-slash:
This was back over 10 years ago. I was with a group that stayed together for about 10 years total. We mostly played Champions, but at this particular point we were overloading the GM. A really great one, we just wore him down. So it was suggested we start alternating sessions, with me running AD&D every other week. At this point one players begs off of the AD&D game, claiming it is no fun because it is "All hack-and-slash." Not feeling the need to force anyone to play, I let it go, figuring it was his loss. (Claims of excessive ego aside, I know how good a game I run, and the other players all agreed.)
So we began alternating. Oh, we were also pretty hardcore number crunchers, so we didn't just play Champions, we played the system, and made it cry. We had a half-joking house rule that if you couldn't hold all the dice you were rolling for damage, you lost the rest.
As it went, two sessions of Champions later we wound up doing nothing but immersion-style role-playing of character and background development. Well over six hours of it. (Possibly more. We were all under 30 back then, and more than once played until morning.) Next week I ran AD&D, and as we were breaking and discussing plans for the next session, the player who begged off (he was hanging out playing video games) chimed in with a line that became legend with our group:
"I hope we get to do some fighting next week, last time was just a bunch of talking."
Thoroughly bemused silence reigned for a good 5 minutes.
I'll leave it to everyone to derive whatever moral they like from that story. Just keep it in mind when you consider my rants. (And reasoned expositions should I manage one of those. ;))
|
And as with every editorial - just my opinion, folks!
Hey, you gave us something to argue about. Job done.
P.S: Just in case I've accidentally killed the controversy... what do you all think about the idea that much of the remaining stigma against gamers might be the result of gamers themselves embracing and perpetuating stereotypes? I've frequently thought that, if every gamer suddenly came out of the closet and said "yeah, I game, and it's awesome - so what?", the sudden show of force might normalize our hobby overnight. So what do you think - might we just be our own biggest oppressors?
I'm fairly out, but there is a considerable amount of incomprehension about what the game entails. My beloved was very surprised when the guys showed up for a game at our place for the first time, and they weren't dressed a vikings or something simlar. And were polite and normal looking. And that we spent most of the session laughing.
So yes, as usual, ignorance breeds prejudice. But no one is actually bothered about it here (in the more religious parts of the US I can understand how it might cause possible problems) they just think it is a bit geeky. No one seems embarrassed when there are endless discussions about football (soccer to the less enlightened) but, you know, that is a majority obsession and so has much more social acceptability. So long as we remain a minority in terms of our interest, I don't see things changing much.
Oh, and if you want to be taken seriously, LARP'ing is not the way to go.
|
|
And thinking about it . . .
My gamer friends...and I have a bajillion of them from all sorts of social circles...make fun of people who don't game and tease our friends in those circles who haven't tried it...AND IT WORKS WONDERS! Suddenly these people who were like: "Huhuhuh you play dork games" are like "Can I get in on a game man?" And I'm like: "I don't know buddy, we're pretty full up...I'll see what I can do."
We call non-gamers troglodytes in MOST of my social circles (I'm talking theatre, teachers and students, university campus friends, etc.).
I guess you don't understand how utterly offensive and obnoxious this is.
You seriously believe that mocking people is a good way to recruit them into the game?
And on behalf of all my non-gamer friends, who do you think you are to call them "trogolodytes"?
There's really no polite way to comment on an attitude like that, so I'll just leave it there.
And thinking about it . . .
My gamer friends...and I have a bajillion of them from all sorts of social circles...make fun of people who don't game and tease our friends in those circles who haven't tried it...AND IT WORKS WONDERS! Suddenly these people who were like: "Huhuhuh you play dork games" are like "Can I get in on a game man?" And I'm like: "I don't know buddy, we're pretty full up...I'll see what I can do."
We call non-gamers troglodytes in MOST of my social circles (I'm talking theatre, teachers and students, university campus friends, etc.).
I guess you don't understand how utterly offensive and obnoxious this is.
You seriously believe that mocking people is a good way to recruit them into the game?
And on behalf of all my non-gamer friends, who do you think you are to call them "trogolodytes"?
There's really no polite way to comment on an attitude like that, so I'll just leave it there.
