HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on May 1, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -8
So I started listening to the Mines of Madness podcast after reading this thread. Two things came to mind. First, much like jfever, I have to wonder what WotC's goal was here. As people have pointed out, we don't really get to hear how D&D Next mechanics work in the episodes. It doesn't show off the system all that much. Mines of Madness is a joke/deathtrap adventure, with characters dying pretty frequently. Is that something that WotC wants to show off to potential new players? I wouldn't if I was in their shoes. So I really don't know what WotC hoped to achieve here. Secondly, while I agree that there is no wrong way to play, listening to this reminded me how much I dislike this GMing style. Everything was very dry and mechanical with lots of "You roll an 11", "I cast Ray of Frost", and "OK, now it's round two". It was so incredibly boring. After playing/running Dungeon World, where everything begins and ends with the fiction and GMs are expressly told to not say what they're doing mechanically, I can say that for my tastes, this is an example of the wrong way to GM.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 2, 2013 0:25:21 GMT -8
It's funny how two people can look at the same thing and see something so radically different. That is the beauty (and the horror) of a game (ehr all RPGs) so dependent on the players to play - what I call the conversation and Aaron calls the gestalt at the table. GM = System. Secondly, while I agree that there is no wrong way to play, Well, let's examine that idea a little bit further. The game is made up of opinion. Even the "God Role" is just basically some person ruling based on opinion. To a lesser or greater degree, God will display his or her lack of omniscience in meting out rulings (as it should be, as the GM must be psychologically sound mind who maturely accepts his or her self as a being much less than a God in reality). So we are talking about opinions, which munchkins chiming in their opinions on the way the game should be played RAW from their objective opinion, of course... out come the charts. No wrong way to play? No wrong opinion? No wrong interpretation (because interpretation is a core mechanic to **CENSORED**)? What happens to the person riding that cacaphony of tabletop gastalt/conversation? What happens as people become more mature/wise? Is their new (GM=) system necessarily locked to pre-evolution (pre-player development)? No there is a wrong way to play these games. Can you see what I am driving at? It was greatwyrm's comment coupled with yours that chrystalized it in my mind. It's not about "the rules" which are subjectively interpretable. It's about the players at the table and what they bring or do not bring to the converation/gestalt. Ok... I mothball this idea for another topic. I also agree with you Hyvemynd. D&D today is over run with mechanical flippery to decide and dry all the juice out of role-playing (if you let it). [italics denote connected thoughts.] **CENSORED** e.g. my AD&D 1e and the viewpoint that privileges it: All the mechanical creep that has filled these gaps that were once the breeding grounds for a culture of role-playing committed to social interaction between social outcasts/misfits, if history is to be trusted, makes it now possible to Gather Information without a player ever opening their mouth and to have Knowledge about current story events without a player being mentally engaged. This paradigm shift of 180 degrees obscures the game’s original player skill focus and story reliance, which is evident in AD&D 1e, with a veil of tactical war gaming and meta-gaming mechanical rules essentially on flash cards to cover a traditional player-to-player tabletop relationship in the later iterations. Game systems that have come after AD&D 1e seem designed to satisfy the media of mechanics, easier to manipulate than individual players, and they have taken away the once necessity of player engrossment in story. The gaps in AD&D 1e rules exist to be filled in by role-play that will inform rules, not by dry game theory contrary to the broadened roll-play capability of an increasing number of dice mechanics in later editions.
