This feeling of lack of "Gygaxian Naturalism" in 4e is in part due to its dissociated game mechanics. I don't agree with everything in this piece, but it's well worth a read.
I read this and I understand and agree with some of what it is saying. However, in any form of fiction, be it novels, movies, or RPGs, there are going to be certain "reality breakers". For example, in a movie, when someone talks to the camera (like Ferris Bueller) how does that exactly fit in to reality? Yet we accept it (at least most of us do) as an audience because we accept the reality created by the movie, not whether it truly replicates reality. I could go on with countless such examples of "moving outside reality" from all kinds of mediums.
In my mind, gaming has it own challenges. At least with movies and books, one can actually reflect a reality - the only limit is one's imagination. In a game, you have rule mechanics. It's inevitable - otherwise it becomes a co-written story rather than a game - and in that case, why follow any rule mechanics? RPGs are both co-written stories and games. And no game is going to reflect our complex reality.
I agree that sometimes 4e feels strange because of its focus on mechanics rather than flavor. Yet as a game, I have more fun. And the more I play it, the more I come to terms with the game's sense of reality, just as movie audiences have had to adapt to various movie maker's methods of telling stories over these 100 years or so. I enjoy story, characterization, and flavor as much as anybody - but mostly when I come to the game table I want to have fun and I'm doing that.
4e isn't for everybody, I get it. There are aspects about it that drive me a little crazy too. But these philosophical treatises for why 4e isn't a good game seem unconvincing. I guess I appreciate them more than being hit over the head with "MMORPG" (which I don't play) or "noob" (which I'm not). They don't insult my intelligence, but they seem like overkill to debunk a game which many don't like, but others are actually enjoying.
"Gygaxian Naturalism" sounds like an academic field of study. Can I get my Phd in it? ;)
No, but you can get a B.S. in it. :P
|
It really seems like little more than a pseudo-scientific sounding name for nostalgia in an attempt to give it more weight. D&D has always been a mish-mash of mythology and whimsy with an arbitrary application of realism. 4e is no different except that it has mish-mashed its predecessor.
No. You might misunderstand.
I disagree.To the degree (and it may vary in your game) you are inserting either of these topics into your 4e game, James M is spelling out characteristics of each.
Court Fool & Press Man - this thread is not a debate, nor an edition war. As the OP suggests, this is a sharing of these concepts defined by Malisewski. Please, try to participate without judgment, else, perhaps 4e thread are better suited for you. Thanks.
No. You might misunderstand.
I disagree.
Fair enough.
To the degree (and it may vary in your game) you are inserting either of these topics into your 4e game, James M is spelling out characteristics of each.
I do not play 4e. Just because I disagree with the concept of Gygaxian Naturalism does not make me a fan of 4e.
Court Fool & Press Man - this thread is not a debate, nor an edition war.
Are you suggesting that if I do not blindly accept Gygaxian Naturalism I have no business posting here?
As the OP suggests, this is a sharing of these concepts defined by Malisewski. Please, try to participate without judgment, else, perhaps 4e thread are better suited for you. Thanks.
I strongly disagree. The OP shared the concept as defined by Malisewski, I read them and I find them wanting. I am not trying to run you out of the D&D 3.5/d20/OGL forum or even saying you are wrong. I am stating that I disagree with the concept. Are you sure you are not doing the very thing you complain was done to you in the 4e threads?
I had mistakenly thought you were.
Fair enough. Does that make my point any more valid?
Perhaps some people have a knee jerk reaction against jargon? Well, if it describes something, it can be helpful. If you don't like Maliszewski's phrase, there's certainly plenty of discussion in this thread, practically from the beginning, about things to be said in favor of different terms and conceptions in the neighborhood.
As for Whimsy's points, well, "philosophical treatises" make assumptions to explore other points that are related to the presumptions. So since it assumes things about 4e to explore the issues of interest, of course it isn't convincing about the things it assumes. My own interest is not to explain what's wrong with 4e, since 4e is of very little interest to me -- God bless those to whom it is, may they game happily. But since verisimilitude in gaming is of great interest to me, then exploring its Gygaxian antecedents is of interest. If people can make interesting arguments for and against 4e's departure either from a certain level of verisimilitude, or specifically Gygaxian contributions to it, maybe those would be of some interest, but given my lack of interest in 4e in general, I'm doubtful.
Well, if it describes something, it can be helpful.
