RPG Expectations

cczernia · Post by **cczernia** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:06 pm

Something I've been thinking about lately is player and GM expectations. Nothing can ruin a game faster than a GM running a political game when players want pulp action.

But it can go deeper than that. When we prepare for a game we all have expectations. Sometimes they get met and sometime they don't.

So, I ask the rpg san diego community does what affect does meeting (or not meeting) expectation have on the game? How can we define and understand those expectations?

jimmy corrigan · Post by **jimmy corrigan** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:31 pm

i think that expectations are very very important. very. a game with mismatched or unmet expectations can, in the vernacular, suck big time.

not to oversimplify it, i think that the antidote for mismatched or unmet expectations is communication.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:33 pm

Expectations are important. Communicating those expectations are even more important. I don't know how many games I have run where I had a certain kind of game in mind, and players had another. The game collapsed and it took some careful analysis to figure out why.

The other key thing is for the GM to actually enforce his expectations. When you want to run a game about space knights who pilot robots and tell stories about a planetary invasion, and one person wants to make a merchant to sells robots, you have to be willing to say they can't play that character. The key place where expectations fall apart is character creation. Part of the job of the GM is to manage expectations. Sometimes players aren't going to get to play the character they want to play because it doesn't fit the concept of the game. Players have to be willing to work within those confines.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:39 pm

Alignment of expectations is probably the single most important factor in whether a game goes well or not. How can a player and GM ever both have fun if their ideas of fun are in opposite directions?

The same goes between two players, and I've noticed most games tend to have one player who is only in it for the combat. When the GM tries to walk a balancing act between two extremes, only one side will ever be having fun at a time. When everyone has the same expectations, then a good GM can make everyone have fun at the same time (and if the GM is having problems, then they become obvious to everyone, because nobody is having fun).

I think part of the backlash against D&D 4E is that it seems to make a certain type of expectation into a precondition for playing the game: you will be a group of heroes who go into dark dungeons and use improbable fighting techniques to slay evil monsters of steadily increasing difficulty while accumulating a great wealth of magical items which allow you to ultimately save the world and achieve immortality. It's not terrible, as far as expectations go, but it is incredibly limiting. It's good for new players because it gets everyone onto the same page right away. It's bad for any experienced player who wants to do anything else.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:18 pm

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~I think part of the backlash against D&D 4E is that it seems to make a certain type of expectation into a precondition for playing the game: you will be a group of heroes who go into dark dungeons and use improbable fighting techniques to slay evil monsters of steadily increasing difficulty while accumulating a great wealth of magical items which allow you to ultimately save the world and achieve immortality. It's not terrible, as far as expectations go, but it is incredibly limiting. It's good for new players because it gets everyone onto the same page right away. It's bad for any experienced player who wants to do anything else.[/quote]

D&D has actually always been that. It has just never been so explicitly stated as it is now. Honestly though, most stories in D&D were simply justification to start a new combat. The problem was that players and GM's tried to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Basically, the designers of 4th edition did a great job in boiling D&D down into its base. It isn't a game designed to for doing games about noble intrigue or mass battles. Its sole purpose is to do epic heroes fighting horrifying monsters in cinematic, brutal combat. I think it does it quite nicely. In fact, it is the first edition of D&D I have ever really loved playing and enjoyed running.

cczernia · Post by **cczernia** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:58 pm

Well, it seems that there is agreement that expectations and communication are important during a game. How do improve communication.

CZ mentioned during character creation to clearly detail what he expects from the players by what he wants them to play. What about the players communicating their expectations to the GM.

Something I've noticed that I do when making a character is I imagine a scene that the character would be in. This might be a dramatic stunt or noble intrigue. Of course this scene never occurs nor anything close because I never communicated it to the GM.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:05 pm

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~D&D has actually always been that. It has just never been so explicitly stated as it is now. Honestly though, most stories in D&D were simply justification to start a new combat. The problem was that players and GM's tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. [/quote]

Just because it was the intent of the designers doesn't mean they succeeded at their goal. My introduction to roleplaying was with AD&D 2E, and although it was clear how the system was designed around combat, there was nothing that inherently limited you to that.

To further your peg and hole analogy, let's say that heroic combat is a round hole and political intrigue is a square hole. Fourth edition is a round peg, clearly designed for the round hole and with no other use. Third edition was kind of a chunky octahedral peg; at first glance it seems like it's trying to be a round peg and just not succeeding as well, but if you really try you can find that there's enough room to fit it through the square hole if you tweak it just right. Second edition was a kind of amorphic lump with just a few round bits and no real definition; it clearly had round parts, implying that you should do something with the round hole, but there was enough undefined there that you could do anything and the rules won't stop you.

GURPS, for comparison, is a highly irregular peg that only fits through the precisely defined hole of verisimilitude. The jaggy bits on the side of the peg will prevent it from fitting through most holes, which is why most people have to take a saw to that particular peg before they can use it.

Sven · Post by **Sven** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:30 pm

~~[quote="cczernia"]~~Well, it seems that there is agreement that expectations and communication are important during a game. How do improve communication.

CZ mentioned during character creation to clearly detail what he expects from the players by what he wants them to play. What about the players communicating their expectations to the GM.

