Le Tao du JdR
On Thursday I launched a French blog version of this blog, and asked about the veracity of the translation.
Tracatar is the name of my first magic-user PC in '86, and the alias under which I do translation and proofing work for French OSR forum "ledonjondudragon" (DDD in short).
I did not compare both posts line to line, but the French version seemed perfectly serviceable. It is not a perfect one, mind you, because the rhythm of the English sentence is often kept unchanged, and a few expressions are transposed literally where a native speaker would use a different construction (although maybe not a French Canadian). Those small concerns accumulate and in such a long text, they may discourage the casual reader. But I could not spot one obvious mistake, spelling error or misinterpretation.
Most guys on DDD, included myself, don't do a better job on a first pass. I doubt many French majors in the US would.
Brody writes:
ChatGPT
James in New York writes:
All in all, it was a very helpful piece about how AI can help write better adventures.
Lance in Louisiana writes:
The examples you provide, while pretty impressive given their origin, are in the same vein for me. A page of drivel with one sentence of usable content. The rest being a restatement of your prompt or "no, duh" descriptions. The iterative nature is the most intriguing parts of the tool to me, providing more useful detail the farther down you go.
I still find it marginally useful at best as a dm because the details it gives I could improv just as easily. The potential I see is as a virtual dm, it finally provides a solution to true solo play(if you enjoy that). I've seen several bloggers experiment with it in this way to some success.
The wordiness issue of chatgpt I've seen in other areas of interest not just DnD, it does tend to create long paragraphs to make it sound like a person when the info could be given in one or two sentences.
As far as your French translation, I did study French, but it's been a few years and I'm a bit rusty. I only skimmed over the translated post. It seems fairly accurate, a lot of the words I'd have to look up... there are some odd phrasings here and there, a human translator is always needed to understand what is meant in context and not just a direct translation. Overall it seems better than Google translate, which can be good for one or two words but I've found is kinda abysmal with complex sentences.
Answer: I don't think this is entirely fair. I'm as experienced as anyone with D&D, and as creative too I think, but I certainly can't afford to turn down ideas that I can produce instantaneously with a couple of queries. Many's a game session when I've been forced to excuse myself from a game to "go to the bathroom" in order to have five minutes to think clearly and come up with something on the fly to fill the gap between what's just happened and what's further up around the bend, where the party hasn't gone yet. If I can punch in a few details of what the party's just seen, plus what it's going to see later, and what might fit in between ... and get multiple answers in seconds, I think it's certainly useful to get my brain stoked.
I can't understand the resistance against using a better tool to build a house. Sure, I like a hammer too, but if you give me a nail gun, I'm going to use it.
And the Rest ...
I don't do "Session Zeros" myself, even though I've gamed with complete strangers in the past. I introduce myself (i.e. I tell them my name), ask them if they know how to play, and then we get down to it. If they've never played before (such as the friends of my kids who sometimes show up), I give them a brief spiel, along the lines of "you play a character in a fantasy world, searching for fortune and glory," and then we proceed to character creation.
No one seems to have any problem with this.
I think the origin of Session Zero comes from the 1990s, specifically White Wolf games which featured elaborate character creation and the need for the players characters to "fit," both with each other and the specific setting. The rule books for games like Vampire were explicit that there should be a "prelude" session in which the participants discussed the themes and expectations of the game to come so that, for instance, a PC created as a "combat monster" didn't end up derailing a "court intrigue" game, or a "melodramatic artiste" didn't feel left out of a combat heavy saga ("saga" being WW's term for campaign).
But D&D doesn't need this, because it's not about dealing with stories and themes of identity or darkness or struggling against one's own humanity/conscience. Or rather, it's not SUPPOSED to be...it was not designed with that intention originally. "Make a fantasy character and explore a fantasy world...as a team. Go!" That's really all there is.
SO, the idea of "Session Zero" has been co-opted in order to push this particular "safety" agenda. Which is silly. If you write another book, I don't think you need to address it; I think you simply need to address what the game's about. As you do.
Maxwell in California writes:
Do you allow the players to make use of equipment, sage abilities, spells, or other capabilities of a character whose player is not present at that session?
My rule has long been that if a player isn’t present, neither is his character. She is busy or preoccupied “offstage,” unable to be part of the proceedings. Harm can’t come to her (I couldn’t make her the target of an assassin, for instance), but the party also can’t avail themselves of her abilities.
A blanket ban on using character features is a powerful incentive for players to come to every session, and to pressure their fellow players to come along. Which I like. And the argument for not allowing harm to come to the character is plain — it’s no fair messing with a man’s playing piece when he’s not there to try and counteract it.
I recall bending my rule once to allow the use of an absent druid’s healing spell, during a time when the party wasn’t doing anything but passing several days resting and recovering somewhere safe. I might make that exception again under similar circumstances, but I’m hard-pressed to think of anything else I would allow.
Answer: There's always the classic moment from "The Gamers" where the absent player's character is just standing off to the side, present but not doing anything. Early on, when I saw the party differently, I'd allow the use of healing spells just as you describe, Maxwell, but I too have come to believe that the right this is to assume they've gone on ahead, or hung back, and somehow missed the encounter; or if the party's in a dungeon, they've backtracked to take care of business or catch some Zzz's, whatever might be logical that keeps them out of the party's company. I might, in a rare instance, provide the player with "special knowledge" that he or she has gotten in the interim, so that they return to the party with a rumour or something they heard "at the bar" while the main party was busy elsewhere.
A bigger problem is what we do when the player quits the campaign entirely. This isn't such a big deal if the campaign's been running for just a while, but I have two examples that I can tell where the player's exit meant an acknowledged change that's moderately meta.
The first revolved around a +4 holy godentag, in which the spike driven through the club was one that had been used to crucify Jesus, in the spirit of medieval European holy relics. The party needed it badly as one part of their eventual success against a hyper-powerful NPC villain (a fight that hasn't happened yet, and won't for a long time), and logically the item went to the party's 7th level cleric at the time, Widda, who was proficient. BUT, about six months after succeeding through a brutal dungeon over about ten runnings, the player running Widda bowed out of the campaign. Normally, in such a situation, I wouldn't allow access to the ex-character's wealth and equipment, but the situation required that the "christ-spiker," as the party dubbed it, had to stay in the party's possession. So an exception was made.
The other example is my partner Tamara, who after ten years of running her character Garalzapan, and reaching 11th level, decided that D&D was too slow and stressful and decided she was done. By this time, however, her character had been made a baronet over the small area of land the party owned and occupied ... and though its been 8 years since Tamara has played, I don't wish to depose the character. And so, technically, the mage is still around, still the baronet of the property in name, while the ongoing players make all the local political decisions like a council of elders. Garalzapan's baronetcy was the joint decision of the party originally, as someone had to be elevated to the title and Garalzapan seemed like the best choice. Wasn't my choice to make, it was the party's.
So, yes, it can be tricky. But I agree with your arguments, Maxwell. It is right to leave a player's playing piece alone.
_____
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 to my email, alexiss1@telus.net. If you could, please give the region where you're located (state, province, department, county, whatever) as it humanises your comment.
I've largely adopted a policy of writing my answer in advance for the commentor's benefit, to give a heads up 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment