|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 8:26AM
#21
|
|
|
[A] character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM
I'm putting that in my signiture, is that OK? That was really good.
A character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM. If someone wants to do something and they want to do it well, let them. Encourage them. Have fun with it. -Unknown
An adventure is a DM's love letter to the players. If the DM wants something to happen in the game, let it. Encourage the DM. Have fun with it. -Centauri I'd love for input as to what it should be rather than arguments against why I shouldn't have it at all. -lialwyn Best defense that I've read in favor of having alignment systems as an option
Spoiler:
Show
However, if some people are heavily benefiting from the inclusion of alignment, then it would behoove those that AREN'T to listen up and pay attention to how those benefits are being created and enjoyed, no? -YagamiFire
But equally important would be for those who do enjoy those benefits to entertain the possibility that other people do not value those benefits equally or, possibly, do not see them as benefits in the first place. -wrecan
That makes sense. However, it is not fair to continually attack those that benefit for being, somehow, deviant for deriving enjoyment from something that you cannot. Instead, alignment is continually attacked...it is demonized...and those that use it are lumped in with it.
I think there is more merit in a situation where someone says "This doesn't work! It's broken!" and the reply is "Actually it works fine for me. Have you considered your approach might be causing it?" than a situation where someone says "I use this system and the way I use it works really well!" and the back and forth is "No! It is a broken bad system!" because the former posits that improvement could be made...the latter only undermines the enjoyment of the person who is using alignment. -YagamiFire
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 8:30AM
#22
|
|
|
Sure, just don't quote me. It was a game designer, I wish I could remember which one  Edit - I'm finding online it was from something Fred Hicks, the man behind Evil Hat, wrote in a column.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 10:28AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I've written before about how miscommunicated expectations between players and DMs can cause all sorts of issues. I made a character who was a grappler, and my DM kept giving me opponents who couldn't be grappled, they'd phase or ooze or teleport out of my guy's grasp almost instantly. It basically stole the fun and nerfed my character.
Was he doing this deliberately, or did it just work out that way with his adventure? Grappling is a hard one because few creatures are designed with it in mind, and so are either powerless against it or immune to it.
Someone once wrote a character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM, and I believe that. If someone wants to do something and they want to do it well, let them. Encourage them. Have fun with it.
By the same token, isn't an adventure a love letter to the players? If the DM wants something to happen in the game, let it. Encourage the DM. Have fun with it.
But I don't believe it has to be or should be one or the other. Everyone at the table can play to the offers that everyone else is providing. It is hardest when another person is giving an offer that seems incompatible with what we want to achieve, but it is rarely a useful or productive approach to completely disregard that offer in favor of our own wants. Whenever possible, we should accept the offer, and add on to it. Ideally, what we're adding is the original thing we wanted, but if not it's at least something we wanted, and we've now made the other person's offer partially our own.
Adventures and characters that are set forth with a complete arc interfere with our ability to accept other offers. Try to plan out as little as possible, even if you have what you think is a really awesome idea. The history of D&D is littered with really awesome ideas that just didn't get traction with the people who listened to them.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 10:37AM
#24
|
|
|
Centauri, it was deliberate, but he and I talked about it afterwards, and a lot of it was a misunderstanding of the kind of game we were playing. It was like if I had designed a race horse because I wanted to go fast and as soon as the gate opens the GM dropped a ton of rocks in my lane so I couldn't possibly go fast. He admitted that is what he'd done, because he was still looking at it as an "us versus him" scenario, trying to take away my advantage. Honestly, I'm not interested in games like that anymore.
On the flip side, as a GM I try to give the players challenges but also give them a chance to showcase their character abilities. It really has been a huge philisophical shift for my group, but they've responded really well and are enjoying the hell out of the game. And they often meet me halfway, which is a huge burden off my shoulders as the GM. If they say "why would my character want to go and retrieve some jewel for this guy?" I say "You tell me." And they do.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 10:48AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Centauri, it was deliberate, but he and I talked about it afterwards, and a lot of it was a misunderstanding of the kind of game we were playing. It was like if I had designed a race horse because I wanted to go fast and as soon as the gate opens the GM dropped a ton of rocks in my lane so I couldn't possibly go fast. He admitted that is what he'd done, because he was still looking at it as an "us versus him" scenario, trying to take away my advantage. Honestly, I'm not interested in games like that anymore.