Something I've noticed that I do when making a character is I imagine a scene that the character would be in. This might be a dramatic stunt or noble intrigue. Of course this scene never occurs nor anything close because I never communicated it to the GM.[/quote]

I have to admit that a pet peeve of mine is going into a game where the GM goes "make any character you like!" and then half the party gets ignored when their combat gods end up in a political game.

As for expectations from players to the GM about expectation I often find the bullshit session after a game often reveals what players want. I have found as a GM that talking to players one on one often helps especially when someones character fades to the background a little.

I also think that during character creation if there is a requirement for someone to have a connection to another character (or everyone knows each other) that players get very vocal about not just communal back story but what they want in the future.

jimmy corrigan · Post by **jimmy corrigan** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:33 pm

~~[quote="Sven"]~~As for expectations from players to the GM about expectation I often find the bullshit session after a game often reveals what players want. I have found as a GM that talking to players one on one often helps especially when someones character fades to the background a little.[/quote]amen.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:00 am

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~
Basically, the designers of 4th edition did a great job in boiling D&D down into its base. It isn't a game designed to for doing games about noble intrigue or mass battles. Its sole purpose is to do epic heroes fighting horrifying monsters in cinematic, brutal combat. I think it does it quite nicely. In fact, it is the first edition of D&D I have ever really loved playing and enjoyed running.[/quote]
In contrast to what I had previously posted and then deleted, I never meant to imply that D&D should be played as a game of political intrigue rather than epic combat. It is more the case that most campaigns take a little from both schools: you need fluff to keep people interested in ~~[i]~~why[/i] they want to do stuff, or else it's just multi-player chess, and you need the crunch because that is what governs the outcomes of those exciting moments. The thing is, you don't need the system to regulate the fluff; the fluff is just improvisational acting, and attempting to regulate it will only detract from the experience (something that GURPS has been guilty of in the past). The system ~~[i]~~is[/i] the crunch of the system; there are only rules for combat because that is the part most in need of rules.

My big complaint about the limits imposed by 4E were in some of the details:~~[list]~~

~~[*]~~You must be the absolute pinnacle of (demi-) human perfection, with an 18 or (preferably) a 20 in your main stat and no weaknesses; I understand why you want to feel competent right off the bat, and how it detracts from your specialness when NPCs have higher stats.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must be[/i] a goody-goody hero, rather than something more interesting like lawful neutral or chaotic good; I understand that they did this because people were using neutral and chaotic as excuses to be evil.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must use[/i] improbable fighting abilities, like stabbing people in the face and kicking them backwards while you tumble away, which you can only do once per day; I understand that this is for game balance reasons, to prevent spellcasters from overshadowing martial combatants by letting the combat maneuvers work essentially like magic.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must gather[/i] wealth that would topple an empire, and then discard it when something with one more plus comes along; I understand the need to feel progress and how better loot is an easy way to show that.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must be epic[/i] so that you can go toe-to-toe with actual deities; I understand why it's nice to feel that what you are doing actually matters on the big scale.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must attain immortality[/i] so that nobody forgets the incredible journey you've been on; I understand the desire to end on an up note, and feel like you've made a lasting legacy.

[/list]
However:
~~[list]~~

~~[*]~~Automatically having the highest possible attributes just cheapens the experience; by placing the absolute best as the threshold for average success, it makes you seem even less competent. A character with 12 strength who fails half of the time will highlight the difficulty of the task, but a character with 20 strength who fails half of the time will only serve to highlight how little that 20 actually means.

~~[*]~~Good and Lawful Good are an extremely limited subset of character types and personalities; by only allowing those as player characters, many characters start to feel very similar.

~~[*]~~By letting the warriors perform such outrageous stunts, it detracts from suspension of disbelief; when everything you do starts to look like a well-orchestrated fight scene rather than an actual struggle with an undetermined outcome, it makes it feel like a game rather than a story. Magic is magic, but fighters have no such excuse.

~~[*]~~Many players and Game Masters prefer a world where magic is less than ubiquitous, and magic items are not handed out like candy; much like with the high stats, on over-abundance of magical items will only serve to highlight how weak the characters are without them (especially since they always hover around break-even when they're all decked out).

~~[*]~~Killing gods is nice and all, but that becomes less special when it's expected of you. Sometimes it's a nice change of pace to "only" save the kingdom, or even the village; when you eventually start saving entire planes of existence, it makes all that time you wasted from 1-20 seem meaningless. Many players and Game Masters would choose to keep it all relevant by not including the epic levels.

~~[*]~~Actually attaining immortality is also a good goal, and one which I've attempted a couple of times (to varying degrees of success) in previous editions. When you give it away as the door prize for just showing up consistently until the story is over, it kind of loses meaning.

[/list]
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to bash 4E, and I certainly don't want anyone to stop having fun if they enjoy it, I'm just saying that it's limiting. As I said before, it can prevent a lot of complaints due to missed expectations, because with 4E you know exactly what you're getting into. When I was making the brief transition from 3.5 to 4E (before quickly reverting), I tried going into it with the assumptions from that second list (which is the kind of game I'd enjoyed for several years previous), and it just did not work out at all. Misaligned expectations can absolutely ruin a game for everyone involved.

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:41 am

I kinda agree with Sven on the hashing out of what to expect at the end and talking with folks one on one. I think it can be hard sometimes to gauge my opinion till after playing through and seeing the game unfold because usually my impressions at that start are just a sketch. I think the players also need to talk with each other with how they will be as a group...while each might have an individual desire it might be necessary to know what the groups desire should be as a whole

cczernia · Post by **cczernia** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:41 pm

In the past for oneshots I have players write down what kind of scenes they would like to see. I have them label it combat, investigation or personal.

