Saturday Q&A (sep 16)

Chris writes: 

What are your thoughts on VTT?

Answer: I feel that virtual table tops are a great idea but a bad format. I have a large, 90 inch table for my eight players, who come in and spread papers, dice, food, drinks and whatnot, drowning the top of this very large surface. It's the primary reason why I don't like a game map that covers the table, as I used to use. I first moved to a white board, which is a vertical surface which takes no space, which everyone can see and permits players to use the table for its purpose. Now I use a computer screen, duplicated for the player's benefit. All movement and combat is played on this screen.

The virtual table top pretends to give space for players to place their character sheets and drinks, but this space is comparatively tiny and also assumes a set number of people. If I need to, I can crowd two or three more players on my ordinary table, because the space is flexible. What are we to do if there's another player and there are only six ports for use? Naturally, set up other tables around the room, or have the players keep their content on their lap, or the floor. This strikes me as convenient for me, perhaps, to show the game, but very inconvenient if players have so much character material that it won't fit into an 18 in. by 10 in. space. And because my players generally have multiple characters, and each character comprises a folder of material, or they use a laptop, which wouldn't leave much space for anything else in these ports I've seen, again this doesn't strike me as convenient.

But most of all, every couple of years I change the rules of my game, or some part of the design, in a way that's a simple fix for me. But with a pre-programmed table top, which would assume I'm playing a standardised game (which I don't play by a long shot), there'd be many visual cues in the system that wouldn't apply to my system at all. I don't need those, mucking up my plan. Plus, I want hex maps. I dislike the square map use that's become standard, simply because it's easier to print and program for the publisher.

For the cost of a VTT, I could buy a 72 in. television screen cheaper, that would replace the 24 in. that's presently on my wall for the players to see. This would be a better way for me to spend my money.

Dennis Laffey in South Korea writes:

Your post on Mechanical Design got me thinking right away, but I waited until I had a chance to watch the lecture before considering what I wanted to say in response.

I think you do a great job delineating the differences in goals between players and DMs, and put a pretty significant stake through the heart of the argument that "The DM is just another player." Because while the DM is a participant in the game session, they aren't playing the same game. The players are playing their characters, following the algorithms of the game session. If they manage them well, they succeed. If they don't, they fail. The DM, however, as referee and facilitator of play, has completely different goals and desires. Just like the badminton players and the Olympic Rules Committee members.

I haven't had time to scour the internet or my game books to take up your challenge of a printed source describing the DM's game goals, and honestly won't any time soon. But I do think there are a few other obvious "wants" for the DM besides just running a good game. There is the desire to build their world, but not just to build it, to present it to the players. That produces a lot of satisfaction. There's the mental challenge of creating adventures or locations that are just hard enough, but not too hard, for the players to manage. There's the emotional response that the DM gets when the players are hanging on your every word, there's tension in every die roll, the rush of release when the group finally triumphs or fails. But as you say, none of these are easily quantifiable. But just because they aren't quantifiable doesn't mean they aren't important. And they do explain why people take up the challenge of DMing.

There's a gamification framework called Octalysis by Yu-kai Chou. (I have his book and have read it.) [link] In general, having implemented gamification into a course once for a study, I think gamification is just glorified Behaviorism. But I do think Chou's framework may show what it is about RPG gaming that keeps people playing. The reward system in the game: gold, XP, magic items, levels, etc. are all in the lower regions or on the left (ownership, scarcity, unpredictability, avoidance, accomplishment). That's what the players are outwardly seeking in the game. But everyone, DM and players alike, are seeking the goals on the upper and right sides of the diagram when they play. The experience of playing the game produces feelings of creative expression, ownership, achievement, accomplishment, social standing, and empowerment. And while there's some overlap between the domains triggered by in-game goals and goals of play in general, the specifics of them are, I think, different. In game achievements lead to feelings of achievement and empowerment outside the framework of the game, for example.

