In the most recent issue of Dungeon, #146, Assistant Editor James L. Sutter, states in the editors column, that "hack-n-slash is dead." I have noticed this regretable viewpoint held by some posters that hack & slash and "dungeon crawls" are not wanted in the magazine. I would encourage my fellow 'old school' players to make their preferences known. Please help Mr. Sutter to see the errors of his ways. "Hack & Slash" and "Dungeon Crawls" are what this game was built on, and you wouldn't have a game were it not for hack and slash. I think that we need to continue to honor the traditions of the game, (and to appeal to those who have supported it for years and still want this type of adventure/content). I'm not advocating for banning all of the "Role-playing" adventures. I would merely like a reasonably even split between the two (preferably with Greyhawk content:).
Hack and Slash is clearly not dead. Goodman Games, the Knights of the Dinner Table comic, and other producers of Hack & Slash material does not appear to be shutting down. For those of you who want Shakespearean drama or role-playing "self-discovery" sessions where you 'get in touch with your character', (in your Dungeon magazines to the exclusion of Hack & Slash/Dungeon Crawls), please consider your local acting club, nearest psychologist, or go to the next Renissance festival dressed in your newest "outfit".
For those of you who want Shakespearean drama or role-playing "self-discovery" sessions where you 'get in touch with your character', (in your Dungeon magazines to the exclusion of Hack & Slash/Dungeon Crawls), please consider your local acting club, nearest psychologist, or go to the next Renissance festival dressed in your newest "outfit".
You see for me, the drama is what makes the hack more fun. I love me some hack n' slash...but after I've killed the 142nd faceless, nameless, meaningless orc...I get bored. The fights I remember are the ones against foes I've spent solid "roleplaying" and "story" time building up to. I also don't see a difference between "hack" and "roleplay." The battle scenes in most adventures I run and play in are all about the "roleplaying."
I don't think hack n' slash is dead, but I do think the game can evolve to meld both hack n' slashy and roleplayingy elements in order to strengthen both - I usually can't stand a deep immersion session if there is NO combat...I get just as bored with that unless the game is really well-run, well-played by everyone at the table and is about intrigue and political machinations (in truth, I've played a lot of Shadowrun games that were really really combat lite and enjoyed them, but no so much with D&D).
Oh, and acting is really not an experience akin to an intense roleplaying session by the way. A deep immersion roleplaying session (punctuated with high thrills and action) is much much more fun in my opinion, and I've been acting and doing improv on stage since I was 14.
Also, it has NOTHING to do with psycho-therapy, Allen. At least not for my friends and I. I promise you. It's fun to roleplay and get into character because it is revealing about society ills, the beauty of human weakness and strength in the face of adversity, and of most importantly because hilarious situations ensue. I am not a method actor, and I don't try to become my character...I perform him/her/it and make decisions that I find telling about life and the world, and dramatically interesting because it is entertaining. I like to laugh not cry when I am roleplaying. Just my two cents. Oh, and I've never been to therapy...or a Renaissance Festival for that matter...well okay, once when I was sixteen...and I didn't inhale!!! ;-)
Yeah, man. Roleplaying is for sad, pathetic whiners that can't get enough of their therapists or for those effeminate drama kids in high school that love running around in panty hose pretending to be elves and calling everyone "milord". What a bunch of losers. And those people are probably all gay. Nothing against gays, but they're totally gay. Barbarians are the only real class to play. Sure, you need a thief and a cleric and crap, but we call those "sidekicks". Those are reserved for stupid newbs that don't realize that if you want to win at D&D, you've got to play a totally sweet barbarian. Don't be fooled by crap like "plot" or "non-player characters". They're just things for your barbarian to totally waste with his greatsword. And if your DM gets mad, you're totally winning. He's just jealous of how much fun you're having.
Seriously, though. "Old school" D&D, 500+ room dungeons with nothing tying them together or any kind of real purpose is boring as hell. Something like Maure Castle would probably be the most boring session of D&D I could possibly run. Not to say that I don't like combat or exciting locations, but I just find that my players and I have a lot more fun when there's a reason for them. I'm very much heartened by the balance that the editorial staff and contributing authors have struck in the last few years. The Savage Tide and Erik Mona's excellent Whispering Cairn for instance. Hack and slash in the right volume without sacrificing story or roleplaying potential. My players and I would much rather have colorful characters to interact with, an evocative mood and smart adventure design with sporadic combats than methodically moving room to room, killing and looting and then moving on.
