|
3 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 3:47PM
#341
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
If players used "Yes, and..." to circumvent a challenge, why do you think they did that? And even if they did, do you suppose that "Yes, and..." obviates the need for dice? Or that coming up with the "and..." part isn't problem solving?
We got all of the things I bolded in spades in my games while using "Yes, and..." and interesting failure.
Because, although humans love a challenge, we are lazy by nature and will take the path of least resistance, generally.
This does happen, but it's primarily a reaction to being actively prevented by the DM from getting their way and from their characters being as cool as they want them to be.
With a DM to guide the discussion toward interesting failure, this dies down quickly. Once they can have whatever they want, the game becomes more about having scenes for their own sake, not because the players feel like they have to endure the scenes to get what they want. The path of least resistance to a cool, engaging game is through "Yes, and..." and, as you say, people like to take the path of least resistance.
Coming up with the 'and...' part isn't problem solving. It's changing the parameters of the problem in order to avoid it. Which is why I have problems with it. It's too easy.
That's why coming up with the problem has to be part of the collaboration. Once it is, there's incentive not to avoid it, because there's no point in coming up with a cool idea, if it's just avoided. This turns the traditional mode on its head, because usually a DM comes up with cool ideas, and the players are considered clever if they avoid them. Now the players are clever for helping come up with the problems, the ways the problems can be solved, and the consequences of those ways failing.
If one is going to try collaboration, try collaborating on failure first. This is a primary cause of in-game strife and mitigation, so dealing with that will solve many problems right off the bat.
I think you don't quite give me enough credit sometimes. Or take into consideration that many players have a different mentality than what you describe.
Having the DM set up scenes (without players input) is something many players WANT to happen. They WANT the excitement of finding a secret door that is supposed to be a secret. They LIKE the idea of not knowing where the traps are in a trap-filled dungeon. They PREFER to be able to come up with solutions to problems they didn't create (and already know the answer to before they begin to solve it.
Most importantly, many are FINE to let their heroes take risks without having the safety net of being able to change the parameters of problems rather than overcoming them.
EDIT: Argh! I sound more negative than intended. Wish I had more time to edit, but please read it in the intended spirit of open dialogue. I know you are presenting an alternative way of playing and find it preferable to a more traditional approach. I also understand that what it looks like 'on paper'.. such as in a forum such as this and how it plays out in life are different and that the personalities of the players also dictate whether a particular style of play (traditional or otherwise) is successful or not. I know when I hear a lot of complaints about the traditional style, it generally sounds like the DM being described really is control-freakish, which is nothing like most DMs I've seen and the ones that are that way, don't sit in that seat very long.
I ramble. It's friday. Time to get my weekend on.
Happy gaming. Sincerely. Sir Joe.
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 3:57PM
#342
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I think you don't quite give me enough credit sometimes. Or take into consideration that many players have a different mentality than what you describe.
From where I stand, I'm the one not being given much credit, and others are the ones not taking into account the common factors in many of the problems on these boards.
Having the DM set up scenes (without players input) is something many players WANT to happen. They WANT the excitement of finding a secret door that is supposed to be a secret. They LIKE the idea of not knowing where the traps are in a trap-filled dungeon. They PREFER to be able to come up with solutions to problems they didn't create (and already know the answer to before they begin to solve it.
If this is true, it's only true to a point. Many of the same players who want these things then go out of their way to circumvent them. They want the trap-filled dungeon, but they don't want any of those traps to actually go off, and will push back and cry foul if they've performed what they think is (excessive) due diligence and the traps still go off, or if dealing with the traps is beyond their ability. They will block the idea they claim to be fine with, when it actually comes about.
Besides which, any such player who really does want those things can still have that under this system. No one is forced to do things they don't enjoy, while engaged in a game, and they're encouraged to help make them into things they do enjoy. That's the entire point.
Most importantly, many are FINE to let their heroes take risks without having the safety net of being able to change the parameters of problems rather than overcoming them.
No one is talking about this. Your use of the term "safety net" proves that you still have no idea what we're talking about. No one is "safe," but no one is bored, either. Maybe you should get into one of iserith's online games before you try to talk about this anymore. I'm sure he'll make a spot for you.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 4:17PM
#343
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
Sorry. You replied before I got a chance to edit.
Please read my edited post.
If I'm mistaken about there being a safety net and there isn't one, it could be that I am indeed totally mistaken about what you are suggesting. It may be that the net is there but you and your players haven't looked at it that way, so it isn't a problem for your group.
I actually wish I could jump in on one of those games... or one of you in mine. Probably find more common ground with each other that way, f'sho.
You'd stop thinking I'm an evil control freak. I'd stop thinking your game is all easy-fluffy.
Fiendish Dire Unicorns, my friend. Fiendish Dire Unicorns.
Again, happy gaming.
