...Still, the man was still trying to make his way economically through the RPG trade...
That brings to mind something I've wondered about. After leaving TSR, Gygax produced RPG items, whole systems and wrote fantasy novels. I find it kinda surprising that (seems to me) he didn't achieve a whole lot of success. His contributions to the industry post-TSR wouldn't put him in any kind of RPG Hall of Fame or whatnot.
I really like Necropolis, and I'm sure some of his other stuff was good, but the post-TSR Gygax didn't enjoy commercial success. And from what I can tell, he was no longer significantly influential in the industry. Ongoing influence, rather than 'legacy.'
Not saying he wasn't important, just that he wasn't driving much anymore.
In regards to Gygax post TSR, I think the problem was mainly the dominance of the "name brand" in RPGs. Gygax created it, but then lost the rights to it, so to speak. Just based off of my anecdotal observations over the years the only RPG that I've ever heard of that could eclipse Dungeons and Dragons, is Pathfinder, and that only recently, after the 4E fiasco. There are a lot of other great systems out there, and those that are immersed in the RPG hobby will experiment with those, but as far as mass sales are concerned I don't believe there's ever been an RPG (again besides Pathfinder-which is sort of still a version of Dungeons and Dragons) that could grab a bigger market share than the name brand. This is why many of the people I play with (exclusively Pathfinder) still say we're playing "Dungeons and Dragons."
I do think, though, that Sissyl's observations are right on. Owner operator of D&D or not, Gygax still rested his livelihood on the RPG trade. Working to actively create a larger audience, and also an audience that purchased more material, was as much economics as anything else. Insinuating that any player that doesn't eat, sleep, and breathe the hobby will never be a "master" could easily be seen as economic pandering.
Excellent point.
I remember visiting Dennis McKiernan (author of the Iron Tower Trilogy and other books set in Mithgar: very Tolkien-esque) at his house back when he lived in Ohio (SUPER nice guy).
We talked about authors he liked and gaming. He did't play D&D. He played ICE's Rolemaster instead. I browed through Spell Law the next time I was at the hobby store. The enjoyable MERP supplements used RoleMaster, I believe.
Any folks remember the Universal gaming system Judges Guild made some of their supplements for? It was close to D&D so that you could easily convert it, but I think JG hoped it would last as a stand alone alternative to D&D.
Early this year, I was given the opportunity to pitch a script for a British tv pilot. I dropped all my RPG activities through the summer. Alas: the script (think The Godfather meets Sherlock Holmes), while better this time around, still wasn't good enough to get anywhere. Nor will it likely ever be. Screenwriting is tough.
I've started re-reading Gygax's book again and will attempt to finish out the series. I don't forsee any surprising writing opportunities coming again...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, re-read the first sixty posts in this thread. I think, because I was immersed in "running the thread" and actually writing each entry, a lot of the commentary didn't completely sink in. There's some EXCELLENT stuff in here. I hope folks pick this back up. And that I can finish it this time around.
I'm working on a post about the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game (which I love) in the context of Gygax's concepts. It's an interesting RPG hybrid.
And since starting this thread, I've played a LOT of Age of Conan, which has given me some insights into the MMORPGer, who is a very different animal from a tabletop RPGer.
I just finished reading this awesome thread. I am most happy that you mentioned Dennis McKiernan I love those books.
Mckiernan used to live about 20 minutes from me (he has since moved to the southwest). I looked up his number in the phone book and left a message. He called me back and invited me out. He signed about 8 books and was super nice. Just a cool guy
I'm not too crazy about the books about the elf with the ship or the pisks; but i really enjoyed the Iron Tower Trilogy, Silver Call, Forge/Crucible and Dragon Doom. He did a great job capturing the Tolkien feel. Stoke was just pure evil!
Feel free to add any comments on what has gone before. I've got some re-reading to do before i can continue with Gygax's steps.
|
Yeah, I was thinking iron tower trilogy the ones with Ankaria? Maybe it's me but their seems to be a backlash against Mr. Gygax and Tolkien. I don't know maybe these kids nowadays think it's cool or something.
I do not want to sound like one of these "get off my lawn types" but he did start this whole thing and deserves his just due.
...Still, the man was still trying to make his way economically through the RPG trade...That brings to mind something I've wondered about. After leaving TSR, Gygax produced RPG items, whole systems and wrote fantasy novels. I find it kinda surprising that (seems to me) he didn't achieve a whole lot of success. His contributions to the industry post-TSR wouldn't put him in any kind of RPG Hall of Fame or whatnot.
I really like Necropolis, and I'm sure some of his other stuff was good, but the post-TSR Gygax didn't enjoy commercial success. And from what I can tell, he was no longer significantly influential in the industry. Ongoing influence, rather than 'legacy.'
Not saying he wasn't important, just that he wasn't driving much anymore.
I met Mr G. at a convention about a year before his death. An interesting fellow, but bitterness almost oozed from his pores. Between his personal and professional setbacks, he didn't seem a happy man--especially in contrast to Ed Greenwood, whom I've also met at convention (sorry about name dropping).
I'm re-reading this book. I'm also playing some sessions of Age of Conan (AoC), the only MMO I've spent more than a few weeks with and consider myself a player of.
Tortage is the 20 level tutorial area of AoC. You go through it everytime you start a new character. I enjoy it, so no problem. There's a very difficult quest you'll likely finish at the very end of Tortage. And it's much easier if you group up with at least one other player.
