Why do we play these games?

[SterlingBlake]

I realize that's meant as a joke, but it does end up highlighting some of the differences between our reasons for playing these sorts of games.

A couple of days ago this far-more-eloquent-than-I-could-manage version of my take on my intentions when playing the game showed up: http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... aming.html

One simple and direct question related to the article and its stated purpose for “Classic Adventure Games” (which you claim is why YOU play) …

Have you ever played a character from level 1 to level 20 in a campaign as the article implies is the “goal” of the game players and designers?

I think E. Gary Gygax qualifies as one of the 2 game designers and in his campaigns and his characters the highest level ever played was 14th. Not Sure about Dave Arneson's Blackmoore campaign but I doubt many if any ever made 20th level.

@Rex, I think you're referring to Gygax's article in the last issue of the Strategic Review (April 1976) in which he wrote:

It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression
which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge
the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of
the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to
reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay.
Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty
flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing
something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,”
tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75
games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to
make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that
play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced
power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another
year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of
perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to
see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and
GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most
able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named
campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or
GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

I wouldn't argue that the way Gygax played the game is the "right" way to play, nor is it the way I wish to play it. Nevertheless, it seems likely that people playing the game in Gygax's style might well achieve 20th or higher levels after a decade or more of play.

Driving characters into ever-increasing levels isn't my goal either, however. Getting to name level is my goal, specifically with a character class that is permitted to develop territory, which according to the 1e rules only includes fighter, cleric, magic-user, and illusionist. I'm most interested in long-term play and in the domain phase of the game. As such, I almost never play "one-shot" sorts of games anymore.

The rules do permit rangers as well:

Although rangers do not attract a body of mercenaries to serve them
when, and if, rangers construct strongholds, they conform to the fighter class in other respects.

But since:

Rangers may own only those goods and treasure which they can carry on their person and/or place upon their mount; all excess must be donated to a worthy communal or institutional cause (but never to another player character).

I find it hard to reconcile how exactly a player running a ranger under 1e rules could ever construct a stronghold. Either he has to jump through the rather ridiculous hoop of acquiring highly concentrated wealth like a priceless gem and then converting that all at once into a stronghold, or the DM has to rule either that the wealth restriction does not apply or that rangers can't build strongholds. In my opinion, that latter is more in keeping with the flavor of ranger that the rule book otherwise supports.

[Leitz]

"In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously."

- DMG (1st edition, page 9)

[SterlingBlake]

If I could ask a follow up question based on curiosity spurred by your answer …

You state that you get to name level “as quickly as possible” and are not interest in “higher level ‘adventures’” (implying no “Dungeon Crawl” type “adventures”). Since you “camp out” in the domain phase of the game, not ‘adventuring’, what sort of things DO you do on an extended campaign basis? In other words, what did you rush through adventuring to finally get to DO for the long term?

(It would seem to imply that you enjoy a form of “world building” - or at least ‘domain building’ - as your preferred style of “fun”.)

I've really only been in a couple of campaigns that ran long enough (and I survived) to do this. In one, most of the play revolved around a large war that was coming, then came. Espionage, courting possible allies, preparing against famine during a siege, and a few large scale battles were the activities played at the table in the later part of that campaign. I had a lower level secondary character which I also played at times who went out on missions for the benefit of my primary. I played in that game for 7 years and if the DM moves back here, we might even pick it up again. Although it's been 17 years since he moved away, I have all of my notes still and the campaign remains fairly fresh in my memory.

In the more recent campaign I played into that phase, most of the play revolved around economic and infrastructure development and coping with a refugee crisis. Come to think of it, there was a fair amount of espionage/intrigue in that game as well.

I guess I'd say that my preferred fun, the way I'd really most like to see a campaign develop, is to go from the sort of cooperative, team play that a lower level party engages in to a competitive war game as the characters become eventual rivals.

[SterlingBlake]

"In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously."

- DMG (1st edition, page 9)

I think "too seriously" is maybe a different level of seriousness for everyone. I like to take the game very seriously and don't consider that to be too serious.

[Rex]

One simple and direct question related to the article and its stated purpose for “Classic Adventure Games” (which you claim is why YOU play) …

Have you ever played a character from level 1 to level 20 in a campaign as the article implies is the “goal” of the game players and designers?

I think E. Gary Gygax qualifies as one of the 2 game designers and in his campaigns and his characters the highest level ever played was 14th. Not Sure about Dave Arneson's Blackmoore campaign but I doubt many if any ever made 20th level.