Yeah, the above about troglodytes is in light-hearted jest. And since many of our non-gamer friends don't even know what we mean, they just laugh too. It's just good humor...we've never hurt anyone's feelings with it. Sure got you riled up though didn't it. :-)
Thanks for calling me obnoxious though. Much appreciated. For someone who doesn't like presumptions (like the ones you "conclude" from James' editorial) you sure love to level them at other people my man. I promise you I'm not into hurting anyone's feelings Sam, I love my non-gamer friends just as much as my gamer friends...I just like to tease them about not playing. The way they tease me about not surfing or not doing coke. It's all in good fun.
I understand you have strong feelings on the topic here, and I respect that, but there is no reason to devolve into personal attacks based on wild assumptions that I am some sort of a*@~$+~. You can ask anyone who knows me personally on the boards and I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise...on to other more focused on the discussion replies...
Not at all.
If the encounter is just some monsters in a hack situation, the resolution actually remains completely open ended. You can hack them, bypass them, fast talk them, or anything else you might come up with, because the encounter is exclusively predicated on simply resolving the situation.
Conversely, if the encounter is based on interacting with them, then it carries with it an obvious consequence of significant loss if you don't do so. You lose a clue, you have an unwinnable fight, or whatever other consequence is now hardwired into the adventure by virtue of establishing the encounter in that manner.
Furthermore, many interaction based encounters are directed at one type of interaction only. The player must guess just how the DM/author intends for them to deal with a particular situation.
Name one encounter in any one Dungeon adventure that fits the above bill not from Prince of Redhand or Diplomacy...and please pick one of mine...I'd especially love that.
Most if not all of the good authors of my favorite mag in most if not all of the excellent adventures they write completely avoid these situations. There are always multiple ways to resolve a conflict, and hack is almost always one of them.
Want to kill Harliss in BG, go ahead, it's not that hard really, she's considerably weakened by her fight with the savage pirates, and many many groups have done so, and do you see anyone saying "BAD!" to them? No. iDon't feel like idle chit-chat with Bengen Burtuckle in Chimes at Midnight? Bust the little puss-ass dwarf's door down and beat the info out of him, he'll buckle like a fourth grader's knee with a hammer to it. Is this wrong? No, or course not. It's an adventure not a "story" as you pointed out earlier. A little backstory just gives more insight into an NPC and offers a few suggestions on how to bypass them that are frankly more interesting and tailored than a simple Diplomacy check. On the fly in a hack-adventure you could decide an orc likes cookies and if they give him one they can walk by, but then you're just having to create lots of fluff on the fly then aren't you, and IT'S COMPLETELY ARBITRARY...it's not part of the game at all. It's like suddenly deciding the orc has Power Attack and twenty more hit points...so then really this is more like a "story" (the DM just making s!+% up on the fly) then a well-written "roleplaying" adventure (an adventure with plenty o' combat, but also includes a few tips for the DM on a particular NPCs' habits/weaknesses/preferences/etc.).
I'll give you an example from one of my own adventures (though they are by far not the only ones that do this): Take a look at Chimes at Midnight and the "Rogue's Gallery" section on the bad guys...a few tips and clues on how to better track down and deal with the bad guys...do you need any of them to survive or navigate the adventure successfully? No. But they reward players who take ranks in oh, Gather Information for example, or Knowledge (local) which are part of the game just like Base Attack and Weapon Focus and should get used. We supply the tactics for dealing with a combat-focused encounter, why not supply the "tactics" for dealing with a social one too. I think this is important. What use is Perform in a pure hack adventure if you're not a bard? Should bard's be the only ones who ever use this skill...I don't think so.
Roleplaying is part of the game, so why wouldn't an adventure writer address it, as well as addressing hack, to make every player happy. That way you get to hack, the rogue with the high Charisma gets to do his thang too...everybody's happy.
No one is advocating pure "story" but to answer your response about how pure fluff doesn't sell...you are totally wrong. Novels? Movies? Do these inspire our games...frankly yes, and we all buy them and steal good fluff from them (unless you really think you're creating completely "original" games all the time).
If people want the background, then why publish adventures without it?
The whole concept of "dungeon crawl" comes with the implicit suggestion that there is no background, just hack. If the consumers really don't like that it would seem rather foolish to publish it, no matter the nostalgia factor.
Again I challenge you to name one single solitary Dungeon adventure that has NO background. Maure Castle does...and truth be told...it's very compelling in a lot of ways, even if isn't one of my favorite adventures.