I completely agree with you there. Labels are a necessary evil.
It is not the label that I disagree with, it is the concept people are laying on the previous iterations. I have seen glimpses of what people are labeling Gygaxian Naturalism, but then I see the very same glimpses in 4e or in any role playing game. In my own, personal, judgmental opinion, I have seen more Gygaxian Naturalism in non-D&D games.
Realism has proven a dubious label. A sense of a real, breathing world. This is accomplished more by the GM and players than the rules system. Some of the very sacred cows of D&D ruin my sense of immersion…many of which are still very much alive in 4e.
Most of what I have seen attributed to Gygaxian Naturalism sounds to me nothing more than fond memories of good times sitting around the table gaming. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Why does it have to be more?
|
|
It is not the label that I disagree with, it is the concept people are laying on the previous iterations. I have seen glimpses of what people are labeling Gygaxian Naturalism, but then I see the very same glimpses in 4e or in any role playing game. In my own, personal, judgmental opinion, I have seen more Gygaxian Naturalism in non-D&D games.
Realism has proven a dubious label. A sense of a real, breathing world. This is accomplished more by the GM and players than the rules system. Some of the very sacred cows of D&D ruin my sense of immersion…many of which are still very much alive in 4e.
Most of what I have seen attributed to Gygaxian Naturalism sounds to me nothing more than fond memories of good times sitting around the table gaming. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Why does it have to be more?
Sorry, CourtFool. Based on this post. I clearly see it is you that is mistaken about James Malisewski's definitions, about the concepts and what we are discussing here.
Why must you express "dismissiveness" of others' views???
Yes.I had mistakenly thought you were.Fair enough. Does that make my point any more valid?
The point I was trying to make should not be any less valid based on whether or not I am a fan of 4e.
Just so we are clear, I believe 3.5 to be a better system than all other editions of D&D. Yet, I still find it grossly flawed.
I am not trying to start a fight and I think it should be obvious I am not trying to stir up the edition war. I would like to think of myself as an impartial¹ observer questioning this concept that is being used as a banner against 4e. If it is a valid argument, it should stand on its own merit.
To me, there are much better arguments against 4e.
¹Obviously I am not completely impartial. What can you do?
|
Most of what I have seen attributed to Gygaxian Naturalism sounds to me nothing more than fond memories of good times sitting around the table gaming. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Why does it have to be more?
Because it is. It is a phrase used to describe a specific play style and assumption about what D&D is, to a lot of us old school cats. And Mr. Maliszewski is quite eloquent in pointing exactly that point out, and is spot on in his definition of that play style. And 4e does not, in any way, support that play style. Heck, 3x barely does, with all the skill checks taking the place of player innovation and thought. "But you're a CLERIC! You can't do that!"
It isn't a label he just casually threw out there, he thought hard about what he felt it means.
Yeah, I'm a regular reader of his blog, so maybe I'm a bit defensive towards the sentiment. :)
I clearly see it is you that is mistaken about James Malisewski's definitions, about the concepts and what we are discussing here.
* going back to re-read *
We are talking about this, right?
I think what you may be getting at, CF, is something that I tried to raise in this thread, and I'm not sure I got as much help with it as I might have liked. I waxed several elephants about verisimilitude in gaming, and I asked for help with what made "naturalism" in RPing "Gygaxian." For me, I'd love to learn more about how Gygax contributed to a sense of verisimilitude in gaming, that is, is their a particular Gygaxian take on it, or methods to it, as distinguished from others?
Edit: Yes to the linked article.
|
|
I think what you may be getting at, CF, is something that I tried to raise in this thread, and I'm not sure I got as much help with it as I might have liked. I waxed several elephants about verisimilitude in gaming, and I asked for help with what made "naturalism" in RPing "Gygaxian." For me, I'd love to learn more about how Gygax contributed to a sense of verisimilitude in gaming, that is, is their a particular Gygaxian take on it, or methods to it, as distinguished from others?
Um, he and Arneson invented the game? They created a game in a "naturalistic" style? I have no problem with crediting the inventor of the style with the style ;)
See, HD, because I started playing before the great thaw, I get what you are saying. It's just that, when I picked up the d20 mechanics, I just said, great, here's a way to get an answer to what follows my poking and prodding, other than DM fiat. And if I am DMing, I give a circumstance bonus to the roll based on their description of their actions, and the degree of failure or success on the roll challenges me to describe concretely the outcome. I've never seen these as exclusive options, and I don't think most of the people I've played with have either...but maybe I've been luckier than your average bear? In any event, I'd tend to blame it on the rping ability of the players before I'd say it was inherent in the system.