@Rex, I think you're referring to Gygax's article in the last issue of the Strategic Review (April 1976) in which he wrote:

It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression
which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge
the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of
the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to
reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay.
Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty
flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing
something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,”
tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75
games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to
make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that
play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced
power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another
year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of
perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to
see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and
GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most
able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named
campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or
GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

I wouldn't argue that the way Gygax played the game is the "right" way to play, nor is it the way I wish to play it. Nevertheless, it seems likely that people playing the game in Gygax's style might well achieve 20th or higher levels after a decade or more of play.

Driving characters into ever-increasing levels isn't my goal either, however. Getting to name level is my goal, specifically with a character class that is permitted to develop territory, which according to the 1e rules only includes fighter, cleric, magic-user, and illusionist. I'm most interested in long-term play and in the domain phase of the game. As such, I almost never play "one-shot" sorts of games anymore.

The rules do permit rangers as well:

Although rangers do not attract a body of mercenaries to serve them
when, and if, rangers construct strongholds, they conform to the fighter class in other respects.

But since:

Rangers may own only those goods and treasure which they can carry on their person and/or place upon their mount; all excess must be donated to a worthy communal or institutional cause (but never to another player character).

I find it hard to reconcile how exactly a player running a ranger under 1e rules could ever construct a stronghold. Either he has to jump through the rather ridiculous hoop of acquiring highly concentrated wealth like a priceless gem and then converting that all at once into a stronghold, or the DM has to rule either that the wealth restriction does not apply or that rangers can't build strongholds. In my opinion, that latter is more in keeping with the flavor of ranger that the rule book otherwise supports.

Yes and no. That is where the original 14th level came from. But he later in an interview somewhere (might be Dragons foot, can't recall) he confirmed that that was still the highest level anyone had ever reached.

As for myself, some of the players in my FTF group and I have been playing together for a pretty long time (since 1983, everyone since 2001). For HarnMaster (a no class/level game) our longest campaign ran 19 or 20 years real time (need to go look at my records). We are about to re-start the campaign actually. Three of the characters are original, some died, some additions over time. It wouldn't fit your ideal as even though there is some domain type stuff (one is a baron, another runs a "spy guild"), it also still includes adventures as well.

For D&D type games I have never played in a campaign that long. They tend to fizzle out long before that. The longest was about 4 years real time. It was AD&D in the early 80's. My Dwarf fighter maxed out at 9th level (level limits). The other characters were all human and went higher but the highest level character in the group was a cleric, around 12th level +/- . We played almost weekly, occasional more. Our weekend sessions were 12+ hours with weekday the more typical 4-6 hours. I don't know anyone who played characters above 14th level who actually played them from 1st level, they just made them as high level characters (which is fine by the way, I have done that too).

For the style of play you want, why bother with low level play at all? Just make name level characters, write a short background of how they got there and play away at the domain level.

[SterlingBlake]

For the style of play you want, why bother with low level play at all? Just make name level characters, write a short background of how they got there and play away at the domain level.

Could do that, but at the lower levels I'm figuring out the setting and where I want my character to go, both geographically and metaphorically, when I get him up to name level. Plus the fact that he might not make it there is important to me. I think losing is almost as fun as winning. And more importantly, if I can't lose, then I can't win either.

[SterlingBlake]

My Dwarf fighter maxed out at 9th level (level limits). The other characters were all human and went higher but the highest level character in the group was a cleric, around 12th level +/- . We played almost weekly, occasional more. Our weekend sessions were 12+ hours with weekday the more typical 4-6 hours. I don't know anyone who played characters above 14th level who actually played them from 1st level, they just made them as high level characters (which is fine by the way, I have done that too).

My characters in those two campaigns were 13th and 9th level (both starting from 1st). I've never legitimately played a character over 13th level either. And I'm not interested in doing so; I'm not a fan of cartoon-like or superhero sorts of games.

[Leitz]

My characters in those two campaigns were 13th and 9th level (both starting from 1st). I've never legitimately played a character over 13th level either. And I'm not interested in doing so; I'm not a fan of cartoon-like or superhero sorts of games.

Funny enough, while Traveller doesn't have "levels", the atpollard game I keep referring to let my character play at a very high level. No cartoons or superheroes, although there were some interesting psionic-ish talents running around. Not really for my character, though; he spent his time finding issues, encouraging the best person to lead the resolution of that issue, and then clearing the path for them to do so.

Running high level games in any system is difficult. The HERO system, on which Champions is based, is one of the few that seems to work well and allow a lot of creativity. The rules get a bit heavy, though, but that can be worked around. 7th Sea (R&K version) has some good social options but you have to come up with a way to rack everything. With D&D you have to do stuff like the drow modules to really get a challenge, and those take a lot of work. Or you get into a political game, and those are even harder. I've been reading some historical fiction set in the Hundred Year's War era, and the political machinations are crazy.

[SterlingBlake]

Or you get into a political game, and those are even harder. I've been reading some historical fiction set in the Hundred Year's War era, and the political machinations are crazy.

