The conclusion that I have come to this evening is that I am not cut out as a DM, at least not now. I am too inexperienced with the rules for one, which while not necessarily being a deal breaker leads to the biggest problem. The game is not designed for what I have been writing and tonight’s game along with several comments after help crystallize what I was suspecting.
D&D is about combat first and a roleplaying second. It is meant to play like a skirmish simulator whereby one individual controls one character much like multiplayer in Rainbow Six or any other squad orientated game. The roleplaying aspect lends a rounding effect to the stat crunching but is not entirely necessary for the game to be played. The mechanics of the game lead the player to think in terms of stark actions: pick lock, disarm trap, engage in combat, and so on. The goal is to maintain a level of action that is constant and the mechanics are there to help facilitate that and roleplaying detracts from that.
Where I erred is that I threw my energies into trying to create a complex and nuanced world for the players to interact with but the trouble with that is there is little room for that. D&D games tend to run like a classic hack ‘n’ slash title where the player is given an objective–fetch item A–and are given an environment to crawl through clearing rooms and leveling up. It is about stat juggling and as much as people might like to disagree the game is about power gaming, grinding levels to gain new feats to inflict more damage on one’s foes. Nuance has little place here.
Outside of D&D the games I gravitate to the most are often open ended games that place an emphasis on emergent behavior–The Sims and Animal Crossing come to mind–where the game environment is open enough to let the player determine the style of play. Additionally, I gravitate to themes that emphasis ambiguity in terms of ethics and morality. Knights of The Old Republic is a good example where actions carried consequences and at times the choices presented no real right or wrong answer only difficult decisions.
Toss in the fact that my choices in literature and film gravitate to broken people struggling in even worse situations–Charles Bukowski, Eugene O’Neill, Scott Bradfield, and Russell Banks–means that I am going to create a game world populated by damaged goods with a noticeable lack of heroes present to right wrongs and mete out justice. It does not make for a good D&D game, participatory theater yes, but RPG no.
So where does that leave me? For now I think I am throwing in the towel as the game, as it stands, is not enjoyable for anyone really and cannot be salvaged in its current form. Will I DM again? Canned adventures, sure. Writing my own, not likely, at least not until I better understand how ambiguity and interpersonal conflicts work in a hero-centric environment.
Funny, we had a conversation about this very thing at my gaming group last night. We’d just wrapped up a campaign of Burning Wheel (http://www.burningwheel.org/). We all agreed that it delivers the thing we always wanted from D&D but could never get, i.e. a relly epic-feeling campaign with more character depth and more going on than monster killing.
This is about to turn into a plug for Burning Wheel, but I guess it’s too late to turn back now. If anything, BW is MORE complicated than D&D, which is it’s greatest weakness. On the other hand, it gives players lots of tactical options, not just in combat, but in terms of social interactions, reputation, resources, and so on.
Anyway, don’t give up on GM-ing! We’ve all had those bad days (lord knows we have).
Looks intriguing! Sort of reminds me of the set up for (new) Worlds of Darkness–though I haven’t gotten to play that yet, I’m one of those collect RPGs to read the rules types. I would love to see some sort of alternate or bolt on rules system for moderating player interactions because this seems to be the biggest hang up I’m facing. As a DM in D&D it seems that your tools for negotiating social interactions are greatly limited.
Last night I would have loved to just state, “Rock-Paper-Scissors time folks. Everyone makes a diplomacy check and the highest wins.” And I’m sure as a DM that is my right to call it but I was holding out faith that the way the characters were being played would pop a little further out of two dimensions but therein lies my original complaint.
Without any sort of rules system for small group interaction, like a Robert’s Rules for RPG, then the tendency is to rely on the existing game mechanics and in games like D&D that means drawing your sword rather than negotiating. Certainly, as one of the players pointed out, the roleplaying aspect is really up to the player to divine the motivations for the character, it is participatory theater after all, but when things break down for whatever reason their needs to be a mechanic.
I’ll definitely have a look at Burning Wheel if only to add to my collection of unused game books.
Heh heh, gotta love the un-used game book collection. Moderating player interactions is always a challenge. BW has a good social conflict mechanism (the “Duel of Wits”) that we used to moderate *player* conflict, but that’s not quite the same thing is it. :/
Well, you’ve sold me and $25 is more than fair. Going into my unused game book but well-read collection!
I disagree with you whole-heartedly, James.
You may have a point about the Rules of D&D not including details about how to role-play, and do go so far as to offer some suggestion for **pathetic** experience point awards for role-playing (early in the DMG discussing experience for encounters),but the RULES to not play the game - the PLAYERS DO. That is where the difference exists between ROLE-players and ROLL-players.