If this game would have detailed rules for relationships like it does for combat, it would be no better than a button mashing game of Stratego, enthralling players to dice checks and passivity. I believe role-playing games require the emotional content of its players, which is accomplished safely through the distance of a persona. (This is how role-playing helps people get acquainted better than board games.)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 2, 2013 0:47:39 GMT -8
Now here's a question . . . When did this rules bloat first begin? Not just in D&D but in RPG's in general? ie: which game started it all? Personally I believe it began with ICE and it's proto-Rolemaster system in the arms law claw law etc books - which rapidly became the game itself when they released character law, Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 2, 2013 5:30:58 GMT -8
I listened to the Mines of Madness AP on the WotC podcast feed. Holy Shit. 5E is doomed. They introduce random instances where they draw a card that gives the players broken shit. They draw a card that BRINGS A DEAD CHARACTER BACK TO LIFE. What the fuck? I'm thinking about writing a longer, more detailed account of this abomination of a podcast for Douchey DM or something. . . . Please. If you had any doubts about 5E, listen to the Mines of Madness AP. Awful. Hey JFEVER! I have not listened to the AP - and will not due to time management - but I am curious: does character death happen truly randomly (not an example of OSR, rather douchey DMing lest it get confused) or is there a player skill requirement that the player fails and their character dies as a result? And I am thinking about the Tomb of Horrors and all the obscure hints players have to work through as a team at the table as well as working the rumour mill (that's what I call role-playing, a term loosely defined as buttom mashing social DCs in later iterations) to get the background rumours on the tomb in the first place. Is it players/characters die "stupidly" (player agency) or "randomly" (no player agency)? I am hearing ramdomly from your tone but I thought I would clarify (and bring the thread away from my detour and back on topic).
|
|
jfever
Journeyman Douchebag
FEVAH!!!!
Posts: 218
|
Post by jfever on May 2, 2013 7:07:06 GMT -8
lol creativecowboy, your stuff is just a far more evolved version of my rage texts. I'll highlight one example: The heroes try and go through the entrance to the mines. The opening collapses, and they aren't able to get in. The DM keeps saying "Do you want to go to the outhouse?" over and over and eventually (my mind fucking exploded here) he says "Your stomachs begin to feel discomfort and you have to make a trip to the outhouse." Somebody goes in the outhouse, and a giant purple worm explodes out of the toilet. It's very over powered for the encounter, and ends up swallowing one of the character's whole. Instantly, the player and DM say, after the combat, that an adventurer they all met in town shows up and joins the party. It isn't random. It's malicious railroading into death, much like the original Tomb of Horrors. I see it like this: I may have REALLY enjoyed the original He Man cartoons when I was a child. Now, I may look back on them with fond nostalgia. But, when it really comes down to it, were they quality? No. Were they any good? No. Will I watch them now? HELL no. Should anyone make a cartoon that is exactly like the original He Man cartoon??? FUCK NO. Why? Because it wasn't any good!!! New cartoons come out to improve upon the past cartoons, not repeat the same, stupid shit over and over again. Also, to drive my point home, if someone has never seen a cartoon before or even really heard about what a cartoon is, would you show them the original He Man cartoon? HELL FUCKIN NO. You would show them Samurai Jack or Korgoth the Barbarian (why did that not get picked up? ). IF you showed them He Man, you would probably put them off of cartoons. My example is small. A friend showing a friend a cartoon. This AP paired with 5E is much bigger. The original He Man of role playing styles/games is being made, while any of us who actually pay fucking attention to the hobby know that great RPGs are going in a different direction. What is worse about this AP and 5E in general is that is can teach new role players bad habits and tendencies that will last for years, and/or will draw all the existing douchebag roleplayers and DM's together to create a mega douche black whole of cunt smell. At least the original He Man cartoon would just make the the person stop watching cartoons all together, or drive them to seek out something better (GOD WILLING). *AUTHOR'S NOTE: I have not seen the original He Man cartoon. It was just an example. Please to PM me or post on this thread about how the original He Man cartoon is God's gift to cinema. Besides, you're probably fucking lying and crazy.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 2, 2013 7:42:03 GMT -8