In a game called Hot War one of the steps is for each player to describe a photograph (not sure if your character is required to be in it) of a scene. I thought this was cool idea as it lets GMs/players know what that player expects from the game in way the fits the game itself.

devlin1 · Post by **devlin1** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:05 pm

Expectations are important !!!

jimmy corrigan · Post by **jimmy corrigan** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:43 pm

~~[quote="cczernia"]~~In a game called Hot War one of the steps is for each player to describe a photograph (not sure if your character is required to be in it) of a scene. I thought this was cool idea as it lets GMs/players know what that player expects from the game in way the fits the game itself.[/quote]this reminds of everway. pretty cool concept.

jimmy corrigan · Post by **jimmy corrigan** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:44 pm

~~[quote="devlin1"]~~Expectations are important !!![/quote]amen.

devlin1 · Post by **devlin1** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:59 pm

30 Helens Agree: Expectations are important.

"You have to make sure everyone has similar expectations for the game!"

"Otherwise it's just a mess."

"Mm-hmm."

~~[quote="cczernia"]~~In the past for oneshots I have players write down what kind of scenes they would like to see. I have them label it combat, investigation or personal.

In a game called Hot War one of the steps is for each player to describe a photograph (not sure if your character is required to be in it) of a scene. I thought this was cool idea as it lets GMs/players know what that player expects from the game in way the fits the game itself.[/quote]
I gotta say... these are really unappealing to me. I wouldn't want to be a player stuck with coming up with either of these. I think that's part of why PTA strikes me as so... unattractive (in addition to "roll some fuckin' dice!").

cczernia · Post by **cczernia** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:37 am

~~[quote="devlin1"]~~
I gotta say... these are really unappealing to me. I wouldn't want to be a player stuck with coming up with either of these. I think that's part of why PTA strikes me as so... unattractive (in addition to "roll some fuckin' dice!").[/quote]

Is there a reason why? What about just stating what you would like to see your character doing during the game?

I know during a Planescape game I stated that I wanted my character to look exactly like an important NPC. The scenes where that occurred were my favorite.

devlin1 · Post by **devlin1** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:01 pm

~~[quote="cczernia"]~~Is there a reason why? What about just stating what you would like to see your character doing during the game? [/quote]
I dunno. I guess I just like my expectations to be expressed in broad strokes -- like "My guy's a laughing rogue" or "This is a game about sky pirates." I want the GM to come up with scenes. I like being able to edit within those scenes, but as a player I'm more comfortable reacting to situations than dictating those situations. I want cool scenes for my character, obviously, but I want them to occur naturally, organically. Otherwise, it feels artificial. If I say "I want a scene where my character's jumping off of an exploding building," and then that scene comes along, it won't be nearly as interesting as if it'd just... ~~[i]~~happened[/i]. The serendipitous moments in games that "just happen" -- that's what I like. Earl Scheib garrottes a guy. Foxy Brown opens the box that isn't supposed to be opened. That's not the senator -- that's his clone. The Brothers D'Aramitz fight their way (naked) out of a French brothel. And so on. I don't want those happy accidents to feel obligatory. I want them to just happen.

Hell, I hardly even do any kind of background for my characters anymore. I used to be nuts for that shit. These days, I'm like... man, I got shit to do. (Actually, I don't, but that's how I feel, anyway.)

mordraine · Post by **mordraine** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:16 pm

I'm cut from much the same cloth as devlin1, from a gaming perspective. I don't usually have much in the way of expectations for a game past the one-line description that the GM gives me. "Nazi Vampire Zombies from the Deep?" Cool, bring on the zombies! And if they're Nazis so much the better!

I also agree with the idea of letting the storytelling happen naturally as the game progresses. That's my favorite type of game. Reacting to the scenario as planned out by the GM.

That's not to say that having the players dictate what scenes they like would not allow the game to flow naturally. But for me anyway, it takes out some of the mystery of "what's gonna happen next?" As a player, I like not knowing. And as a GM, I like revelations that totally surprise the players.

cczernia · Post by **cczernia** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:07 pm

~~[quote="devlin1"]~~If I say "I want a scene where my character's jumping off of an exploding building," and then that scene comes along, it won't be nearly as interesting as if it'd just... ~~[i]~~happened[/i]. [/quote]

Perhaps not but that tells me a lot about what you want from the game. You could also say I want high adventure with big explosions. Of course the game you play and character you make is going to set some expectations but not what you as a player want from the game.

Players describing scenes is one way of revealing your expectations that I like both as a player and GM. Another way might be say what about your character you would like to focus on.

devlin1 · Post by **devlin1** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:14 pm

~~[quote="cczernia"]~~Perhaps not but that tells me a lot about what you want from the game. You could also say I want high adventure with big explosions. [/quote]
That's as far as I'd want to go with it on my end, as a player -- "I want explosions!"

I just realized another thing that puts me off this sort of thing: I'm big on premise. I'm easily sold on a good premise, but beyond that I want to be surprised. That's why I was so gung-ho for Sundered Skies. Fucking high concept!