I think what you may be getting at, CF, is something that I tried to raise in this thread, and I'm not sure I got as much help with it as I might have liked. I waxed several elephants about verisimilitude in gaming, and I asked for help with what made "naturalism" in RPing "Gygaxian." For me, I'd love to learn more about how Gygax contributed to a sense of verisimilitude in gaming, that is, is their a particular Gygaxian take on it, or methods to it, as distinguished from others?Um, he and Arneson invented the game? They created a game in a "naturalistic" style? I have no problem with crediting the inventor of the style with the style ;)
It's not that I doubt it, it's just that when someone introduces this kind of terminology, and whether I have an intuitive feeling that they're right or wrong to do so (in this case, I happen to fit in the former category), I'd like more concrete exploration (with examples) that helps me understand what make that naturalism Gygaxian in character, and not just in origin. Maybe I'm not communicating clearly. What did Gygax put in the game mechanically to bring about verisimilitude? At the same time, this is going to have to take account of Gygax's mercurial and complex personality and approach to gaming. He also said things that made D&D sound like chess, which isn't "naturalistic" at all, so these different strands would have to be separated out for us to understand what all is going on here.
And yes, I think someone could write a graduate thesis on the topic...
|
|
See, HD, because I started playing before the great thaw, I get what you are saying. It's just that, when I picked up the d20 mechanics, I just said, great, here's a way to get an answer to what follows my poking and prodding, other than DM fiat. And if I am DMing, I give a circumstance bonus to the roll based on their description of their actions, and the degree of failure or success on the roll challenges me to describe concretely the outcome. I've never seen these as exclusive options, and I don't think most of the people I've played with have either...but maybe I've been luckier than your average bear? In any event, I'd tend to blame it on the rping ability of the players before I'd say it was inherent in the system.
Trust me, from a lot of my 3x experience, you're luckier than the average bear.
Hey, I've never posted on this thread, here you go :P
Yes, I am still not ‘getting it’ and I apologize if I am coming off condescendingly.
I get no verisimilitude from a dungeon full of wildly different creatures no matter what percent are females and children. Further, it seems to me a lot of this added detail came with supplements. I certainly can not argue that D&D has no history and that 4e has attempted to change most, if not all, of that history.
For me, Gygaxian Naturalism comes from having to role play the talk with the shopkeeper, not the 100 page supplement which lists every conceivable item my character could ever want to purchase. Verisimilitude, for me, comes from interacting with the world. Stumbling upon NPCs with their own ambitions. I see nothing in 4e that prevents this. In fact, 4e leaves the level of detail completely up to the GM, harking back to the days of previous editions. Just because Merchant #1 has a Bluff score does not make it any more Gygaxian Natural. At least for me.
Trust me, from a lot of my 3x experience, you're luckier than the average bear.
I'm probably a little bit of a gaming snob...and people being jerks at the gaming table brings out my anti-social side. I was being too unreflective when I wrote that: I usually game with close friends and family, and there are game groups I was invited to in the past that I visited once and never returned to...not that this was the only thing wrong with those groups, but it was definitely an element that was there. What I always blamed, however, was not defection from the pure Gygaxian gospel, but fools who didn't know how to play (and yes, to someone who wants to object, I realize I am making my idea of how to play the standard. Of course I am!) For one thing, one of those groups was playing 1e!
Edit: CF, go back and read all my rants in this thread, if you feel so inclined, and see if you find a sympathetic resonance there. But I warn you, I really got verbose, so don't do it if you're not in the mood.
|
|
Yes, I am still not ‘getting it’ and I apologize if I am coming off condescendingly.
I get no verisimilitude from a dungeon full of wildly different creatures no matter what percent are females and children. Further, it seems to me a lot of this added detail came with supplements. I certainly can not argue that D&D has no history and that 4e has attempted to change most, if not all, of that history.
For me, Gygaxian Naturalism comes from having to role play the talk with the shopkeeper, not the 100 page supplement which lists every conceivable item my character could ever want to purchase. Verisimilitude, for me, comes from interacting with the world. Stumbling upon NPCs with their own ambitions. I see nothing in 4e that prevents this. In fact, 4e leaves the level of detail completely up to the GM, harking back to the days of previous editions. Just because Merchant #1 has a Bluff score does not make it any more Gygaxian Natural. At least for me.