The reason we stay with D&D is obviously because we like to roll dice to see if we can kill an imaginary creature based on statistics. On the other hand, when all you do is go from room to room, dealing with various tactical problems and rolling dice, the game gets really boring.
In my group we tend to be pretty well split between combat and number crunching and good old fashion role playing. I wouldn't care enough about my character to keep playing and getting levels and the like if I didn't have a character concept and a chance to play that character in the game, and I wouldn't enjoy DMing if every major encounter that I ran was a straight combat encounter.
The latest D&D podcast has some really interesting discussion on dungeons and dungeon design, and what makes for a fun and memorable dungeon, and why dungeons continue to be popular. I think that everyone needs some time to just kill things and roll dice, and they also need some time to get a handle on who their character is.
I think its just a matter of what the ratios of these elements are.
I thought it was a great editorial. If *all* you want is H&S, then D&D doesnt' fill the need very well. Much too slow. WoW and Halo do a much better job of that.
Now, having said that, Mr. Sutter doesn't say we should remove all combat from the game. He simply notes that if D&D were to concern itself with just H&S it would die as there are better fixes for that. He says that D&D has to provide things *in addition to* the H&S. He's hit the nail squarely on the head.
Whatever they call what they've been doing in Dungeon for the last couple of years...yeah, keep doing that.
~Qualidar~
|
The editorial sounds like an attempt to create an appeal self as authority.
"Hack-and-slash is dead! How do I know? Because I don't publish it anymore!"
Yeah, right.
What makes it worse is that he wants to ignore the evidence he has to the contrary. Dungeon crawls on are on top, but oh yeah, people like the other stuff too!
So what will the plan be? Marginalize the dungeon crawls more and more until they are gone and hope nobody notices?
The real problem with too much "role-playing" in adventures is that too often it takes the form of playing the parts the author has set forth rather than playing the parts of the characters the players have created.
What happens to an otherwise great adventure when the players simply don't like the interaction choices they have been given? If they don't like the tactical situation, they still have to deal with a fight like any other fight. But if they just don't like any NPCs involved, or if they prefer the "wrong" one by the author's preference, the whole adventures is very likely to be blown completely.
Yes, the DM can just change things. But on that account, the author can easily spend the word/page count on more hack-and-slash meat, and the DM can insert whatever role-playing garnish he feels like from the start.
The reverse is not true though. If an adventure were presented as nothing but background and interaction with no combat at all, does anyone really expect that it would work?
Whatever they call what they've been doing in Dungeon for the last couple of years...yeah, keep doing that.
~Qualidar~
I think the adventures are easily customizable to whatever desired level of hack and slash and/or role-playing that is preferred in the individual DM's campaign. The adventures, even the AP ones, are not that rigid that they can't be tweaked or even pulled apart.
If you can't do that and HAVE to play them exactly as written, then you're stuck with what they publish I guess, but even a half page of notes to adjust an adventure to your campaign can make them come alive just for you. Adding or removing hack and slash to/from any adventure isn't that big a deal.
The editorial sounds like an attempt to create an appeal self as authority.
"Hack-and-slash is dead! How do I know? Because I don't publish it anymore!" Yeah, right.
I disagree with your interpretation, Samuel.
|
I thought James' editorial was wishful thinking. LARP'ing in the quad - even I think that is geeky. He mixes with people professionally who share his world view, so naturally it will seem mainstream. I mix with loads of accountants - none of us think we are geeky either.
And with the exception of Diplomacy, most Dungeon adventures very heavily favour carving up the bad-guys with metal implements as the means to problem solving. And Diplomacy also contains combat.
I believe in a good balance of Roll and roleplay. I prefer a little bit more of the hack'n'slash to the role playing aspect though. Hack'n'Slash is definately NOT Dead, nor will it be "stone dead in a minute".
Any D&D adventure run by any competent DM can be altered to fit the group's preferred play style. Example: My Forgotten Realms group prefers intrigue and mysteries than straight up hack n' slash. Consequently, I don't do as much combat. My local Savage Tide group I'm not as familiar with to their play style, so I go light on the intrigue and try to focus more on action.
Either style is valid and both can be enjoyable - it's a matter of learning yours (and your group's) preferred playing style.
