Last time I complained/worried about what Tim thinks about me. I may have mentioned DnD.
Well here's a DnD focused rant on the differences between Tim and I.
In DnD the difference in our vision is greatest, and thus the most conflicts emerge.
I want to play slow and savor the role-playing, the talking, the planning. He wants to go in and crush the enemy with overwhelming strength, and resolve it through the fastest means possible. I originally thought this was him wanting to go to bed, but he seems to play this way regardlessly.
In combat, I would like to accept surrender, capture not kill, and use diplomacy, coalition-building, and conflict-resolution as the primary tools. For both myself and 2/3 characters, once combat is joined you have already lost. Conflict and violence is the last resort. For Tim and his characters, it seems to be the solve-all tool. Again, I thought this was his characters at first--a vindictive holy knight and a angry barbarian--but I'm starting to think that the characters thoughts are excuses for this sort of action - I have seen him act against his character's personality, using an excuse, several times. We were fighting pirates, and he(barbarian) was raging at the pirates, and slaughtering them. Their ship started ship sinking, and he quickly found an excuse to take the chest full of gold, rather than finish off the pirates. It could be that his character is ill-defined enough that I have not noticed this trait?
Metagame-wise, I like to play by the rules, and I will point things out that are not apparent. I like to give suggestions to anyone interested, which largely means the DM, Zeno. The more knowledge the DM has, the more tools he has at his disposal, the better he can DM. Tim hates this, says that helping the DM is bad DnD. For me, my character is loyal to the party, but what I the person does is not under the same restrictions. If Zeno would like my help, then I will give it to him. I will suggest encounter situations, I will remind him of his options. I think that Tim's argument that this makes the game harder is foolish - the DM can throw whatever he wants at us, with whatever power level he choses the encounter to be. Giving the DM more tools means that he can provide a more exact encounter to the level that he wishes, as high or as low as that might be. Am I missing something in Tim's argument?
My knowledge and my character's knowledge are different. For example, last encounter we were fighting against a dragonborn warlock. I know the warlock class, having read it, and so I had a pretty decent idea of what he might throw at us. Does my character? Hell no. I don't think he's ever run into a warlock before. So he is surprised when he can use his combat superiorty and combat challenge to keep the Warlock from running away. Tim's old paladin was a dragonborn, so he had read the racial paragon class for dragonborn. He recognised it from the wings, etc. However, his character, a minotaur barbarian probably has not - a paragon would be extremely rare, being more powerful than even our set of nearly-paragon level characters. And we are just about the only in the land. His reasoning is that his character is the same drifting soul as his previous one, and thus can recognise it just the same. This works reasonably well, if it weren't for the fact that his previous character probably never saw a dragonborn racial paragon, and was a good 6 or so levels away from ever being a paragon himself. A better excuse, in my mind, is that the Motherland is a land of predominantly humans and dragonborn, and the history of that land probably includes some rather epic dragonborne heroes. But the question should be whether the character knows it, not how does the character know what he knows. (Player knowledge would be extreme for a rule-savy, DM chatting guy like me.)
I want my characters to be interesting people. I give them detailed backgrounds that can be used liberally, I give them room for character growth (Mae finding his place in the world, and strenght to act on the goodness of his heart; Shensu learning that revenge against the parties that have wronged her and her people is not as important as leading her people to freedom; Selnar learning more about the world than his slave upbringing and his effect on it; etc.) I want my characters to be learning and growing every encounter. But the way this game has been working, very little has been happening. Relationships with the other character don't grow much, and the only character growth since he took the place of his sister was last session. Some guards died because the party asked them to guard against a high-level bounty-hunter. What effect will that have on him? He's not as introspective as Mae, so probably a minor effect. ...but Tim? He seems to think that complicatedness, people, and the like are extraneous and slow the game down. To him, the guards outside were just tools he could use because Wilhelm's Templar (us) are heroes to the people, not people whom we abused the trust and reverence of to fight against an opponent they had no chance against. If this happens again Selnar will ask for other people not to get involved, even ask them to stay away so that they don't get caught in the crossfire. But I think that the character growth won't have an effect because Tim is the defacto leader, and he will want to use guards for the group's advantage. Ruins the relevance of my character's growth and pushes things into the mold of a game, not an alternate world.
