Thursday, August 16, 2018

Go Hard

As just explained to me by Ozymandias on Facebook, "Session Zero" is a discussion of the player's interests, what are the player boundaries, what is the player looking to get out of the game.  It's admitted that communication is good and that generally people should have it, but if the player is dictating everything to the DM, then where's the surprise and mystery?  And for my money, I'll add to his point by asking, where is the fear?

It's the same reason why professional BDSM doesn't make sense to a lot of people.  You want to be controlled, so you go to a ProDomme, who you tell what to do, then pay her money to do it, then pretend that you're being "controlled," while she pretends she's controlling you.  At the same time, if you made a contract with a person who might actually be ready to control YOU for real, you would wisely not show up.  So what's the deal here?

The deal is that players (and BDSM clients) want their fantasy dished out just the way they like it.  They don't want surprises, they don't want stress, they don't want to be challenged, they don't want to take a risk ... and the industry and community confirms that.  It may be a game but, unlike golf, we don't want anyone making difficult golf courses.  Unlike kayaking, we only want to boat on quiet rivers.  Unlike free climbing, we don't want t climb any unclimbed routes.  We want the cliches.  We want the same conversations to get around the guards or to convince the vendor to sell for a few coins less.  We want the adventures to end in a big bad, and we want the big bad to have a simple agenda and to be there waiting for us, and we want the big bad to be absolutely killable.  We don't want any surprises.

On the other hand, I advocate a stress game.  I want the D&D equivalent of the hole depicted on the right.  And as the players line up to take their shot at the next round of the adventure, I want them to hesitate just as you would if I told you your LIFE depended on you landing your golf shot somewhere on the green, the rough or the sand trap ... because if you hit rock with that ball, that ball is gone.

And I want my D&D game to have that flexibility.  It isn't about getting it on the green. The green is terrific; but there's enough flexibility that the rough or a sand trap will do.  It's an ascending scale of how much shit your character can get in before they actually die.  But there's always a chance you'll fuck up that stroke and yes, doing so, that's the end of that character.

Moreover, as a DM, I'm not going to have a session zero that shows you this golf hole.  I'm going to drive you out to it in a car with blacked out windows, and I'm going to have you make the bet with me before you see the hole.  By the time you see the hole, it's too late to back out.  That's the sort of game I run.

That's the sort of game I want to play ... because I think, for myself, if I were pulled out to that hole and told to take my shot, that I'd want to see if I could do it.  That's the thrill for me.  The test to see if I'm up to it.  Unfortunately for me, this seems to apply to situations where thinking is most of the game ... if we actually are talking golf, then yeah, I'm going to fuck that hole because I'm not that great a player, though I enjoy the nuance of the game.  But if we're talking D&D, and you're running me as a player, and you park me in front of this hole, then yeah.  I think I'm going to be fine.  I think I'm going to fucking enjoy making that shot and I'm damn comfortable with the consequences.

I have a pretty high regard for myself mentally. I don't need to talk it out with the DM before we get started.  I don't need to establish boundaries regarding what might happen to my characters because I don't have any boundaries.  Not because I don't get uncomfortable, but because I like discomfort.  I like being pushed.  I like the agony and stress of a frustrating, uncertain, and potentially unwinnable situation.  That's why I got into chess at an early age.  That's why I fell in love with D&D in a single night.  That's why I've thrown my whole potential life away in order to spend it obsessed with this game.  Because I like the fact that it isn't cut and dried, it isn't safe, it isn't sure, and it sure as hell isn't easy.

And that is why lately I have been so frustrated and down about the community as a whole.  Because of late I feel an increase of being the only one that feels this way about this game.  That I don't want it to be the same silly cliches of 40 years ago.  And I want others not to want those cliches too.

But ... oh fuck it.  No buts.  Let's just play this fucking game.

6 comments:

  1. This post grew out of a conversation with Ozymandias of 'Crossing the Verse. We then both went off and wrote posts. His can be read
    here
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's at least one other out there!

