|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 14:15:39 GMT -8
You know, it never occurred to me while I was being beaten to ask if those beating me were having fun… I kind of just took that for granted. This platitude of no wrong way reminds me of the argument against rape as the victim’s choice of clothing giving implicit consent to the rapist. Ultimately, “people” means the people with the greatest leverage. If you are the only one not having fun, you can walk. If the fun is you, you better run. And people do run away from role-playing more so from the fun some people have than from all the Pat Robertsons ever invented. So I am not convinced in the least that “there is no wrong way to play as long as people are having fun" stakes the vampire. It could actually empower it. The Tomb of Horrors is meant for experienced players. And this means players who have invested the time to develop characters to the 10th level. We’re talking a 3-4 years of regular play (at least!) in AD&D 1e. So players will know something about each other and about their DM and about the game, if they are experienced but with a new group. The story is a mission to recover lost items. Whatever happens outside of that is also a story but in this particular case, the mission is clear and that is the story. A good GM can embellish this, of course. A good GM probably would. These: 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. are assholes. And what do we say about playing with assholes? It should be a rule. I wouldn’t blame the game however. That is not to say I was as mature in 1981 as I am in 2013 or that my level of maturity did not affect my GMing. Gygax explains, "There were several very expert players in my campaign, and this was meant as yet another challenge to their skill—and the persistence of their theretofore-invincible characters. Specifically, I had in mind foiling Rob Kuntz's PC, Robilar, and Ernie Gygax's PC, Tenser."Clearly Tomb is not for new players. My new-to-the-hobby Cleric (in my game) only had to pray to her God for protection when I choose a Sanctuary spell to satisfy her prayer. It was her first game so I laid out the description thick and evocative and told her she felt like she was in a Sanctuary (and added it to her character sheet). She also felt the mechanics so as not to break the Sanctuary. Tomb of Horrors is not for her. Why on Earth is there any assumption that a player should EVER play more than one character? Back in the day, Henchmen were part of the mechanic. The GM role-played the personality of the non-player character but the players directed him or her. And it was acceptable to fill out the party ranks with these NPCs. Now, regards this specific module with its dramatic sealed egress behind the players, I would say having more than one PC along for the ride solves the suspension of disbelief in story. Where does the new player’s character enter from? Or is that person sent home? A player could play a Henchman if their main character died, making it a PC and eligible for the XP ratio 1:1 in place of the Henchman’s 2:1 XP conversion. Not that this matters because until the party escapes this tomb, they do not progress in experience levels (by the book – Your Mileage May Vary, as the game is written for one DM equal to another). Short answer: story. 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? Experience? Playing a level 10 character as a dope means your character has learnt nothing from the school of hard knocks. You’re okay with that as a stagnant character story? Now the Sphere does not operate on the players. It’s more docile than a wandering monster. The player has to do something to it for it to operate. But that’s what a 10-foot pole is for as every 10 level player knows: i.e. a player that started at level 1 and worked a character up to 10th level. (Maybe not the same character, as I mention above, but characters 1-10 anyway.) Now take an ability score as a probability factor of success rather than a straightjacket of characterization. For myself, me, I have a problem with writing but I am working towards being a published author. I am writing now and my posts take allot longer time than for some other people. Discouraging to have a low ability score? Sure. But it does not stop me. I would say I am a dynamic character. It hasn’t gotten easier to write since university in 88. That suggests my ability score has not improved much. Can I still perform my skill (to the best of my ability)? Certainly! Will my probability for success be as high as some others? Nope. Do I have a chance? Does a d20 have a 20? Back in my day/experience, when I wanted my character to straightjacket me I wanted 18 in every ability score. Today, the straightjacket is devoid of even player input. Roll a 3 in a stat (that isn’t a “dump” stat) and some players stomp off to their room and play the albatross to the other players. “ I am just playing my character.” Why not play an 18 Strength Wizard with a score of 11 in Intelligence? THAT’s DYNAMIC ROLE-PLAYING! Overcome the odds underdog. Struggle to become better and reach your heroic destiny. It beats writing a book about a heroic back-story and presenting it to the table giving your character nowhere to go but… down. And a good GM will always help a player learn. I like to think that reflects upon me with the Cleric – and she and I (as her God-NPC) never broke character to do it either. So much for the player skill = Meta-Game angle. Now should I just leave her floundering? Should I set my timer, which is not a foreign out-of-bounds concept to me, and say “I need a spell now!” That would be the wrong way to play. It’s not about AD&D 1e though – or any game/system. It would be about me being a Douche Bag player. And probably the hobby would never see that player again. Would the munchkin at my table care? Would the other players know any better to care? I think I could manipulate “fun” for them by keeping them moving? (Whatever fun means to individual definitions.) But, see, we’re back to that one voice again outweighed by one Douche Bag player and the majority of silence.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on May 3, 2013 14:17:34 GMT -8
ok. SO I need to clarify.