So, my ranger was ready to do this quest. While I was en route to the final showdown, battling enemies, I ran into two other players on the same mission (if you see somebody in this particular area, they pretty much have to be on this quest). We grouped up and churned through a LOT of bad guys, just blowing through full speed. We encountered two more folks in another group at the top. While we waited for the BBEG, we ungrouped and grouped up, five pretty strong characters. We killed the BBEG with almost no trouble, disbanded and went on our ways.
There was ZERO role playing and minimal communication. We just grouped, ran forward, killed, ran forward, killed, knocked off bad guy, went home. One player did ask if anyone needed any more help, but no one did.
Now, I was happy to finish this quest and wrap up the tutorial. I had tried to complete this quest by myself and I couldn't get past the final wave of monsters before the BBEG. But this was absolutely an MMO experience. It was not a role playing experience.
Playing a videogame/MMO has many elements of RPGs, but it is not an actual RPG as Gary Gygax created with Dungeons and Dragons. It is basically about the fighting. It is about completing the journey (finishing the quest, "winning"), while I think RPGs are really about the journey itself.
I played a lot of Neverwinter Nights. I'd wade into combats, get killed, make adjustments, wade in again and eventually accomplish the mission and move along. In an RPG, be it at a table or an online PbP (I haven't tried a virtual table top), you try really hard not to get killed.
And you work with your group (well, 99% of the time).
In an earlier post, I quoted Gygax: Role-playing games are contests in which the players usually cooperate as a group to achieve a common goal rather than compete to eliminate one another from play. Chess, board games, cards, and miniatures games all pit individuals or teams against each other. Role games, in contrast, bring players together in a mutual effort to have their characters succeed or at least survive against the hostile “world” environment.
And Step number 10, which we haven't gotten to yet:
Always seek to contribute the most to the team’s success.
From the players’ and the PCs’ standpoint, any role-playing game is a group endeavor. Individual success is secondary to the success of the group, for only through group achievements can the quality of a campaign be measured.
I'm not dissing on videogames. I spent hours playing Temple of Apshai and subsequent games right up to an Age of Conan session a few nights ago. But MMOs and video games are not really Role Playing Games as per the table top games of the seventies and eighties that defined what the term RPG meant. And that's relevant in this thread in the sense that millions are playing MMOs and console games. FAR, FAR more than are playing Pathfinder, D&D whatever version it is and other games.
I've found myself in groups with players who have no qualms about looting a treasure in the middle of a fight, which causes a dialogue box to show up in the middle of my screen, making fighting a bit harder... That's thinking of youself, not group first. Group achievements largely seem to matter only in how it improves a character and furthers their goals. Moving forward is what's important.
I guess the point of this post (FINALLY, you say), is my realization of the following:
A generation of "RPGers" have been created that aren't familiar with how to really play an RPG. And who wouldn't care or get what this book is all about.
Even when life had precluded me getting together with friends to play D&D and I was playing Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights, I considered myself an RPGer and I understood what table top RGPing was. Now that I'm playing an MMO, I'm thinking that quite possibly, the majority of those computer/video gamers, don't.
Not good, not bad. But saying millions of people play RPGs because WoW is huge is sorta correct, but sorta not. Tabletop/PbPs are distinct.
I've been looking at the PF Adventure Card Game (which I LOVE) in a similar fashion and will be sharing some thoughts on it in relation to Gygax's book.
The MMORPG is, occasionally, an actual RPG.
I've seen people roleplay in them, I swear. And it wasn't just cybersex in Goldshire.
What I've really not seen any significant amount of was roleplaying in an MMO while in a dungeon.
Roleplaying in town? Sure. (Though there were some people actively looking down on that, too.) But roleplaying while out in the world, fighting monsters, even to the extent of using your character's voice in phrasing comments? Nope.
I tried. I had a night elf warrior in WoW, and I figured he was old enough, and old-fashioned enough, not to use contractions when speaking. And you know what I found? Given that it was harder to type, especially because I do use contractions myself, and that nobody recognized that there was any roleplaying going on, I gave up.
Especially with the people I'd probably never see again.
And it's harder to maintain a character when every day the character goes to the same places and kills the same monsters in the same way. And even worse when you do it again on a different character. And then, of course, your decisions don't matter.
If my character doesn't use axes, the statement I'm making might just be "I'm intentionally making my character weaker for a benefit nobody around me will recognize." And the focus on power and effective gameplay further reinforces that.
Basically, almost everything about an MMO makes it harder to roleplay as your character. People don't care, the world doesn't care, and it doesn't quite feel authentic either.
The adventure card game I think is a role-playing-themed board game, rather than an actual RPG.
I want to play it, I just don't know that I can justify picking it up given the sticker price and the continual releases that seem necessary to the game remaining fresh and maintaining replayability.
I think if the sticker price was lower I'd be much more inclined to go for it.
Yeah, the Card Game is a hybrid. It does a great job of combining the element of building an ongoing character with building a deck of cards. You've got that ongoing feeling of leveling up your character and improving his/her equipment. Using character decks as the mechanism.
I'm not aware of any prior deck building games resembling an RPG as much as PFACG does. But it's missing some elements of table-top RPGs, which I'm going to comment on.
It is my favorite "board" game and I think well worth the price (I'm a subscriber, but I bought the Base set first from Amazon with Discover card points to save some $$$).
BTW, welcome back to the thread. I shuddered when I re-read your post about your martial arts instructor. Yeesh!
The MMORPG is, occasionally, an actual RPG.
I've seen people roleplay in them, I swear. And it wasn't just cybersex in Goldshire.
What I've really not seen any significant amount of was roleplaying in an MMO while in a dungeon.
Random dungeon groups - yeah, not gonna happen. The majority of players are just there to KillStompDestroy things.