It's also one of the reasons why I found our WotG game difficult. I had some pretty particular expectations from watching hours of daytime Chinese martial-arts dramas on AZN that weren't easy to communicate to the players -- even though when I'd say "Wuxia!" we'd all say "Yeah!" like we were on the same page. In fact, my expectations were ~~[i]~~so[/i] specific that I wasn't really leaving room for the players to make the story their own. I was plotting out a story arc on "Legend of Ji-Gong," not planning a game.

~~[quote]~~Another way might be say what about your character you would like to focus on.[/quote]
I do, however, like pre-game confabs between the GM and the players for just this kind of thing.

cczernia · Post by **cczernia** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:34 pm

~~[quote="devlin1"]~~
I do, however, like pre-game confabs between the GM and the players for just this kind of thing.[/quote]

Well, one reason I like the description of a photo from Hot War is that it presents an in game method of discussing expectations making it fun instead of weird or forceful.

I think one reason I posted the thread was to come up with other ways of doing this.

devlin1 · Post by **devlin1** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:12 pm

~~[quote="cczernia"]~~Well, one reason I like the description of a photo from Hot War is that it presents an in game method of discussing expectations making it fun instead of weird or forceful.[/quote]
Meh. I'd rather just talk about it directly instead of couching it in something else. The photo thing actually feels ~~[i]~~more[/i] forced to me.

~~[quote]~~I think one reason I posted the thread was to come up with other ways of doing this.[/quote]
Alas, I cannot help you with this.

Uber_snotling · Post by **Uber_snotling** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:19 pm

Well I happen to be in agreement with Czernia here on the scene idea issue. I took a page from Devlin1 and ran a SoTC game where I started the game by asking each of the players and myself to write down 3 things/scenes/ideas they wanted to see happen and then I mixed and matched those things as made me happy.

It brought the awesome. I don't think it would work for every game, but it certainly helped the creative process and jump-started an ultra-pulpy adventure with some serious action.

You couldn't be as open-ended in an investigation-style game (Call of Cthulu, etc.) or in a gritty game meant to be information-poor (e.g., warhammer) but I think it could certainly enhance those games in a limited way as well.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:02 am

~~[quote="Uber_snotling"]~~Well I happen to be in agreement with Czernia here on the scene idea issue. I took a page from Devlin1 and ran a SoTC game where I started the game by asking each of the players and myself to write down 3 things/scenes/ideas they wanted to see happen and then I mixed and matched those things as made me happy.

It brought the awesome. I don't think it would work for every game, but it certainly helped the creative process and jump-started an ultra-pulpy adventure with some serious action.

You couldn't be as open-ended in an investigation-style game (Call of Cthulu, etc.) or in a gritty game meant to be information-poor (e.g., warhammer) but I think it could certainly enhance those games in a limited way as well.[/quote]

This writing down scene concepts sounds neat, but I have found the improvisational game mastering collapse repeatedly. The problem is players on different pages and wanting wacky ass scenes that don't work. This sort of thing works with very specific sorts of groups. I tried the improvisational dungeon creation from John Wick's youtube videos and it collapsed around me like a house of cards. The players literally couldn't grasp the concept. They were completely lost and all we got out of it was the fact that glass was rare in the setting and no one liked it. Hell, I didn't even have fun. It just felt forced.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:11 am

You are absolutely correct on all these points. D&D4E was designed to do exactly what you describe. That is the heart of D&D essentially. Good games are designed to do specific kinds of things. The reason it is a good game design is because the rules themselves bring out the intended idea. You don't have to embellish, because the activity itself is "cool".

D&D is a very specific kind of game. It is designed to do what you describe. If you don't want to play that kind of game, then use a different system. One game can't, and shouldn't try to do everything. While D20 was a nice experiment in game design, my primary gripe about D20 was it never really did anything exceptionally well. Trying to do everything with one system dilutes its ability to do anything exceptionally well.

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~In contrast to what I had previously posted and then deleted, I never meant to imply that D&D should be played as a game of political intrigue rather than epic combat. It is more the case that most campaigns take a little from both schools: you need fluff to keep people interested in ~~[i]~~why[/i] they want to do stuff, or else it's just multi-player chess, and you need the crunch because that is what governs the outcomes of those exciting moments. The thing is, you don't need the system to regulate the fluff; the fluff is just improvisational acting, and attempting to regulate it will only detract from the experience (something that GURPS has been guilty of in the past). The system ~~[i]~~is[/i] the crunch of the system; there are only rules for combat because that is the part most in need of rules.

My big complaint about the limits imposed by 4E were in some of the details:~~[list]~~

~~[*]~~You must be the absolute pinnacle of (demi-) human perfection, with an 18 or (preferably) a 20 in your main stat and no weaknesses; I understand why you want to feel competent right off the bat, and how it detracts from your specialness when NPCs have higher stats.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must be[/i] a goody-goody hero, rather than something more interesting like lawful neutral or chaotic good; I understand that they did this because people were using neutral and chaotic as excuses to be evil.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must use[/i] improbable fighting abilities, like stabbing people in the face and kicking them backwards while you tumble away, which you can only do once per day; I understand that this is for game balance reasons, to prevent spellcasters from overshadowing martial combatants by letting the combat maneuvers work essentially like magic.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must gather[/i] wealth that would topple an empire, and then discard it when something with one more plus comes along; I understand the need to feel progress and how better loot is an easy way to show that.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must be epic[/i] so that you can go toe-to-toe with actual deities; I understand why it's nice to feel that what you are doing actually matters on the big scale.