If a player reaches for a wooden spear with no metal tip because the PLAYER knows its a rust monster, but the character does not, is that player skill or meta-gaming?
I call it meta-gaming.
Same as people looking for mirrors to view a Medusa if they havent heard of one before. Engrossment ending? I think not, if anything it is engrossment encouraging. Encouraging them to get into a character. To role play.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on May 3, 2013 14:21:56 GMT -8
This platitude of no wrong way and its "there's no wrong way to play if everyone is having fun".
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 14:40:19 GMT -8
ok. SO I need to clarify. If a player reaches for a wooden spear with no metal tip because the PLAYER knows its a rust monster, but the character does not, is that player skill or meta-gaming? I call it meta-gaming. Same as people looking for mirrors to view a Medusa if they have heard of one before. Engrossment ending? I think not, if anything it is engrossment encouraging. Encouraging them to get into a character. To role play. They know because you said it. I know because you said it. It's a Rust Monster. You gave me the information not the data. So I ask again, do you not describe what your players see or do you just label everything for your players? You know I live in Poland. It's along way from England where the sigil is a lion, itself a native animal of Africa (somewhere). Do I know what a lion is? Now if you (reasonably) say this is because I have access to Youtube and cute lion videos you are grossly underestimating the knowledge of a medieval world. Would they know that a medusa's gaze kills? Why not? It's their world and this is a fantastical creature of children's nightmare. Or, as common as any patron in a bar. Now put her on legs and give her a Gorgon's face and they might walk right up to it to ask for direction, or, at least, not approach it using mirrors. You're the GM. If you think your Monster Manual is old, why not surprise your players. Why not enliven your game? No railroading required. Just google a few things and tweak a few others. Maybe a Rust Monster is so-called because it is vulnerable to rust? Give it a an armour soak to all other weapons because it is not the metal that hurts it but the tetanus from the rust. See, the way I understand it: the players want to be engaged. They want the wonder of the encounter. It's a Medusa, grab a burnished shield, roll to hit AC 5... is not that wonderful. It's not engaging. It's barely engrossing unless they have their imaginations going from Clash of the Titans. Now tell them to put all that away. "Stop Meta-Gaming," you say. What have your players got left?
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on May 3, 2013 14:50:15 GMT -8
Ok. So in your posts, player skill means meta-gaming. I understand a few more things now.
I'm with Stu. I discourage meta-gaming.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 3, 2013 14:54:42 GMT -8
Firstly, in the adventure text, Gygax is talking about playing multiple PCs, or at least it reads that way. There's a big list of PCs and a table suggesting different combinations of them to use. I suppose you could say some are henchmen of others, but that's certainly not stated. And there's a very specific mention of a player *playing* 3 characters.
I cannot believe you're defending the Sphere of Annihilation. It's intended to be metagamed. Most parties would assume that as the first PC leaps in, they are being teleported. "We should follow him," they'll say.
