Why do we play these games?

[Leitz]

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.

You mean our public personas. I don't know about SterlingBlake, but there are reasons they don't let me out often.

[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.

You mean our public personas. I don't know about SterlingBlake, but there are reasons they don't let me out often.

Naw ... I just meant: "Rumors of your death fanaticism have been greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain (paraphrase)

[SterlingBlake]

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.

My turn to apologize for a delayed response! I was away until the middle of the week, then catching up on work.

My beverage is a french roast, which hopefully I've had enough of to think as clearly as I ever do.

I'm realizing that using the word "lavish" made my statement more hyperbolic than I would have liked it to be. As with my previous posts on this topic, I'm trying to separate a couple of different elements of game play from one another, elements that I've called, probably confusingly, game and story. I'm going to bring this point from the other discussion in too, because I think it relates to what I'm trying to figure out and articulate.

While the RULES govern once swords are drawn and the enemy is engaged, it is the more intangible interactions between Players and DM (Characters and NPCs/World) leading up to that event which often create more of the "story" of the ADVENTURE.

Some of the things we say as players are "moves," like "I check for traps" and "I attack with my sword." Very clearly so, because they clearly relate to actual game mechanics and may involve dice, as @atpollard has pointed out.

Some other things that was as players say are also "moves" and some of them are not. In one of the examples you provided, Hemia's facial expressions were described as she attempted to turn zombies. The turning was a move, but the smile was not. In another situation, however, and NPC interaction, say, the smile could be a move. It could be an action, not necessarily involving dice, that does have a game effect in terms of producing the desired (or not) reaction from an NPC.

The grim smile described during the turning "move" is nothing but story, while a character's smile as a part of an interaction with an NPC is (potentially) game. I guess that's the line I'm trying to draw.

[Leitz]

My turn to apologize for a delayed response! I was away until the middle of the week, then catching up on work.

No worries at all! It's been an off kilter season for me.

My beverage is a french roast, which hopefully I've had enough of to think as clearly as I ever do.

Then obviously you are a person of good quality and good taste! I use a slightly milder and no caffeine blend in a french press.

Some of the things we say as players are "moves," like "I check for traps" and "I attack with my sword." Very clearly so, because they clearly relate to actual game mechanics and may involve dice, as @atpollard has pointed out.

Some other things that was as players say are also "moves" and some of them are not. In one of the examples you provided, Hemia's facial expressions were described as she attempted to turn zombies. The turning was a move, but the smile was not. In another situation, however, and NPC interaction, say, the smile could be a move. It could be an action, not necessarily involving dice, that does have a game effect in terms of producing the desired (or not) reaction from an NPC.

The grim smile described during the turning "move" is nothing but story, while a character's smile as a part of an interaction with an NPC is (potentially) game. I guess that's the line I'm trying to draw.

There's an old quote about the difference between "story" and "plot", but those words are used differently that you and I are using them. Let me paraphrase the quote with your terms above, and then go from there.

"The king died. Then the queen died" is a pair of moves. "The king died, and then the queen died of a broken heart." is a story.

The relevant difference between a move action and a story action is that the story element reveals more about the character. The queen loved the king so much that his death killed her. We can relate to the queen because we have loved someone greatly. PCs in a game usually perform multiple moves that use dice for result resolution. The reason that PC chose that particular set of moves shows us something about the PC's motivations and beliefs. That's story.

In the referenced post the move is:

Code: Select all

Hemia Turn Undead: 11 undead of 3HD or less are turned.
Base 7, +1 Wis, (if Inspire Allies gives Skill bonus, then +1 for that)
Hemia turn undead [2d6]=7

But the story is shown in:

A thin, determined smile froze on Hemia's lips. Her eyes narrowed as she spied the dark priest trying to flee.

Why did Hemia have a determined smile? What about the dark priest triggered her? That's the story.

Hemia is at the precipice of complete failure, she is a cleric who has given into temptation and "sinned" according to her faith. The dark priest is a terrifying reflection of who she can become if she has strayed so far as to be unredeemable. Turning the zombies is a test of her faith; does her deity still love her enough to empower her? Or is she one step away from becoming the evil she is fighting? Many of us have failed to live up to our own expectations or we have hurt a dear friend greatly. The story is about redemption and forgiveness.