I've had RP in WoW dungeons during my time in an RP guild though, if you're taking a premade group of RPers in then it can work nicely.
Random groups, you're more likely to be votekicked for not contributing to clearing the thing in the minimum possible time so everyone can requeue and grind moar lootz.
Find out which server(s) in an MMO are the RP servers, seek out RP guilds that also like to do dungeons/raiding, and do things together in guild groups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played awhile in a Neverwinter Nights persistent world that had quite a bit of player interaction, role playing and non-combat/adventuring activity. That felt like more of a tabletop RPG to me.
And I know of AoC used to have an RP server (they just keep contracting, sad to say) and there is some RPing in various MMOs.
But I do think that someone who "grew up" as, or is primiarly a console/MMO RPGer has a very different orientation to what we're calling RPGing (in light of the Gygax book) than a tabletop/PbPer.
A deeper look (which I'm not going to do here) would look at whether the 'average' player of each type has different approaches to in game death, time required to level up, complete quests, solo vs. group play, etc. I don't think Gygax mentions solo play anywhere in this book: he views RPGing as a group, social activity to accomplish a common goal.
It is not uncommon for a tabletop session to consist entirely of walking around town, buying stuff, checking out different inns, shops, group talk, etc.
Now, an MMO is a different beast, just as you can spend a lot of time setting stuff up in a book that you cannot do in a movie. But how many MMO sessions could go an hour or two of that type of stuff, with no combat or questing? Probably not many. Just distinguishing the diferent orientation of the players.
And welcome to the thread, Matt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played awhile in a Neverwinter Nights persistent world that had quite a bit of player interaction, role playing and non-combat/adventuring activity. That felt like more of a tabletop RPG to me.
NWN was fantastic for that. For starters it was aimed pretty much directly at the D&D crowd, then with the PWs you would find that due to the difficulty of keeping them stocked with active content they were pretty much full of RPers (who just make their own "content".)
But I do think that someone who "grew up" as, or is primiarly a console/MMO RPGer has a very different orientation to what we're calling RPGing (in light of the Gygax book) than a tabletop/PbPer.
I tend to get annoyed when trying to find decent RPGs nowadays, as pretty much any game that has character levels and stats gets miscategorized under "RPG". The other week I looked at one just to find out it was a 2D platformer...
I need something with NPCs, discussion trees, irreversible decisions, and preferably a huge open world (and ideally a party that follows you around - or at least an option for a follower) or it just isn't going to cut it.
And welcome to the thread, Matt.
Thankees!
I played awhile in a Neverwinter Nights persistent world that had quite a bit of player interaction, role playing and non-combat/adventuring activity. That felt like more of a tabletop RPG to me.
NWN was fantastic for that. For starters it was aimed pretty much directly at the D&D crowd, then with the PWs you would find that due to the difficulty of keeping them stocked with active content they were pretty much full of RPers (who just make their own "content".)
I played a year, maybe less, in that NWN PW. By the end of it, I had still never played one minute of an MMO. And I felt it had done a good job of satisfying my desire to have a multiplayer experience.
I can't recall the PW (maybe Myth Drannor?), but it was a very fun place to play. And it didn't seem to have a lot of grinding involved, which was cool.
Life is role playing
Sure. Every day I assume the role of somebody who knows what they are doing. Like, say, in running this thread....
He also makes a point that I feel is important: the cooperative nature of role-playing:
Role-playing games are contests in which the players usually cooperate as a group to achieve a common goal rather than compete to eliminate one another from play. Chess, board games, cards, and miniatures games all pit individuals or teams against each other. Role games, in contrast, bring players together in a mutual effort to have their characters succeed or at least survive against the hostile “world” environment.
Probably the biggest problem I see manifested on the boards these days, the complaint about individuals not being 'given' their 'opportunity/chance to shine'.
Ultimately far too many people think that them having a moment of shiny is actually the point here.
Want to shine? Wrap yourself in alfoil and sit under a table lamp.
There's no I in team, and no special podium for you to shine on, nor should it be 'given' to you.
"Remember, there's no 'I' in 'thieves' guild'"
@Shifty - I think the whole "Look at me culture" of today is a huge reason things are going to hell in a handbasket, but that's certainly a whole other thread topic.
I can't say I've noticed your point on the boards, but I do think that Gygax's belief that it's all about the group is certainly not the way people think today. There was an earlier discussion in the thread about players' tendency to try and create the most outrageous, bizarre character they can, which I think is symptomatic of 'Look at me.'
I was reading last night and came across this:
What relationship will your PC bear to the balance of the group? Group needs and wants should be taken into account in your selection. If all the players in a group are selecting PC types at the same time, then they should work together and compromise if necessary to ensure that the group has a good mix of skills and abilities among its PCs. If you are creating a PC that will become a new member of an already existing group, then group needs should be uppermost in your mind. If the group is not balanced, then a PC that complements some aspect of the group, instead of aggravating or increasing the weakness or imbalance, will tend to make the group more viable when it faces conflict problems.
In light of my recent MMO comments, this is one aspect where they might be more attuned to Gygax than PbPs are. In a tabletop game, it's relatively easy to create characters that complement each other, leading to a balanced group. You're all sitting there together, as it were.
I often see "Need, healer, tank..." calls for grouping up in Age of Conan. They are usually short lived groups, forming for a specific quest, but they are being composed, at least partly, to meet character needs.