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 4:30PM
#344
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
If I'm mistaken about there being a safety net and there isn't one, it could be that I am indeed totally mistaken about what you are suggesting. It may be that the net is there but you and your players haven't looked at it that way, so it isn't a problem for your group.
Once the the players are in on devising what failure looks like, they remove the need for a safety net, because they'd be short circuiting their own ideas. Until then, yes, players do use their newfound power to nullify the DM's plans, because that's traditionally what players are expected to do.
I get that it seems like there's a safety net when failures like arrest and death and dead-ends (what I think of as "boring" failures) are no longer on the table. But speaking as someone who has taken trapeze lessons, just because there's a net doesn't mean it's not challenging. The point of the challenge changes from something that stops the fun dead to something that can actually be striven for in a fun way. And can actually be missed, if effort isn't put in.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 4:44PM
#345
|
|
|
If I'm mistaken about there being a safety net and there isn't one, it could be that I am indeed totally mistaken about what you are suggesting. It may be that the net is there but you and your players haven't looked at it that way, so it isn't a problem for your group.
Maybe I can explain it this way: I present a challenge or problem to overcome. The players are free to determine whatever solution they like and know that I will break that down into mechanics and we'll play it out to see if it works or not. I make no judgment as to whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, and we all make sure we're working within the confines of established fiction. Along the way toward testing their solutions, the players introduce reasonable details they need to foster their solution as well as complications they'd enjoy (either because of die rolls or choice).
You might look at that and ask what the hell the difference is between that and any other game. A fair question. The answer is: In a game like ours, a player’s ability to affect what happens in the game is not dependent on their character’s fictional or mechanical ability to do those things.
I actually wish I could jump in on one of those games... or one of you in mine. Probably find more common ground with each other that way, f'sho.
I'll pull the chair out if you sit in it. I have two games coming together now - "Island of the Frog" and "Star*Juice." (See my signature for links.)
I'd stop thinking your game is all easy-fluffy.
Indeed. You might even want to bring a backup character. Many PCs have died in the playing of these two games.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 6:48PM
#346
|
|
|
May I paraphrase/summarize both sides to the best of my understanding? It sounds like you're mostly saying the same thing as each other, but have gotten used to different vocabulary for saying it, maybe? 1) If the players are the ones who decide the winning and losing scenarios ahead of time, then they won't feel any suspense simply rolling for which pre-determined scenario happened, however many steps involved in said rolling, and would instead want the DM to surprise them. Or, some "players" would just decide to say "I win" and not actually play with the others. 2) Since so many people are involved in "pre-determining" the scenarios, and continuing to be throughout the process, no one actually knows exactly what the scenarios will look like by the time they actually happen. Instead of 1 DM having to surprise 4 players (without getting to be surprised herself) and each player only having 1 DM making the surprises, each player has the DM and other 3 players teaming up to surprise them, and the DM gets surprised enough herself to not to become visibly, contagiously bored. Is this at all accurate? It really sounds like you guys are basically agreeing "Don't let the game get boring," but disagreeing about why you're agreeing. Or something 
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
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 16, 2013 - 10:33AM
#347
|
|
|
2)
Since so many people are involved in "pre-determining" the scenarios, and continuing to be throughout the process, no one actually knows exactly what the scenarios will look like by the time they actually happen.
Instead of 1 DM having to surprise 4 players (without getting to be surprised herself) and each player only having 1 DM making the surprises, each player has the DM and other 3 players teaming up to surprise them, and the DM gets surprised enough herself to not to become visibly, contagiously bored.
Yes, that's a good way of thinking about it. Throw dice into that mix and nobody really knows what's going to happen next, not even the DM.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 17, 2013 - 6:17PM
#348
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
Big topic. I only read a couple pages so before I get into this discussion, I am noticing something. The DM after the game said he didn't think it would be out of line for my character to give him a talking to, but my character's never done anything like that before and I have no idea how to approach it.
Any advice on how to handle this in-game and out would be much appreciated!
Everyone seems to be answering what a proper dm should or should not do. Has anybody answered how the player's character should talk to the one that put the party into this mix?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 17, 2013 - 7:03PM
#349
|
|
|
Everyone seems to be answering what a proper dm should or should not do. Has anybody answered how the player's character should talk to the one that put the party into this mix?
Yes, a few times. It breaks down to two camps of advice: Deal with it in-game. Or deal with it out-of-game. I recommend the latter. Of course, this is just dealing with a symptom. It's likely to come up again in some other form.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 17, 2013 - 7:14PM
#350
|
|
|
Everyone seems to be answering what a proper dm should or should not do. Has anybody answered how the player's character should talk to the one that put the party into this mix?
His character shoudl make it clear that they will toss him under the bus, as it were, if push comes to chove, so he needs to think first or at least consult with the rest of the group so they are on the same page.
"look, we are displeased with your actions and recklessness, you are just causing problems for the rest of the group, Shape up!" it basically translates to the same if you do it in game or out of game. Just make it clear what actions in particular and how they affected the others.
|
|
|