TPK
Next day: a hearty band of backup adventurers leave the tavern to find out what happened to the first band. "Hmm. The foot prints end here -- they must have been teleported somewhere. We should go rescue them."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Dustin Hoffman would metagame his second character facing the devil's mouth.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 15:01:56 GMT -8
Ok. So in your posts, player skill means meta-gaming. I understand a few more things now. I'm with Stu. I discourage meta-gaming. Meta-Gaming is when a player hears something at the tabletop discussion that is impossible for his character to hear and then acts on that knowledge. I retconn that like fast: like it didn't happen. Meta-Gaming happens when a player tries to communicate to another character who is out of earshot without the augmentation of magic. The player can choose to walk his character over to deliver the message or else the sender's communication invalidates the receiver's action. Can't do it because he said it. Meta-Gaming is when the power gamer tries to over engineer another player with a bunch of suggestions for their character to do when it is not their turn to act under initiative. Can't do it because he said it. Meta Gaming is not politically correct code for sucking the life out of the game's participants. The game is not over run with mechanical flippery to decide and dry all the juice out of role-playing and, I add, player engrossment by bringing their skill to the game. Why a GM would want to do that is beyond me. I like a challenge and I like working with other players to overcome the challenges together and I like being engrossed and emotionally stimulated. Roll playing stupid is not for me. (I have enough of that in my real life to be honest with you.)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 15:08:12 GMT -8
Firstly, in the adventure text, Gygax is talking about playing multiple PCs, or at least it reads that way. There's a big list of PCs and a table suggesting different combinations of them to use. I suppose you could say some are henchmen of others, but that's certainly not stated. And there's a very specific mention of a player *playing* 3 characters. I cannot believe you're defending the Sphere of Annihilation. It's intended to be metagamed. Most parties would assume that as the first PC leaps in, they are being teleported. "We should follow him," they'll say. TPK Next day: a hearty band of backup adventurers leave the tavern to find out what happened to the first band. "Hmm. The foot prints end here -- they must have been teleported somewhere. We should go rescue them." Lather, rinse, repeat. Dustin Hoffman would metagame his second character facing the devil's mouth. Well, I was never a lever puller, myself. If my 10-foot pole came back only 8-feet, I 'd probably not jump in. I would also be a lttile leery about portable holes too. I wouldn't be the first to use one. I'd have a Henchman (better yet a HIreling) go first. ;D I would also bring Dustin Hoffman into the dungeon . If he's a Henchman, he is first annihilated. That's means he is not coming back. I would also tell him to come back and report what is on the other side so we do not charge blindly into somethng. The rope around him might suggest something to me too. I mean the rope I hold that now lays on the floor in front of the Sphere perfectly cut might speak to me.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 3, 2013 15:08:53 GMT -8
And I'm throwing an Asperger's flag for the rape comment, btw.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 15:11:12 GMT -8
And I'm throwing an Asperger's flag for the rape comment, btw. Okay. I admit that was a little extreme. But I do know people who felt violated by a game played for the fun of it.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on May 3, 2013 15:19:00 GMT -8
Meta-Gaming is when a player hears something at the tabletop discussion that is impossible for his character to hear and then acts on that knowledge. but not when the player KNOWS about a monster from the DMG and acts on what he's read? Something that there is no way a player's character would know about it? Because that is what I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 3, 2013 15:28:24 GMT -8
Don't worry. It's just a yellow flag.
Here's the thing about "if you're having fun, you're doing it right:"
There are some assumptions. "You" is plural and all-inclusive. It must be. Four power gamers having a blast with one lonely role-player who just wants a little story doesn't cut it.
Hence the group-beating example is not relevant.
As for newcomers to the hobby: it would be nice if everyone in this hobby saw it as their own personal responsibility to bring in newcomers, make them feel welcome and share the passion we share in RPGs.
I would go so far as to say I strongly encourage people to do this. I could easily make the case that making our hobby inclusive would be in ALL of our best interests.
That said, no one should feel compelled to do so if they don't want to. I might give you shit for bringing in a bunch of newbies and putting them through some sort of FATAL TPK anal-circumference fest, but I can't stop you. I might call you a retard for doing it. I might yell at you.
But in the end, the personal responsibility to "grow the hobby" must come from within.
No one has that responsibility unless they feel they do.
In years past, I've been part of very active groups involving other hobbies: homebrewing, recording.
Some people are friendly and always out to help newcomers and some aren't. It's not just us.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 15:36:58 GMT -8
Meta-Gaming is when a player hears something at the tabletop discussion that is impossible for his character to hear and then acts on that knowledge. but not when the player KNOWS about a monster from the DMG and acts on what he's read? Something that there is no way a player's character would know about it? Because that is what I was talking about. I assume that the Monster Manual is kind of like Bulfinch's Mythology for the player's characters. I bought the three childrens books "A Practical Guide to..." and I have those available to the players. My players play literate and with it characters. Not omniscient readers of game material. I do not play with players who like to hold my feet to the fire and I do not hold my players' feet to the fire. I do not see anything wrong with tweaking monsters. (I won't do that to a monster more than once, of course, because I am not a Douche Bag.) I do not see anything wrong with the information my players bring to my table being incomplete or even totally inaccurate - that would be them memorizing a Rust Monster only to find the thing is almost impervious to everythng but tetanus. Who knew? What's Medusa look like. Well, Clem there, he got a good look at one but he's turned to stone now.... not really sure why that happened. Players go "un-hun we know why" but fail to actually know what MY Medusa looks like. The power is in your hands. Respect it and your players and everything should be okay. Unless someone's idea of fun means taking the piss out of you. (Fun, but a wrong way to play.)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on May 3, 2013 16:02:37 GMT -8