These "pure" hack adventures don't exist...at least I've never seen one. And if they did...of course they would suck.
"You are in a room...there is an orc."
C'mon, I want to at least know where I am and why I went there. Even if its just "cool treasure" of "old dead lich king What'sHisNut." If I don't even have that, I don't want to play. Do you?
And no, making up crunch on the spot is a lot harder than improvising fluff.
Not for me. I often run a game with nothing but my dice and it's pretty easy to guestimate the Base Atk, AC and hp of an NPC. Or maybe you didn't read Monte Cook's Dungeoncraft on this subject...it's great stuff. I run with nothing but the MM all the time and my adventures include 10th level orc blackguards, and vampire queen wizards. Gimme a break we play this game all the time like we can't crunch some simple numbers in our head and just play it out.
Here's a good tip: I like a good nemesis for a PC. So here's what I do. I make them of fairly equal level to the character they are matched up with and of a comparable class. Now I have the PC's character sheet right there in front of me (and no Sam, I'm not playing their character for them) so there you have it...most of the calculations done already, quickly decide your baddy is little more Dexterous, but not as Strong and adjust accordingly and quickly decide he fights with a cool icy burst rapier (no pun intended) and you can run an adventure for fourteenth level players on the spot with no stats, nothing but the MM for non humanoid-leveled-NPC monsters to toss in the mix. Nothing else but your wits, Sam.
This is the stuff of Iron Dungeonmaster. Every year I run it, and every year the players have a balls-out good time and very few of the winning DMs bother with detailed crunch-stat-blocks, they play it a little fast and loose but pretty on-target (cause they know the game so well). But you know what...they focus plenty on the Fluff during the hour they have to prepare. The fluff is what wins the event for them, not the kewl monster-stat-block they spent time on.
Crunch is just as easy as Fluff if you ask me.
Why did my post disappear(was about at #47)? Logue cited it and his citation is still there? Go figure...
[
Again I challenge you to name one single solitary Dungeon adventure that has NO background. Maure Castle does...and truth be told...it's very compelling in a lot of ways, even if isn't one of my favorite adventures.These "pure" hack adventures don't exist...at least I've never seen one. And if they did...of course they would suck.
"You are in a room...there is an orc."
C'mon, I want to at least know where I am and why I went there. Even if its just "cool treasure" of "old dead lich king What'sHisNut." If I don't even have that, I don't want to play. Do you?
The Orc has Pie. What other reason do you need?
Personally I don't understand the conflict that developed on this thread. It seems there are far more presumptions being proposed by the "Enemies of James Sutter" than his editorial brings up. You are tossing some pretty inflammatory presumptions out yourselves. Like these:
A) People who like to get into character need therapy. C'mon Allen, this is totally baseless, unkind and lacking compassion for those people out there who really do need therapy (equating this fun game we play to serious mental health issues...bad idea)...Now me, I figured you were kidding, but with Sam taking so much offense to my troglodytes comment, maybe I should be all bent out of sorts about this therapy thing. Nah. I won't be. :-)
B) These "New Era" gamers are all about the hubris. C'mon Sam, I stand on the shoulders of giants that came before me and I have never suggested otherwise. I don't think anyone else who writes for Dungeon has bad-mouthed the great oldies either, so why are you hurling "hubris" at us. You see boogey men where they don't exist my man. I love the game, I love the classics (White Plume Mountain and Castle Caldwell remain among my very favorite adventures...not my favorite "classic" adventures, my FAVORITE adventures). So get out of my craw already, we're on the same side. Look at my adventures man...plenty of hack...and more (as Sutter pointed out). What's the big deal already? Personally I don't see much of a difference between us "New Era" guys and these so called "Old Era" gamers. Except that you fear us for some strange reason...we're not aliens, we are just like you...but younger. ;-)
"New Era" gamers did not invent role-playing. We had it way back in 1979 when I started, and I'm sure none of us invented it. And while I am sure they are all proud of writing good adventures, they need to keep it in perspective, and not presume they've invented the best thing since high impact dice.
Which one of us Dungeon "roleplaying" writers ever said we invented roleplaying? Who said this? Tell me. Who's presuming we've invented the best thing since high impact dice? Not me, buddy. You're the one making the presumptions here. So stop already. Unless you like to get your mad on about things...if so, happy I could oblige by being an innocent bystander.