Aw, stop being so hard on the young fella!
Editorials, as most of us know, are just a little soapbox to air some opinions, what's on the editor's mind, some inside info on the magazine's contents, or just shoot the shtuff.
As expected, some people will nod their heads while others will... well... post on a messageboard forum that they vehemently disagree.
If we're handing out our "professional gamer" opinions, then I would have to disagree that hack n' slash is dead, but I think that the point James almost made is that the game has become much more than simply walking around slaughtering everything that moves. It's much more accessible for people that demand more out of their gaming experience - role-playing being one of the main aspects.
As a DM I strive for a perfect balance of both hack n' slash and role-playing. It's much more satisfying to slay your enemy when it's personal and you have a bit more invested in a combat than a d20 and some combat stats on a piece of paper. YMMV
I agree that respondants should cut poor Mr. Sutter some slack. I completely understand the point he was trying to make and it was a valid one. OTOH, he *did* overstate the whole "death" of hack-n-slash thing and overstating the facts is dangerous even when only expressing one's personal opinion. So in that vein, he deserves a little spanking from us faithful readers who hold our soapbox speakers to a slightly higher standard. (Don't worry, James, it doesn't mean we don't love you!)
he deserves a little spanking from us
Not it!
|
|
If we're handing out our "professional gamer" opinions, then I would have to disagree that hack n' slash is dead, but I think that the point James almost made is that the game has become much more than simply walking around slaughtering everything that moves. It's much more accessible for people that demand more out of their gaming experience - role-playing being one of the main aspects.
Well there's the thing, I don't think the game has become anything different from what it has always been. There's always been role-playing in it for me, and I haven't needed anyone to add it to the adventures, or other products, for it to be there.
There's a hubris to that presumption that I find offensive. I know that most of those professing it take offense when I turn it around and suggest that perhaps it is only their gaming that was missing this role-playing, and only a lack on their part that they require someone else to provide it.
"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.
Well there's the thing, I don't think the game has become anything different from what it has always been. There's always been role-playing in it for me, and I haven't needed anyone to add it to the adventures, or other products, for it to be there.
There's a hubris to that presumption that I find offensive. I know that most of those professing it take offense when I turn it around and suggest that perhaps it is only their gaming that was missing this role-playing, and only a lack on their part that they require someone else to provide it.
"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.
QFT
That is definitely the case for my own games as well.
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.
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. Where hack n' slash was once the height of our gaming experience, it is now not quite as exciting or satisfying. Players are discovering that the RP side of the game that has been kind of glossed over for so many years is actually just as fun (and in some opinions even funner) than the combative part of the game.
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.
My experience tracks yours, Steve. In my teens, hack and slash ruled. In my twenties, pure combat adventures with little character development or roleplaying dulled. Now I'm a DM in my early forties with a group of players, three men and four women, all around my age. They won't play unless I can promise a rousing story. Two back-to-back sessions with little but combat and I get lots of no-shows (both men and women) for the third session.
On the other hand, a multi-layered, compelling storyline flooded with atmosphere and meaningful-but-unexpected plot turns engages my players thoroughly. They crave roleplaying opportunities with fascinating characters between set pieces of wild bloodshed -- combat, but combat with emotions invested. They want to feel like they're creating -- living in -- a top-flight motion picture, whether it's a mystery, a horror story, or an action flick. After a session or two like that, I get endless emails from the group asking when we'll play again.
I think age is a significant factor in this. As we mature, we need more levels of engagement, more complexity, and more variety. Whacking goblins was great in my youth. Today, to get the same cherry-red high whacking a goblin, I need that goblin to have meaning. I need him to have brought to fruition a plot against my kin, soiled my family name, evaded my clutches twice, and be holding my sister hostage. My sister. The last of my line other than me. Now I'm ready. Loose the blood and thunder. Now I remember what it means to kill.
By the way, I disagree with the notion that an adventure with little story but lots of combat is more useful than an adventure with lots of story but little combat. Combat is easy to add. I can grab a monster or two from a book and toss them in with little preparation. And these days it seems you can't swing a dead meenlock without hitting a nifty stat block. But without a well-crafted storyline, I'm sunk.
Of course, everyone's group is different. To my mind, DUNGEON balances story with battle beautifully. If the story is more important to me, and the combat is more important to you, we can each snatch from the text the portions we like.