Part of this is that my player motivations are different than his. As described by the Dungeon Master Guide (Pg. 8), my motivation falls between storyteller and thinker. Tim, on the other hand, is mostly slayer, with a hint of power-gamer (as seen in his interest in picking up wealth to become more powerful, which is in addition to the optimization of bashing in heads that slayers and powergamers share). Scott and Bryan are power-gamery actors, Alex is a watcher, and our (generally absent) leader Tucker is an actor, which I am very thankful for... while he's there. I'm not much of an explorer, but the true lack of explorers in our group makes me hunger for rich setting every now and then. In theory, it should be up to the DM to make the adventure fun for all parties, but Tim and Bryan do a pretty strong case for they way DnD should be played - going out, slaying monsters, getting treasure, etc. The game is created that way on the DM end of things - Zeno is used to catering to these tastes. However, this creates an over-balance where the game is played the way that Tim and Bryan prefer it, and the other options aren't apparent. Winning in combat is fun, sure, but that's all we enjoy. We don't explore the spectacles, cultural or physical of the land our characters live in. NPCs are dry and functional, only existing when the players look for them. The main plot doesn't have much effect on game-play, and encounter-based plots basically don't exist - we have objectives, not plot. The other players don't get much of a taste of these things, and I don't know how to change it. If I did change it, it would be Tim's loss, and I don't know how to convince him otherwise. If I didn't talk to him, and talked with Zeno, he would deride the changes as unfun - this last encounter had a bounty hunter trying to capture us, one at a time, which, while combat, was a lot less mindlessly and continually violent as the previous three - fighting a dragon, fighting a cypt of skeletons, and fighting a vampire lord in his lair. Instead he attacked us while we were unrested from the vampire lord, escaped when we threatened to overpower him, attacked us while we were staying in a more-defendable inn, but got curb-stomped when we jumped from the inn to the roof he was shooting acid at us from. I enjoyed it more, though it wasn't as detailed as it could be, but Tim specifically complained about the style after the session ended...
Tim accuses me of trying to be the DM at times, with suggesting and informing Zeno. This is more true outside of the session than what he sees inside - I have shot a dozen senarios past Zeno to give him ideas, we talk about possiblities, etc. Am I trying to be the DM? Zeno notes that I'm better at strategy and a few other things, but the way I see it... ...I would be a very good DM for myself. I could provide rich setting, provide personable characters that Selnar could simply enjoy a chat with, provide tactically varient encounters, and a ongoing plot that drives the action. All of that I could probably do better than Zeno. But would that be what this group, sans me, would prefer? If I were the DM, who would I be catering to? Besides, I can never be a DM if Tim does not respect me in the position, and I don't have the time for the numbers.
How do I resolve this? How do I play the same game as Tim, yet have it satify us both? Perhaps Tim has a Story-teller side thus unrevealed? I dunno. I hope that I'm seeing things all wrong, and there isn't as much of a difference as I currently percieve.
I think the different motivations may be what's causing conflict between you two. I think that Tim may even use DnD to vent real-life frustrations, so he really enjoys destroying things.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think the thing he was complaining about during the game was that you were giving Zeno suggestions DURING the game, when Zeno didn't ask for them. As far as I can tell, it's fine talking with Zeno about strategies, scenarios, and other such things outside of the actual gameplay, but when everyone's gathered together playing and trying to defeat whatever enemy Zeno's throwing at them, it's very frustrating when a member of the party's helping the DM out and telling him how to better defeat the party. To them, it's like you're playing both sides and have divided loyalties.
