I suppose I just don't have the confidence to walk that road, as I'm afraid it will lead me to a style of play akin to "illusionism" or "story gaming," neither of which I'm interested in.
JB knows perfectly well that I'm not interested in "story gaming" either.
This is the third post in a series that have all been written today, starting here and continuing here. You're not required to read them in order. But it won't matter, because they all end up at the same place.
"Story gaming" is a narrative in which the players are required to follow a pre-specified scenario within a narrowly defined setting. For example, a one-dimensional dungeon that begins with the slaughtering of a kobald lair, followed by getting past a locked door, then heading down into a series of caverns, fighting mooks, winning over the mooks and eventually facing a terrible "big bad" at the bottom, followed by the acquisition of a lot of treasure.
Kind of like the scenario I've been describing for a couple of months now. Anybody reading this feeling like I'm railroading players into a "narrowly defined" setting? No? That's probably because I've repeatedly pointed out that at each stage of the journey, the players have had to will themselves forward to the next step. A "story game" holds the players hostage because they can't back out. The DM has nothing else prepared.
This is especially true with the diamond-standard of official role-play, the "tournament game," which wholly depends on the narrow setting. This, take note, is THE most societally visible part of Dungeons & Dragons. Correct me if I'm wrong, dear JB. Have you not indulged? Within, say, the last couple of years? Please reassure me that this is the reason for your lack of interest in this style of play.
My experience has been that once the players have the bit between their teeth, it's not hard to keep them moving forward. It's where they want to go. This is part of why story gaming has thrived for such a long time; I'll remind the readers that I participated in such events in the early 1980s. And if the players are keen on it, then what am I to do as a DM? Tell them the dungeon's closed?
"Oh no, sorry fellas, I don't want to get the reputation of running a one-dimensional narrowly defined setting game. Whatta ya say you forget this dungeon adventure thing and find a nice bunch of river pirates to kill?"
If the players choose to be bloody minded about finishing something, the best thing to do is ride that pony to its end. Nothing wrong with that. It's hardly something to be feared. What matters is that the players aren't forced into that setting. They're not required to go there because as a DM, I've got nothing else to offer. We are duty bound to make it perfectly clear that if they decide they're not going to rush the dungeon, it just seems like a bad idea, then something else is going to be made available within the hour.
And not because the players are given a nonsense choice, like which of the Cabin in the Wood's object you choose, but because we're fluid enough in our creativity that when they pick out a direction to follow, we have something interesting for them to find along the way.
Like, say, an ogre. Standing on the road. Not because this road is more special than the other road, but because it can be interesting. Especially if the ogre's first act is not to behave like a stupid, dumb traditional ogre.
I just cannot seem to get this across to DMs, but I keep trying. It does not matter that the party takes the high road or the low road. No matter how you paint them, these are not "meaningful" game choices ... unless we take it for granted that the high road will get you to Aberdeen and the low road to Sterling. No, no, no. What matters is that when the players meet the ogre, it lifts its right hand in the air, showing that it's somehow gotten its thumb stuck in an iron cauldron. "Can you help me get this off?" asks the ogre.
What we meet behind doors on along roads or in what damned narrow setting isn't what matters. What matters is what the thing we meet wants.
Three solid posts, Alexis, with three solid one-liner take aways .... but the whole post is needed to give those lines their umph. Been reading JB's recent posts and cogitating. I appreciate your addressing of them.
ReplyDelete"There's always another door. The one back the way they came."
"Excessively incredulous players should not play role-playing games."
"What matters is what the thing we meet wants."
"This is especially true with the diamond-standard of official role-play, the "tournament game," which wholly depends on the narrow setting. This, take note, is THE most societally visible part of Dungeons & Dragons. Correct me if I'm wrong, dear JB. Have you not indulged? Within, say, the last couple of years? Please reassure me that this is the reason for your lack of interest in this style of play."
ReplyDeleteHmm. Hmmmm.
(I'm ruminating)
By "tournament game" I assume you mean the pre-published module, MANY of which (especially in the "Good Ol' Days") were originally designed for tournament play.
If that is what you mean, then the answer to both questions are "yes" and "yes"...with some caveats.
But the caveats don't mean much (I don't THINK they mean much...) to the post at hand. Instead I want to address that last sentence:
"Please reassure me that this is the reason for your lack of interest in this style of play."
If I am reading this correctly, you're asking if my adherence to module use is what causes my hesitance in a more direct adventure design of the kind you're putting forward, *OR* you're asking if my reluctance to take the plunge into the direct adventure design you're putting forward is what's causing me to continue to use these modules.
[chicken or egg; egg or chicken]
But my answer is "neither." I use the modules because I want easy storehouses of wealth and conflict in my game and it's cheap and (relatively) easy to take old adventures and put them into my campaign world. That's laziness over fear (which is nothing to crow about)...but it DOES allow me the space to do more with the world AROUND the dungeon. My world. My creation.