PbPs rarely are. Each character is created by a player in hopes of being selected for the game. If there are already three rangers, a new applicant might forgo his favorite class and create a cleric. But each player is making the character they want to play/believe gives them the best chance to be picked. Obviously, the GM serves his own interests by approving at least a somewhat balanced party. But that's up to him. PbP reflects very little of Gygax's thoughts on group needs as a key part of player creation (it's something he addresses more than once).
I'm just tossing out some (kinda MMO-centric) thoughts as I finish up the book. It's not exactly light, spellbinding reading. Step Eight is ready to go and will be posted next week.
We (well, mostly me, but hey, I count!) also talked about options bloat. I've softened somewhat on my "more and more stuff cheapens the game." stance. I still think it's true, but so what? If you have a bunch of shlock out there, buyers just need to be more discerning about what they get. If Paizo wants to offer players twenty races, or fifty, does it really matter? It's up to the GM to decide what they'll allow. If I think it looks silly or cheap, gaming goes on.
Having said that, looking through the playtest Advanced Class Guide, THAT is options bloat. A new book, with ten classes, that are just combinations of the existing classes? Options bloat.
"Remember, there's no 'I' in 'thieves' guild'"
Nice to see you back in the thread, Sissyl.
|
3. Discover the spirit of the game Make it your credo in play.
The concept of “spirit” is defined in the foregoing text. Although the goal of a game may be contained within its spirit, the spirit of the game usually goes deeper. Perceive it, understand it, and have your PC live by it when you engage in play.
This is pretty amazing, as what Gary is describing here is basically the "system matters" mantra a long time before that became a thing. He's basically saying that we should find out what the game we're playing is about on a deeper level through playing it and seeing what sorts of results emerge from its rules. I like it.
A lot of modern indie RPGs are pretty much built with this same idea in mind: "This is what I want my game to be about and these are the sorts of outcomes that I want to emerge through gameplay, so the rules will be built to produce those types of outcomes."
It's not just limited to modern games though: Call of Cthulhu was already mentioned, and it's a great example of this very phenomena: in emulating the stories of H.P. Lovecraft, the desired outcome for most interactions with the Mythos would be for the characters to go slowly insane. The insanity rules, for the most part, produce this outcome. More over, the Mythos entities are supposed to be scary not only because they drain your sanity, but also because they are powerful and dangerous. The game's lethal combat system produces this outcome.
That said, I wonder how much of the change in Dungeons & Dragons throughout the editions (the shift from AD&D 1e to 2e being the first major one) has to do with people outside of Gary's group playing D&D and wanting it to be something else, because the game itself didn't outright describe its spirit or how it was supposed to be played. Reading the stories of Gary's original group, their playstyle is something completely alien to me, and a lot of people I've talked to who started gaming with B/X or AD&D in the early eighties have described their games as nothing like the sort that Gary's group supposedly played.
And yeah, a side-by-side comparison of AD&D 1e and 2e actually reveals a huge shift in terms of this "spirit." 1e was still largely about adventuring in a dungeon and most XP was gained through loot, whereas 2e departed from these assumptions and did a near-complete overhaul of the XP system. It's easy to see how the change in the reward scheme of the game could dramatically change not only the tone of the game but how people actually played it. Since 2e was the first edition of the game without any input from Gary, it could be seen as the breaking-point where a new generation of gamers changed the game to better suit their own playstyle instead of imitating Gary's playstyle, because they had different ideas about what the spirit of the game was.
So, yeah. Cool thread.
@ratpick - Welcome to the thread. Something else Gygax said about Spirit of the Game:
The spirit of a game cannot be expressly defined in a sentence or a paragraph, and any game designer who attempts to do so is defeating his own purpose. The spirit of an RPG pervades all the statistics, mechanics, and descriptions that make up the actual rules; it is everywhere and nowhere in particular at the same time.
A game master or player who simply absorbs all the rules and uses them to play out a game adventure may be able to achieve expertise in the play of the game, but in the final analysis, he is doing no more than going through the motions-unless he also perceives, understands, and appreciates the spirit that underlies all those rules.
As you noted, Gygax being gone from TSR for 2nd Edition certainly gave TSR carte blanche to come up with the rules set they wanted; not just some twist on the Gygax legacy. And the opportunity to change the Spirit as they saw fit. I think there was also a more public perception of fantasy. There were movies at the theaters like Krull and The Sword and the Sorceror (I didn't say they were good). Fantasy literature (Brooks, Donaldson) was kinda mainstream instead of fringe stuff like Howard and Smith were. TSR could make D&D more marketable and in tune with the current decade.
Regarding the change, if the rules didn't have Gygax's name on them, they wouldn't have to pay him royalties. Goes along with TSR burying the Blackmoor setting for Greyhawk so they didn't have to pay Dave Arenson. Then Greyhawk being dumped for Forgotten Realms to avoid paying Gygax.
But all these changes certainly impacted the way people played the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the blindingly obvious occasionally hits me in the head (my wife will say not nearly often enough), it occured to me that most readers/participants in this thread probably haven't read the book and might be interested in what's in it. While I'm drawing from the whole thing, this thread is focused on the 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery. But Gygax really talks about a lot of stuff. Here are the headings in the Table of Contents:
What Is Mastery?
1 Role-Playing: The Foundation of Fun 17
2 The Master Player 24
3 The Master GM 41
4 The Group: More Than Its Parts 57
5 Rules: Construction and Reconstruction 77
6 Searching and Researching 104
7 Tactical Mastery 120
8 Designing Your Own Game 138
9 Mastery on the Grand Scale 153
10 An Overview of Progress Toward Mastery
Appendices
Appendix A: Organizations and Regional Groups
Appendix B: Annual Conventions Featuring Role-Playing Games
Appendix C: Professional Periodicals Serving the Role-Playing Game Community
Appendix D: Role-Playing Games and Products Currently Available, Their Genres, and Their Publishers
Appendix E: Glossary of Terms Used in This Work and in the Gaming Community
After discussion finishes on the actual 17 steps, I'm going to add a few more posts about other things Gygax talks about that weren't really part of the Steps.