    I think there's hope. If we look at video games for an example (because of the much larger sample size of video gamers vs roleplayers), yes, there's a trend towards limp, milquetoast games where it's pretty much impossible to lose or even die, where the game holds your hand all the way through, etc. etc.

    But there's a small but notable subsection of games that are purposefully difficult. Frustrating, even. Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy come to mind. And these games are very well-received, treated with respect, and generally people seem to feel that these games are somehow more "real games".

    It's maybe 1% of games and gamers, but it's there. I think the issue may simply be that with hundreds of millions of video gamers, that 1% is a lot of people. With the tens of thousands that are ardent roleplayers, it's much harder for that 1% to connect.

    I wonder if it's worth trying to form some kind of community of "challenging" roleplaying games?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those are cheering words, Charles ... but while video games are played against an automaton, actual role-playing games are played human against human. And with a recent call for "safe words" among role-players, I must seriously question if the trend towards limp, milquetoasty games even has anything to do with RPGing.

    The culture as a whole is under a peculiar kind of siege. In Oz's 'Crossing the Verse post he gives an example of a fellow "losing it" against his fellow players and how it ends up destroying the campaign. After following the discussion, I want to know, why didn't anyone simply forgive him? Why was the default for him to feel shame, and for no one to step forward and dispel that shame. And why are we creating mechanisms to defend "safe spaces" that are based on making people feel ashamed for acting with human emotions, but not built on mechanisms that forgive humans for a moment of weakness?

    Overall, the game community is playing to a common denominator of weakness. It is placing a premium on weakness and declaring any entity arguing for creating danger, stress, discomfort in play or uncompromising difficulty a danger to the weak. As game clubs reduce the number of rules affecting the characters, they are increasing the number of rules that restrict the freedom of action and thought of the participants.

    Anyone can see this is a universal process that is affecting every aspect of western culture; and it is very troubling. My small contentions about wanting to play a hard game are a tiny discordant note in a shattering maelstrom of a whole planet's culture shifting.

    But Charles, I will take hope from what you say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would also like to say I like difficult games. I like the fact that in our last combat, I thought I was gonna die. I made decisions to minimize that risk, but it was still there. And I am willing to go forward, knowing the dice may not go my way. I msy get angry if I die, but that is becsuse I don't want to die.

    But I want to say it won't drive me away. I am willing to accept I may have made poor decisions or just had bad luck. I made the decision to play a mage with low hit points and not take combat-oriented spells. I knew the risks.

    Don't lose hope just because the community is full of people who just want to enact power fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. James, it's not that they want their power fantasy ~ all players, to some extent, want their moment to shine, to be the star or the hero, to hold center stage and show off their awesomeness ~ everyone wants to stand up and say, "Here I am, pay attention to me!"

    The things safe words like X-cards are supposed to protect against are things like ideas or scenarios or situations that make individuals unreasonably uncomfortable. Things like racism or sexism or rape or anything truly abhorrent ~ or anything that gives the impression of being abhorrent to that person.

    I dislike the term 'trigger,' though I can't really articulate why beyond the fear of not being in control of myself; but it seems the best term we have.

    The gaming safe word is meant to protect a person against having to address their response to a trigger. It lets us declare this thing 'off-limits' in a manner that's supposed to be nonjudgmental. It's intended for things that people are bothered by in the real world and, therefore, are things that "should not" appear in the fantasy world.

    Advocates for X-cards aren't interested in playing easy games. They're interested in playing difficult games on their terms, where 'difficult' means 'something that I've already vetted and approved for my entertainment experience.'

    No surprises, please. We're role-playing here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let me throw in there, Oz, 'cause I have a conflict with one point of your position, while agreeing with most of it.

    People who are "bothered by" things in the real world, who treat escapism as something that should not contain elements of that real world, are weak. They are not running towards D&D. They are running away from everything that they refuse to deal with. And because they refuse to deal with those things, they want the rest of us to agree that we won't deal with it either. Or else, we'll trigger them.

    This argument that escapism contravenes all other discourse is ... troublesome. And goes to no good places that I know of.

    ReplyDelete