My players want dungeons. I want a world. As I want players in my world, the world needs dungeons.
But I DO grok what you're saying. The meaningful choice isn't the door on the left or the door on the right. The meaningful choice is whether or not one wants to open the door. I get it.
And so I suppose meeting an ogre on the road is a consequence of choosing to take a road through 'ogre country' (or whatever). Makes perfect sense. In fact, I used to run a LOT of my game like this..."situation-based scenarios" rather than "site-based" (i.e. dungeons). I'm just real, real rusty about it. OH...and I have higher standards about how I do it (based on the world building).
But I get it. And I'm working on some of this with yet another "re-purposed" old module. Working on turning the whole Desert of Desolation series into a big desert of "stuff" for interaction. Not dungeons. Competing tribes in a hostile ecosystem. Where stepping into the desert is akin to choosing to take "Ogre Road."
Doesn't mean I'm not a tad nervous about taking the plunge.
In fact, I mean that if you're playing a tournament game, then you MUST play through. You can't back out and play some other adventure. You agree to play the tournament, you agree to have the story stuffed down your throat. With gavage sauce.
ReplyDeleteBut your answer is interesting too.
"Interesting" can mean so many things.
ReplyDelete; )
I have to quibble a tad with your assessment, however: there is no MUST in my campaign when it comes to the insertion of these modular modules. I'm not using the plot or story of the adventure...at least not in a way that forces player engagement. Some examples:
- I ran I6: Ravenloft, but basically canned ALL the story that went with it. Tuned the thing to a more consistent stocking, then just placed it as the castle of the local baroness (still a vampire). The party was in the town (shipwrecked) and was propositioned to go up and do murder by the brother of an abducted sister. However, they didn't NEED to do so, and could have gone on their merry way (in fact, they DID end up going on their merry way after doing a little murder, but not before reaching an accord with a newly installed vampire lord in the castle).
- I ran DL1: Dragons of Despair (well, the dungeon it includes) as a hard-to-reach sunken city filled with treasure and ancient goodies. No Dragonlance plot, no draconians, no terrible poetry. The players took a bunch of casualties (including to the party cleric) and abandoned the exploration. That's fine...the sunken city remains where it is.
- I ran N2: The Forest Oracle retaining the stupid plot as an introduction to the adventure (village is dying because of a "gypsy curse," party asked to go beseech aid from the local druids). After a very short journey, the party decided to abandon their "quest" and move on, finding the reward wasn't nearly worth the headache involved. The village could go hang for all they cared.
Nothing forces players to participate in the modules I run...they are simply pockets of treasure meant to entice the players. I ran N1: Against the Reptile Cult and T1: Village of Hommlet as "villages with problems," and since the PCs were low-level at the time, those problems seemed fairly surmountable and worthy of their time and attention. However, in BOTH those cases, the parties moved on before rooting out all the cultists or defeating all the evil...part of their decision in the end was "these are crappy towns with a bunch of untrustworthy villagers...let's go elsewhere." And they did.
There CAN be consequences to a group entering into one of these modules: for example, once a group invaded the mountain fortress of UK3: The Gauntlet then they had to deal with the siege that occurred thereafter. But consequences are to be expected from choices made. I don't require those consequences to be resolved in any particular fashion. The scenario is the situation and the only "story" is the one told afterwards based on the PCs' actions in engaging the scenario.
NOW, if a DM chooses to run these modules (especially later TSR fare) as written: yes, there are issues that arise when players choose not to adhere to the default assumptions of the story on the page. But I don't feel like I'm under any compulsion to do so...the adventures I cut my teeth on in my early days (usually Gygax's modules: S1, S4, B2, etc.) are simply PLACES. Maybe places with an interesting history or backstory, but just places. And places can be explored...and exited...at the players' pleasure. The "dungeons" I've created over the years (yes, sometimes I draw my own maps) are all like that: just places.
Anyway. That's just to clarify. Apologies for being long-winded.
I understand, JB.
ReplyDeleteBut, since this is effectively what I'm also doing with regards to both my game world and the ersatz example I've given in the series of posts that began this conversation ... except that I'm inventing my own content, rather than borrowing from a module ... I felt it necessary to address the "fear" that compressing the amount of time spent on creation (i.e., doing it in game) would result in story gaming.
One has to choose to force the story. It doesn't emerge spontaneously. Just as I'm conscious not to cut off my fingers when I use a knife to cook. Used properly, in the purpose for which it was made, a knife is a perfectly safe tool. I don't see the implementation of a designed adventure any other way.
Ah, yes...I see.
ReplyDeleteRight. I suppose I wasn't so much worried (or fearful) that your practice would lead to "story gaming" so much as the pushing of an agenda. A self-aggrandizing, authorial type agenda (i.e. one that subjugates the players' pleasure for that of the DM).
True story gaming is its own separate box-o-crap.