~~[*]~~You ~~[i]~~must attain immortality[/i] so that nobody forgets the incredible journey you've been on; I understand the desire to end on an up note, and feel like you've made a lasting legacy.

[/list]However:~~[list]~~

~~[*]~~Automatically having the highest possible attributes just cheapens the experience; by placing the absolute best as the threshold for average success, it makes you seem even less competent. A character with 12 strength who fails half of the time will highlight the difficulty of the task, but a character with 20 strength who fails half of the time will only serve to highlight how little that 20 actually means.

~~[*]~~Good and Lawful Good are an extremely limited subset of character types and personalities; by only allowing those as player characters, many characters start to feel very similar.

~~[*]~~By letting the warriors perform such outrageous stunts, it detracts from suspension of disbelief; when everything you do starts to look like a well-orchestrated fight scene rather than an actual struggle with an undetermined outcome, it makes it feel like a game rather than a story. Magic is magic, but fighters have no such excuse.

~~[*]~~Many players and Game Masters prefer a world where magic is less than ubiquitous, and magic items are not handed out like candy; much like with the high stats, on over-abundance of magical items will only serve to highlight how weak the characters are without them (especially since they always hover around break-even when they're all decked out).

~~[*]~~Killing gods is nice and all, but that becomes less special when it's expected of you. Sometimes it's a nice change of pace to "only" save the kingdom, or even the village; when you eventually start saving entire planes of existence, it makes all that time you wasted from 1-20 seem meaningless. Many players and Game Masters would choose to keep it all relevant by not including the epic levels.

~~[*]~~Actually attaining immortality is also a good goal, and one which I've attempted a couple of times (to varying degrees of success) in previous editions. When you give it away as the door prize for just showing up consistently until the story is over, it kind of loses meaning.

[/list]Don't get me wrong. I don't want to bash 4E, and I certainly don't want anyone to stop having fun if they enjoy it, I'm just saying that it's limiting. As I said before, it can prevent a lot of complaints due to missed expectations, because with 4E you know exactly what you're getting into. When I was making the brief transition from 3.5 to 4E (before quickly reverting), I tried going into it with the assumptions from that second list (which is the kind of game I'd enjoyed for several years previous), and it just did not work out at all. Misaligned expectations can absolutely ruin a game for everyone involved.[/quote]

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:07 pm

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~You are absolutely correct on all these points. D&D4E was designed to do exactly what you describe. That is the heart of D&D essentially. Good games are designed to do specific kinds of things. The reason it is a good game design is because the rules themselves bring out the intended idea. You don't have to embellish, because the activity itself is "cool". [/quote]Which is all about expectations. When I was busy playing 3E, eager to hear news of 4E, there was no reason for me to expect that they'd take it in the direction they did. I was expecting them to take everything I liked about D&D and improve them, clarify the rules to make it run easier, and get rid of the things that made it less fun (i.e. epic levels, the need for ridiculously high stats, the need for ever-increasing magic items, etc). Even if I go along with the premise that a system needs to be designed to do a specific thing, there's no reason I would expect them to focus on the first set of expectations rather than the second. To me, and most of the people I know, D&D had always been about those things I'd described in the second list.
~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~
D&D is a very specific kind of game. It is designed to do what you describe. If you don't want to play that kind of game, then use a different system. One game can't, and shouldn't try to do everything. While D20 was a nice experiment in game design, my primary gripe about D20 was it never really did anything exceptionally well. Trying to do everything with one system dilutes its ability to do anything exceptionally well.[/quote]Which, again, is a matter of expectations. You might expect that a system should be focused squarely on a particular vision and be built entirely around that goal, while someone else might expect that a system needs to be entirely generalized because changing the laws of physics based on the narrative entirely destroys suspension of disbelief.

Personally, I expect D&D to have rules that focus on medieval fantasy adventure, but to give significant leeway in how to go about it; I find that 4E crosses the line into crippling overspecialization, being so focused on the one goal that it is virtually worthless for anything else. Why even bother buying or learning a system that has such limited use? There's only room for one uni-tasker in ~~[i]~~my[/i] kitchen.

cczernia · Post by **cczernia** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:51 pm

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~
Personally, I expect D&D to have rules that focus on medieval fantasy adventure, but to give significant leeway in how to go about it; I find that 4E crosses the line into crippling overspecialization, being so focused on the one goal that it is virtually worthless for anything else. Why even bother buying or learning a system that has such limited use? There's only room for one uni-tasker in ~~[i]~~my[/i] kitchen.[/quote]

You are absolutely right but as long as the your goal for D&D is fantasy fights with miniatures than D&D4 is the best at that. D&D shouldn't work for everything. It does one thing and does it well. There are other games if you want to do something else.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:12 pm

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~Personally, I expect D&D to have rules that focus on medieval fantasy adventure, but to give significant leeway in how to go about it; I find that 4E crosses the line into crippling overspecialization, being so focused on the one goal that it is virtually worthless for anything else. Why even bother buying or learning a system that has such limited use? There's only room for one uni-tasker in ~~[i]~~my[/i] kitchen.[/quote]

I struggled with its specialization for a while. I tried to run it as your typical low fantasy, which is what the others were, and it didn't really work. It was quite a shock to many players when they turned everything up to 11 with this edition. It took me time to adjust to that. I had to go over the top, and when I did... it was made of awesome.