Same here. I've only recently let them go, though.
On the flip side, as a GM I try to give the players challenges but also give them a chance to showcase their character abilities. It really has been a huge philisophical shift for my group, but they've responded really well and are enjoying the hell out of the game. And they often meet me halfway, which is a huge burden off my shoulders as the GM. If they say "why would my character want to go and retrieve some jewel for this guy?" I say "You tell me." And they do.
Excellent. I've been trying this too. It has really been eye-opening for me. Just the arguments and rolled eyes I've avoided by listening to the players' assumptions instead of cajoling them to going along with mine has made everything so much more enjoyable. And at the same time, they do tend to go along with much more of what I suggest, because they know it's much more of their own free will.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 1:46PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
Wow that was a lot to read. In short I find myself agreeing with Noct. This is basically what I can infer from all the angry ramblings:
You wanted that to be an epicly awesome '80s movie moment. You wanted the story to be completely about your triumph over hostility and anger by going to a zen state. You are also trying to gain enlightenment and get back at the guy who murdered your family at the very start of the game. You want your hero's journey to take you from level 1 to level 2. You want to dictate the story and if it doesn't go your way, take your ball and go home.
The DM wanted this to be a believable NPC, one he had built and prepared to follow a specific set of rules he thought would make an epically awesome 2012 movie (Man with the Iron Fists was mentioned and I think that makes perfect sense... as a note I've only seen the trailer). He wanted to story to be about your triumph over hostility and anger by going into a zen state. He wanted to take you on an epic adventure to gain enlightenment until you were ready to face your past and deal with the NPC who murdered your family at the very start of the game. He wanted your heroes journey to have all of the elements spread out from beginning to end (including the little-talked about epic-beat-down-you-must-one-day-overcome) over the course of the next 10 levels. He wanted to develop a story with you, where you can work off of eachother and make decisions that seem to make some sense if placed within the game world and made precautions against you biting off more than you can chew.
TLDR (Which, honestly after the posts you put here you can get over): You went in expecting to non-combat an obvious combat encounter and got owned for it. Then your DM softballed it for you at least 2 times so you wouldn't have to reroll and could keep and interesting story.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 12, 2012 - 3:11PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
I was frustrated because the DM said "Let's play ball". Then he stuck a fork in the ball". Then he tried to air it back up.
He had a pre-fabricated plan that I threw a monkey wrench in. When he described the scene at the buddhist temple in which I "found a moment of perfect harmony and enlightenment". I took him at his word and based on his instruction that he was wanting players to 'play on the esoteric, philosophic elements', I truly thought he wanted me to find a way to defeat this very powerful enemy that didn't involve crossing my fingers and hoping for some critical hits. Particularly because he asked me to play specifically because he was bored with other players focusing on hack n slash.
If the DM had said.. the goal is to be realistic, I'd have played the character very differently. I'd have left town and went far, far away from this guy who can break solid bricks with his bare hands. Or if it was just going to be a simple hack n slash, I'd have fought minions, working my way up in high metagame style.
As far as it being an "obvious" combat encounter... I threw out ways for it not to devolve so, but the DM decided to go a different route; having the conversation in private (nope... he forces you to go down in the cellar surrounded by all his men), getting help from the bell-maker to make the buddha out of brass (nope... he was 'out of town'), to enlist aid from the noodle-maker, because the fighting monk feared him for superstitious reasons (nope... the noodleman is 'neutral'), enlisting the aid of the herbalist, the highest level fighter in the city (nope... they straight-up beat him down gangsta-style and finally killed him less than 2 minutes after I issued the challenge), and more.
The advice I'm getting here is that I should have just played with more of a hack and slash mentality. I COMPLETELY understand the default path is something like this. Here's the bad guy the DM made up. If you interact with him, he attacks. It's the default option that so many players and DMs alike seem to try to escape but can't find their way out of. The DM tells me he doesn't want that, but that's what he has encouraged.
