A couple weeks ago I wrote up a bit about how I was doing D&D wrong, but I didn’t feel like I was wrong to do it. Happily, that garnered quite a bit of discussion, more specifically on Twitter (where you can find me faffing about all day anyway) about what makes D&D “feel” wrong. It had been so far a fairly intangible thing–something where when I was getting it right, everybody was happy, but when I was getting it wrong, everybody was mad and couldn’t tell me why, except to say that whatever it was they wanted, they knew it wasn’t that.
This is frustrating to no end–telling me what you don’t want is not at all the same thing as telling me what you do want. It might narrow down my choices slightly, but it means I’m still prone to stumbling into the BADWRONG area,\ since it’s so poorly defined. When the only feedback I get is “it just doesn’t feel right,” that provides me no constructive way at all to build the gaming experience that you do want.
I had a long conversation with The Angry DM (aka @theangryDM on Twitter, also to be found at www.theangryDM.com) who, once I skimmed off the vitriol and resentment towards players everywhere, led me to some really interesting points on what “it doesn’t feel like D&D” really means.
It does, of course, boil down to player expectations. Most of the gaming advice on managing player expectations talks about discussing with your players the kinds of stories they’d like to see, the kind of setting they’d like to play in, the goals they have for their characters. This does set up expectations of how the fluff of the game will be run, but it also sets up expectations of how the underlying principles behind that fluff are ingrained–the players have a very predetermined idea of who their character is and where they want them to go. D&D is set up to encourage this–some players meticulously plan out those 20-30 levels based on the mechanics they want to play with, the kind of hero they want to be, and the kind of setting and adventures they are already expecting to have.
It was only through the discussion of my last post that I realized–I’m the kind of person who wants to define her characters by what happens to them in-game. A reactive rather than proactive building process, if you will. That’s how I ran my game, too, with that basic (and wrong) assumption about my hard-core long-time D&D players, giving them choices and events in-game that forced them to react, and it was especially when they had to react in ways that didn’t align with their predetermined character course that they got the BADWRONG feel and backed away from the game, complaining bitterly about how it just wasn’t right.
The thing is, the longer you’ve been playing D&D (and generally if you only play D&D), the more ingrained these ideas are. I don’t think those players even realized that what was going on was that I was changing the expectations of the game on a fundamental level, one that they weren’t prepared for and probably weren’t interested in. God knows I didn’t realize what I was doing–D&D has set up this idiom where everything is pretty much “follow the adventure, get treasure and rewards, follow the adventure some more, get levels and more treasure, rinse, repeat, wipe hands on pants.” The amount of work it takes to plan a character, and in order to be effective during the tactical play of the game you must plan your character at least a little, makes it really hard to deviate from that course mid-game. You already have an idea of who your hero is and who he will be, and when the DM throws hard choices at you that force you to change that, or ideas that fall outside the spectrum of what you expected to encounter, it can cause an internal conflict that’s hard to articulate apart from “this just doesn’t feel right. I don’t know what I was wanting, but I know it wasn’t this.”
When I realized that I had messed with expectations in a very fundamental way, I thought to myself “Well no wonder they got grumpy and sour at the table. It sounds like cognitive dissonance”–which I then had to run and look up because all I really remembered about cognitive dissonance was that most people used the phrase in the wrong context.
Yeah I was using it wrong. I meant cognitive disequilibrium (which isn’t nearly as fun to say or type or use, but pfeh. Accuracy matters sometimes), which is based the idea that humans seek a state of mental balance generally achieved through interpreting new experiences by referencing pre-existing ideas. When those new experiences don’t match up with those pre-existing ideas, a state of confusion, a sense of being lost, and importantly, a jarring feeling of “something’s wrong” occurs. How a person handles that is a testament to their ability to adapt, grow, and change, but in the case of a newbie DM (me) tilting at the monolithic structure that is D&D (in any of its iterations), it’s no wonder I bounced off, bruised and confused.