This is the direction my high-level games go either as a player or a referee, too, and I don't mind it being harder. I definitely lean toward an historical fiction style when I run D&D.

[Leitz]

Or you get into a political game, and those are even harder. I've been reading some historical fiction set in the Hundred Year's War era, and the political machinations are crazy.

This is the direction my high-level games go either as a player or a referee, too, and I don't mind it being harder. I definitely lean toward an historical fiction style when I run D&D.

If you like historical fiction, check out the chivalry series. Lots of great detail and interesting events.

[SterlingBlake]

Or you get into a political game, and those are even harder. I've been reading some historical fiction set in the Hundred Year's War era, and the political machinations are crazy.

This is the direction my high-level games go either as a player or a referee, too, and I don't mind it being harder. I definitely lean toward an historical fiction style when I run D&D.

If you like historical fiction, check out the chivalry series. Lots of great detail and interesting events.

I think you've mentioned that before; someone has suggested it to me before anyway. I'll check it out! Thanks!

[SterlingBlake]

I've been thinking about this for a while and this morning something solidified for me. I am of age X, and if this were a standard traveller game I would have Y number of skills. But looking around, I find people my age and older who have significantly fewer skills and younger ones who have many more. There's also the issue of doing the same thing for years, there's no guarantee you'll get better at it. Maybe a little more efficient so you can get your work done and goof off more, but not necessarily any higher skill.
...

I think it applies to players and DMs as well. It's easy to make up a fighter and go into the dungeon for entertainment value. Nothing wrong with that at all. As a player I like entertainment but I really want to build my skills. Maybe I'll play a noble game, or an exploration game, or even a merchant game. The challenge isn't living or dying, but building my craft and telling a good story.

I'm replying to your post in the character skills and proficiencies discussion here since this point is about player skill and game challenge.

The game itself, provided we're still using some version of a D&D-like game as our model, cannot be about telling a good story. Telling a story is not a game. There is no way to win or lose at telling a story. (A story might be well or poorly received by an audience, but it's a big stretch to call that victory and defeat.) There are no game mechanics for telling a story. The mechanics of the game test survival and reward success at acquiring treasure and/or beating opponents either in direct combat or outsmarting them in some way. The object of D&D is to acquire XP. If you die, you have to start over at zero. (Unless you've done well enough with your team by then that they can "raise" your character from the dead.)

The game gets more interesting when you get past the early stages where character death is a greater risk and acquiring more XP provides diminishing returns, i.e., name level. The game changes at that point, for me anyway, into more of a war game, but even then victory and loss is in measurable "game tokens" like troops, treasure, and subjects.

Player skill is measured by how well one achieves the goals of the game. Story-telling is not a mechanic of the game or a goal rewarded by it, and so has nothing to do with skill at the game.

The story is how we talk about the game, but not the game-play itself.

[Leitz]

The game itself, provided we're still using some version of a D&D-like game as our model, cannot be about telling a good story.

I can tell you haven't gamed with me much, have you?

- scarik's game is the story of a young fighter trying to live up to the legendary reputation of an ancestor.
- In Rex's game the story was about a young bastard knight trying to honor his family by establishing a household.
- In gurusql's game a teen nerd loved the most beautiful girl in the universe (in the nerd's opinion), the story was about how to tell her he wasn't who she thought he was.
- In Tiglath's game the story was about an abused guy with anger issues who found a lady as broken as he was.
- In Spearmint's Recon game the story was about a young man wanting to earn his green beret.
- In atpollard's Birach game the story was about an adopted kid who decided to adopt everyone on the stinking planet.

Story-telling is not a mechanic of the game or a goal rewarded by it, and so has nothing to do with skill at the game.

We get the word thespian from the poet Thespis, a poet reportedly the first actor playing a character in a play and germane to the conversation based on the 1st ed PHB (page 7, 2nd para under "THE GAME"):

"Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by -- and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!"

[SterlingBlake]

The game itself, provided we're still using some version of a D&D-like game as our model, cannot be about telling a good story.

I can tell you haven't gamed with me much, have you?

Indeed! I'm fairly certain we'd drive each other nuts!

Story-telling is not a mechanic of the game or a goal rewarded by it, and so has nothing to do with skill at the game.

We get the word thespian from the poet Thespis, a poet reportedly the first actor playing a character in a play and germane to the conversation based on the 1st ed PHB (page 7, 2nd para under "THE GAME"):

"Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by -- and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!"

There are no rules that require, support, or reward acting, regardless of Gygax's fanciful words in that introductory paragraph. The game has rules for resource management, combat resolution, character advancement, and so on, but none for characterization, plot pacing, narrative structure, and so on. Where the character part makes a difference there are rules: strength, intelligence, weapon proficiency, infravision, etc. Those rules interact with resource management, combat resolution, etc., not with plot, voice, pacing, story structure, and so on.