I was hoping for some different advice from more of a story-telling perspective. There seems to be some myopia when it comes to the concept that character death can be a story event as well. I submit that a creative DM can take many situations and give realistic reasons for them to become either story-telling events or role-playing opportunities or both.
Back to the original reason of my post... is there any advice someone might give a DM to encourage the DM to actively try to rule in favor of interesting outcomes?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 9:30AM
#28
|
|
|
I think you are misinterpreting the advice you are getting, and it appears you misread the in-game cues the DM was sending you as well. There's a difference between focusing on roleplaying (shorthand for 'play on the esoteric, philosophic elements'), and relying exclusively on roleplay to get you through every encounter. There had been combat encounters leading up to the final confrontation, so you knew they were a possibility. The BBEG had already killed your entire family, so you knew viciousness was part of his makeup. You insulted him and his school, and when you tried to recruit the people you'd been helping the whole time, they declined or left town. Realizing that you might be walking into a fight, when you specifically challenged him to a fight, doesn't require a hack and slash mentality. I personally would have had him beat you unconscious while taking the statue with him - 1. Your character wasn't enough of a threat to be worth the cleaning bill to get blood off. 2. He can taunt you with the statue later when you actually have the support of the townsfolk, and the ability to stop him. 3. The campaign can continue, and you have even more reasons to prepare for a later (non-combat) confrontation. He would not have suffered a sea-change in his personality, because finding out that your character worshipped the Buddha wouldn't have changed his own views at all. For generalized DMing advice, there is a forum for that, have your DM read it.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 11:56AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I was hoping for some different advice from more of a story-telling perspective. There seems to be some myopia when it comes to the concept that character death can be a story event as well.
Of course itcan be. It just so rarely seems to be.
I submit that a creative DM can take many situations and give realistic reasons for them to become either story-telling events or role-playing opportunities or both.
That's what more and more people are saying: "realistic" doesn't mean that there's only one, boring way for things to fall out. I'll reiterate that "not fighting" isn't the same as "role-playing," though.
Back to the original reason of my post... is there any advice someone might give a DM to encourage the DM to actively try to rule in favor of interesting outcomes?
No. If the DM learns about trusting the players enough to say "Yes, and..." then they can try utilizing that approach, but being given that advice by a player is likely to strike a DM as self-serving behavior. All the player can do is be trustworthy, and demonstrate "Yes, and..." on their own, to show the DM that the player is more interested in an interesting story for all, than just for him or herself.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 12:02PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
I was frustrated because the DM said "Let's play ball". Then he stuck a fork in the ball". Then he tried to air it back up.
Actually he said "Let's play football" and then you showed up without any pads on and broke your spine.
He had a pre-fabricated plan that I threw a monkey wrench in. When he described the scene at the buddhist temple in which I "found a moment of perfect harmony and enlightenment".
Which sounds like the beginning of an epic journey, not a rough tool to use it against this powerful enemy. Or good fluff, either one.
I took him at his word and based on his instruction that he was wanting players to 'play on the esoteric, philosophic elements', I truly thought he wanted me to find a way to defeat this very powerful enemy that didn't involve crossing my fingers and hoping for some critical hits. Particularly because he asked me to play specifically because he was bored with other players focusing on hack n slash.
If something is clearly out of your league fighting wise.... Don't challenge them to a fight and get angry if your butt gets handed to you. If you are going to win him over with peace, expect to get beaten down and trodden on before you overcome. The DM gave you opportunities for this (like the whole river scene). It isn't "hack and slash" or non isoteric to ask you to not go with the fighting option in a situation where the fighting option will get you killed or maimed. Think of most of the 80s movies you have seen, as this seems very '80s movies-esque. You win either by not fighting at all on their terms (and making it to where their method of fighting doesn't work) or you beat them at their own game. If he is a very straightforward ruthless combat guy, then you either need to be better than him at combat (go level up and later turn it into a montage) or you need to do something that makes his method not work.
You did neither of those. You went after a BBEG on his terms, at an obvious disadvantage, far too early in the story. What happened is what should happen in these types of stories (AKA a huge set-back). If you were going for realism, or even following along with what the character did alraedy in the story he should have killed you. He already killed your family, no reason he shouldn't have killed you other than the fact that the DM wanted you to live.