"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.
Yes, well said, Samuel. I don't think James was trying to come across as the inventor of the best thing since high impact dice, though. I think he purposely went a little "over the top" with his editorial. Raise a few eyebrows, ruffle a few feathers...it's just an editorial after all. I don't think he has a problem with stirring up a bunch of old crotchety role-playing veterans.
There's a thread at ENWorld where the OP says he wishes AoW had more RP and that the first five adventures were tied together better and told the players what their PCs are doing.
Huh? I had no problems like that at all. Is there a whole lot of actual scripted RP encounters in the first 5 AoW adventures? Not really, but the potential is enormous, especially with the DL backdrop. We had sessions where there was more roleplying than combat, and some of it even led to smaller side quests.
I guess the point is, there's as much RP in a a game as the DM wants, even if it's not explicitly listed out in Event X of Adventure Y. And that's better I think. Having statblocks explicitly printed for combat encounters is necessary, but a short write up of NPCs and their motivation is good enough to get the RP going.
I'm not that old.
I am ;)
"I'm not that old."I am ;)
I wrote that. But I deleted it because I am "that crotchety". The negative pregant was too poignant.
Man, I wish I could get my hands on this editorial cause I have so much to say on this topic, but would rather read what James wrote so I can make better informed posts oh well...
Sutter just emailed me it! Paizo rocks!
I think people are focused on the wrong aspect of James' editorial. He wrote "hack'n'slash is dead" and everyone is up in arms. This is obviously just to grab your attention.
He goes on to bring up a host of valid points: As a youthful gamer myself (though nowhere near as young as Sutter...damn man...ghostbusters?), and someone invovled in education both at University of Hawai'i and a local high school I can tell you that there is an ENORMOUS population of young people playing D&D...more than half of my students do. Another friend of mine who teaches in Maryland discovered the same thing, most of his students play D&D. At University of Hawai'i more than two thirds of the people I interact with on a regular basis there play (professors and students alike). Mikey likes it folks, the young kids are all about the game. And yes, they do enjoy a good story to go along with their number crunching in most cases. Many of my students also love the hack'n'slash, but they get their fix for it on WoW...a medium soooo much better suited to straight-forward slaughter with less roleplaying interaction if that is what you are mainly interested in. I wouldn't call them "New Era" gamers...I don't like to draw lines in the sand, but the industry is booming and changing at the same time...everything changes over time, but that doesn't mean it leaves its roots. No need to worry folks, this isn't the beginning of a revolution...it's a great thing. The industry going public in a big way, and offering more options than it ever did before whether you like all "hack" all "yak" or something in between. Enjoy the Renaissance we are in is my humble suggestion, don't hate on it.
The editorial sounds like an attempt to create an appeal self as authority.
"Hack-and-slash is dead! How do I know? Because I don't publish it anymore!"
Yeah, right.
So you don't qualify any of the adventures in Dungeon nowadays as hack'n'slash? Just asking to clarify your above post.
So what will the plan be? Marginalize the dungeon crawls more and more until they are gone and hope nobody notices?
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.
The real problem with too much "role-playing" in adventures is that too often it takes the form of playing the parts the author has set forth rather than playing the parts of the characters the players have created.
What happens to an otherwise great adventure when the players simply don't like the interaction choices they have been given? If they don't like the tactical situation, they still have to deal with a fight like any other fight. But if they just don't like any NPCs involved, or if they prefer the "wrong" one by the author's preference, the whole adventures is very likely to be blown completely.
Yes, the DM can just change things. But on that account, the author can easily spend the word/page count on more hack-and-slash meat, and the DM can insert whatever role-playing garnish he feels like from the start.
The reverse is not true though. If an adventure were presented as nothing but background and interaction with no combat at all, does anyone really expect that it would work?
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.
Never mind the fact that no adventure exists in Dungeon magazine's "roleplaying" genre where the PCs can't just throw down if they want to. Don't like Option A, B, C, D...fine pull out the axe and go crazy, and start slinging fireballs, nobody is stopping you, or saying that its wrong. But at least the adventures give some interesting options besides going to the steel and spell...and I don't see at all how this is a weakness to be honest.
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.
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.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As the inventor of True Roleplaying, I resent all of these claims that somehow earlier generations knew of the concept before I conceived it. I remember the event like it was yesterday - I was trying to hang a picture in the bathroom when I slipped on some wet porcelain and hit my head on the toilet. When I awoke, I had a vision. A vision of TRUE ROLEPLAYING.