The key thing I notice with the new D&D is that the designers boiled the game down to what it always really was. This is the first time D&D has ever really felt like D&D was described in the books. It feels like how D&D was always supposed to be, but always got caught up in mechanics that didn't matter and trying to be realistic. D&D 4th Ed is much more the child of World of Warcraft than it is the child of Tolkien like previous editions are. That is throwing veteran players. Honestly, we aren't the target market for D&D, 16 year olds who have been raiding Onyxia's Lair are the target market.

The purpose of system design is to manage expectations. The problem with the expectations was not with the designers, but with the old D&D players who were expecting the same old game, just with new art and "4th Edition" slapped on the cover. As a designer, I have been arguing that D&D needed a major overhaul for years. I truly despised the system for all of its poor and redundant design choices. It was still steeped in game design from the 70's and 80's. Tabletop game design had come a long way, but with the release of 3rd Edition, they basically ignored that progress in favor of spell memorization and redundant percentage rolls. This edition is the redesign that D&D needed to move into modern game design. I have gotten a little annoyed with the series of splat books that add new classes and a gazillion new powers. There are times when it just feels silly. The system has its faults, but it is drastically improved and more consistent that it was before.

I think it is an excellent system that manages expectations. You are told up front what you will get out the system. It delivers it every time if the rules are used correctly.

The greatest irony is that I am defending the design of D&D.

devlin1 · Post by **devlin1** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:33 pm

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~The greatest irony is that I am defending the design of D&D.[/quote]
IMO, this is the first edition of D&D in a while that deserves it.

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~Trying to do everything with one system dilutes its ability to do anything exceptionally well.[/quote]
Please tell that to my overlords at Cubicle 7. I've tried, but they don't believe me.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:16 pm

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~D&D 4th Ed is much more the child of World of Warcraft than it is the child of Tolkien like previous editions are. That is throwing veteran players. Honestly, we aren't the target market for D&D, 16 year olds who have been raiding Onyxia's Lair are the target market.[/quote]

Yeah, I've come to accept that I am not who the game was aimed at. I wish they'd told me that before I bought it, but it still makes for an interesting read, no matter how much I loathe playing it (kind of like Rifts).

Even more so, I wish there truly was a product out there that catered to my needs: something that gets rid of the old, redundant, and nonsensical stuff but keeps the feeling of mundane wonder where magic feels truly magical. Pathfinder was supposed to be that (at least the first part), but turned out to be little more than one more splat book for the old system.

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:49 pm

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~Yeah, I've come to accept that I am not who the game was aimed at. I wish they'd told me that before I bought it, but it still makes for an interesting read, no matter how much I loathe playing it (kind of like Rifts).

Even more so, I wish there truly was a product out there that catered to my needs: something that gets rid of the old, redundant, and nonsensical stuff but keeps the feeling of mundane wonder where magic feels truly magical. Pathfinder was supposed to be that (at least the first part), but turned out to be little more than one more splat book for the old system.[/quote]

Have you looked at Savage Worlds? I think that game could give you want you're looking for.

:mr: Chris

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:08 pm

~~[quote="Uber_snotling"]~~Well I happen to be in agreement with Czernia here on the scene idea issue. I took a page from Devlin1 and ran a SoTC game where I started the game by asking each of the players and myself to write down 3 things/scenes/ideas they wanted to see happen and then I mixed and matched those things as made me happy.

You couldn't be as open-ended in an investigation-style game (Call of Cthulu, etc.) or in a gritty game meant to be information-poor (e.g., warhammer) but I think it could certainly enhance those games in a limited way as well.[/quote]

Yes I like that format. Very cool. IS that what we did for S.L.A.V.E. That was hella fun.

Investigation RPG's like CoC is not suited for that very well. Although it would be interesting to see players figuring out ways to drive each other insane

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:02 am

~~[quote="BlanchPrez"]~~Have you looked at Savage Worlds? I think that game could give you want you're looking for.

:mr: Chris[/quote]
I've looked it over two or three times, and I always get stuck at the same part.

One of the major reasons I prefer D&D 3E to other editions is the internal consistency. There's no mucking about with level 0 NPCs or Solo boss monsters, because everything in the game follows the same rules: everything has levels which are an absolute measure of power, from which hit points and all other features are derived. There's none of this "He's supposed to be fought by a group, so he has ten times as many hit points," or "He dies instantly so you'll feel tougher," stuff.

Treating the player characters differently than NPCs, solely because they are PCs, is the philosophical line which I will not cross. If the PCs receive any mechanical advantage or disadvantage, then the sanctity of the experience has been violated, because the achievement is meaningless. We won or lost ~~[i]~~because we were playing[/i], rather than any merit of our own.