If the DM had said.. the goal is to be realistic, I'd have played the character very differently. I'd have left town and went far, far away from this guy who can break solid bricks with his bare hands. Or if it was just going to be a simple hack n slash, I'd have fought minions, working my way up in high metagame style.
"I'm playing a game where I want philisophical and isoteric characters" =/= "I am playing a game where you will always win against anything the first time you come against it if you feel it would be cool"
The point isn't the playstyle. In a "hack and slash" game the outcome would have been the same. In a purely plot-driven game the result would be the same. This is either you fighting something over your head and getting squished (hack and slash) or it is you going through the first part of confronting the BBEG and living to build it into your persona (non hack and slash).
As far as it being an "obvious" combat encounter... I threw out ways for it not to devolve so, but the DM decided to go a different route; having the conversation in private (nope... he forces you to go down in the cellar surrounded by all his men), getting help from the bell-maker to make the buddha out of brass (nope... he was 'out of town'), to enlist aid from the noodle-maker, because the fighting monk feared him for superstitious reasons (nope... the noodleman is 'neutral'), enlisting the aid of the herbalist, the highest level fighter in the city (nope... they straight-up beat him down gangsta-style and finally killed him less than 2 minutes after I issued the challenge), and more.
Those are horribly unsutble ways of saying "You really shouldn't do this". Maybe the DM could have said "hey, this is a terrible plan" but instead he let you live through something that should have killed you. You are saying that all these things are reasons that the encounter wasn't obviously going to be combat oriented. I would say all of those things were reasons the encounter was going to be combat oriented. Any RPG player, or anyone who has watched any number of movies would go "well, this is seeming worse and worse for our hero... either he is going to change course quickly or there are 2 hours left of this 2hour and 30 min movie.".
The advice I'm getting here is that I should have just played with more of a hack and slash mentality. I COMPLETELY understand the default path is something like this.
Incorrect. The advice you are getting here is "Don't be a moron when you roleplay and expect the DM to compensate for it." If you walk into a situation where there is no hope of winning and don't win you should expect that outcome and build from there. You know, like having a villian that leaves you alive, allows you to come back and continue on your heroes journey. Like what the DM actually did.
Here's the bad guy the DM made up. If you interact with him, he attacks. It's the default option that so many players and DMs alike seem to try to escape but can't find their way out of. The DM tells me he doesn't want that, but that's what he has encouraged.
Yes, if you challenge someone who fights for a living to a fight he will fight you. That isn't even semi-complicated. That doesn't mean that NPC can't be in any number of different settings/styles of play / editions / games/ movies / genres. It just means that if you are going to fight him on his terms (you did) you need to be better (you weren't) or have something up your sleeve that would actually effect the NPC (you didn't). Yes your enlightenment is very cool and wonderful and important to you. But the NPC has no reason at all to care about your enlightenment.
I was hoping for some different advice from more of a story-telling perspective. There seems to be some myopia when it comes to the concept that character death can be a story event as well. I submit that a creative DM can take many situations and give realistic reasons for them to become either story-telling events or role-playing opportunities or both.
No, what you wanted was for people on here to agree with you and argue in your favor against your DM. You wanted affirmation that your path was the right path. You wanted to be told that the DM was a jerk and he needs to change. You didn't get that response. So you continue posting trying to fish for that answer. Good luck.
Back to the original reason of my post... is there any advice someone might give a DM to encourage the DM to actively try to rule in favor of interesting outcomes?
He did rule in favor of an interesting outcome. What you are asking for is for someone on here to tell your DM to rule in your favor. To be fair some DMs on here will say that (Honestly speak to Centauri as the way he runs his games would appeal tou you). Some DMs, like myself, will say that the story in the long run would have been in your favor in so much that it would have helped you make a more interesting and in-depth character.
From what I have seen this seems to be your character's main reason for being an adventurer and if the DM allows you to overcome it at level 1... why are you going to keep going? Where is the fire in your heart that burns to go farther, see more, do more, be better if you have already overcome all the obstacles in your backstory?
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