I also invented dressing in black and teen rebellion, but that has already been discussed in the Emo thread.
*wishes he had his copy so that he could actually participate in the discussion*
Sutter just emailed me it! Paizo rocks!
I can tell you that there is an ENORMOUS population of young people playing D&D...
I agree. I have tought the game to a number of young people over the last few years. I am going to introduce the game to two new gamers ages 19 and 22. Both are avid fans of WoW and have been wanting to play D&D for a while. Since situations have changed, I have room in my game for them to play.
Many young gamers know the roots of the games they play. D&D baby.
Yes they are interested in playing pen & paper D&D. Why? I am not sure. But I am guessing many of the same reasons I play D&D. I don't play WoW and find those games boring. Maybe these young gamers are seeking the same rewards I get from D&D, that are not found in games like WoW
involved in education both at University of Hawai'i and a local high school..
So you write adventures for Dungeon AND you live in paradise?!# It just goes to show you that life ain't fair for a haole.
involved in education both at University of Hawai'i and a local high school..So you write adventures for Dungeon AND you live in paradise?!# It just goes to show you that life ain't fair for a haole.
Ah yes, but Logue is, as you will recall, a horribly bloated-headed childlike monstrosity with stumpy wings - the balance is restored:)
M'nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnar
|
|
I agree that respondants should cut poor Mr. Sutter some slack.
Bah humbug. If he wanted mercy, he should have kept his views to himself.
Again, compared with the "everyone is playing RPGs" comments above - not in my neck of the woods. What you describe is not my experience (wish it was, frankly). Maybe it is different in the UK, but I suspect that people deeply immersed in RPGs (like the writers for or editors of Paizo magazines) probably have good connections within the gamer community. Those of us having relatively ordinary lives, our noses pressed to the glass outside the Paizo copmpound, find it a little different. A few people I know play, and not all of them are remotely serious about it. The renaissance claimed by Mr Sutter would be great, but I think his view is slightly skewed.
I wasn't going to weigh in on this thread - after all, I already had my say, and the whole point of the editorial was to get people talking - but I'd like to clarify and point out that the "everybody's playing" part of the editorial may not be as skewed as you think. When I talked about what I see happening around me, I was specifically NOT referencing Paizo, or any of the people I know through my job - of course they'd be into gaming. I was talking about all the gamers I know through completely unrelated social circles. Granted, Seattle may be leading the charge - mix a ton of tech companies with a city that embraces all sorts of alternative lifestyles, and of course you get more "outed" gamers - but I never claimed that my evidence was anything but anecdotal. I'm just saying that, as someone who believes strongly that the stigma against gaming can only exist if we perpetuate it ourselves, it's heartening to see people embracing it without shame.
As for the former point, well... the question of hack-and-slash's place in the current D&D world certainly isn't going to be decided by li'l ol' me, but I think people here hit the nail right on the head when they said that a good dungeon romp is still a lot of fun - it just requires a good story to back it up. That, I think, is why adventures like Maure Castle continue to dominate - 'cause man, that thing's got EVERYTHING.
And as with every editorial - just my opinion, folks!
-James
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 totally agree with James on self-imposed opression. Why is everybody so freaking scared? I tell EVERYONE I game, and what's more I even take it a step further with comments like: "You've never played D&D!?!? You poor thing! You're not really living are you?"
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 think gamers who hide their hobby are doing themselves a disservice. I mean c'mon, how ridiculous is the Latin Dance Craze, or Surfing, or any other hobby really...the only difference is those people are all about what they do and don't give a f#~@ what people think. Why should we care? I don't.
>> the sudden show of force might normalize our hobby overnight
Only if a good percentage of us gamers suddenly normalized as well. Let's not kid outselves, "fantasy" may be a bit more mainsteam than it used to be but there are still plenty of D&D geeks about.
It's true, but nowadays "geek" is in. "Nerd" is hip. There's nothing wrong with it. If I told you all how many smoking hot actresses I know who are all about the nerdy-guys, you'd s&#! a goose.
In reference to several posters on this thread, it is very apparent that some players and GM's prefer the 'role-playing' angle on the game. Fine. Given most any adventure, you'll find the role-playing opportunities to be had, or create them yourselves. It's easily done in any site based adventure, which is tailored for us Hack n Slashers.
