WTF D&D?

[tetramorph]

roberts conley, I just want to say, I get what you are getting at.

Like most of the other folks on this thread I hate new school "background" so that folks have fodder for amateur dramatics.

I know that that is not what you are getting at when you are talking about background in your campaign.

You are talking about a wargames campaign where known relationships and alliances are what could tip the balance towards success. Like Diplomacy, etc.

In a D&D game that emphasizes wilderness and baronies -- like yours does -- what you are talking about is not so much "character background," in the new school sense, as it is just part of the character reference on a par with things like alignment, etc.

So, fight on!

[Philotomy Jurament]

Yeah, I'm not a big "you need a huge backstory for your new PC" fan. That said, if we're talking about an actual campaign game, then some links to the game world are helpful and beneficial. They don't need to be done up-front, but if you're in a campaign game, those links will get established at some point.

I tend to dislike the "here's my PC's history and psych profile" thing because it tends to be a signal of a kind of approach to the game that isn't to my taste. But I wouldn't say I'm against a PC having history and ties to the campaign world. That can be beneficial.

That said, I've also got nothing against a more "beer & pretzels" approach where campaign details aren't important. But I like an actual campaign better.

[Melan]

It can turn into a problem because while RPGs emerged from wargames - complex simulation - they soon became hopelessly enmeshed in world-building. They share mental space and they are interrelated, but they are really two hobbies, and should be kept that way. There are the people who want to go on adventures even if it is against a barely sketched background, and there are the people who want to wonder at a beautifully detailed diorama and are all "look, don't touch". It doesn't help that in-depth RPG manuals are like catnip to the second group, because they are full of the ordered canonical information they enjoy reading.

When I started gaming, we eventually realised that the kind of people who were too deeply into the LotR Appendices were trouble, because they didn't care for the things we liked in our games (actually doing things, exploration for its own sake, smashing up crap and sometimes dying in a ditch) and wanted things we didn't really care that much about (internal consistency, meaningful character arcs, epic destinies). Our enjoyment was mutually incompatible (or just very hard to reconcile), we just lacked the language to put it into words.

That's also why I am one of the people who was completely unsurprised when it turned out the Forgotten Realms had predated roleplaying, and started as an amateur worldbuilding project - of course Ed Greenwood was one of those guys!

[MageInBlack]

Let me roll up a character quickly and I'll go on your dungeon expedition. No names. Let's just grab a blade and do this!

[ThirstyStirge]

...meaningful character arcs, epic destinies...

That's pretty much impossible in a game where the mechanics strongly ensure that your 1st lvl character gets pwned by the paralytic tentacles of a giant caterpillar, or suffocates inside a mobile gelatinous dessert treat. To have epic destinies and long-term, satisfying arcs PCs have to be granted script immunity, and any rules that preclude that have to be defenestrated. That's not the game that I'm familiar with. A game without (the threat of) death -- or in the least, significant loss -- has no thrill. Amirite?

[The Spaniard]

Ran across a post on G+ concerning this little tidbit. I figure it will fit right into this thread. You only have to watch the first 30 or so seconds to get the gist of what's going on.

43 seconds of this crap was all I could take. Makes me feel uncomfortable at the table? How about inhaling a gust of chlorine gas from the Green Dragon that just laid it on me...? That kind of uncomfortable? Some people just can't do something as simple as play a fun game without making it into some kind of social drama.

[geneweigel]

If you touch the pentagram card right next to X card that means crank it up!

[Ratbreath]

43 seconds of this crap was all I could take. Makes me feel uncomfortable at the table? How about inhaling a gust of chlorine gas from the Green Dragon that just laid it on me...? That kind of uncomfortable? Some people just can't do something as simple as play a fun game without making it into some kind of social drama.

I can think of a few things that would make me uncomfortable in a game. Role playing rape, for example. The thing is, no one I have ever played with in all my life has done something like that. I cannot imagine having so many things that make you uncomfortable that you need a freakin' system in place to take care of this.

[Falconer]

people who were too deeply into the LotR Appendices were trouble, because they didn't care for the things we liked in our games (actually doing things, exploration for its own sake, smashing up crap and sometimes dying in a ditch) and wanted things we didn't really care that much about (internal consistency, meaningful character arcs, epic destinies).

I must say I categorize myself with the Appendices-lovers, and when I was in high school I would definitely say I wanted those things. However, I have learned over the years what works and what doesn’t work in a game. My players never, EVER remembered a single ounce of worldbuilding I as DM put into it; they only recall (very fondly, I might add) anecdotes of totally unpredictable, unplanned things that happened in the game.

But to backtrack a little bit, actually even as a hardcore Tolkienphile who has pored over every word of HoMe, the LotR Appendices were something I never really got that much into. I read the section about the Dwarves many times, but that’s about it—I think I have read everything else from front to back only once, ever. I seem to recall the sections about the Rohirrim had some pretty cool bits.