*AUTHOR'S NOTE: I have not seen the original He Man cartoon. It was just an example. Please to PM me or post on this thread about how the original He Man cartoon is God's gift to cinema. Besides, you're probably fucking lying and crazy. You know Jfever... I'd like to think that you and I are friends. We've laughed, we've cried, we've done some group haikus together...BUT DAMN IT SIR! This wrong cannot go un-righted...I'll just go on record as saying DON'T FUCK WITH THE HE-MAN!And he can do that shit ALL DAY!Now, to deal with the real nugget of the monkey poop slinging fight (I mean intelligent discussion). I'll agree with you that WotC is doing itself no grand artistic favors by focusing on THE FUNNY...I know you'd like to see bad things done to the Penny Arcade crew but their AP with all its Jim Darkmagic of the New Hampshire Darkmagics had some pretty funny moments. (Wil Wheaton notwithstanding) It became one of their most popular podcasts and now that has left them to continue to chase after THE FUNNY. No matter how painful that might be to listen. Someday, hopefully before this golden calf called 5E gets trundled out they will get some folks to play not only a "funny/entertaining" AP. But one that is informative and instructional offering ways to play the game that show off its shinier aspects while exalting in how fucking cool a game with in depth characters and rich immersive story aspects can be. Try selling that shit to a corporate marketeer... BY THE POWER OF GREYSKULL!Cheers, Curt J. (D.T. Pints) (Mrs.)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 2, 2013 16:24:55 GMT -8
lol creativecowboy, your stuff is just a far more evolved version of my rage texts. I'll highlight one example: The heroes try and go through the entrance to the mines. The opening collapses, and they aren't able to get in. The DM keeps saying "Do you want to go to the outhouse?" over and over and eventually (my mind fucking exploded here) he says "Your stomachs begin to feel discomfort and you have to make a trip to the outhouse." Somebody goes in the outhouse, and a giant purple worm explodes out of the toilet. It's very over powered for the encounter, and ends up swallowing one of the character's whole. Instantly, the player and DM say, after the combat, that an adventurer they all met in town shows up and joins the party. It isn't random. It's malicious railroading into death, much like the original Tomb of Horrors. It’s random and Douchey. The example showcases douchey behaviour. It highlights the “unifying ability” of 5e to emphasize the Douche in the game – something that can never actually leave it and is best addressed in a set of etiquette rules rather than a series of mechanical rulebooks. If we appreciate our hobby, we should ostracize the douche bags not laud them. The example is treated as a random event/encounter (despite the fact it was a set piece encounter) because it is not foreshadowed. Tomb of Horrors has lots of foreshadowing. This does not make the adventure module easy or spelled out by spoon-feeding players. It requires players to use skill and to converse with one another as players/characters would. However, it is obvious that the AP game has a purple worm lurking around the outhouse so some clue would be expected – same as the clues plentiful in the Tomb of Horrors. The DM has no appreciation for the module he lampoons. Because no clues are related, the DM is an irrevocable WotC’s sponsored asshole to players. This is not a synonym for OSR. To so cavalierly make it so, I find it to be a rather disparaging message on WotC’s part. To be certain, I neither have a problem with Kobolds inhabiting a world where my players are 10th level nor with purple worms inhabiting a world where my players are 1st level. I believe in consistency if I am to have immersion. I do have a problem with this example because it robs the game of player engrossment and agency through its lack of clues to players. Players are not GMPCs. They are not simply the DM’s worm food. This is an example of what not to do, that does get done by simply inexperienced and the dedicated career douche bag GM. The opposite end of the pendulum is the douche bag novelist GM who narrates everything at the players – another practice I am vehemently against but a potential reaction to this sort of douche buggery. Let me know if you do Blog this because I will Twitter the hell out of it for you.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on May 2, 2013 19:17:00 GMT -8
While I don't disagree with anything you've said jfever (and far be it from me to argue with the great Gimble Gimble Gimbleson), as greatwyrm pointed out, The Mines of Madness is meant to be a Tomb of Horrors-esque, kill a character every 30 seconds meat-grinder game. So the lethal cave in on the poor schmuck who first stepped into the mine and the Purple Worm swallowing the outhouse whole (after the GM basically railroaded the players into checking it out) are to be expected.