Why did my post disappear(was about at #47)? Logue cited it and his citation is still there? Go figure...
I think our posts are sometimes invisible to us. It is a higher mystery. :-)
My post where I cite you is gone on my screen, but yours is still there. Twilight Zone like, eh?
[
Again I challenge you to name one single solitary Dungeon adventure that has NO background. Maure Castle does...and truth be told...it's very compelling in a lot of ways, even if isn't one of my favorite adventures.These "pure" hack adventures don't exist...at least I've never seen one. And if they did...of course they would suck.
"You are in a room...there is an orc."
C'mon, I want to at least know where I am and why I went there. Even if its just "cool treasure" of "old dead lich king What'sHisNut." If I don't even have that, I don't want to play. Do you?
The Orc has Pie. What other reason do you need?
Now that is some good backstory! Pie is awesome! I'm gonna cut that stupid evil orc in half and claim victory! :-)
Why did my post disappear(was about at #47)? Logue cited it and his citation is still there? Go figure...I think our posts are sometimes invisible to us. It is a higher mystery. :-)
My post where I cite you is gone on my screen, but yours is still there. Twilight Zone like, eh?
...magical pollution
When I was a punk and my brother DMed (1980-88), modules had little backstory. He made it all up himself. We (my characters) lived in a tenement in the City State of the Invincible Overload, had enemies, took jobs, and backstory just came.
People want it, if its not there they make it up for themselves.
When I was a punk and my brother DMed (1980-88), modules had little backstory. He made it all up himself. We (my characters) lived in a tenement in the City State of the Invincible Overload, had enemies, took jobs, and backstory just came.
People want it, if its not there they make it up for themselves.
They do want it...why not help em out. It really ain't that big a deal to be honest. Most of the Dungeon adventures I enjoy are a good mix of story with PLENTY of combat. It's not like there is a dearth of good tactical fights on the market for the sake of all that's holy. It takes so freaking long to play out a tactical encounter anyways, how many do you need?
|
|
Yeah, the above about troglodytes is in light-hearted jest. And since many of our non-gamer friends don't even know what we mean, they just laugh too. It's just good humor...we've never hurt anyone's feelings with it. Sure got you riled up though didn't it. :-)
Ah, so all I have to do is be light-hearted and I can get any with any derogatory term I want?
As long as I laugh about it, I can just dismiss your attitude as the typical absurdity of an ivory tower twit who has been hanging out with his cokehead friends a bit too much?Well hey, I'm sure it is all cool then. No way it could actually come across poorly.
As for devolving into personal attacks, you already did that. Not on me, but on my friends. You may hold yours in such low esteem, but I don't.
Extremism, or All-things-in-moderation?
Given the way the world is, which route is best for _anything_?
People who don't like ROLEplaying, should either play D&D Minis (that's why it exists) or just play the adventures and ignore the so-called "fluff". Either way, don't try to impose your extremism on the rest of us by suggesting Dungeon should cater only to your extreme.
LIKEWISE neither should adventures in Dungeon be _only_ roleplaying with (little, to) no combat, and those who want nothing _but_ RP should not attempt to change Dungeon in that direction. There should be balance.
In the end, the market will decide for us. if the majority of readers demand Hack N Slash or threaten to stop buying, Dungeon will change in that direction. As long as the money is in the status quo, it will remain the same.
If Hack N Slashers don't like the RPing, they are welcome to start their own (maybe online?) magazine. if it takes readers away from Dungeon such that Dungeon can't manage, obviously the HnS'ers will be proven right, and again the market will correct itself.
Might I respectully suggest that both Nick and Sam take a break from this thread?
This is devolving to the level of discourse found on the Circvus Maximvs or Nutkinland, and while I might enjoy all out flame fests in those venues, I come here for intelligent, reasonable discourse.
|
|
Name one encounter in any one Dungeon adventure that fits the above bill not from Prince of Redhand or Diplomacy...and please pick one of mine...I'd especially love that.
I would Nick if -
You could show me where I ever suggested that was a specific problem in Dungeon adventures in general, or any Dungeon adventures specifically.You posed the situation as one of design theory in general, and I replied to it on the basis of design theory in general.