This book is absolutely dated; but it does talk about a broad range of RPGing elements. Chapter 10 has a little circle diagram of mastery progress I'll have to upload and link to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole "group comes first" business feels odd to me... I read the examples of play in 1st edition, where the talking was between the DM and the lead character, with the others only rarely getting even to talk. It struck me that this is wargaming. For fantasy stories and all other such things, we have an individualistic narrative, and I doubt many can, and are willing to, go beyond that. Simply put, the group is not priority one, and I don't think it should be.
I think it's both, there's a ME in TEAM, but I'll also sacrifice Everything for a teammate, in the military sense, and the real magic in RPGs happens when you find a way to incorporate both of those ideals into the game.
|
This whole "group comes first" business feels odd to me... I read the examples of play in 1st edition...
You should also read the last section of the 1st edition Player's Handbook (just before the "Appendixes" begin) entitled "Successful Adventures". Gygax talks about the "group comes first" mentality within the context of the game.
It might provide you with a little more insight...
I read the examples of play in 1st edition, where the talking was between the DM and the lead character, with the others only rarely getting even to talk.
That was really only used for the 'tactical' elements of gameplay.
The party would still discus amongst themselves what they wanted to achieve and come up with their plans/decisions - exactly how it is now - but rather than each person announce their turn individually the caller would relay the information to the GM.
It saved enormous amounts of time over todays style where each person gets to their initiative and then announces what they are doing or begins their own individual decision making process at that point in time - as it was a party centric approach rather than a bunch of individuals making individual decisions in a bubble.
For any 'roleplay' elements, the players would speak with the GM freely and normally as they do now.
People still have party leaders today, no difference there.
Being the party caller =/= party leader though, the callers job was to make decision making and turn resolution quicker and less confusing.
In my opinion, there are a lot of tables that I have seen that would be greatly improved by getting back to this mode of play. The 'look at me'/circus of individuals playstyle generally leads to sub-optimal performance.
This whole "group comes first" business feels odd to me... I read the examples of play in 1st edition, where the talking was between the DM and the lead character, with the others only rarely getting even to talk. It struck me that this is wargaming. For fantasy stories and all other such things, we have an individualistic narrative, and I doubt many can, and are willing to, go beyond that. Simply put, the group is not priority one, and I don't think it should be.
That's interesting. From the time I first began RPGing, I've been group-centric. Which is the opposite of my video gaming, which is me-centric.
That doesn't mean I like everybody in the group and I don't mind seeing someone "get it" from a bad guy, but group success is the goal.
He opens up chapter four with:
Group operation and cooperation are at the nucleus of any RPG activity. This fact should be obvious from the rules of the game, even if it is not explicitly stated within those rules.
You mentioned wargaming. I've never read the Chainmail rules, but I know that the Fantasy Supplment portion is the foundation of D&D. And that it was oriented more towards individual combat rather than mass combat. Which makes the whole 'group focus' kinda...I don't know, ironic?
While Step 10 is group oriented, he does address individuality within that in Step 11.
10. Always seek to contribute the most to the team’s success.
From the players’ and the PCs’ standpoint, any role-playing game is a group endeavor. Individual success is secondary to the success of the group, for only through group achievements can the quality of a campaign be measured.
11. Put forth your personal best during play.
The advice given in step 10 does not mean that you should ever compromise in your efforts to succeed as a player. Your PC may have to subjugate his or her individual desires from time to time to ensure the general welfare of the group, but that is as it should be, and this does not mean that you should ever allow your enthusiasm and drive as a player to lessen.
No right or wrong on the issue, as it's a matter of personal play preference. Just a reminder we're looking at what Gygax said in relation to becoming his idea of a Master Player.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole "group comes first" business feels odd to me... I read the examples of play in 1st edition, where the talking was between the DM and the lead character, with the others only rarely getting even to talk. It struck me that this is wargaming. For fantasy stories and all other such things, we have an individualistic narrative, and I doubt many can, and are willing to, go beyond that. Simply put, the group is not priority one, and I don't think it should be.
What you have to understand that RPGs pretty much developed from wargames. It was a group activity where your group was pretty much a military squad going into a dungeon to overcome the obstacles therein while trying to keep the casualties to a minimum. Each group had designated positions like the caller (the one who relays the group's actions to the GM), mapper (the one who maps the GM's description of the dungeon) and probably other functions as well, such as the treasurer, someone who keeps notes of monsters and their abilities, and so on.
The playstyle was also completely different from modern adventuring: you were there to beat the dungeon that the GM threw at you. There was no separation of combat, exploration, and roleplaying encounters, because all of those things were seen as properties of what roleplaying was at the time. Most players didn't identify with their characters in a sense of having to immerse themselves with their character's mindset, characters were pretty much playing pieces. The fact that a lot of memorable characters from Gary's original group had jokey names (including Melf, who got his name from the fact that he was a Male Elf, and Rary was named so that once he would reach 3rd-level his player could retire him as Medium Rary) also shows that not a lot of players thought much of their characters as personas.
A lot of the stuff we consider roleplaying these days (including play-acting our characters and immersing ourselves in their personalities) only arose after players from non-wargaming backgrounds started playing D&D, and as they became designers and writers for D&D the game became less focused on "fantasy military squad dungeon adventures" and more on something larger in scope.