The thing that The Angry DM said to me that finally sunk in was this: “You don’t really want to be playing D&D.” I’d been told this before, mind you, but I didn’t get it until I understood the underlying ideas of what I wanted out of a game versus what’s expected in D&D. D&D does not encourage reactive growth; while I play it because I love the community, I love tinkering with the game, and I really enjoy the tactics, in terms of storytelling it’s nigh impossible for it to accomodate my style. Not without some very generously flexible players, of which I have a couple, but to be honest those players would be just as happy playing Exalted or FATE or D&D. They’ve already made the jump past that cognitive disequilibrium, which is absolutely great, but if I want to have a full group of D&D players who are comfortable with using the tactics of D&D over a much different storytelling structure, well… I shouldn’t hold my breath.
Or maybe I should be running something other than D&D.
How about you? Ever had a moment at the table where something just didn’t feel right?
I think you just summed up pretty well why I’m just not interested in D&D. Which is brilliant, because I never could put it into words. I want to be messed with, hard choices are awesome and if they make my character do something totally different from what I had planned, then it’s my kind of game. The few times I played D&D, this didn’t happen at all.
I’m not D&D experienced enough to say that this is because of the system, but from what I read and hear, it seems that most D&D rounds just don’t work out that way.
“[W]hen the DM throws hard choices at you that force you to change that, or ideas that fall outside the spectrum of what you expected to encounter, it can cause an internal conflict that’s hard to articulate[.]”
Can you give us a ‘for instance’?
Because I think I may know what you’re talking about, but it’s all too vague.
How specific a for instance are you looking for? An anecdotal reply or just a more specific clarification?
In the interest of not throwing my players under the bus, I’m leery about the former, but for the latter: say you had designed a character that’s supremely moral and good, and would never ever harm another living creature. You built this into his stats, into his powers, into his equipment, and into his backstory. Then the first thing the DM does (and I confess this is wholly something I would do) is give that character a choice where he is forced to choose between killing one person or killing a hundred to satisfy the needs and wants of an NPC.
That player never wanted to kill anything, and he built his character around that concept. A proactive player would be discomfited by this–it just doesn’t feel right that he should have to make that choice at all, especially given how he built his character. A reactive player would see this as an opportunity to build some creative changes into his character.
The thing about D&D is that it’s difficult to make reactive changes on your character sheet, again, given the amount of planning that goes into creating a character in the first place. So while that terrible choice would drive conflict in any game, and conflict can provide drama, which then provides entertainment, not everyone is entertained by that kind of drama although they might not be able to articulate why beyond “I don’t like it.”
I honestly think it has to do with how you got to that choice in the first place–did you have a predictive model of character behavior in mind, or were you looking to see how a character would react when you conceived him?
@Jennifer I kind of had exactly that “a ha” moment when I started being able to articulate what was going on in my games. I’m glad I could spread that around :)
I’m not knocking D&D, mind you–I actually think that having a good grasp on what those underlying expectations are makes the game more enjoyable. I can appreciate more what is there and stop looking for things it’s unlikely to provide :)
Yeah, I don’t think this is a “D&D problem”. D&D’s rules do put a few extra barriers up, in that some of your characters powers or items wouldn’t seem appropriate after certain massive character-personality-altering decisions, so you may have to tactically/mechanically slightly handicap yourself a bit until some re-training/equiping can happen. Worst case though, I haven’t seen a story-loving DM that won’t let a player rewrite their entire character, including changing race, class, and attributes, if that’s what the story needs.
But I’ve seen this same problem happen under other rules systems; it’s not D&D’s fault, it will, and does, happen in any system where players get to make decisions about their characters as those characters grow in power over time. D&D’s “problem” is that players have had the opportunity to learn a lot about how to perfect that decision-making process (they like to call it “system mastery”). Play a different system for a year, and you won’t see this happen. Play it for three, and it will come back.
For D&D, I would estimate that this is only 10% a rules problem, and 90% an expectations/system-mastery problem. This is why I love running games for people who haven’t played D&D before, and why I now insist, for people that have played before, that they not come to the first session with a character sheet. If they bring one, I will tear it apart before their eyes, because I don’t want you to have a roadmap for what your character is going to be before we’ve even discussed the setting and who the party is.
