You know, I mostly write these "Dear JB" posts to have some sort of "content" to post on Ye Old Blog, and because they're pretty darn easy to do: find someone who is suffering with their D&D (because they haven't been taught the proper way to play) and berate them/talk sense to them. Easy, easy blog fodder, which is good for a guy who's way too busy these days.
However, there's another reason why I write them: I have the feeling that there are SOME people who, despite being on the same page with Yours Truly, may be suffering through the same kinds of issues (to a greater or lesser degree), and I HOPE that those folks find something helpful in what I write. Something useful.
Because the sad fact is that a LOT of the gaming world, at least to judge by what's being written and video'd and podcasted about on-line, is INSANE these days. Modern D&D players are nuts. Their problems and issues are nuts...as in, they should not be happening and would not be happening if they took a different approach to the game. If I was a better writer and not some nutty hack myself, I'd put out a nice, clear essay succinctly explaining the proper mindset to run D&D competently...but I'm not.
If you're coming to this blog from a newer edition of the game...hell, if you didn't start playing D&D (or role-playing games) before 1983, you should probably read this essay. Just to make sure you have everything crystal clear in your head. It is, of course, POSSIBLE that you already play exactly as described...it is possible that you have developed a style over time that is, more-or-less, on the same page as what's been written here. But I'd still ask you to check it out...just in case.
I've read it twice myself...it's not terribly long. And it perfectly describes my approach to the game. The approach my friends and I took to the game back when we played the thing for long hours in early and mid-1980s. The way I still approach the game. When Prince reviews my style of running, writing:
Becker runs a good game, and his unpretentious matter of fact style, relentless pacing and sparse description keeps the game going...I highly enjoyed watching Becker in action, the economy of long practice, the workmanlike but functional dungeons, the expedient calls and no nonsense brutality. This was a fun game....
My reaction (besides 'glad you had fun' and 'thanks for the kind words') is I'M JUST RUNNING THE GAME, MAN. That's it. It's really, Really, REALLY not performative. As was said in Alexis's essay: that's just noise. People need not worry about the noise. Just worry about knowing how to use the rules.
It's not rocket science. It's not incredibly difficult or complex. It's just D&D.
Such a good essay. Does my job for me.
If it makes you feel better, I wrote four posts in a day and three the next, and a reader asked if there was a fire under my butt. I wrote this in my Patreon chat, which you never see because you're a skinflint:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, I know. Four yesterday and I'm just about done my third one today. For a long time I haven't felt like writing anything traditional about D&D. Then I got sick for ten days. Yesterday, I shook most of it off; there's a bit left today. Yet, even as I was casting around for something to write, I had nothing.
"Then I read JB's latest; no. 42. And he threw in that line, 'That you've since discovered his show, and think that's what D&D is supposed to be is a pity and a damn shame...' And I thought, 'How is traditional D&D different from Critical Role?' So I wrote that post. Then I felt, 'Well, that's a bit negative, and I still feel like writing, so...' I wrote the next post. And the next. And then, after a sleep, the fourth.
"Today, still felt like writing. Wrote the fifth post and was thinking, jeez... what was traditional D&D anyway? Went and found the white box set and thought, 'You've labasted this thing in the past. What if you defend it instead?' So here we are. Finished 01 and still felt like writing, so..."
There, that's what I wrote before going to write 02 on my blog. You threw out that "fodder" and I'm still on the track, following it. I can't "defend" the white box set without actively getting a lobotomy, but I am trying to do the best I can.
I am nothing if not a skinflint.
Delete; )
If I had any part in inspiring your posts of the last month, well, I'm glad.
ALSO: I think your analysis of OD&D is quite fair...it's pretty amazing that something so sketchy has had such an impact on world culture over the last 50 years (and not just the RPG hobby). Truly, the Lord works in mysterious ways!
D&D was a truly amazing idea. We usually think of such ideas coming from geniuses, which tends to make us assume that anyone smart enough to think of an amazing this is also smart enough to carry it forward. But sometimes they just "Pull a Homer"... succeeding at something despite being an idiot.
DeleteSteamtunnel here - I don't know. Honestly, everything that he has said on October 14th and 15th was largely covered in the Principa Apocrypha.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me?
DeleteThat's a serious question: are you freaking pulling my leg?
The "Principia Apocrypha"...as I have written before...is a huge, steaming pile of nonsense. Has it been updated in the last four years? Because if it hasn't I doubt my opinion has changed about it since September 14th, 2021.
Please provide some parallel citations for me to check out. Thanks!
Thanks for sharing my thoughts with your "quality" readers, JB. Obviously, I've been coasting these last 18 years, without a single original thought of my own to stand on.
DeleteST - I'll pull some direct quotes to compare.
ReplyDeleteST here again - Alex I will ask you to cut the BS Ad Hominim and have a real conversation.