Back to the topic at hand, I expect that neither the GM nor the system will cheat on my behalf, just as everyone else expects that I won't cheat either. Cheating defeats the purpose of the game, in my opinion. (If the Game Master ~~[i]~~does[/i] cheat for the sake of avoiding a TPK, for instance, then I expect him to lie about it.)

jimmy corrigan · Post by **jimmy corrigan** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:35 am

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~(If the Game Master ~~[i]~~does[/i] cheat for the sake of avoiding a TPK, for instance, then I expect him to lie about it.)[/quote]although noble, doesn't your sentiment preclude any objective honesty if you're prepared to accept that your gm is lying to you? put in another way, if you expect your gm to lie to avoid a tpk, aren't you by your very acceptance of that fact make you partially culpable in the act?

and: what to you is the purpose of the game?

i don't mean to sound like a dick or anything. i just read your post and have had feelings which it espouses long, long ago. recently being brainwashed by the current guard of hippy, narrative-flavored systems out there, i have since considered that perhaps the story is the purpose of the game, and not, as you hold, any imagined rule-based, game-y objectivity.

mordraine · Post by **mordraine** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:56 am

~~[quote="jimmy corrigan"]~~although noble, doesn't your sentiment preclude any objective honesty if you're prepared to accept that your gm is lying to you? put in another way, if you expect your gm to lie to avoid a tpk, aren't you by your very acceptance of that fact make you partially culpable in the act?

and: what to you is the purpose of the game?

i don't mean to sound like a dick or anything. i just read your post and have had feelings which it espouses long, long ago. recently being brainwashed by the current guard of hippy, narrative-flavored systems out there, i have since considered that perhaps the story is the purpose of the game, and not, as you hold, any imagined rule-based, game-y objectivity.[/quote]

I'm not Dragonmaster Zoc, so I can't answer for him, but I am a grognardy RPGer and some of the sentiments he's expressed strike a chord with me.

For me, the original purpose of RPGs (back in "the day") was to see if I could play my character to survive adventures. There was a REAL chance of my character dying back in the day, and to have him survive and advance in levels was an achievement that MEANT something due to the rate of survival. I've heard complaints and comments about 1st level D&D characters being equivalent to Keystone Cops or something, but I've never, ever worried about whether my character was competent or not compentent at the beginning of his career, because, if he survived to higher levels then I knew he would become very competent. At the beginning, he's SUPPOSED to be relatively incompetent. He's a beginner! The goal of the game for me was not to play a kick ass character, at least not at the outset. But instead to see how far I can progress my guy, and in the process have some really cool stories to tell about it. And in a way, I still feel that way.

I also think that story and rule-based gamey objectivity can live hand-in-hand. You can have both. I've run games where there were both (as recently as the Ptolus campaign I ran, which you were in!). The biggest thing I object to in the newer hippy indie games is the willingness to throw away that objectivity for story, because for me it's not only about story. I like the feeling of not knowing what will happen next, and being worried that my character might in fact die.

jimmy corrigan · Post by **jimmy corrigan** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:41 am

~~[quote="mordraine"]~~The goal of the game for me was not to play a kick ass character, at least not at the outset. But instead to see how far I can progress my guy, and in the process have some really cool stories to tell about it. And in a way, I still feel that way.

I also think that story and rule-based gamey objectivity can live hand-in-hand. You can have both. I've run games where there were both (as recently as the Ptolus campaign I ran, which you were in!). The biggest thing I object to in the newer hippy indie games is the willingness to throw away that objectivity for story, because for me it's not only about story. I like the feeling of not knowing what will happen next, and being worried that my character might in fact die.[/quote]cool.

like i said, i used to be the same way in previous stages of my development in the hobby. and i know that those two things, story and gaminess can live hand in hand-- that ptolus game was a great example (we should go back to that game!). but just as you suggest we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the unknown outcome of your pc's life or their mortality, i say the same about their personal narrative. when the rules get in the way of a dramatic or memorable event, or just bog down a real moment, i'm a proponent of changing the rules (at least for right then).

honestly, i don't think there exist too too many strictly dyed in the wool narrativists or gamists (or [whatever bullshit jargon classification]) anymore, if there ever were. it's all a complex balancing act each gamer must decide for themselves. the question is which preference they tend to err on and why.

so, one of the reasons i asked dragonmaster zoc about his uncompromising stance on rules objectivity is because i wanted to know whether he was in fact a true dyed in the wool [jargon classification] and why.

Uber_snotling · Post by **Uber_snotling** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:39 pm

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~
Even more so, I wish there truly was a product out there that catered to my needs: something that gets rid of the old, redundant, and nonsensical stuff but keeps the feeling of mundane wonder where magic feels truly magical. [/quote]

Have you ever tried Warhammer? Magic retains its wonder (and can kill/mutate its users), PCs are definitely not special (e.g., the iconic ratcatcher career), and death/corruption/insanity are constant threats.

The best description of it is a cross between Call of Cthulu and the Medieval ages as seen in Monty Python. Dark, filthy, ignorant, diseased, and bigoted medieval Europe with Elves, dwarves, and magic. While it may not have a sense of wonder, it does instill a wonderful fear about magic, strangers, and monsters that is unrecognizable in the later editions of D&D.

mordraine · Post by **mordraine** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:53 pm

~~[quote="jimmy corrigan"]~~but just as you suggest we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the unknown outcome of your pc's life or their mortality, i say the same about their personal narrative. when the rules get in the way of a dramatic or memorable event, or just bog down a real moment, i'm a proponent of changing the rules (at least for right then).[/quote]

Just so. I am loathe to sacrifice story for the sake of rules.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:19 pm

~~[quote="jimmy corrigan"]~~although noble, doesn't your sentiment preclude any objective honesty if you're prepared to accept that your gm is lying to you? put in another way, if you expect your gm to lie to avoid a tpk, aren't you by your very acceptance of that fact make you partially culpable in the act?

and: what to you is the purpose of the game?
[/quote]

I generally assume that everyone is telling the truth at all time. I am not prepared to accept that the GM is lying to me, but if the GM wants to prey upon that trust to keep the story alive then let it be upon his head. I expect the GM to be honest, and as the topic suggests, expectations are more important than implementations. If I expected the GM to lie, then it would be very difficult to play whatsoever.