Certain players will always try to create characters that are “plot-proof”, that the DM’s story won’t be able to change (foolish mortals…). Having a well laid-out power-progression gives these players something concrete to point to/whine about when they’re forced to change, but I think they’re really angry because the DM has pierced their “plot-proofness”. I don’t understand these people, because a good story is *ONLY* about how the characters are changed by the plot! The people who make these characters–and I know this sort of assertion is taboo in the happy-fuzzy land of post-Gygaxian RPGs–ARE WRONG. For their own good, and for the good of the hobby, they must be BROKEN. Carefully, of course, so as not to run them away from the table. But it must be done.
@mudlock *grins* Ah, so players that don’t like your style are BADWRONG and they need to be sent to the re-education camps?
But on a more serious note, there’s another reason why some people may not like that style of play. They’ve had it done in a way that took away their fun. I’ve been playing for a long time, and I’ve had some great games where events have shaped my characters. I’ve also had some games where the same tactic made me leave the game. A lot of it is knowing who you’re playing with. A GM needs to have an idea of what each player’s limits are and what types of stories they like. The players need to trust that the GM will take the story somewhere they want to go.
Some of the problems I’ve seen:
Changes that come too fast so there’s no time for a character or player to deal with their issues and find a new equilibrium.
Events that touch on sensitive issues for the player.
Too many events that always have a negative impact on the character.
Changes that make the player feel like he’s not in control of how his character responds.
GM’s that push a desired result too hard on the player.
Players having a hard time separating their emotions from their character’s reactions.
Different people having a different notion of what the elements of the game are.
Events that drastically change a character’s purpose in life.
Changes that seem to be targetted at a character.
After having some bad experiences, you might want to “plot-proof” your character. Or sometimes you’d rather play in an action movie than a dramatic tragedy.
On a rules side, I don’t think the rules for 4e particularly hinder event-driven development. After all, the roleplaying part doesn’t come from a book, it comes from the people. I think that if you explain how you like to run this will help get people into that mindset.
“..say you had designed a character that’s supremely moral and good, and would never ever harm another living creature. You built this into his stats, into his powers, into his equipment, and into his backstory. Then the first thing the DM does is give that character a choice where he is forced to choose between killing one person or killing a hundred to satisfy the needs and wants of an NPC.”
Technically this is already covered by your choice of alignment. 4e doesn’t go into it as much, but the earlier editions were quite explicit about what it means to be Chaotic Good vs Lawful Good when faced with those kinds of decisions. Because it was expected that you *would* face those kinds of decisions.
Also, the player should remember that their PC always has other choices: argue with the NPC, fight the NPC, buy off one or other party, leave the realm, etc. There are no rails in D&D. And if they do find themself really cunningly corralled by the DM into having to make the choice, that’s when you find out what your PC is really made of (and how well you truly ‘get’ your PC.)
Oh and if your PC would “never ever harm a living creature”, I’m afraid D&D isn’t the right game. ;)
This is so true, and I have run up against the exact same problems. My revelation though wasn’t that “I don’t want to play D&D,” because I do. I love D&D. What I didn’t want was to be playing with D&D players. Ultimately, I found a group of newbie gamers and have played some of the most rewarding and exciting D&D ever. They don’t come with preconceived notions and expectations. They, above all, are there to have a damn good time.
Hello,
I work with GameTable Online, the company who has been developing the D&D Virtual Table for Wizards of the Coast, which is now in beta testing for DDi users and their friends. Since you have a gaming website that includes content about D&D, I thought you might be interested in checking it out. I would be happy to run a short session for you so you can get a sense of how the tool works from a player’s perspective.
If you aren’t familiar with the D&D Virtual Table, it is an online application for playing D&D online with friends and other users. It provides the tools for running a D&D game, such as map creation, initiative tracking, dice rollers, journals, and PC + monster stats. It also includes built in voice support, integration with the D&D Character Builder and Monster Builder, and rules automation to help speed up combat.
You can access the D&D VT at vt.wizards.com. If you don’t have one, you’ll want to sign up for a free D&D community account here: https://accounts.wizards.com/amlogin.aspx
Once you’ve signed into the VT, enter the following code to get access for the remainder of the beta (if you are already a DDI subscriber, you’ll already have access):
lC7O6kqLecYPnArB
Would you like me to run you through a short session of the D&D Virtual Table? Just let me know what your availability is like and we can set something up. Thanks!