That the editors of Dungeon are competent enough in overseeing adventures so that problem doesn't arise proves more about their ability than it does about the design issues.
Again I challenge you to name one single solitary Dungeon adventure that has NO background. Maure Castle does...and truth be told...it's very compelling in a lot of ways, even if isn't one of my favorite adventures.
These "pure" hack adventures don't exist...at least I've never seen one. And if they did...of course they would suck.
And again, I will be happy to do so -
As soon as you show me where I ever suggested that any Dungeon adventure has NO background.As I haven't, I don't see any reason I should try proving something I don't believe.
Not for me. I often run a game with nothing but my dice and it's pretty easy to guestimate the Base Atk, AC and hp of an NPC. Or maybe you didn't read Monte Cook's Dungeoncraft on this subject...it's great stuff. I run with nothing but the MM all the time and my adventures include 10th level orc blackguards, and vampire queen wizards. Gimme a break we play this game all the time like we can't crunch some simple numbers in our head and just play it out.
Great. I typically run with nothing more than a map and some idea of what I'd like the players to do that session. I'll pick critters based on a theme, and improvise everything from the encounters to the interactions based on whatever the players decide to do.
The thing is, we aren't talking about running our personal games, we are talking about running published adventures. These must, by definition, provide something significantly different. That means fully defined encounters. And that means fully defined hack, if needed.
"Oh, and if the PCs decide not to talk this NPC, just make up some stats for them to hack on."
Are you suggesting that would qualify as good published adventure writing?
Conversely:
"Oh, and if the PCs want to talk to this NPC, he has some general information about the next few rooms, and is easier to Intimidate than Bluff."
Hmmm . . .
You are tossing some pretty inflammatory presumptions out yourselves. Like these:
A) People who like to get into character need therapy.
Yes, that is pretty absurd. Almost as bad as numerous comments about hack-and-slasher not knowing how to play the game, or having their own agression issues they need to deal with. I guess you've never seen any comments like those, so you wouldn't understand why people would reply along the same lines.
Of course, it might just be a light-hearted jest. I'm sure Allen wasn't really trying to prescribe medical treatment for you, so it must have been humorous and not meant to hurt your feelings. Why take it so personally?These "New Era" gamers are all about the hubris. C'mon Sam, I stand on the shoulders of giants that came before me and I have never suggested otherwise.
Once again, please show where I suggested otherwise about you.
So you aren't. Awesome! Again, I've seen more than my share of my comments from people who sneer at anyone who played D&D before 1990 because we knew nothing but the hack, and couldn't possibly have managed to role-play on any level.Which one of us Dungeon "roleplaying" writers ever said we invented roleplaying?
Which one of my posts ever dropped one of you Dungeon "roleplaying" writers off in the category of "New Era" gamers?
The problem Nick, is that it seems you just want to take everything I say solely as a personal attack, and not general statements referring to unnamed third parties, almost certainly not present at all.
I was referring to general attitudes, of which statements about what D&D is "becoming" in respect to role-playing are emblematic of.
You also seem to be significantly lacking in any idea of what sort of design I support.
You can ask any of the people who know me just how dismissive I have been of the absurd hero-worship of old adventures, as well as the equally absurd scorn heaped on them. I've pointed out time and again to both sides that there is considerable background in the old adventures, even gratuitous hackfests like the G series, as well as treasure levels being just as "excessive" as they are in modern adventures. I find the extreme partisans of both to be equally oblivious to the basic content of the material they are so eager to mock.
I am also a big supporter of more "realism" (although I expect "pseudo-realism" would be a better term) in background and adventure development. As in the thread on the drug trade in Exag, or the origins of Sasserine, if the background doesn't hold together, everything suffers, and defaulting to "It's magic!" is a poor basis for design, resulting in the destruction of any ability to suspend belief for the fantastic elements of the game.
And I am a big supporter of the concept I describe as "Secrets Rot." Adventure hooks for a setting are grand things, but if you never actually do anything with them, sooner or later players are going to get tired of waiting and do their own thing with them. That isn't a bad thing by default, but sometimes a company will move on, and then the hook may wind up as the next Doomgrinder.
So maybe you need to do just a bit of checking before you decide you know everything about someone because you decide to take everything too personally.
Be nice, folks. I wanted to stir the ants' nest, not start a fistfight. Any personal attacks from here on out might get you removed from the discussion, and nobody wants that.