With your definitions of moves and story, I don't play games without story. For the most part I don't play games without moves, either, but dice add to the game, they do not direct it.

[Inferno]

dice add to the game, they do not direct it.

Hi Leitz! This is what continues to confuse me.

My games have story but the dice help create that story and can greatly impact what happens.

How do you have dice that don't help direct what happens?

If the dice conflict with the preconceived story, do you ignore the dice? If yes, why roll them at all?

Thanks.

[Leitz]

dice add to the game, they do not direct it.

Hi Leitz! This is what continues to confuse me.

My games have story but the dice help create that story and can greatly impact what happens.
How do you have dice that don't help direct what happens?
If the dice conflict with the preconceived story, do you ignore the dice? If yes, why roll them at all?

Thanks.

Hey Inferno, my apologies for the confusion! Let me expand the example of the cleric, maybe it will help.

As a story element, the character attempted to act within her clerical powers and I described how she performed her action.
As a move, I rolled for Turn Undead.
As a player, there are two possible outcomes from the roll, pass or fail.
- A pass means the deity still empowers the character and she has been forgiven.
- A failure, though metagame is just a dice roll, could change the story by making the character doubt herself. That would change her next moves in the game.

However, this is a role-playing game and the DM might feel the character's transgressions were serious enough to warrant divine intervention. Thus the dice roll results are secondary to the DM's prerogative, as in the old thing about a Paladin losing their special status (1st ed PHB, page 22).

As a player, my characters can perform actions to influence the requirements, but they are subject to the results. If I need to roll a 9+ on 2d6 and I can add a bonus then I'm influencing the requirements but the character is still subject to the results.

As a DM, the characters may be subject to requirements that are outside of the "roll 2d6 on Table XYZ" and the rolled results have no impact.

[Inferno]

Thanks.

This example is clear, but I see it entirely in keeping with the rules. If a cleric violates their faith, they lose their clerical abilities, like Turn Undead. The DM is just referee-ing the written rules.

But in order for the dice to never direct the story, there must be other examples of overriding the dice that are outside the written rules.

[Leitz]

As an aside, I admit that as a DM there have been times when I had a great player who wanted to show a particular aspect of their character through story. Those times are rare; the player must have a good understanding of the setting and a desire to do all of the writing work. Those writings became game canon.

As a player I like to write within whatever parameters the DM provides. It is up to the DM to accept or decline those stories as canon. Sometimes I roll dice just to see how things turn out. It adds a bit of zest but stays focused on the story.

[Leitz]

Thanks.

This example is clear, but I see it entirely in keeping with the rules. If a cleric violates their faith, they lose their clerical abilities, like Turn Undead. The DM is just referee-ing the written rules.

But in order for the dice to never direct the story, there must be other examples of overriding the dice that are outside the written rules.

Think about what you just wrote: where is the rule that a cleric loses their abilities if they violate their faith? Maybe I missed it. Think about the Paladin example, they lose if they violate their alignment, not their faith. Where do we have the entirety of moral codes? We have guidelines for alignment but there are lots of gray areas and circumstances to be taken into consideration. How many religions, game or actual, have everything written out? None is my guess, otherwise theologians would be out of a job.

"never" is a long time and "must" is a strong requirement. My confusion remains: when did I say dice never direct the story?

[Inferno]

Think about what you just wrote: where is the rule that a cleric loses their abilities if they violate their faith?

DMG p. 38. Unfaithful clerics can't access spells above 2nd level until they atone, is one example.

My confusion remains: when did I say dice never direct the story?

Here:

dice add to the game, they do not direct it.

If dice do not direct the game, it means they never direct the game. "It does not rain on the moon" means it never rains on the moon.

But we're devolving into semantics again. Let me try direct questions around a specific example:

I spend too much time building a character for a single dice roll to destroy hours of work.

So in this case, you're the player. Any fight can turn deadly if the die rolls are bad enough. How do you avoid the random effects of dice in combat on your PC?