Is it the type of games I like to play? Fuck no. I think they're insanely dumb for the most part, except when you want a throw-away game that's just for laughs. Which, I think, this was. My point is why advertise this style of game by doing a podcast about it? Sure, it's funny. But will people think this is the "default mode" for D&D Next and D&D in general? Maybe. Maybe not.
As for the "there's no wrong way to play" argument, creativecowboy, I think you're intentionally misinterpreting it. I've only listened to the first two parts of that AP. But from what I can hear, everyone is enjoying themselves. They are laughing, having a good time, and no one seems pissed off at the constant PC deaths. They are playing the right way for their group. A different group may, and probably will play D&D Next in a different way. Regardless of how you play this game, I'll bet that someone, somewhere likes that particular play style. Therefore, taken as a whole, looking at the totality of how this game is played, there is no wrong way to do it.
I'm willing to change my statement to "There's no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun" if you're willing to change your statement to "There is a right way to play for each individual group." Sound fair?
However I'm not touching your "GM = system" stuff with an 11-foot pole.
|
|
jfever
Journeyman Douchebag
FEVAH!!!!
Posts: 218
|
Post by jfever on May 2, 2013 21:36:46 GMT -8
I'll agree with you that WotC is doing itself no grand artistic favors by focusing on THE FUNNY...I know you'd like to see bad things done to the Penny Arcade crew but their AP with all its Jim Darkmagic of the New Hampshire Darkmagics had some pretty funny moments. (Wil Wheaton notwithstanding) It became one of their most popular podcasts and now that has left them to continue to chase after THE FUNNY. No matter how painful that might be to listen. I'm glad you brought up the Jim Darkmagic AP's D.T. PintsI think those were GREAT AP's because they were ULTRA character focused. I don't remember a whole of mechanics in those games, especially during the live one. The reason those were so fuckin popular was because the characters and their interactions were pure gold. Do you think anyone is going to be talking about the awesome amount of character deaths in the Mines of Madness AP's? Nope. Because we didn't give a shit about the characters at all. The Jim Darkmagic games were a far better example of what an RPG should be than the Mines of Madness. Ultimately, it's all moot. I'm not buying 5E anyway. Too many other good games to buy (waiting on the Traveller 5 review Stu . . . . )
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 2, 2013 23:39:58 GMT -8
The Mines of Madness is meant to be a Tomb of Horrors-esque, kill a character every 30 seconds meat-grinder game. So the lethal cave in on the poor schmuck who first stepped into the mine and the Purple Worm swallowing the outhouse whole (after the GM basically railroaded the players into checking it out) are to be expected. This is offensive. I would say you obviously do not know what you're talking about BUT it could also be you have played this module with a Douche Bag and this has forever coloured your experience. Or maybe you have just listened to one too many demonstrations of an Old School game like this AP? Is it a hard module for players who are supposed to have played together for years to reach 6th level? (Maybe not the same character 1 through 6 but having started playing at 1st level and playing every level progression up to 6th.) Yes. It is a challenge. Just read the back of the module. Did you not get the map? Did you not piece together the riddle, spending several minutes talking with the other players spit balling “what the hell?” Were you simply rolling attack dice to your doom? Were you not cautious or disengaged when you played? Possibly you had an inexperienced DM who would have been better to run something like In Search of the Unknown, if not an outright douche bag who would be better not to run anything at all. There is a right way to play that game and it requires some player maturity (was it levels 6 - 8) plus some group maturity. Rolling up first time characters at level 6 because the module sounded cool was not the proper way to play. [If you had played through levels 1 – 6 and rolled up a new level 6 character then that’s cool.] I'm willing to change my statement to "There's no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun" if you're willing to change your statement to "There is a right way to play for each individual group." Sound fair? That sounds nice. Except when people get the wrong impression of the hobby from a bunch of elitist douche bags flying their flag. The Community episode where the cast played Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was good because it put the douche bag in his place. It reflected what the game could be: even social misfits interacting like normal human beings. Play/players that harm the hobby are not good. They are not right. "Welcome asshole" is not the loadstone I want to wear when I recruit players. And if you think new-to-the-hobby people do not pick up on this "douche bag hobby" reputation long before I convince them to pick up some dice, you need to get out and about more. Yes, there is a wrong way to play, and it reflects back on the hobby and all of us.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 3, 2013 7:49:12 GMT -8
(stepping around the burning smells)
The Jim Dark Magic actual plays are an example of something I think WotC could really benefit from and that is leading by example of how the game can be played to its fullest. Dice rolling's fun, character immersion is fun and somewhere in the Yin/Yang of it all there is a harmonic point for each of us. And...Oh Look a Squirrel!