I'll boil it down to its essence. The world is what it is, dragons are where they are, overwhelming perils exist, and aren't "level appropriate". If you foolhardily rush off into the woods without asking the locals what lives there, and you run into an adult green dragon at third level, oh, well, the world doesn't exist in CR appropriate chunks.
Even published adventures tended to have an encounter or two you were supposed to run from or talk your way past. 3x, (and, to a lesser degree, 2e) discouraged that type of play, making everything in "level appropriate" morsels, and nature doesn't work like that. Yeah, nature doesn't support the notion of an illithid, either, but we are discussing a fantasy game, not Top Secret or something ;)
|
|
Just because Merchant #1 has a Bluff score does not make it any more Gygaxian Natural. At least for me.
Actually, the merchant having a bluff score is anti-naturalistic. In a "naturalistic" game, the DM just relays what the merchant says, it's up to the party to believe him or not, based on what they know to that point. Rolling a "sense motive" check instead of taking what you already know and parsing the merchant's words is not naturalism.
I'll boil it down to its essence. The world is what it is, dragons are where they are, overwhelming perils exist, and aren't "level appropriate". If you foolhardily rush off into the woods without asking the locals what lives there, and you run into an adult green dragon at third level, oh, well, the world doesn't exist in CR appropriate chunks.
Even published adventures tended to have an encounter or two you were supposed to run from or talk your way past. 3x, (and, to a lesser degree, 2e) discouraged that type of play, making everything in "level appropriate" morsels, and nature doesn't work like that. Yeah, nature doesn't support the notion of an illithid, either, but we are discussing a fantasy game, not Top Secret or something ;)
I could agree more (oh wait, wrong thread)
I used to love to give my party encounters both way below the EL or abode. This gave them lots of tstuff to think about, like feeling all powerfull and mighty and deal with weaker creatures with their bare fists or be extremely careful or flee at the sign of a troll with a stick... never knew what the troll was up to... I think not aking the world so ELacceptable is a fantastic way to add "realism" and to keep the players interested.
Sadly, most of the time my party got pissed for bign at their toes... No wonder I don't play anymore :(
|
|
I could agree more (oh wait, wrong thread)
I used to love to give my party encounters both way below the EL or abode. This gave them lots of tstuff to think about, like feeling all powerfull and mighty and deal with weaker creatures with their bare fists or be extremely careful or flee at the sign of a troll with a stick... never knew what the troll was up to... I think not aking the world so ELacceptable is a fantastic way to add "realism" and to keep the players interested.
Sadly, most of the time my party got pissed for bign at their toes... No wonder I don't play anymore :(
It's the modern player's expectation that every encounter has to be "beatable", somehow. I don't see what's wrong with having certain elements that need to be revisited at higher levels, or just skipped all together.
I thought Paizo did a great job with this at the end of "Burnt Offerings". The barghest at the end was a fine example of "naturalistic" thinking. It was too powerful for most groups to tackle after clearing out Thistletop, but it wasn't going anywhere, so it could be put off until the party had more experience and better tools to deal with it.
Nods grizzled head.
Still, the scores and rolls can be handled in a 'naturalistic' way.
A high score, and the DM makes the NPC a better liar, etc. The opposing roll makes me think, what might the PC notice, fail to notice, or misinterpret, that effects the outcome. For me, the mechanics just push me past "what is there" or adds an element of chance outside the players and the DM.
Edit: Froggie makes me sad. How long does it take you to drive up from Mexico to Houston? I could drive down, we meet at HD's place, and he shows us how it's done. :D
This feeling of lack of "Gygaxian Naturalism" in 4e is in part due to its dissociated game mechanics. I don't agree with everything in this piece, but it's well worth a read.
I just read a couple of the alexandrian's articles and find that they mirror my thoughts about 4e. I agree: Well worth a read. They're very well written and anyone who wants a better picture about why many of us choose to change to Pathfinder because we think that it plays like D&D instead of going 4e which just sounds like D&D will find many insights there.
I will have to go back and read through this thread when I am not at work.