And the second question is the same situation when you're the DM. Any fight can go sideways if the die rolls are bad enough. If the dice can't direct the story, how do you prevent a PC dying in combat before it suits your story?

Thanks.

[SterlingBlake]

There's an old quote about the difference between "story" and "plot", but those words are used differently that you and I are using them. Let me paraphrase the quote with your terms above, and then go from there.

"The king died. Then the queen died" is a pair of moves. "The king died, and then the queen died of a broken heart." is a story.

The relevant difference between a move action and a story action is that the story element reveals more about the character. The queen loved the king so much that his death killed her. We can relate to the queen because we have loved someone greatly. PCs in a game usually perform multiple moves that use dice for result resolution. The reason that PC chose that particular set of moves shows us something about the PC's motivations and beliefs. That's story.

That the queen died of a broken heart is not merely story if it's a fact of the setting (or of that character's rules if the queen is a PC rather than an NPC) that she could not go on without him. That's a move that doesn't require dice to resolve. The words she spoke as she died, the look on her face, that's nothing but story unless it's also conveying setting information. I suppose you could argue that conveying information about the queen, as those descriptions might, could be considered setting information too, and I'd go along with that. At my own table, that wouldn't get air time however if all it did was convey information about the now irretrievably dead queen.

But the story is shown in:
A thin, determined smile froze on Hemia's lips. Her eyes narrowed as she spied the dark priest trying to flee.

Why did Hemia have a determined smile? What about the dark priest triggered her? That's the story.

Hemia is at the precipice of complete failure, she is a cleric who has given into temptation and "sinned" according to her faith. The dark priest is a terrifying reflection of who she can become if she has strayed so far as to be unredeemable. Turning the zombies is a test of her faith; does her deity still love her enough to empower her? Or is she one step away from becoming the evil she is fighting? Many of us have failed to live up to our own expectations or we have hurt a dear friend greatly. The story is about redemption and forgiveness.

With your definitions of moves and story, I don't play games without story. For the most part I don't play games without moves, either, but dice add to the game, they do not direct it.

Hemia's face in your example is just story. This is probably an example of the format impacting how we proceed with the game. It might be quite dry in a post without that added color of your description, while at the table, that same description would be a distraction from the play at hand (at least at my table play-acting, funny voices, and so on are unwelcome; the player's own grim smile and narrowing eyes as he sympathizes with his character's position are perfectly welcome though).

There's another possibly telling item here, I think. You say the story is about redemption and forgiveness. That's only true if Hemia succeeds her roll to turn the zombies, right? What if she dies unforgiven? We don't know until the dice tell us in this combat situation. Unless we do know, and then I would argue it is only a story and not a game at all.

[Leitz]

Think about what you just wrote: where is the rule that a cleric loses their abilities if they violate their faith?

DMG p. 38. Unfaithful clerics can't access spells above 2nd level until they atone, is one example.

Excellent! I thought you were right, but read the PHB notes on the cleric and didn't find them. Since the Paladin was mentioned, I wasn't sure. However, this isn't within SterlingBlake's move concept, is it? The DM must make a subjective decision on the cleric's behavior based on the entire situation, except for the most egregious offenses.

My confusion remains: when did I say dice never direct the story?

Here:

dice add to the game, they do not direct it.

If dice do not direct the game, it means they never direct the game. "It does not rain on the moon" means it never rains on the moon.

Not really. "I don't eat processed sugar" doesn't mean I never eat the slightest bit of it. It means I lose out on almost every dessert at restaurants and family gatherings unless my wife makes something for me. It means I might use barbecue sauce even though it may contain trace amounts of processed sugar. It means I may eat something that I don't know has processed sugar.

But we're devolving into semantics again. Let me try direct questions around a specific example:

Actually, I feel you're intentionally ignoring or misrepresenting what I write. That's not "devolving". Or else we really have a different understanding of the English language. I've stumbled through conversations in Spanish, Italian, and German without as much difficulty in communicating as I have had with you.

I spend too much time building a character for a single dice roll to destroy hours of work.

So in this case, you're the player. Any fight can turn deadly if the die rolls are bad enough. How do you avoid the random effects of dice in combat on your PC?