Obviously I'm generalizing and painting in broad brushstrokes here, because even the very first iteration of the game had the implication that a high level character would retire and build their own keep, but the game was completely different in tone from the way most people regard the act of roleplaying these days.
This whole "group comes first" business feels odd to me... I read the examples of play in 1st edition, where the talking was between the DM and the lead character, with the others only rarely getting even to talk. It struck me that this is wargaming. For fantasy stories and all other such things, we have an individualistic narrative, and I doubt many can, and are willing to, go beyond that. Simply put, the group is not priority one, and I don't think it should be.
Yes, I remember reading that. I also remember that no game I ever played in or watched ran like that. We never had a party leader, and nobody ever spoke for the whole party unless they were put on the spot by the DM. And expected the group to chip in if needed. The DM was very patient when it came to us discussing options and tactics and eventually someone would summarise and tell him what we were doing, often with interruptions.
I think I've played with a party leader way back when. But everybody still talked whenever they wanted. Funelling everything through one player/character, except in specific circumstances, would certainly seem to diminish the enjoyment level for everybody.
And welcome to the recent newcomers. As you can see from the first couple pages of the thread, it's everybody's responses to the Steps that makes this an interesting read.
Under the heading, 'Mastery Is Group Success':
Whatever rewards you seek, all that might come are based onthe play group. As a member of this team, you must know how to invest your efforts to enable the team to become more successful.
As you pursue individual excellence and strive toward mastery, you must always bear in mind that it is possible only through your interaction with your RPG group.Your entire investment in the game genre, your survey of the field, selection of a topic, study of the rules, and application of what you have learned should be used to benefit the group. By knowing how to assist the group, you increase your own abilities proportionately. In turn, the group assists you in furthering your knowledge and enhances your skills. As you assist it in moving upward in expertise, it carries you along. The synergism of the group is integral to mastery.
You know, just in case I hadn't mentioned how he feels about the issue...
Yeah, the Card Game is a hybrid. It does a great job of combining the element of building an ongoing character with building a deck of cards. You've got that ongoing feeling of leveling up your character and improving his/her equipment. Using character decks as the mechanism.
I'm not aware of any prior deck building games resembling an RPG as much as PFACG does. But it's missing some elements of table-top RPGs, which I'm going to comment on.
It is my favorite "board" game and I think well worth the price (I'm a subscriber, but I bought the Base set first from Amazon with Discover card points to save some $$$).
BTW, welcome back to the thread. I shuddered when I re-read your post about your martial arts instructor. Yeesh!
I forgot I wrote that post. I was gone partly because I normally just skim through the main forums page, so if this isn't in the 10 or so most recent Gamer Talk threads I may not see it.
Actually a quick side question on the Card Game - do the "expansions" have guidelines on how to set up your deck / character if you were to jump ahead to them? Just wondering if it's feasible to play a later adventure rather than having to start at the first adventure every time you play with new people.
When I played WoW, I actually enjoyed tanking. That was good, because it got me groups really easily, on one of my characters. But my others always had a ton of trouble. Every group needs damage dealers. But while, for 5-man dungeons, the rule was 1 tank, 1 healer, and 3 dps... far more than 60% of the playerbase were dps. During the Wrath of the Lich King expansion, my paladin, primarily a two-handed smashy type, actually spent most of his time in groups as a healer. Because I could get a random group in 2 minutes as a healer, or wait 45 as a dps. And that 45 minute wait was longer than the dungeon would take. It was annoying; I was tailoring myself not to the needs of a specific group, but to the needs of the generic group. Of course I also often found myself stuck playing the healer when I ran with friends and used the paladin - often it was "heal, but we'll let you get dps gear... because otherwise we're just going to stand here for an hour and not end up doing anything." Of course that was because the role of healing wasn't sufficiently appealing to get 20% of the playerbase doing it. (So this was putting the group first, but consistently sublimating your own desires to the needs of the group, which becomes frustrating when that's how it always is.)
As far as the Advanced Class Guide, there's definitely even more options, and I am one of those people who has a lot more characters he wants to play than chances to play them. That said, a few of the classes really do appeal, especially the ones that facilitate a niche that was hard to play initially. (One thing I hate is playing a character who doesn't fit his intended niche within the first couple of levels; for example, playing a fighter/wizard who doesn't fuse the two until level 10, and so on.)
On the game's spirit... I'm slowly, very, very slowly, building a game system. A mission statement sounds like an absolutely excellent idea for it. (One thing I do have is a partial example of play, intended to front-run the mechanics just to help me see what I need to address. It's looking a lot longer than a D&D example of play, already.) In fact, I'm sitting with the system now trying to find the balance point between realism and simplicity. Abstracting, going more gamist, but making gameplay flow more quickly and easily, versus a realistic simulation and a strong ability to extrapolate a situation not covered in the rules in a coherent fashion.
Obviously the rules need to successfully reflect the intended spirit, or else any mission statement is a lie to anyone picking up the game. But the first step to achieving rules that reflect the spirit successfully is knowing what the spirit is when you write the rules.
I think the second part of what @LazarX typed feeds the first. The group is pushing ahead so fast that it's hard to type much beyond an initial hello when grouping up. So the "hurry to get through" prohibits communication (not just RPing).
And I feel like a doofus when I'm typing something and another group member is ahead fighting something. Because that fighting is a more immediate priority.
As far as the Advanced Class Guide, there's definitely even more options, and I am one of those people who has a lot more characters he wants to play than chances to play them. That said, a few of the classes really do appeal, especially the ones that facilitate a niche that was hard to play initially. (One thing I hate is playing a character who doesn't fit his intended niche within the first couple of levels; for example, playing a fighter/wizard who doesn't fuse the two until level 10, and so on.)