The purpose of any game is to have fun. The fun of the game is maintained by attempting to reach the goal while maintaining the challenge. The goal of the game is to accomplish the main plotline task. (If Lord of the Rings was a game, then the goal is to destroy the One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom.) The challenge of the game is to do so without cheating and with no fake difficulty (i.e. no meta-gaming or out-of-character knowledge, maintaining character, PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, etc).

If you don't reach the goal, then that's unfortunate, but at least you did it honestly. If you succeed in the goal because someone was cheating, then the challenge is gone and the accomplishment is diminished. It's like playing a video game with a cheat code on; you're basically playing for the sake of the story, and I don't want to knock collaborative storytelling as a means of entertainment, but that's not the game I signed up to play.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:37 pm

~~[quote="Uber_snotling"]~~Have you ever tried Warhammer? Magic retains its wonder (and can kill/mutate its users), PCs are definitely not special (e.g., the iconic ratcatcher career), and death/corruption/insanity are constant threats.
[/quote]

I honestly cannot say that I've ever even seen a book for it. If ~~[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WarhammerFantasyRoleplay]~~this[/url] is accurate, then I don't think I would like it. I'm looking for something more traditional, like Lord of the Rings. Warhammer seems more like a parody.

When I say I want a fair challenge, I don't mean that I want to play in a lousy world of black and gray morality where everyone is miserable and there's nothing you can do about it. There needs to be something worth fighting for, and there needs to be ~~[i]~~something[/i] you can do about it.

I'm also not a huge fan of random anything, let alone significant things like career and appearance. Minor things like stats are easy enough to incorporate into any character, but telling a player what character they're going to play runs a high risk that the player won't like the character, and can substantially reduce the fun had by all.

mordraine · Post by **mordraine** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:49 pm

~~[quote="jimmy corrigan"]~~like i said, i used to be the same way in previous stages of my development in the hobby.[/quote]

Incidentally, this particular comment sounds a little bit elitist, and implies that I or Dragonmaster Zoc are not as refined as you are in terms of RPGs. As if grognardy style of play is somehow backwards. Care to elaborate?

jimmy corrigan · Post by **jimmy corrigan** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:59 pm

i just meant that you two are lower forms of life who've yet to evolve to my grander, more enlightened state. duh.

seriously, all i meant by my former post was to reiterate that i use to have the same tastes in gameplay as you and dragonmaster zoc. no insult meant. honest.

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:41 am

~~[quote="devlin1"]~~Well, you sound like a dick.

I find myself going back on forth on that one -- sometimes I want story-driven, player-controlled narratives, and sometimes I want 3d6 in order, or something in between. Both extremes have their appeals.[/quote]

I agree as well. I like mechanics that don't remind me that it is game of strategy but fuel the genre direction.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:11 pm

Regardless of tone, which is infamously difficult to determine online, I think it's safe to say that the moral of the story is, "It's important to ask what everyone expects from a game, because tastes vary between people and over time."

Uber_snotling · Post by **Uber_snotling** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:24 pm

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~I honestly cannot say that I've ever even seen a book for it. If ~~[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WarhammerFantasyRoleplay]~~this[/url] is accurate, then I don't think I would like it. I'm looking for something more traditional, like Lord of the Rings. Warhammer seems more like a parody.[/quote]

Well, if you are looking for LotR, you shouldn't look at WFRP. My tastes run perpendicular to the tried and true high fantasy tropes.

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:00 pm

~~[quote="Uber_snotling"]~~Well, if you are looking for LotR, you shouldn't look at WFRP. My tastes run perpendicular to the tried and true high fantasy tropes.[/quote]

I have not noticed that...interesting

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:37 am

~~[quote="Dragonmaster Zoc"]~~I'm looking for something more traditional, like Lord of the Rings. Warhammer seems more like a parody.
[/quote]

Warhammer comes from parody, so you are absolutely right. When Warhammer first came out, it was pretty much all about making fun of fantasy. As it matured and got different designers over the years, it became more serious. It has almost become a parody of itself. There are parts of it that are dead serious, and then there are parts of it that are over the top silly (i.e. the orcs). It has its charm, but overall I think it is one of those games that suffers from an inconsistent vision of what it is supposed to be.

If you really want LOTR style fantasy, you might actually look at the LOTR game from decipher. You can still find books here and there and I think there are some ~~[b]~~LEGAL METHODS OF OBTAINING[/b] the books out there.

You might also just take True20 or something similar and just run house games with it. Yeah... harder to find players, but you get what you want.

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:36 pm

What's True20?

Dragonmaster Zoc · Post by **Dragonmaster Zoc** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:40 pm

I expect players to treat their characters as people, rather than as game pieces. I expect everyone to promote the suspension of disbelief by not exploiting poorly written rules. Some systems are not written with the intention of facilitating one or both of these expectations, and I like to avoid those systems.

That's mostly what I mean by "traditional" fantasy, as contrasted with Warhammer, Eberron, or Forgotten Realms. I want something that at least tries to take itself seriously.