And some time later...
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on May 3, 2013 10:46:47 GMT -8
I'm willing to change my statement to "There's no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun" if you're willing to change your statement to "There is a right way to play for each individual group." Sound fair? However I'm not touching your "GM = system" stuff with an 11-foot pole. "There is no wrong way to play as long as people are having fun" has been the full quote since the day it was uttered on the podcast. There's only one person around here that shortens it.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 3, 2013 12:11:46 GMT -8
There's a fascinating confluence of opportunity here.
On one side, we have Tomb of Horrors, a module I hate.
On the other we have another assault on "If you're having fun, you're doing it right."
The Tomb of Horrors embodies everything I hated about DnD culture at the time I quit playing: DMs with god-complexes tallying PC kills like it's a score; metgaming trumping roleplaying; DMs designing adventures to give specific players their comeuppance and put powerful PCs in their place.
For parties that have fewer than 6 players, it is suggested that players limit themselves to 2 PCs, as "it is difficult for the best players to handle 3 characters."
Why on Earth is there any assumption that a player should EVER play more than one character?
For people like me, player skill trumping character skill is just another word for metagaming. If I'm playing a dumb barbarian, why the hell should I EVER figure out the Sphere of Annihilation?
Furthermore, Gygax himself said he designed this adventure specifically to "foil" two players.
There is NO collaborative story telling. This is a DM staring at a specific list of possible ways to get around the traps and waiting for those specific things to happen.
I. Hate. This. Kind. Of. Game.
Furthermore, any new player walking in to this adventure is going to be turned off for good.
But -- it's one of TSR's best selling modules. It's considered a classic. It's one of the highest reviewed modules out there.
And I'm positive there are thousands of people who have had an absolute BLAST playing this module.
And I say, God bless 'em.
Why? Because they're having fun.
And I'm not going to impose my idea of fun on someone else.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on May 3, 2013 13:17:14 GMT -8
Pretty much how I feel Stu, in a much nicer way of saying it than I ever could. I was going to go through and quote the parts I liked best, but realized I'd just have to quote practically the whole thing.
The DnD games played in this way, are to me, a different game entirely. It is hard to tell them apart on paper, but in attitude and presentation, they are different games with the same rules. It is much more like a sport, or other miniatures games where you're presented with this board of really tough bad guys, and you just send wave after wave of your troops to try and defeat it.
On the player skill vs meta-gaming, I've never thought of it that way before. Is Player Skill code word for meta-gaming? Is grabbing a wooden spear when fighting a rust monster for the first time considered player skill? I know I've said "remember, you guys have never even heard of a Medusa before" to a group of players. Is saying that to my players dampening the emphasis on player skill?
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 14:12:42 GMT -8
Is Player Skill code word for meta-gaming? Is grabbing a wooden spear when fighting a rust monster for the first time considered player skill? If the player has it equipped and it is one of the few (reach) weapons it can use proficiently against a monster with long flailing tentacles and a long heavy helicopter tail... I would use a spear and not a short one if I could help it. Or do you believe in giving descriptions in your game? I know I've said "remember, you guys have never even heard of a Medusa before" to a group of players. Is saying that to my players dampening the emphasis on player skill? No it is railroading them into the script you think they should be in. It probably dampens their engrossment. I do not see it doing anything for immersion either.
|
|