From a Gygaxian perspective (I should coin that term), I guess the way you'd evaluate new options and rules are by their purpose: are they truly to enhance the game or just to make power gaming easier for players:
Too often, new material purporting to add to a game system is nothing more than a veiled attempt to dominate the game milieu through power, not skill. Such creativity, if it can be called that, amounts to a perversion of the game.
As far as the Advanced Class Guide, there's definitely even more options, and I am one of those people who has a lot more characters he wants to play than chances to play them. That said, a few of the classes really do appeal, especially the ones that facilitate a niche that was hard to play initially. (One thing I hate is playing a character who doesn't fit his intended niche within the first couple of levels; for example, playing a fighter/wizard who doesn't fuse the two until level 10, and so on.)From a Gygaxian perspective (I should coin that term), I guess the way you'd evaluate new options and rules are by their purpose: are they truly to enhance the game or just to make power gaming easier for players:
Too often, new material purporting to add to a game system is nothing more than a veiled attempt to dominate the game milieu through power, not skill. Such creativity, if it can be called that, amounts to a perversion of the game.
So, so true. One of my GMs has added custom spells to the game. They're incredibly powerful, and in many cases versatile as well. That's great, but they're also functionally only available to one of the six PCs (I suppose a second, if he found scrolls and chose to scribe into his spellbook and then actually prepare them). They're high level, and maybe they're not overpowered, but the frequency with which they're used over existing spells implies they are. What do these spells do, at root? They make full casters more powerful (and not all full casters). One of those spells almost completely ended a large encounter.
Many custom items have been flavorful, but quite a few have also been "this is great for the NPC, but totally worthless to the party except as something to sell, because it's so specialized." Others are just categorically superior to anything else that would share the same item slot.
Instant Enemy is a good example. It's a definite power boost. And it's a patch on a poor mechanic (favored enemy). A Ranger fighting none of his favored enemies is weaker than a Fighter. A Ranger fighting his most-favored-enemy is stronger. But the player doesn't want to fight things that aren't his favored enemy. So he just casts instant enemy.
The thing I like in the ACG is the ability to play a character type from level 1, not from level 8. The Magus would be the pre-ACG example; from level 1, it feels like a Fighter/Wizard. It has capabilities of both, and the ability to combine them, from level 1. Traditionally I would need to spend a few levels each in Fighter and Wizard before finding a prestige class that fused both of them (casting in armor, primarily) and enough levels to use Quicken Spell to both cast and fight in the same round. As a Magus, I can do all that from level 1, and, as long as you think that the Fighter/Wizard is a character archetype your game should support, that's a good thing. (If you think that such a character archetype is something a character needs to build to over a long career, then it's not a good thing.)
(And...we're really back!)
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Eight - Understand the role of the game master and assist its fulfillment.
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
More about this will be given in the text to come. For now, suffice it to say these two things: The GM is the sole arbiter of all that goes on in the campaign world, but all-powerful in this case does not mean all knowing; no game master can succeed without the willing assistance of all the players.
Gygax doesn’t really talk about this step as it’s written. He does talk extensively about GMing in chapter three (titled, The Master GM). But we can look at this step from our perspective as players. You’ve got two kinds of participants in an RPG: the player (we already made the distinction between player and character) and the GM. Since the GM is in charge of and “frames” the game for the player, it’s logical that the player should understand the GM’s role and play in a way that helps the GM make the game a better experience. I’ve heard stories of jerk GMs: there have been comments about some in this thread. I’ve had nothing but good GMs, so I’ve been lucky. Assuming a good GM, here are two comments from Gygax:
“The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of PCs not bent on self destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined.”
Also, “To reiterate, the Game Master is not an enemy; neither is he by nature adversarial. He desires successful play by the participants when their play is kept within the specified limits and as long as it promotes the ongoing nature of the campaign.”
So, I’m not out to make life hard for my GM. How do I meet the concept of Step 8? Mendedwall talked in depth in an earlier post about players, when they sit down at the table, knowing their characters and the relevant mechanics. He mentioned the idea of not letting a player use a spell that they didn’t know how to play properly. First and foremost, being able to play your character well and correctly should help the GM do his job properly. New players will learn, just as new GMs do: this isn’t about experience level. It’s not uncommon for me to catch myself making sure I don’t have a one hand and a two hand item in play during a game of Munchkin. That’s knowing the rule and playing correctly (I don’t do it all the time). As a player, I shouldn’t try to dual wield if my character can’t do that. And I probably should know how much damage my fireball spell does.
‘Rules lawyer’ is a pejorative term. Role Playing Mastery should involve assisting the GM in making the right decisions and rulings per the rulebook and the Spirit of the Game (see Step 3). It should NOT lead someone to challenge every point. There’s a reason nobody else likes the rules lawyer. A player should help the GM run the game according to the system being used, but should not take every opportunity to stop the flow of the game to nitpick the rules. Based on my experiences, it’s usually pretty clear who is trying to help and who is just being a pain.
Other little things: be on time (or post timely), say ‘thank you,’ be clear in your actions; anything that makes the GM’s experience an enjoyable one. GMing takes a lot of effort. If running the game feels like pulling hen’s teeth (who has actually done that to really understand the comparison?), the GM may not fulfill his role as well as he could. And as we’ve seen in PbPs, the GM may simply let the game die. A well-intentioned GM is going to do their best: you can help them enjoy their experience, which should result in them running a ‘better’ game.