I do not believe crunch is proportional to naturalism. Rules light systems leave a lot of the responsibility of naturalism on the shoulders of the GM and to a lesser extent on the players. Crunchy systems are just as capable of naturalism, but by taking some of the responsibility away, there is opportunity to conflict with individuals and their idea of naturalism.
So maybe that is my own answer right there. Dungeon crawls conflict with my own concept of naturalism and therefore I disregard them despite the fact they are certainly capable of their own naturalism.
|
|
Nods grizzled head.
Still, the scores and rolls can be handled in a 'naturalistic' way.
A high score, and the DM makes the NPC a better liar, etc. The opposing roll makes me think, what might the PC notice, fail to notice, or misinterpret, that effects the outcome. For me, the mechanics just push me past "what is there" or adds an element of chance outside the players and the DM.Edit: Froggie makes me sad. How long does it take you to drive up from Mexico to Houston? I could drive down, we meet at HD's place, and he shows us how it's done. :D
I would like nothing more. I recently replaced part of my lost 1e collection (the rule books and some old Dragon mags), and I'm itching to play some sandbox style games :D
|
|
Dungeon crawls conflict with...
Gygaxian design and naturalism/unnaturalism does not necessarily equate to the 'dungeon crawling' made popular by various publishers, including Gary's own TSR. There is much, much more to this topic that your re-reading may help shed light on. Please check out also, if you are truly interested, some of Matt Finch's writing on old school, and also some of Troll Lord's works in the gygaxian fanstasy series; the one by Cross in particular is a good work. This is a very rich topic.
|
|
I will have to go back and read through this thread when I am not at work.
I do not believe crunch is proportional to naturalism. Rules light systems leave a lot of the responsibility of naturalism on the shoulders of the GM and to a lesser extent on the players. Crunchy systems are just as capable of naturalism, but by taking some of the responsibility away, there is opportunity to conflict with individuals and their idea of naturalism.
So maybe that is my own answer right there. Dungeon crawls conflict with my own concept of naturalism and therefore I disregard them despite the fact they are certainly capable of their own naturalism.
Well, the "dungeoncrawl" isn't necessarily all there is to "naturalism". In fact, one of the OD&D supplements specifically addressed wilderness and town play. I ran a 1e campaign for years (mid-eighties to around '93 or so) that rarely wound up in a dungeon. "Naturalism" more describes how players interact with the setting and their role in it, not just "well, it's all about the dungeon".
Also, count the number of "empty rooms" in the typical "Gygaxian" dungeoncrawl, and compare it to the number of "empty rooms" in a more "modern" dungeoncrawl. Dead space seems to be anathema to the modern scenario writer, whereas in a "naturalistic" setting, it is assumed a lot of rooms would be unremarkable.
Edit: Ninja'd by Pax!
Yeah, dungeon crawls are one of my BIG complaints. In spite of that, I love dungeons (not going to analyze the nostalgia proportion here). In college, I met a DM who was very anal about creating dungeons (when he created them) that made sense. I usually don't have time to create things from scratch, but when I read pre-made dungeons, I am always asking, "How could such a place exist?" and interpreting, adding, and changing the dungeon until I feel like they are a place with an ecology that doesn't break suspense of disbelief.
Ok, several things to respond to.
Pax Veritas: I made a joke, don't get your panties in a bunch.
houstonderek: So who put the dragon in the woods? It is just there naturally? No, the DM and/or setting writer decided to put it there.
And maybe current gamers are a bit more interested in appropriately difficult encounters. Why is that? Mmm, well many are now adults with very limited time and spending an entire session running away from things is not exactly a great way for them to spend that limited time. Also in the later editions at least you got xp for overcoming challenges (not that xp is the necessarily driving force persay). If you run away that doesn't usually count as overcoming the challenge, thus encounters which are designed to basicly make the party "lose" with no chance of victory are lame for many gamers. Change what it means to overcome a challenge (say in these cases you just have to survive for example) and such challenges (assume they are still fairly rare) will be less burdensome.
To the bluff score thing and naturalism, if the players are deciding based on what the DM is saying then that isn't naturalism either, because you are using player knowledge for character knowledge. Also the players only have the DM's non-verbal communication to go off of and their own abilities to read non-verbal communication. The Merchant might be giving off very different signals than the DM is indicating and the PCs might have very different abilities to pick them up than the players have. So I don't think it is a clear cut either way.
If a dragon hoards in the woods, and no one is there to slay and plunder it, did it really hoard?
|
|
houstonderek: So who put the dragon in the woods? It is just there naturally? No, the DM and/or setting writer decided to put it there.
