|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 8:03PM
#1
|
|
|
I used to play D&D a lot 20 years ago, and in the past year I've gotten into again with 4E. It's certainly a much different game now, and by that I don't mean the obvious rule changes so much as the community of players and general attitude towards gaming. I've played with four different DMs in the past year and each one had a tendency to create massive combats that took hours to resolve and/or verged on total party kills. And this was expected to be fun by the participants. I thought I was missing something; back in the day we would we would have lots of easy encounters mixed in with some occasional hard encounters, roleplaying, and puzzles. Back then, people developed their characters, expanded their personality as they leveled up. Today, people roll up new characters every few weeks and don't care if their characters live or die. Back then, a DM would run a campaign for several months; today, people will play one-shot delves or (if they're ambitious) only a single module, and then start over again with a new character afterwards.
Why? Is it just our culture's obsession with short attention span? (Since this post is longer than a tweet, people might not read it.)
Anyway, another observation is that there are two gaming philosophies:
1) This is a GAME. So, emphasis on game balance, tactical rules, and players are looking for a fair chance of winning against the DM or against the module-of-the-week. Character death or TPK is acceptable in that there's no long-term commitment to the character and the focus is only on this week's adventure. Roll up new characters next week. That new module that just came out sounds interesting, let's roll up new characters and try it.
2) This is FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING. Like a great novel, comic book, movie, or TV show, characters are the main actors in a fantastic adventure, where they acquire possessions, develop personalities, level up, and become participants in the politics of a fantasy universe. Towards this, the characters will typically kick butt and take names, and character death is a tragedy. And a TPK equivalent to a series being cancelled.
Personally I'm more inclined towards the second, but I have seen a lot of evidence that the first is more common now. Organized play, character generation tools, meetups, conventions... these have all led towards the first philosophy. But maybe that's because I just haven't found the right group yet. Which of course is leading me to trying DMing and running a game the way I'd like to see it run, and see what happens. But will I be able to find players with the second philosophy instead of the first?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 8:17PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2011
|
You're either judging far too harshly or you've experienced some bad groups.
Our culture does not have an obsession with short attention spans. They just HAVE short attention spans.
I try to work in a few puzzles and some back and forth NPC talk, but sometimes I like my battles tediously hard. I want to force my players to use some skills.
One shot games just... well, I believe they suck, but it's preference. I like run on games. I like building storyline. I am part of today's culture.
I try to get my players to build character background, but some do not see it as a necessary task :\
Some people aren't good at roleplaying and just focus on rather trivial aspects of D&D. Optimizing characters - what good is it if you aren't enjoying yourself, if you aren't using your character to their full ability?
Character gen is good for helping newbies. It has little to nothing to do with their ability to role play.
If you can't find players that adhere to your strict philosophy, it would not be wise to force it upon them. DMs that tell you what style to play in every aspect of the term really get on people's nerves.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 8:48PM
#3
|
|
|
to be completel honest, i've heard your problem with the mortality and "Insignifigance" of story and character attributed many times to older editions of DND, the ones you presumably played. I've heard "save or die mechanics" and brutal DM's of the era generally broke games more often than they might now.
As for me though? i favor a story-driven, worldbuilding intensive, role playing game- that being said i like combat alot as well, you compared it to a Television series? well what's a good series without thrilling battles?
Personalities of characters are extremely important, especially now that mechanics don't interfere as much as i hear they used to- and in my experience i have to try very hard to kill characters with a "balanced adventure" i'll sometimes try hard to keep the danger level of the game from dropping too much, but they generally don't have too many problems with the things i throw at them.
Often times, our combats can be tedious and bogged down at times, but thats usaully because i devote so much time to over-the-top descriptions of their abilities, which often include deep feelings of the characters,memories of being taught the skill, as well visually impressive lightning shows. The players seem to enjoy my ability to make them feel like badasses, especially on a crit.
Is my group a little roleplay weak? yes, but thats just because we're all still new and exploring the territory, we only really started playing at the beginning of this past summer on a weekly basis. We've had plenty of great moments with role-play, heck, when someone was missing to waste time we played through instances from each character's backstories as vignettes. Their backstories are immensely important to the proceedings as well, deeply woven into my plots.
we're all seniors in high school, except for our rogue, who's going to be a freshman next year- so i guess we're the youth of DND... i can tell you our philosophy is not so shallow-centric, sorry to rant, i wasn't offended or anything, just wanted to let you know the spirit's alive and well in DND.
btw, i do suggest running one yourself, you do seem to have a knack for joining bad groups, hopefully your own game goes better! good luck, and remember to let the players know what they're in for before hand!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 8:51PM
#4
|
|
|
Why? Is it just our culture's obsession with short attention span? (Since this post is longer than a tweet, people might not read it.)