ReplyDeleteFor the entry "Cult of Failure" I agree with this 100%. CR is a reality show/performance through and through with D&D as framing device and D&D play as presentation structure. I don't follow CR, and as much as the dice might land where they may (googles "character deaths critical roll season 4") with 3 PC deaths over 4 episodes - the main focus is entertainment, not playing the game. The "reason we are here" is inverted. It is the "chess" principle: People gathering to play D&D are there to play the game and hopefully enjoy each other's company. I include it here because it was posted on one of the dates I mentioned, illustrates that we do not disagree; and that you thus disservice your own views with your dismissive attitude.
To begin with, my name is Alexis, not "Alex." The fact that your main focus is self described as entertainment does not make this so. My friends and I are perfectly free to enjoy each other's company without the need of a game. When we play the game, enjoying each other's company is not why we're there, because we're not talking about each other. We're talking about what comes next in the game. I do not care if you think this does my views a disservice. I'm not subject to your definition for things.
DeleteAlexis, apologies for the error on your name, no malice or disrespect meant. I have known a lot of people whose names start with a,l,e,x (Alexsha, Alexander, Alexandra, even a different Alexis, and heck an Alejandro) who all went with the short form. Please accept my apologies.
DeleteAlso, it seems that a portion of my reprimand got shunted to the end possibly adding confusion as to what I said here.
As to what I say here: you are confused. I said that I agreed with your post "Cult of Failure" 100%. And then I offered how I understood Critical Role to not be in any way a representation of the game as support for that agreement and in support of your post. Yet, you say "The fact that your main focus is self described as entertainment does not make this so." No, I don't. Reread the reply. I am criticizing the show not defending it, nowhere in there do I "self describe" that way. I DO say the main focus of Critical Role is entertainment, but I play elf-games pretty much in the same fashion JB, Prince, and you do.
ST- Concerning the post "The Act of Regaining Sanity" (referred to as ARS)
ReplyDeleteThe sentiment Alexis lays down in ARS paragraph 1 & 2 corresponds to the statement in the PA": "Your table is yours[.] How you and your friends play games is not magically dictated by the opinions of others. No one gets to tell you and your players how to have fun. Find out what works for your table. I imagine that if someone says you’re doing things wrong, they mean well. They want to help you have the same kind of experiences that they find fun. But there are any number of hidden variables between their experience and yours."
There is shared sentiment here.
In paragraphs 3 & 4 the issue of being seen (never had this problem ever at a table but okay) is discussed. PA touches on this in the chapter "Be An Impartial Arbitrator" section "Divest Yourself From Their Fate": "As GM (or Judge or Referee, perhaps more appropriate for old school style games), you are not an antagonist to the players or characters. Nor are you an author writing their story." The implication is that you are not there to make them feel seen. The whole section is about how "the DM is not the enemy. The DM is the facilitator." to quote from ARS paragraph 8. I mean they are literally making the same argument. From the PA: "Be fair and impartial. Do not fudge rolls and avoid rolling in secret. This keeps the game honest and dangerous, and prevents any accusations of favoritism or railroading. It also encourages the players to manipulate and engage with the fictional world, rather than with the GM."
The first 5 sentences of ARS paragraph 5 are nearly synonymous with the statements already quoted above and in the PA under "Leave Preparation Flexible": "Don’t prepare a plot for the players to follow. During the game, observe how the players deal with a situation, and extrapolate the effects of their actions based on what you know. Don’t plan the results too far ahead of time; players rarely do what you expect them to."
ARS paragraph 9 corresponds to the idea early in the same chapter: "When you encounter a situation that the rules don't seem to cover, don't get distracted searching for it. Instead, make a common-sense ruling within the spirit of the game and move on. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Later, if you find there is in fact no rule and it could come up again, make a note of the ruling and apply it consistently." This is the other side of the same point when ARS says saying things like "You guys were right, that rule really isn't working like I hoped, I'm good to drop it," is okay.
So, I will say this: ARS has so much overlap with PA's "Be an Impartial Arbiter" section I could make an argument that that was a reference used during composition.
The fact that something the SA says and something I said does not mean I had the SA at hand when I wrote my post. Until you said it here, I'd never heard of the SA. Point in fact, I do not think that if people tell me I'm playing a game wrong, "they mean well." I would never write something as trite as that, because I don't believe it. I believe when people give their opinion, it's their opinion. It doesn't "mean" anything else that matters.
DeleteAbout ten thousand blog posts have said the DM is an impartial arbitrator. My post does not say this. It is not the same thing as "You are not an antagonist." You can tell because the words aren't the same. This is how English works. I'm not responsible for how you interpret me.
I did not say in my post, "leave preparation flexible" or anything like it. I have written twenty blog posts about why you shouldn't fudge. So has JB. So have many others. This is not new.