Of course I put the dragon there. I also put peasants in a town who know it is there. I'm not a "gotcha" DM, but I do put as much detail into my setting as possible, complete with means to glean that information.
Heck, the "Ecology of the Red Dragon" in the 1e Dragon mag was written from the point of view of a group of village youths who saw some adventurers who put thoughts into their heads and the kids wanted to become adventurers. So, they all go to a sage, who tells them of all of the dragons within a reasonable distance, then tries to persuade them to go take on an ogre or something (maybe it was an ogrillion, it's been a while). The kids (with the exception of one apprentice wizard) chose not to heed the sage's warning. This is how my homebrew runs, informed by the so much more imaginative gaming articles from the early Dragon days. You didn't see banners on the cover of old Dragon shouting "15 new feats to break your game and piss off your dm!"...
(For the record, I only subscribed to Dungeon when Paizo had the mags, I didn't need a monthly splatbook that was even less playtested than the typical WotC hardcover splat...)
Oh, well, should the DM protect the players from their own stupidity? Just because, oh, gee, maybe they have a job or something? Really, being a PLAYER takes little more effort than creating a character and showing up on time (and even that seems to be a chore anymore). Have a second character as a back-up, I'll work you in if something bad happens. But, I'm not your mommy. I'm not going to hold your hand and tell you everything will be ok. I'm your Dungeon Master, I'm the guy who basically has an unpaid second job with the sole purpose of entertaining your whining ass once a week for a few hours.
You know, they invented video games for mindless entertainment that takes little effort. Maybe our hobby should die if players think the game should superficially seem "challenging" rather than actually BE challenging (and require a little forethought before rushing into the woods).
Bah, players today. I'm glad I have old school guys and total newbies in my game. They don't know any different and have a blast every week....
Have a second character as a back-up, I'll work you in if something bad happens. But, I'm not your mommy. I'm not going to hold your hand and tell you everything will be ok.
Disclaimer: having DMed Derek on a few occasions, I often think he goes too far the other direction: to him, the game isn't fun UNLESS his PC dies every session. Yes, stupidity should kill characters. But more skillful play should result in a lower kill ratio, or the game quickly loses its interest.
Of course I put the dragon there. I also put peasants in a town who know it is there. I'm not a "gotcha" DM, but I do put as much detail into my setting as possible, complete with means to glean that information.
So you also decide what information they have access to? Do you inform them everything about the setting? Everything that every possible NPC that they talk to might every know? How do you determine what information to give them and what not to give them?
I mean if you spend an hour talking about all the dragons and then in the last 30 seconds say, "But forget about those guys, go kill this troll because you look like you might be able to handle that." My first thought would be, "Why the hell did you waste my game time with the dragons then? Let's get to the adventure, the characters may have endless hours to sit around and listen to some boring old greybeard spout about his life's work about the mating habits of the local lizards, but I, the player, don't."
|
|
Have a second character as a back-up, I'll work you in if something bad happens. But, I'm not your mommy. I'm not going to hold your hand and tell you everything will be ok.Disclaimer: having DMed Derek on a few occasions, I often think he goes too far the other direction: to him, the game isn't fun UNLESS his PC dies every session. Yes, stupidity should kill characters. But more skillful play should result in a lower kill ratio, or the game quickly loses its interest.
Dude, "suicide due to extreme frustration with players who have no business playing spellcasters" is a different other thing.
:P
Edit: And your monk left us hanging in LB2, not my fault...
:P
Old school: "I push, pull, twist and prod the protrusion on the wall. What happens?"
New school: "I roll a 25 on my check. What happens?"
Sadly, that's how it often plays out, but it doesn't HAVE to: the whole "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" thing is a false dichotomy. Ideally, there would be a
Cool School: "I push, pull, twist, and prod the protrusion on the wall, with a 25 on my check. What happens?" And maybe the DM sees the check fails, and says, "There must be a trick to pulling on it that you're missing... or maybe it's just stuck."
|
|
Of course I put the dragon there. I also put peasants in a town who know it is there. I'm not a "gotcha" DM, but I do put as much detail into my setting as possible, complete with means to glean that information.So you also decide what information they have access to? Do you inform them everything about the setting? Everything that every possible NPC that they talk to might every know? How do you determine what information to give them and what not to give them?