Perhaps if you want to do that kind of thing in the middle of gameplay, facebook chat with Zeno? That way he's the only one who sees what you're suggesting and the rest of the party's not going to get as frustrated with you. Gigantor did that during one game, so there's a precedent. Work that out with Zeno (preferably when the other gamers arent' around to hear it).
As far as frustrations with Tim, it might be good for you to talk to him about it. Then again, I don't know how'd he react, but it might be worth a shot.
Well, the differences with Tim are greatest during DnD - my worry is that we don't work it out, as noted in the previous post. I wouldn't mind having differences with people if those differences could be worked out and used constructively. Diversity builds strength, fracturing does not.
ReplyDeleteOn the differing motivations: Interesting that you said it that way. Here is what the Dungeon Master Guide says on the Slayer Archetype:
Slayer
The slayer is like the power gamer, but she is even easier to please. She emphasizes kicking the tar out of monsters. Maybe she does so to let off a little steam in a safe way, or she likes the joy of feeling superior. Perhaps
it’s the pleasure of having the power to mete out punishment to villains. D&D combat is thrilling. Few other aspects of the game put a character in such apparent jeopardy. Beating the bad guys is a clear success. Most players enjoy these D&D elements, but the slayer seeks them foremost.
A slayer . . .
✦ O ptimizes like a power gamer.
✦ Might pick simple options to get into the action quicker.
✦ Spends less time on story and roleplaying elements.
✦ Wants to fight monsters and take bold action all the time.
En gage the slayer by . . .
✦ Springing an unexpected battle when the slayer looks bored.
✦ Making some battles simple and others more complex.
✦ Vividly describing the havoc the slayer wreaks with powers.
✦ Recruiting her to track initiative during combat.
Be sure that the slayer doesn’t . . .
✦ Ruin adventures by killing monsters the characters should talk to.
✦ Rush past social and skill challenge encounters to the next
fight.
Apparently the DMG is pretty good about these archetyping things. I know that Storyteller and Thinker peg me pretty well.
As for suggesting things to Zeno... I suppose I could keep it to facebook or something. I don't know if I could run facebook and the PDFs at the same time. Seems a bit underhanded, though. I don't really understand the loyalty thing, though... DnD isn't about the players vs the DM. The DM is a judge and is there to provide challenges for the players. If he thinks the encounters are too strong, then he could ask for them to be less challenging. On my end of things, I feel that they could be stronger - my character isn't being pushed to his fullest at all.
I'll try talking to him, primarily about the interpersonal stuff, but the DnD things too, if they come up.
The thing about the player types in DnD is that they do not exclude one another. I love creating a story, but the game lends itself to creating story mainly through violent conflict. That the books exhaustively catalogue the rules for combat and give the diplomacy skill about a paragraph and a half suggests the main game mechanic is. By having character classes who differ mainly in their combat capabilities, our roles within the group are best defined inside combat. It's an aide to group dynamics. And the feeling of accomplishment is greater for most people when victory is clear cut according to a set of rules, as opposed to a winding story where the repercussions and rewards of an action aren't apparent at first, if ever.
ReplyDeleteAs for talking to Zeno goes, Mid-encounter it slows the action considerably, and I've always had a problem with making suggestions to someone who isn't supposed to exist. The actions he carries out are supposed to reflect the thought processes of all the individual characters he controls, and telling him about a play error removes the ability of those characters to make mistakes.
it's late, and a lot of those sentences are not sentences. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that the books exhaustively catalogue combat mechanics and spends a paragraph on the diplomacy skill has nothing to do with the nature of the primary game mechanic. Instead, I think it has to do with what players need. Without reading the books, I can hold a perfectly decent conversation with an NPC, ask questions to find out all sorts of mysteries, and do it all without needing a game mechanic. All the diplomacy skill does is add a bit of randomness in. (This is partly a matter of playstyle too - if I ever am DM, be aware that I dole out circumstantial bonuses and penalties like candy corn. Make good points, and the diplomacy will be easier.) Combat, however, is not as natural to players, as the characters will be doing lots of things they don't know how to do, from casting spells to various combat tactics. Without the options in front of them, a player often wouldn't know which ways he can and cannot attack. This is not true of conversation.