Don't worry. It's just a yellow flag. Here's the thing about "if you're having fun, you're doing it right:" There are some assumptions. "You" is plural and all-inclusive. It must be. Four power gamers having a blast with one lonely role-player who just wants a little story doesn't cut it. Hence the group-beating example is not relevant. I know some folks think I am the one twisting the rule but... apart from the idea that it does not serve anything but a Douche Bag to do it... have you ever played with a munchkin or power gamer who does exactly that with real (real-heh) rules from the books? Plural? Plural hell! It's my entertainment. You're just providing it for me.... And that has been written somewhere in the 3.5 D&D books I have. It might even be one of the Dummies books. (yes, I took it that serious when I started 3.5) I supply their fun. I am no longer a player. I am an Entertainment Director. So plural means you not me. I got an abject lesson in this "rule" with my first group of gamers 3 years ago. I did not like that lecture. So the slogan means nothing. In fact, if we all agree on the slogan and the plurality of the pronoun we still get into trouble with the definition of "fun." And the books make it clear: "the DM should be everything to everyone." Total rubbish in my experience. Some people won't get along. Some will want to be the spotlight hog all the time. Someone will be the professional diplomat while someone will be the hack'n slasher.. IF the players behave and get along, and they are all my friends, maybe I won't have to throw one or more of them out. But new people. A new DM reading this tripe? The stress would be enough for me to stop GMing. I know WotC's trying to be inclusive and sell more books but they place allot on the shoulders of a new GM without a psychology degree. It's allot on the shoulders of an experienced GM with a psychology degree when his players come to him with that diversity of expectations to juggle. As for newcomers to the hobby: it would be nice if everyone in this hobby saw it as their own personal responsibility to bring in newcomers, make them feel welcome and share the passion we share in RPGs. I would go so far as to say I strongly encourage people to do this. I could easily make the case that making our hobby inclusive would be in ALL of our best interests. That said, no one should feel compelled to do so if they don't want to. I might give you shit for bringing in a bunch of newbies and putting them through some sort of FATAL TPK anal-circumference fest, but I can't stop you. I might call you a retard for doing it. I might yell at you. But in the end, the personal responsibility to "grow the hobby" must come from within. No one has that responsibility unless they feel they do. In years past, I've been part of very active groups involving other hobbies: homebrewing, recording. Some people are friendly and always out to help newcomers and some aren't. It's not just us. I quite agree. I think some sort of rules ettiquete is in order. Not so much defining who/what is a thespian, who/what is an explorer. I mean what does it mean to play a social game that relies so much on the people who play. That sort of thing. Groups who have been together longer than God has been in the heavens do not need it. Guys with experience who interview potential players and give false addresses to assholes do not need it. New people need it. People who know only computer games need it. People unsure of their capability and players lacking confidence need it. People who do not know how to interact together in a game that depends so much on that happening need it. People who look at the hobby as a bunch of clowns and misfits need to hear about such rules if only to recognize there are clowns and misfits everywhere. Such people are not flying their geek cred by being clowns and misfits. They are just being themselves: clowns and misfits. I do not think the problem with the hobby is that people do not have enough time to devote to it. People do not have enough time to police their own table. It could be my unique experience being over here (where it's 2 am!) but recruiting has been a job and a half. Finding 48 people with 15 or so dedicated gamers in the group who brow beat new players with rules, hasn't helped me keep the 33 in my mailing list interested. A set of rules is needed. Twisting the meaning of If YOU"RE having fun, YOU'RE doing ti right is just too damn easy. It does not take a rules lawyer to drive a truck through that swiss cheese. It just does not go far enough.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 3, 2013 17:19:53 GMT -8
I don't play with rules lawyers (except at con games -- just like a box of chocolates, con games). I also have fun GMing -- in fact, I insist upon it. It's interesting, I think at least with DnD4e, WotC *doesn't* put a lot of pressure on the DM. It's the old-school games, where the DM has to make stuff up on the fly, where it's rulings over rules, that really applies the pressure on the DM. New ones in particular. Having run a bit of 4E, I think a new DM could easily learn the ropes. I would almost say 1E and the OSR clones would be for a more "advanced" DM. The rules aren't as inclusive as many more modern iterations. And the point for saying "if you're having fun, you're doing it right," stems out of people emailing us, and saying things like, "well our group plays this way -- is that okay?" Of course it is. We just recently had someone write in about speaking of your character in third person, rather than first person. That's okay too. It's a hobby. It's a pastime. It's a game. Don't get all locked up in what you *should* do. Don't let the rules bog you down. Go with your gut when you don't know -- as long as things move along, and the players are having fun, it's all good. You know -- "If you're having fun, you're doing it right" might just be synonymous with "**CENSORED**" ...
|
|