I mean if you spend an hour talking about all the dragons and then in the last 30 seconds say, "But forget about those guys, go kills this troll because you look you might be able to handle that." My first thought would be, "Why the hell did you waste my game time with the dragons then? Let's get to the adventure, the characters may have endless hours to sit around and listen to some boring old greybeard spout about his life's work about the mating habits of the local lizards, but me the player don't."
I'm going to have to ask you: did you have a really, REALLY bad DM back in the day? Or are you even FROM back in the day?
I need context.
I'm going to have to ask you: did you have a really, REALLY bad DM back in the day? Or are you even FROM back in the day?
I need context.
Why does it matter. To quote a little puppy, "Does that make my point any more valid?"
Dude, "suicide due to extreme frustration with players who have no business playing spellcasters" is a different other thing. Edit: And your monk left us hanging in LB2, not my fault... :P
OK... I readily concede that those are two excellent examples of poor playing and therefore justifiable deaths. Indeed, the whole museum robbery botch should have led to "justifiable homicide due to DM frustration with players," but I had Silverhair there to help, and self-control got the better of me. Of course, it's not like the monk's presence or absence could possibly have changed a daggone thing...
|
|
Old school: "I push, pull, twist and prod the protrusion on the wall. What happens?"
New school: "I roll a 25 on my check. What happens?"
Sadly, that's how it often plays out, but it doesn't HAVE to: the whole "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" thing is a false dichotomy. Ideally, there would be a
Cool School: "I push, pull, twist, and prod the protrusion on the wall, with a 25 on my check. What happens?" And maybe the DM sees the check fails, and says, "There must be a trick to pulling on it that you're missing... or maybe it's just stuck."
It was like the secret door in the lavoratory in RotRL. I failed my check even though I KNEW there was a secret door (and, no, I've never read "Burnt Offerings", it was just obvious), but, since I rolled a "one", apparently my character developed acute unobservedness (is that even a word? if not, it should be).
Quite frustrating to someone used to just describing everything I'd do to find the damned thing...
It was like the secret door in the lavoratory in RotRL. I failed my check even though I KNEW there was a secret door (and, no, I've never read "Burnt Offerings", it was just obvious), but, since I rolled a "one", apparently my character developed acute unobservedness (is that even a word? if not, it should be).
Quite frustrating to someone used to just describing everything I'd do to find the damned thing...
My fault entirely; I should have emphasized that you suspected its presence, but couldn't seem to trip the mechanism for opening it. Which is a good reason for "search for secret doors" to be rolled in with Disable Device instead of with "smell perfume." But I digress...
|
|
Dude, "suicide due to extreme frustration with players who have no business playing spellcasters" is a different other thing. Edit: And your monk left us hanging in LB2, not my fault... :POK... I readily concede that those are two excellent examples of poor playing and therefore justifiable deaths. Indeed, the whole museum robbery botch should have led to "justifiable homicide due to DM frustration with players," but I had Silverhair there to help, and self-control got the better of me.
Yeah, I should have sent the wizard the first time, but I was playing my character as not exactly the most knowledgeable about magic, and there was no reason I should have known jack about it, meta-gaming isn't one of my hobbies...
Plus, who else was actively participating in the planning? The WIZARD? Please. No one else was :)
|
|
My fault entirely; I should have emphasized that you suspected its presence, but couldn't seem to trip the mechanism for opening it. Which is a good reason for "search for secret doors" to be rolled in with Disable Device instead of with "smell perfume." But I digress...It was like the secret door in the lavoratory in RotRL. I failed my check even though I KNEW there was a secret door (and, no, I've never read "Burnt Offerings", it was just obvious), but, since I rolled a "one", apparently my character developed acute unobservedness (is that even a word? if not, it should be).
Quite frustrating to someone used to just describing everything I'd do to find the damned thing...
It wasn't your fault, really. It's just part of the 3x assumption of play. Were we playing 1e or your 007 hybrid, yeah, I'd get on your ass about it.
Yeah, I should have sent the wizard the first time, but I was playing my character as not exactly the most knowledgeable about magic, and there was no reason I should have known jack about it, meta-gaming isn't one of my hobbies...
Plus, who else was actively participating in the planning? The WIZARD? Please. No one else was :)
Yeah, your only mistake in playing was that your character seemed too competent to trust his life to people as unprepared as that wizard... he should have demanded a new squad member!