[francisca]

Ran across a post on G+ concerning this little tidbit. I figure it will fit right into this thread. You only have to watch the first 30 or so seconds to get the gist of what's going on.

Yeah. No Xcards at my table, and if I was ever asked, I'd tell the person this isn't a game for them.

Now, I don't put rape, misogyny, torture, etc... on display in any of my games, ever, beyond maybe upon entering an evil temple and saying something like, "the tapestries depict unspeakable acts." If someone asked me to elaborate, I wouldn't, especially at a con. I'd simply repeat "unspeakable", and move on. (In a home game, I might say something like "using a USB adapter to hook up an IBM model M to an iMac" ).

But anyway, I honestly don't want to play in a game with someone who is so messed up that they are uncomfortable or triggered by fantasy violence etc.. If you can't separate reality from the game, go get help, and get your ass and your head wired together. Come back when you are mentally in better shape.

That's not to say that I don't have sympathy for people dealing with bad situations, suffering depression, anxiety, or other problems. Just that maybe signing up for a stranger's game at a con, and expecting the DM to accommodate any number of psychological issues is asking too much, and frankly, the prospect of being made to deal with someone else's mental instability, in a public venue, during a game which is supposed to be relaxing and fun, makes me uncomfortable.

[geneweigel]

Rated "R" is the usual for me but I can go "PG" or "NC-17" depending on the crowd. I certainly never want to play "G". That would be too much to ask. Its just time to get politely ousted because dragons have teeth, guts and if need be they have private parts as well. Do you want to be bored in a rubberized world or do you want danger and invasive horror threatening and/or ruining everything? Without that unsettling force potential there is nothing. You are either a player who is a default hero(ine) or you're nothing. Its not SEDENTARIES & SIT-AROUNDS after all. If someone was acting mentally unstable or visibly upset there is no way I am going to continue but they are phased out from that point on.

[Flambeaux]

I do run G/PG games, but I also have players ranging from 4 to 16 in one of my groups. But that's a different kettle of fish from what we're primarily discussing here. I don't create "safe spaces" except in the sense that any game is a "safe space" to making mistakes that, in real life, could prove catastrophically bad or fatal.

But even those games for my kids will have evil cults that perform "unspeakable acts" (never detailed), scantily-clad or naked statuary, and other tropes of the genre. I'm initiating them into adulthood so, while my kids games have dominant notes of whimsy and faerie story, I try to avoid the saccharine and infantile. More Grimm/Perault than Disney; Labyrinth & Princess Bride more than something you'd find on HBO these days.

Those who've played in my adult games know those can get both weird and raunchy but still by allusion and suggestion, like Rich's limiting description to "unspeakable acts", moreso than explicit illustration. For example, I was running Flashing Blades many years back and I described a statue as "priapic". I didn't elaborate beyond that word. Several adults at the table weren't familiar with the word so they whipped out their phones and googled the term. They learned something that day: don't google-whack words Flambeaux says with SafeSearch OFF.

I hope I provide adventure and entertainment to friends and, at conventions, strangers who might become friends. If it's not fun you're doing it wrong.

[geneweigel]

Yes, kids is a different story but for adult to adult interaction there is a fine line between "old fashioned gentleman" (Ladies in the dungeon first) and "new age safe spacer" (Delicate people in the dungeon first) that makes it all seem like crap. So I'd prefer mature to do away with all that nonsense. I'm not saying my campaigns sound like CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY and delves into porn but I'd like to think, in an ideal sword and sorcery game, that all safeties are off content-wise just so its more thrilling.

[Flambeaux]

Yes, kids is a different story but for adult to adult interaction there is a fine line between "old fashioned gentleman" (Ladies in the dungeon first) and "new age safe spacer" (Delicate people in the dungeon first) that makes it all seem like crap. So I'd prefer mature to do away with all that nonsense. I'm not saying my campaigns sound like CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY and delves into porn but I'd like to think, in an ideal sword and sorcery game, that all safeties are off content-wise just so its more thrilling.

gene, we're tracking. I figure snowflakes have no place in the dungeon unless they're the side-effect of a cone of cold.

[T. Foster]

I am 100% uninterested in hearing about the other players' sex lives (and especially their kinky fetishes) at the game-table. That's a bright line that I never cross intentionally and try to avoid crossing accidentally. When it comes to sex-stuff my D&D World is a ~12 year old place where sex exists - we know that rapes and seductions occur, and there are wandering prostitutes and houses of ill repute - but mostly in the abstract and always offstage. That remains true whether or not there are actual 12-year-olds present. Players who try to drive the game in that direction get no support or encouragement from me as DM and if they don't take the hint and let it drop they don't get invited back.