Next up: Step 9 - Role Play Your Character Correctly and Fully
Ah, I've left you all speechless. Or 'typeless'. Thought I'd toss this in from my reading the other night on Group Success.
The Five Stages of Group Success
As several of the posts above indicate, it was all about the group for Gygax. So he finishes up chapter four with some determinations of what constitutes group success.
It is not easy to attach values or labels to success in an RPG activity, since there is no scorekeeping as such and no universal, totally quantifiable standards by which success can be measured.
However, success in a group context can be defined, and the best place to begin with the definition is by delineating what does not constitute success. As was alluded to in Chapter 2, some persons erroneously believe success to be indicated by the high status of their player characters. In a similar vein, some game masters think that if their campaigns have a large number of such inflated characters, this is a mark of their own success. By and large, neither standard is correct. Success is defined in the following ways:
('player' and 'PC' are largely interchangeable in this section)
Stage One - Individual Recognition
When the group gives recognition to the player or one or more of that player’s PCs through reliance upon him during play sessions, at first, and then through the telling and retelling of tales relating to play sessions that featured the individual’s PC(s).
This occurs because one PC will realize some level of success before others do. He gets ahead of the pack, as it were. And naturally, he becomes more important to the group. I find the second part amusing. Telling stories about what a character did, then retelling them, doesn't seem too modern.
Stage Two - The GM Relies Upon the Player
...the PC’s accomplishments are so noteworthy that the GM also exhibits reliance upon the player and engages in the storytelling activity.
So, the PC not only became central to the functioning of the group, but the GM is now utilizing that PC beyond the other members. I suppose that can make sense (he says tentatively), but it seems odd to me. Sort of like dealing with the alpha wolf in a pack; for an RPG session?
Stage Three - Several Outstanding Players are Developed
We can recognize this because they are all objects of reliance and the subjects of tales and stories about their exploits and achievements. I'm picturing that knight that followed along singing about 'brave Sir Robin' in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Apparently groups met quite frequently in Gygax's day, recounting prior sessions.
He also adds that ...the limelight spreads out to encompass the GM; if not for his ability and patience, the players would not have been able to achieve what they have. Thus the third stage of player and playergroup success is also the first definable stage of success for the GM and the playing group.
I do agree that a good GM facilitates good gameplay for the players, so it being a good game is to some degree the GM's doing. Though individual PCs doing well being a tribute to the GM seems a bit odd.
Stage Four - Success Outside the Local Game
This is taking the show on the road, as it were. Players and the GM play outside of the group and do well. Tournament success can be determined by measuring performance against other tournament players. But don't worry if you start out slowly: Unsuccessful participation in a tournament is not a disgrace; few players or GMs achieve top results in their first exposure to such activity.
But it's important, as Gygax says that this Stage of success can only be achieved when at least most of the group memebrs place well consistently in tournaments.
I don't think you need a macro level of success to make your local group a success; that's a micro issue.
He also mentions being published in amateur and professional periodicals. With the proliferation of third party publishers, kickstarters, contests and the like, publication in something "official" is more doable these days and does seem to provide potential stepping stones into the RPG industry. And would likely indicate some type of expertise in the field.
Stage Five - Official Recognition
And the jackpot is when at least one player or GM receives general acclaim throughout the segment of the hobby interested in the same form of RPG in which the group has become highly proficient.
No matter how good you think you are, it doesn't match up to respect from your peers. Now, I do think it's cool if someone from your group (say I played with Creighton Broadhurst) got recognized for his work on a module, or being a champion player (Gold: an RPG comes to mind). But that doesn't reflect on me: I'm not a parasite and going along for the ride.
For me, this section absolutely feels dated and not very relevant today. But having read the whole book (twice now), it does bolster Gygax's firm belief that RPG success is about the group, not the individual.
Stage Two - The GM Relies Upon the Player...the PC’s accomplishments are so noteworthy that the GM also exhibits reliance upon the player and engages in the storytelling activity.
So, the PC not only became central to the functioning of the group, but the GM is now utilizing that PC beyond the other members. I suppose that can make sense (he says tentatively), but it seems odd to me. Sort of like dealing with the alpha wolf in a pack; for an RPG session?
I'm not reading it as much as singling just one player out. More that when a player is succeeding at the game, their exploits and activities should help provide the GM with new story hooks because of the depth of storytelling involved, with the two of them building on one another's contributions to the overall story. It's possible for this to be happening for every character, in which case you're looking at a table full of success ;)
I'm not reading it as much as singling just one player out. More that when a player is succeeding at the game, their exploits and activities should help provide the GM with new story hooks because of the depth of storytelling involved, with the two of them building on one another's contributions to the overall story. It's possible for this to be happening for every character, in which case you're looking at a table full of success ;)
Stage Two - The GM Relies Upon the Player...the PC’s accomplishments are so noteworthy that the GM also exhibits reliance upon the player and engages in the storytelling activity.
So, the PC not only became central to the functioning of the group, but the GM is now utilizing that PC beyond the other members. I suppose that can make sense (he says tentatively), but it seems odd to me. Sort of like dealing with the alpha wolf in a pack; for an RPG session?
Ah. I didn't see it that way. That seems more reasonable.
I dropped some quotes from the book over on this thread:.
If the link doesn't come up, it's near the bottom of the thread.
I don't particularly like gunslingers or firearms (I'm softening in pirate-themed games), but I'd hate to have this guy GM for me or a friend at a PFS game. I'd quit before I decided I had to kill the character before we even started. I know that's option three, but he really seems to be hostile towards anybody wanting to play the class.