D&D competes with many, many other forms of entertainment as compared to even just 20 years ago. Sometimes a faster, more episodic style of play suits a busier lifestyle with lots of other entertainment choices. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
Anyway, another observation is that there are two gaming philosophies:
1) This is a GAME. So, emphasis on game balance, tactical rules, and players are looking for a fair chance of winning against the DM or against the module-of-the-week. Character death or TPK is acceptable in that there's no long-term commitment to the character and the focus is only on this week's adventure. Roll up new characters next week. That new module that just came out sounds interesting, let's roll up new characters and try it.
2) This is FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING. Like a great novel, comic book, movie, or TV show, characters are the main actors in a fantastic adventure, where they acquire possessions, develop personalities, level up, and become participants in the politics of a fantasy universe. Towards this, the characters will typically kick butt and take names, and character death is a tragedy. And a TPK equivalent to a series being cancelled.
Personally I'm more inclined towards the second, but I have seen a lot of evidence that the first is more common now. Organized play, character generation tools, meetups, conventions... these have all led towards the first philosophy. But maybe that's because I just haven't found the right group yet. Which of course is leading me to trying DMing and running a game the way I'd like to see it run, and see what happens. But will I be able to find players with the second philosophy instead of the first?
I like both and find they needn't be mutually exclusive. It depends on the campaign theme and style. That will suggest which method is best to tell that particular story. Sadly, not many people think about this very hard when starting a game and few actually discuss it with their players to get input to make a game that is fun for everyone at the table.
It's no different from, say, a movie versus a series. One begins and ends quickly and may not continue past that one story. The other runs for however long it runs and multiple stories are told with the same cast of characters. I'm currently running a campaign that just turned a year old, levels 1 to 17 (so far) with plans to go into early epic. That's my series. I'm also writing and running a side game from some other players, a pulp-action story spanning levels 6 - 9 because that's all the "room" I need to tell this particular story. Call it a mini-series. And when I run the odd module as a one-shot, then that's a single story like a movie.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 9:07PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2005
|
I also prefer the second style you describe. Heck, it takes me six levels or so to even fall in love with a character. All of my favorites I have played at least that long.
Sadly I think there are quite a few gamers out now who follow or prefer the first style. Its often a old generation vs new thing, in my experience. However, I'm positive some players have never experienced a good game of your preference, and would prefer it too.
Our games in my early years were atrocious, but I loved them.
Finally, I do love a good one-off. We usually do them on special occasions, and with changes in the player lineup too.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 9:52PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
It's not a new thing, you're just exposed to a wider community now.
There have always been people who have preferred hack and slash and random character deaths.
There have always been people who go for as much immersion as possible.
And, thankfully, there have always been people who prefer some of both, each in moderation.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 10:16PM
#7
|
|
|
And, thankfully, there have always been people who prefer some of both, each in moderation.
Yo.
Truth be told, Coates, I'm not seeing your problem. The approach to how the game is played has been different, be it slightly or severely, with each edition change, and this is largely due to the generation that is playing the edition. 4e is in a generation where combat based video games and high action movies are not only common, but big. This will inevitably bleed into the style of play for many of the D&D players from this generation, much like how long character sagas of Tolkien proportions were big for the first few editions.
4e also has much cleanly defined mechanics, so combat is easier to run and make into a grand part of the game each time you start rolling the dice. It's not that the edition segregates the type of people that play it, more that the game itself has always does that. The developers even acknowledge as such when they talk about "types of players" in the DMGs. Some people prefer certain aspects of the game more than others, regardless of the edition in question. 4e just happens to make combat easier to manage than before, allowing the folks that like to hit things the most to have a better time than they might have in past editions.
Long story short, everyone plays the game differently no matter what edition you're playing, so don't sweat it. If you like to play a certain way, find a group to play as such with. That's always how it tends to work with groups in D&D.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 10:47PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
I've had the exact opposite thing; years ago people used to approach D&D as a game, with lots of character death and expendable character. These days I mostly see people trying to make characters that matter and play story.
But that's because I changed groups. I'm pretty sure my old group is still happily hack&slashing their way through dungeons and this new group would still be doing freestyle RPG if I hadn't offered to DM 4e for them.
It's mostly just the people you've found.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 10:49PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
I've had the exact opposite thing; years ago people used to approach D&D as a game, with lots of character death and expendable character. These days I mostly see people trying to make characters that matter and play story.
But that's because I changed groups. I'm pretty sure my old group is still happily hack&slashing their way through dungeons and this new group would still be doing freestyle RPG if I hadn't offered to DM 4e for them.
It's mostly just the people you've found.
There is a term for lighter gaming with hack and slash, no 'deep' rping and all - beer and pretzels gaming.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 10:53PM
#10
|
|
|
Some people like novels. Other people like short stories.
My gaming philosphy? "If you're having fun playing the game, you're doing it right."
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