I have no idea how to try and measure any of this (yet), but there's a framework there to test the hypothesis if a means to operationalize the DM's goals presents itself.

Answer: I can’t disagree with the sentiment here.  I certainly gain a lot of satisfaction out of building my game world and I’d say that the game’s tension and interplay of player fascination with my efforts is a tremendous drive behind my being a DM.

But these things are not in the common mainstream where the process of dungeon mastering is discussed.  Convenience of modules, the need for “stories,” servicing players, getting them stuff and social concerns are far more prevalent.  I was addressing the general desperation I see on Reddit and other sources regarding the desire for an amorphous, “good game,” not potentials for the game itself.  Fundamentally, I think with personal changes and work on the setting, the game is mostly fine.  But it’s been degraded by those who won’t do the work and are concerned with catering to the players in the way the company desires.

Maxwell in California writes:

I quite liked your post about showing work in progress for DND, as with renovation videos. I’m fond of the primitive technology channel and its various imitators … there is something very, very satisfying about seeing a skilled craftsman transform an area from underbrush into a functioning cabin, say, with underfloor heating and a tiled roof.

I was sufficiently taken with the idea to begin recording my own video along the lines you proposed. I took about an hour of screen footage with accompanying audio. Things I got up to in this first round of recording include mining the 1921 Colliers encyclopedia, a bit of 6-mile mapping, and a lot of explaining how my different computer programs fit together into a gestalt brain enhancer I can use at the table.

I think this first experimental run was too rough to be worth cutting and releasing, but it was exciting and I’m going to try it again next week with a bit more attention to producing a good video, and with every intention of releasing this one.

One of the reasons I’m excited about doing a process video is because it’s sort of like me DMing and you (and your readership) playing, as you brought up in your response to my comment last week. While it’s not the same as participating in me DMing a session, or even watching me DM, it *is* watching me be a DM. In the role of game designer. And I expect there’s plenty you and the others could comment on. I’ll do the same if anyone else takes a try.

But! The idea of renovation videos, merge together in my head to form this:

Suppose a DM were to, with player permission, record a game session; edit it down to just one or two sequences which he felt could have gone better; and then post that for review. With enough context to understand the scenario at hand, and some questions:

“I thought these descriptions fell flat, how would you have done that differently?”

“I had some trouble mediating this player conflict that seem to get out of hand, what have you done situations?”

And so on.

I’ve NEVER seen ANYONE do this. But if a few of us could find the courage to do so with our home tables, and comment on each other’s recordings, I think it could go really far.

Answer: I doubt I'd have the wherewithal to carefully record a video of my DMing with the purpose of cutting out the worst parts and posting them on the internet, hoping someone would tell me what I should have done.  I see that producing some really bad, bad results.  People usually try to make themselves look good, and fail at that.  I suppose we could succeed in making ourselves look bad, but the fallout ... *shudder*

I haven't recorded a video to date, though I've been playing around and, frankly, building up the courage.  The expectations I have for myself are unreasonably high, and I'm trying to lower them.  My daughter has expressed that a low-key, slow video related to crunching numbers on a page to describe unit prices for D&D equipment could be considered an ASMR triumph.  I'm not sure if she's joking or not.

If you make a video, Maxwell, I'm sure everybody here will want to see it.  Let us know.

Thank you all for your contributions.  I think everyone knows by now that the comments are disabled, but if anyone wishes to ask a question or submit observations like those above, please submit observations and questions to my email, alexiss1@telus.net.  I've adopted a policy of writing my answer in advance for the commentor's benefit, so that it can be approved before it's printed here.  And so, unlike before, the reader now has the freedom to control both his or her comments and mine also.  This makes for a friendlier, less stressful environment in which one can engage here.

Feel free to address material on the authentic wiki, my books or any subject related to dungeons & dragons.  I encourage you to initiate subject material of your own, and to address your comment to others writing in this space.