ReplyDeleteConsider the Wolf Pack, where I first started playing this sort of game. It was DnDish - we rode around on Spelljammers, fought with monsters from the 3.5 monster manual and the one before that. We didn't have character sheets. Heck, we didn't even have stats. Combat was us saying we were trying to do something, the DM setting a number based on how hard it would be for our characters to do it, and rolling a die to see how it played out. You might have noticed me asking earlier if Spencer could teleport one monster on top of a monster in a pit - that's very much Wolf Pack style. So would be dropping a lift on someone, or rigging a immovable rod for time-delay and throwing it down something's throat. Game mechanics are hardly necessary - that's what DMs are for.
Now, DnD is a bit more legislated than my anarchic upbringing. But that doesn't mean that the non-legislated parts somehow don't work. If you read the DMG, 3 out of 10 chapters on combat. The majority are on how to make the game seem alive, how to build adventures (episodic plots), how to build campaigns (story arcs), how the terrain matters, and of course non-combat encounters. Most of that is squishy qualitative tips, not math-crunching number questions. (There is a chapter on combat encounters, a chapter on encounters, and the chapter on the DM's toolbox are the cases I am counting. Two of them are only partly combat-based.)
That in mind, I don't think that combat roles defines group roles either. People often match their character personalities to the roles the character plays in combat. People's character's personalities create group dynamic. But to say that combat dynamics and group dynamics are the same thing is fallacious. The group is both a combat party and a group of friends/rivals/comrades. Nobody says that character's personalities have to be based around the way their character plays. Hell, there are warnings in the DMG to remind leaders that just because they are the leaders in combat doesn't mean they get to order people around in combat, much less outside of combat. Your character happens to be a leader in every way, but that's a character trait. Shensu (whom you never met) was a Shaman, also a leader-type, but hardly a leader in character. My characters are affected by their upbringing, but not necessarily in stereotypical ways. Maehadros became a fighter through growing up in the town guard. This doesn't mean he is beat-happy or thinking of himself as an impenetrable bulwark - his personality lends itself to a defender in his concern for others, but as a former cop turned into a vigilante, he has all manner of qualms about killing monsters. Selnar grew up as a slave-soldier to the Enemy, trained from a young age only to fight as part of an elite strike force. Does this mean that he knows how to fight, how to tie his wounds, how to endure everything, and how to be an athletic bad-ass? Sure it does. Does this mean he is uneducated and un-worldly? Yeah it does. Does this mean that he is not curious? Hell no. Of the people currently in the party, he is quite possibly the most curious, specifically _because_ he grew up with no chance to see anything outside of a training facility. Maybe he's not smart enough to learn a second language (the feat needs Int 13), so he bought himself some magic glasses that let him read any language. He goes into a tomb, and while he will deal with the monsters on hand, as per his training, he's very interested in what the carvings on the wall mean, or how the traps were built, or what knowledge a vampire lord has of ages past. He's not that bright, but he values knowledge as precious over everything else. If he were in a peaceful world, he would be an anthropologist, both physical anthro and social/cultural anthro.
Personalities don't have to match with combat roles, nor do in-group interactions have to match with combat roles. One thing that nearly drove Selnar and Rusty to blows was Selnar's desire to interview the warlock bounty hunter about who hired him, and probably digress into learning about how warlock magic works. Unfortunately, the warlock apparently wound up dead (how did that happen, anyway - someone told me that Wilhelm was involved, and Selnar is interested enough to know), so nothing will come of that.
I think that each character having a strong and distinct personality helps group dynamic more than having combat roles helps it.