But give me a predominantly "role-playing" adventure written in Dungeon Magazine; I've got to do a major overhaul and create more fights to maintain excitement (for me and the players), ignore the adventure entirely, or periodically wake up my hack & slash-happy players (and myself) when I'm tasked with trying to make my players enthused about talking to yet another (of many) useless NPC's, who has some sort of 'vital' information or clue to forwarding the plot and the game.
Thanks, but I'll stick with what's worked for 25 years.
And please print more of Vaughan and Pett's adventures. Particularly those set in Greyhawk:)
Such as the hackfest that was Prince of Redhand? ;-)And please print more of Vaughan and Pett's adventures. Particularly those set in Greyhawk:)
Ya beat me to it. ;)
I totally agree with James on self-imposed opression. Why is everybody so freaking scared? I tell EVERYONE I game, and what's more I even take it a step further with comments like: "You've never played D&D!?!? You poor thing! You're not really living are you?"
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 think gamers who hide their hobby are doing themselves a disservice. I mean c'mon, how ridiculous is the Latin Dance Craze, or Surfing, or any other hobby really...the only difference is those people are all about what they do and don't give a f##% what people think. Why should we care? I don't.
We get mentioned in Weird Al songs and cell phone commercials, how "fringe" can we be?
Dudes, If anyone asks, I don't know you people.
GGG
Dudes, If anyone asks, I don't know you people.
GGG
LOL!
Such as the hackfest that was Prince of Redhand? ;-)And please print more of Vaughan and Pett's adventures. Particularly those set in Greyhawk:)
DOUBLE LOL!
Sure, roleplaying and hack'n'slash are both a must. Although I've gotta say that I draw the line when my players start fleshing out their characters with annoying speech impediments, affectations and fake accents.
But what about intellectually challenging problems, traps, tricks, and surprises. I'm a literature geek who DMs some math-heads and a programmer who are at their best cracking ingeniously safeguarded pirate treasures. Avoiding being drowned by a nameless mechanism because you are an intuitive lateral thinker really pleases some people, and I'm not talking about disarm trap rolls, I'm talking about solving riddles and foiling pitfalls with some old fashioned anti-Grimtooth thinking.
Sure, roleplaying and hack'n'slash are both a must. Although I've gotta say that I draw the line when my players start fleshing out their characters with annoying speech impediments, affectations and fake accents.
But what about intellectually challenging problems, traps, tricks, and surprises. I'm a literature geek who DMs some math-heads and a programmer who are at their best cracking ingeniously safeguarded pirate treasures. Avoiding being drowned by a nameless mechanism because you are an intuitive lateral thinker really pleases some people, and I'm not talking about disarm trap rolls, I'm talking about solving riddles and foiling pitfalls with some old fashioned anti-Grimtooth thinking.
I agree completely. A good trap...not one that just requires a Disable Device is soooooooo satisfying to overcome...and soooooooo satisfying to watch the players not overcome! MUUUAHAHAHAHAAA! :-)
I have a couple of doozies coming up in my next Dungeon adventure...which by the way is one of those annoying roleplaying kind...with lots of combat...and cool traps...but look out! It has annoying roleplaying in it too! ;-)
Sure, roleplaying and hack'n'slash are both a must. Although I've gotta say that I draw the line when my players start fleshing out their characters with annoying speech impediments, affectations and fake accents.
My experience with all three, on stage as well as around the roleplaying table is that a little goes a long way, and a lot goes a long way toward being really annoying unless it is more than just a schtick.
A pair of players in a friend of mine's game did this great thing where they are old chums from a dirty dirty thieves guild...and one of them speaks such heavily slanged-up, grunty and accented Thieves Cant that no one can understand a word he says...but the other one "translates." It's great cause he doesn't ever ask the Cant speaking player what he really means, he just makes s$$! up (in truth his character doesn't understand the crazy guy either, he's just worked with him for so long he usually gets where he's going with something)...it was hilarious...highly highly entertaining.
But again, it has to be done really well, not steal focus from everyone else's roleplaying and be pretty fun and inventive...otherwise a light brush of accent is a better choice than an obnoxious overdone one in my personal opinion. More like finding the character's voice not very far from your own and going from there, rather than trying to sound like a constipated gazelle.