Just throwing this out there.
Is it easier for a dungeonmaster to fit a crunch piece into his home campaign and make up his own fluffy bits,or...
to fit a fluff piece into his own campaign.
(not meaning to diminish the importance of roleplaying by calling it fluff)
Personally, I find it easier if I have a canvas of crunch and can paint my own fluff over the top. I find both very important to a compelling game, but the fluff is less tedious and easier for me to come up with on my own.
Sam, you're misunderstanding me completely, and jumping in my grill for no reason.
In my social circles we, those of us who game, call our OTHER FRIENDS WHO DO NOT GAME in these social circles troglodytes as a joke...one which they enjoy. Just like they call us "dorks" and we laugh about it.
I am not calling your friends troglodytes, so chill out.
I don't have coke-head friends, that was a joke. I tend to not like coke-heads. I was joking around.
I don't live in an ivory tower either. A s~#!ty little one bedroom apartment.
Are you done summing me up as an obnoxious, drug-o-fied, elitist now, or would you like to continue? Cause I'm really enjoying this.
I completely think gamers are their own oppressors. Stop wearing so much black, growing strange beards and weirding out to death metal. Okay okay it's an identity thing and I did it as well once upon a time, but it's a hell of a stereotype that's difficult to shake.
|
|
I read the editorial, and all I can say is much ado about nothing sums it up. I can't get all knee jerky about a kid (no offense intended but I was in high school when Ghostbusters came out...) honestly lays down the way he sees things. It's an angle I'm not hip to at this point in life, and it's always nice to hear what people think about things.
I also can't get all excited that he thinks we were all about the hackin and slashin and countin the loot back in the days, because he wasn't there per se to know entirely what he's talking about, and it doesn't seem like he's saying that anyway. Truth be told, if it was just about the hackin and slashin back in the day, and that's dealt with NOW by MMORPG's, I think it would follow that the old salts would be able to get their fix with Diablo II and to hell with pen and paper gaming...
Finally, I'm not entirely sure that Mr. Sutter's generation is entirely composed of "roleplayers;" it seems a lot of younger folks are hackin and slashin it up on the WoW, but I'm not entirely sure I know what I'm talking about.
Surf madness!!!
I really should, you're right! I like the mountains here more than the beach though so I like to hike on those rare occasions I get spare time. But before I leave I should try to catch a wave just once!
The way they tease me about not surfingMy image of Logue has just completely collapsed.
LOL!
The way they tease me about not surfingWait a minute...you don't surf?
[Stomps off grumbling to create new baseless mental image of Logue.]
DOUBLE LOL!
The way they tease me about not surfingMy image of Logue has just completely collapsed.I'm confused. Don't they kick you off the island if you don't surf.
They keep trying Sebastian...they keep trying...
;-)
So maybe you need to do just a bit of checking before you decide you know everything about someone because you decide to take everything too personally.
I never said I knew everything about you. Where are you getting all this from. I just asked for examples of a Dungeon adventure encounter fitting the design flaw you claimed existed in a "roleplaying" adventure. How is that judging you? I really wasn't.
Once again, please show where I suggested otherwise about you.
So you aren't. Awesome! Again, I've seen more than my share of my comments from people who sneer at anyone who played D&D before 1990 because we knew nothing but the hack, and couldn't possibly have managed to role-play on any level.
This is my bad. Considering I'm named in the article as one of these "New Era" gamers I assumed you were leveling the hubris comment at me. But I do still have a question:
Who are you talking about? I don't know anyone like this. I'm not saying I don't believe you...but up here in my ivory tower with my twitty-wits I must not get out much, or be capable of conversations with people...because I don't have these kinds of encounters with haters. Do you think its possible you provoke these reactions from people by being the initiator of conflict? Just asking, cause you sure do like to sling negativity around, from my limited experience with you on this thread. If that is an unfair picture of you, I apologize in advance.
The problem Nick, is that it seems you just want to take everything I say solely as a personal attack
Actually no I didn't. I asked you questions to clarify who you were talking about, cause I don't personally know any of these haughty "New Era" gamers. Read my posts. I said "Who is saying this? Not me?" Not "Why are you calling me names Sam!!! WHY!!!" I didn't think you were attacking me until you called me obnoxious, which was obviously your misunderstanding my use of "troglodytes" among my own personal friends, and assuming I call your friends the same thing...so I'm not offended.