Regards,
Rory Madden, GameTable Online (www.gametableonline.com)
Interesting that alignments came up.
One of the first things our group did – a very long time ago – was throw alignments out of the window completely.
As in real life, anyone who tries to be “lawful” or “good” all the time is going to have a pretty difficult time of it.
An example is probably in order. A wild-elf ranger. Loves his people. Would do anything for them. So, he’s “good” right? Follows all their tribal laws to the letter. So he’s “lawful” right? But then his lands are threatened by the exanding rural economy of a rapidly growing city. More and more of his forest home is being chopped down. These people are not baddies in any narrow sense, they are farmers simply trying to feed an ever increasing population that would starve without these farms. So, what does our ranger do given that he’s “lawful good” and thus ” ashining
champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing [his life] to stop the spread of evil in the world.”
Could he then kill the family of farmers that has just moved in to the sacred groves? Should he then kill that same family?
If you remove the constraints of aligment, you’re left with a character who is driven and motivated by a set of beliefs and principles that have been developed from the backstory through to the present game time. If the player wishes to role-play the fact that his tribe takes precedence over any other consideration, then so be it. He doesn’t have to enjoy the slaughter because he’s not evil. He doesn’t have to be apathetic about the slaughter either as he’s not neutral/unaligned. And he doesn’t even have to do it at all.
The point is that the player is presented with a situation that offers a chance to find out what character they actually want to play, rather than what character they thought they wanted to play. Maybe the player realises that the character “thought” he would do anything for his tribe, but it turns out he wouldn’t. Maybe the wild-elf’s overriding love for his tribe overrides any notion the player had that his character was simply a really, really good guy and all round lovely chap.
It’s hard to articulate precisely, but there are certain pre-conceived notions that come with aligments. These are very hard to shake. In terms of PCs, concepts of good and evil, law and chaos are just completely abstract and totally open to situational and personal interpretation.
A good character background will never mention anything like this. Even divine characters aren’t good or evil. They simply follow their interpretation of the tenets of their god to whatever extent the feel is applicable. Even the gods themselves aren’t good or evil or lawful or chaotic. They simply are what they are, do what they do, and want what they want.
None of our players play a “good” character. They only play good “characters”.
Every character has a backstory that details events in their life that led them to the tavern where they all meet and set of adevnturing together. This sets them up with a good idea of the character they wish to play and gives a good indication of how that character would react to certain events.
There is, however, nothing in the backstories that relates to how these events made their character feel, or how they will react in any given situation. The players may feel they know this down to the smallest detail, but that is for them, and, as there is no record of this, they are free to change it in whatever way they see fit.
We never have any situation where a player bemoans the fact that his “lawful good” character is constantly being put in situations where he is forced to either break the “law” or do “evil” things.
In the general course of my life, I would like to think of myself as a pretty decent, law-abiding person. Put me in a situation where my family is threatened and I don’t know how I would react. No matter how I did react though, I doubt very much it would fundamentally change my opinion of myself to the extent that I didn’t recognise that self any more.
I think, and I could be way off, that this is the problem your players are facing. When the players are forced to define their characters – even in their own minds – in accordance with very restrictive, narrow, and unrealistic shorthand, that fails to account for the very fluid and flexible nature of morality, they are then setting themselves up for a fall.
Sorry for the very long post, I’ll bring it to a close now. Let me just say that it was very interesting the example chosen by was that the player never wanted to kill anything. That’s a very, very restrictive concept to bring to the table from day one. It deals with desires and needs rather than events. It also smacks greatly of the “usual” interpretation of “Lawful Good”. The player should be encouraged to give a background, for example, that the character was around a lot of killing in the past, and he chose to remove himself from that situation. He even made a vow to never kill anything. Does that mean the player must always try to find a way to not kill? Of course not, and the player will then never be placed in a situation where a justified killing totally destroys the character concept and makes the player feel like he’s been cheated or forced into something he didn’t want. He broke his vow. He feels awful about it. He bores the other characters to death going on about it. He justifies it ad nauseum. He resolves to never kill again, and this time he means it, but then the bloody halfling gets separated from the fighter and there’s no one else around but him…
If you made it to the end of this epic, congratulations. i’m not sure I could have.