At the end of the game there is a story about what the characters did and what happened in the setting, but we're telling it after the fact, about how we played the game. We are not improvising a scene when we fight a battle, for example, but afterwards we're likely to talk about how it all went down.

There are a lot of different ways to approach this game, but I think that you're mixing a motivation for playing the game (a good story) with what one is actually doing when playing a game. There's no harm in lavishly describing the manner in which a character kills the goblin, but it's the "to hit" and damage rolls, not the description, that killed it.

[Scott308]

Hmm. To me, it sounds like you play RPGs as if they were board or war games. Do you put any background or personality into your characters, or is it just roll your stats, figure out what class that makes and you're done? Not criticizing, but to me, the details of your character and their actions and decisions they make are the story.

And I strongly disagree with your statement that we are not improvising a scene when we fight a battle. It is all improvised, since everyone acts based on what just happened. There is no script, and sometimes players have their characters do things nobody would have expected.

[SterlingBlake]

Hmm. To me, it sounds like you play RPGs as if they were board or war games. Do you put any background or personality into your characters, or is it just roll your stats, figure out what class that makes and you're done? Not criticizing, but to me, the details of your character and their actions and decisions they make are the story.

And I strongly disagree with your statement that we are not improvising a scene when we fight a battle. It is all improvised, since everyone acts based on what just happened. There is no script, and sometimes players have their characters do things nobody would have expected.

What I'm trying to do is make a distinction between the parts of engaging in RPGs that are playing a game and the parts that are not. I agree with you that the details of a character and the actions and decisions they take do make a story, and that that story is part of why we play the game, but it is not itself the playing of the game.

My use of the word "improvising" here is not as clear as I would like. Yes, everyone is controlling their characters based on what has just happened, nothing is scripted (we hope! if my DM has scripted it, I will rebel!), and characters certainly do things that are unexpected by either the DM or other players and maybe even the controlling player as well. The point I meant to make is that we are finding these results by the mechanics of the rules, rather than by our description of them. I separated my statement about improvisation from my description of it ("There's no harm in lavishly describing the manner in which a character kills the goblin, but it's the 'to hit' and damage rolls, not the description, that killed it.") a bit too widely for clarity I'm afraid.

[Scott308]

Ok, I understand your point now.

[Inferno]

There are a lot of different ways to approach this game, but I think that you're mixing a motivation for playing the game (a good story) with what one is actually doing when playing a game. There's no harm in lavishly describing the manner in which a character kills the goblin, but it's the "to hit" and damage rolls, not the description, that killed it.

This.

[Leitz]

There are a lot of different ways to approach this game, but I think that you're mixing a motivation for playing the game (a good story) with what one is actually doing when playing a game. There's no harm in lavishly describing the manner in which a character kills the goblin, but it's the "to hit" and damage rolls, not the description, that killed it.

My apologies for not responding sooner, and now Inferno has quoted this. Again, please take this in the tone of friends sitting around a table and discussing, not as caustic as written communication sometimes comes across. Grab your beverage of choice, I'm drinking Diet Coke with a large shot of diet lemonade.

Your perception as stated in the first sentence is incorrect, thus the follow-on statement is not relevant. As far as I can recall, I've not said that in game combat descriptions descriptions must be lavish, or even verbose. Here's one of my combat posts in Tiglath's game.

You might be referencing the pre-combat writing I do to explain to the DM what the characters are trying to achieve. For example, in Scarik's game I wrote out why the PC and NPCs were doing what they were doing. However, that doesn't meet your criteria of "lavishly describing the manner in which a character kills the goblin" since I just give the dice rolls. Given the DM the "why" of the characters actions helps overcome the less interactive nature of PbP; with the "why" the DM can adjudicate where provided situation and interim events impact results. For example, in the above the characters Gar and Winifred were going to protect the priestess Hemia if any zombies tried to get to her. In the DM's response their actions became combat irrelevant.

However, you said:

I agree with you that the details of a character and the actions and decisions they take do make a story, and that that story is part of why we play the game,

and I totally agree. The actions of Gar and Winifred display their character and will impact the out of combat story as it progresses. Winifred is a new hire to the party and has gone from being a broke and homeless thief to a well rewarded spy. Now she's charging undead because her body hasn't listened to her mind saying "WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING?!?!"

It may be that we're effectively saying the same thing.

[atpollard]

It may be that we're effectively saying the same thing.

A reporter once made the following observation about "Michael Jackson" (when he was still alive) ... "He is not a bizarre as the 'Public Persona' that is fed to the press, but he is not as 'normal' as he thinks that he is."

That sentiment applies to the two of you ... Two different distinct points on a spectrum, but neither being as extreme as has been occasionally suggested.