The Ivory Tower Twit stuff, that was really funny, though I don't think you meant it to be.
I read the editorial, and all I can say is much ado about nothing sums it up.
I totally agree. I don't know where the hostility of some posters against the editorial is coming from. Which is why I started posting...but I just seem to scare em even more somehow, and get them to beat the drum louder.
No offense too Sam, but you've strayed so far from your original points that I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore. If you reread your first few posts about the editorial, they seem to be about how you don't like the direction stated in the "editorial" and then you turn around and say there are no Dungeon adventures that fit the design flaws you propose are problematic with "roleplaying" advenutres. So really there is nothing to discuss or worry about is there. Let's let it lie. Sorry if I gave offense. I certainly didn't mean to.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The way they tease me about not surfingMy image of Logue has just completely collapsed.I'm confused. Don't they kick you off the island if you don't surf.
They keep trying Sebastian...they keep trying...
;-)
Cowabunga!
Also, Nick, as a long time troll with some significant combat experience, can I just say you really want to consolidate your posts. It's hard to follow which point you are countering and whether you are apologizing, counterpunching, or throwing sand in the eyes.
Now get back out there!
*Round 3*
Thanks for the tip Sebastian! I'm new to these internets still and I don't know the ettiquette. I'll consolidate from now on!
::readies shield and casts remove ivory-twit on self::
Phew, ok guys take some deep breaths. I'm pretty sure you agree with each other anyway.
D&D is not a miniatures combat game. Neither is it a storytelling session. I think we can all agree that it lies somewhere between those two extremes. I think that we can also agree that the point on the continuum where it is the most fun for each individual varies by quite a bit.
There is a stereotype out there that "older" gamers prefer more "hack" and "younger" gamers prefer more "story." Like many stereotypes, it probably has some grain of truth in there somewhere. But, also like many stereotypes, it is certainly vastly overstated.
Dungeon has the luxury of being able to provide a wide variety of adventures to support vastly different styles of game play. I like to think we give everyone what they want eventually, but I'm probably wrong. In any case, we (or at least I) understand that dungeons and hack & slash have their place, just as much as murder mysteries and story driven encounters. It doesn't have to be one or the other after all.
Finally, I want to add that I've met Nick personally a few times, and I like to think I know him at least a little, but in general I never take anything he says very seriously. So keep that in mind when you read his posts. ;)
Phew, ok guys take some deep breaths. I'm pretty sure you agree with each other anyway.
D&D is not a miniatures combat game. Neither is it a storytelling session. I think we can all agree that it lies somewhere between those two extremes. I think that we can also agree that the point on the continuum where it is the most fun for each individual varies by quite a bit.
There is a stereotype out there that "older" gamers prefer more "hack" and "younger" gamers prefer more "story." Like many stereotypes, it probably has some grain of truth in there somewhere. But, also like many stereotypes, it is certainly vastly overstated.
Dungeon has the luxury of being able to provide a wide variety of adventures to support vastly different styles of game play. I like to think we give everyone what they want eventually, but I'm probably wrong. In any case, we (or at least I) understand that dungeons and hack & slash have their place, just as much as murder mysteries and story driven encounters. It doesn't have to be one or the other after all.
Well put. I totally agree.
Finally, I want to add that I've met Nick personally a few times, and I like to think I know him at least a little, but in general I never take anything he says very seriously. So keep that in mind when you read his posts. ;)
Even better put. :-)
P.S. I did it Sebastian! I consolidated my post! See you can teach an ivory tower twit a few new tricks! Go me!!! :-)
Finally, I want to add that I've met Nick personally a few times, and I like to think I know him at least a little, but in general I never take anything he says very seriously. So keep that in mind when you read his posts. ;)
I think any sane minded person that misinterpreted Nick's posts would be doing so as a deliberate action, and I'm not sure how sane that would actually be.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
P.S. I did it Sebastian! I consolidated my post! See you can teach an ivory tower twit a few new tricks! Go me!!! :-)
Yeah right. I'll believe it when I come back here in an hour and don't see 3-4 more posts each of which respond to Jeremy in a different way.