As you are well-aware, Bernard’s and Kasume’s Players try to play as free from the Rules as possible because the Rules restrict your thoughts and action to “Actions Permissible in Combat” or the like. The rules don’t address something as creating as using ‘Create Water’ in combat to make 10 gallons of water appear over an opponent’s head. That takes the talent and creativity of a Player who lives without “push-button” rules and a DM who can be flexible and creative enough to “run with it”. Not that I’m bashing your DMing, I have a similar difficulty. I’ve even been enjoying YOUR game…(More about this in a paragraph or two.)
But to quote some very wise fellow at EN World, “The rules exist to serve the game, not that the game exists to serve the rules” or something like that. I’d never come to as full a realization of that as I have recently, most especially with your post here.
There’s more to the Game than the Rules. If you can’t think outside of that box, then your position is correct, but there IS more than the Rules, there CAN BE real, thinking Players involved who know more than how to be a Power Gamer or Rules Lawyer.
I have been enjoying your game more than most others because of the ‘moral ambiguities’ and the requirement for though, but several of the players at the table don’t seem to want to “waste time discussing things in-character” they want to find things to kill and hit them. We haven’t had a real ROLE-PLAYING moment, noo less a whole session since I can’t remember when. When was the last time that you can remember playing for 4 hours without ONCE rolling a die? I can remember it from my old house games(James and I have played together for ~ 1 year), when I was GMing.
And *there’s* another thing. I think of myself as a GM “Game Master”, not a DM (Dungeon Master). I actually HATE dungeon-crawls. They are “easy” and “simple” and neatly adjudicated (hit / miss, etc). ROLE-PLAYING is “messy” and “complicated” and takes MUCH MORE EFFORT and responsibility from each and every player at the table. **THAT** is what is missing from our game table at present and why we are having our present dispute. The Rules don’t cover it because it is ’sloppy’ but it requires commitment and cooperation and effort from all of the players all of the time.
Thanks for the chance to share my 2 coppers.
And besides enflaming an already tense situation on Thusdays, I also eat sh** and die on Fridays.
It’s all about gaming style, James. Some people want *action* and don’t want to “waste time discussing”. Others spend soooo much time discussing that Nothing ever happens in the game. I think Dragon Magazine had a n article about there being 5 or 6 types of gamers (or gaming styles). I don’t recall the exact details, but there is the Power Gamer - who wants a superhero who kicks butt and takes no prisoners; there is the Role-Player - who wants a “truly realistic character” and wants that character to interact with ‘the world’; and there were a few others.
I think we have a mix that isn’t working because of our diversity of styles and the dynamics of the group. It’s a damn shame, too, since, as Bongles pointed out we have a *really* interesting and talented group of players, but no one wants to compromise their style. Maybe a show of ‘good-faith’ might help, but I feel like we’ve been doing a lot of ‘dungeon-crawls’ without much role-playing at all. Grimm did some good role-playing with his various NPCs - I have to admit that. I was wrong in stating otherwise.
However, it seems we can’t stop ‘the action’ for the characters (or players) to discuss possible actions and *consequences*, it’s all go-go-go and kill things. That’s what the Rules center on, but that doesn’t have to be what the Game is about.
Well, see I think in a way you do agree with me as you have pointed out that the current rules do not really possess a mechanic for intra-group interaction. Granted, the G/DM has at their discretion Deus Ex Machina to move the group along (”With a great crack the sky is parts, a hand descends to smack you upside the head, and a booming voice intones, ‘Stop being a dumbass.’”) but I often feel uncomfortable doing that because it can feel unfair to the players. Sure sometimes it is necessary, like when I killed off the NPC horseman rather than watch the group senselessly torture information out of him. I wanted the party and story to move along but it was being impeded to play the game by its stated rules: physical action above all else. I digress.
Tony brought up an excellent point that other systems (Burning Wheel and NWoD) have mechanics at the players disposal to adjudicate intra-party conflict and it would seem that at the very least something for D&D should be devised where escalations can be halted before they become a test of arms. This is the inherent weakness of the current system is that it favors stats and level grinding over roleplaying. My attempt to maximize roleplaying exacerbates it because I am purposefully baiting the PCs to consider their positions and shift them based on the environment. Just like in real live beliefs and perceptions are continually challenged and one needs to examine their life to maintain a sense of balance and of self.
Now, likely that style of game is too heady for a once a week 4 hour session but it is unfortunately the way I have ended up writing my campaign. So as a G/DM where does that leave me? Tired. That and with plenty of things to mull over.