I did not talk at all about the arbitration of rules in my post.
I said I could make the argument. But: I didn't. Because I appreciate what you have to say and know what you have to say is original and different from what I am comparing it to.
DeleteTS- on to "Where to Start" abbreviated as "W2S"
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to dissect or compare here, "W2S" in my reading is a deep dive and extrapolation, and genius explanation of, PA's "Be an Impartial Arbiter" but in the format of a clearer how to. Sure, there is nuance, the devil is in the details, but really in the end the differences here are about like a Methodist arguing points of theology with an Episcopalian, not much.
There is more in the details. There is what I said, and what you say I said.
DeleteI 100% agree with "Second Step" sans snark. PA supports all these notions in the "Old School Principals for Players" chapter with:
ReplyDelete"Don’t put much work into a backstory for your characters. Their experiences in play will be more real to you and your friends than anything you write. An early death won’t sting quite as much, and a survivor will have real tales to tell, and experience to take pride in."
and
"Power is earned, heroism proven: Unlike many modern RPGs, your character starts with little power. Your meager means and abilities at first level encourage lateral thinking to get you out of trouble. Rising to a challenge (or fleeing it) means more when their life is on the line. Likewise, if you wish to play a true hero, don’t expect anyone to salute you when you first ride into town. Prove your heroism through your character’s actions."
I agree with my snark. I don't care if you don't. Your opinion about my snark is of no value to me. Also, I tend to call it sarcasm. Shakespeare indulged in it also.
DeleteI do not believe that ANY work should be put into a backstory. Backstories should not exist AT ALL. I did not say anything like what you are saying here.
The idiom "Don't put much..." is a rhetorical device used to deliver a sense of futility, or a measurement of "none." When you hear someone say "I don't put much stock in what Steve has to say" it means I don't think Steve is right or I don't put ANY stock in what Steve says. And I interpret this to say "don't make a backstory" in the idiom washed language the document seems to favor.
DeleteST - "Reclaiming the Game" post - I'm commenting here because this is outside the scope of the PA, but I included it in my range of posts. I am going to leave out the OD&D reviews. I think overall the point is made. Some thoughts and some nits:
ReplyDeletePeople have been trying to fix D&D since the beginning. T&T and AD&D being fairly successful examples. I would argue that AD&D is the best packaged version to ever come out. All you need are those three books. And if you play it like you would a game (rather than a collaborative story system), they suffice with very little house ruling. That urge to fix did take some odd turns in the 90s.
Interesting tidbit: One of the things Ryan Dancy discovered with a giant survey of players in that time after WotC bought TSR was that the game slows down dramatically after 4 hours. Apparently they used stop-watches to time how long it took people to complete their turns and did this over several large cons and a bunch of other events. The metric that they came away with was that after 4 hours it takes another 2 hours to get the same progress you got in 1 hour prior. This included 20-minute breaks. But an hour break reset the clock.
The thing people miss about Orcs in Lord of the Rings: Every orc you see in the Lord of the Rings is an enemy combatant in a war with very high stakes. Their innate goodness or evil is not really on the table. To argue that Orcs are stand ins for some people group and that is why the characters can kill them willy nilly is to ignore the context of the entirety of the novel.
With respect to "It's just a game.": it is dismissal of the argument which is a rhetorical weapon and context would determine who is the jerk.
The only point you've made is that you did not read my post. Anyone else can see that. I need say nothing further on this.
DeleteAs far as "Ad Hominem" goes... what makes you think your comment deserved better? Because you're human and therefore you're owed something? Sorry. I owe you nothing. I consider you one of JB's very best "quality" readers. You have not changed my opinion about that.
There was no point here. I think you are trying too hard. The point about fixing the game was a musing with respect to paragraph 4. Not a challenge or really a response. Just a thought.
DeleteAs for my comment that kicked all this off, it was conversational. Think of a guy in a ball cap and a sweater with a beer saying it in JB's back yard. If I knew that would be defending my fucking dissertation would have said "While I don't completely agree with it, there are a lot of parallel ideas in the Principa Apocrypha that align to what Alexis is saying, maybe not entirely, but somewhat."
You want to say more? My email is alexiss1@telus.net. For $3 you can join my patreon and talk to me in my chat. Don't plug up JB's site with your ego.
ReplyDeleteI'll pass.
Delete1) In the end, I wasn't really talking to you. JB ASKED me to post my comparisons and to share how I saw parallels, and I was complying with that ask. I did direct some comments in your direction because you were in the room so to speak, but ultimately, I was just complying with JB's request.
2)There is no ego here. If you misconstrued me as some 5e playing Critical Role fan screaming at you because you are violating my space/rights/ego you are sorely mistaken. If anything, you are shooting your own.