And damnit, where's the Ace? You would think that he and I would be good for some feuding on this topic. Let me summarize:
Ace: Story is the most important element, shared reality, literature on gaming.
Sebastian: Story is only good so long as I get to kill orcs. And follow rules. I like rules.
Ace: Rules should support game.
Sebastian: KILL ORCS!!!
That should do it. Let me know if I misrepresented your side of the debate Ace.
|
|
This is my bad. Considering I'm named in the article as one of these "New Era" gamers I assumed you were leveling the hubris comment at me. But I do still have a question:
Who are you talking about? I don't know anyone like this.
Try the WotC boards. If you do some digging you'll find a nice thread in the New Releases forum where several people decide they just have to prove that "old time gaming" (some mystical time before the middle of 2nd edition apparently) contained absolutely no role-playing, and that anyone who played back then had to have been hacking-and-slashing.
If the old Planescape mailing list still existed I'd point you at the regularly expressed attitude there that role-playing was only properly expressed within the Factions of Sigil, and that anything else was just a pale imitation.If you don't know anyone like that you are lucky. I encounter them regularly, and typically wind up having them frenzy on me when I dare to suggest there is more to gaming than immersion role-playing, and that yes, we were capable of playing pretend back in the primitive years of the 1980s.
Yes, that is pretty absurd. Almost as bad as numerous comments about hack-and-slasher not knowing how to play the game, or having their own agression issues they need to deal with. I guess you've never seen any comments like those, so you wouldn't understand why people would reply along the same lines.
Of course, it might just be a light-hearted jest. I'm sure Allen wasn't really trying to prescribe medical treatment for you, so it must have been humorous and not meant to hurt your feelings. Why take it so personally?
I didn't take it personally. I assumed it was a light-hearted poke...I said that in my response...you just didn't bother to quote that part.
I have never heard comments about hack-and-slashers not knowing how to play the game, or having agression issues, and I don't believe they do. I think they like the tactics and strategy and the idea of advancing their character. But what do I know? I wouldn't presume anything about them except that sometimes I am one.
I think Jeremy's point is loud and clear. Sam, you and I agree more than disagree.
Try the WotC boards. If you do some digging you'll find a nice thread in the New Releases forum where several people decide they just have to prove that "old time gaming" (some mystical time before the middle of 2nd edition apparently) contained absolutely no role-playing, and that anyone who played back then had to have been hacking-and-slashing.
If the old Planescape mailing list still existed I'd point you at the regularly expressed attitude there that role-playing was only properly expressed within the Factions of Sigil, and that anything else was just a pale imitation.
Fair enough. I never read those boards (except the Eberron one) and I believe you. I would say those people expressing those views are pig-headed who want to proclaim other people's fun "bad-wrong!" And that's not cool in my book. It's a game people should play it any way they like.
If you don't know anyone like that you are lucky. I encounter them regularly, and typically wind up having them frenzy on me when I dare to suggest there is more to gaming than immersion role-playing, and that yes, we were capable of playing pretend back in the primitive years of the 1980s.
I am pretty lucky. I find most gamers I associate with to be really personable fun folk without too much bad to say about one another. My group out in Hawai'i is a mix bag of hack-n-slashers, immersion roleplayers, and indie game narrativist proponents. What I love is that D&D can satisfy them all. They have good times, even though they are out for different things and a good adventure can offer good faire for everyone. That's all I try for when I design. I don't always succeed. If a "hack-n-slasher" can't enjoy an adventure I wrote, then I see that as a personal failure on my part. I don't blame them for their favored style of play.
As one of the old guard I have to say that when I played first edition back in the 70's and 80's with scores of groups, roleplaying was certainly a factor--except when it wasn't ;). However the adventures back then did not, in my opinion, possess even a pittance of the story logic and fresh-baked roleplaying goodness as the product we're seeing these days. The gamewriting has matured and improved.
I'm anything but new-era and that's my opinion. If anyone wants to point to the module in question I have 'em all here. It's not that there was a shortage of roleplaying back in the day, it's just that the new adventures make it easier to get there with less DM homework.
If a younger guy thinks the old days sucked, that would make sense... he was probably playing with kids his age while we were playing with men. Truth be told, if you started me off with D&D version 3.5 at age six and then let me progress to dodgy ol' first edition by age 30, I can guarantee you that I'd make more of the latter. There's something to be said here for experience.