Avoid fights that the character can't win. Avoid adventuring with groups that the character doesn't trust. Learn to accept that "some" may be sufficient for the day. Sometimes there are fights that my character would engage in that have very high risk. The motivation to engage is story, not move. The character may well die, and that's part of the story.

And the second question is the same situation when you're the DM. Any fight can go sideways if the die rolls are bad enough. If the dice can't direct the story, how do you prevent a PC dying in combat before it suits your story?

Combat can end without death. Maybe the PCs have the sense to run away or to not engage in the first place. If there's a monster or enemy group nearby then there will be evidence of such. Large groups make noise, many monsters smell, or the PC group might have been briefed on roving gangs in the area. Maybe the PCs are relieved of they gear and left for dead, or taken as prisoner. There are almost always options, the Japanese have a term used for survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Hibakusha (angelsized).

Thanks.

[Leitz]

Hemia's face in your example is just story. This is probably an example of the format impacting how we proceed with the game. It might be quite dry in a post without that added color of your description, while at the table, that same description would be a distraction from the play at hand (at least at my table play-acting, funny voices, and so on are unwelcome; the player's own grim smile and narrowing eyes as he sympathizes with his character's position are perfectly welcome though).

Very true! I haven't done face to face gaming for years. The player descriptions I've been referencing would likely be unwelcome around the table. DM's can get away with more since they have to set the mood and describe what the party sees.

There's another possibly telling item here, I think. You say the story is about redemption and forgiveness. That's only true if Hemia succeeds her roll to turn the zombies, right? What if she dies unforgiven? We don't know until the dice tell us in this combat situation. Unless we do know, and then I would argue it is only a story and not a game at all.

This story moment was about redemption and forgiveness because she succeeded. What if the roll had failed? It could be about forgiveness that she needs to seek, but that could be from her deity or from herself. Had she failed the story would have taken a different turn, and that's how dice add random direction to the game.

Inferno pointed out where the DMG says that clerics are subject to loss of spells and powers. Page 38 "If they have not been faithful to their teachings, followed the aims of their deity, contributed freely to the cause, and otherwise acted according to the tenets of their faith..." But there's no chart for that, is there? No dice roll either.? It is totally up to the DM to subjectively evaluate the actions and direct the story appropriately.

[Inferno]

"I don't eat processed sugar" doesn't mean I never eat the slightest bit of it.

Grammatically, that's exactly what it means!

"I don't use racial slurs" means I never use them, not I only use them 10% of the time.

I think this is the root of our communication problem. Which is actually good news!

It means I lose out on almost every dessert at restaurants and family gatherings unless my wife makes something for me. It means I might use barbecue sauce even though it may contain trace amounts of processed sugar. It means I may eat something that I don't know has processed sugar.

So you don't eat processed sugar except when you do eat processed sugar.

If that's your interpretation, then I guess you mean the dice don't direct the story except when they do direct the story.

And you work too hard on PC creation to allow the dice to kill your PCs... if you can help it.

I now understand your position. Thanks.

[Leitz]

"I don't eat processed sugar" doesn't mean I never eat the slightest bit of it.

Grammatically, that's exactly what it means!

"I don't use racial slurs" means I never use them, not I only use them 10% of the time.

I think this is the root of our communication problem. Which is actually good news!

It means I lose out on almost every dessert at restaurants and family gatherings unless my wife makes something for me. It means I might use barbecue sauce even though it may contain trace amounts of processed sugar. It means I may eat something that I don't know has processed sugar.

So you don't eat processed sugar except when you do eat processed sugar.

If that's your interpretation, then I guess you mean the dice don't direct the story except when they do direct the story.

I disagree with your grammar statement and think your use of a societally charged example a bit disingenuous, but perhaps we've gotten to the point where it might be good to "agree to disagree".

Let me rephrase; the dice influence the game and may include character death. But there is more to the game than just the dice rolls. I explained this in Post # 6.

And you work too hard on PC creation to allow the dice to kill your PCs... if you can help it.

I now understand your position. Thanks.

Emphasis on the above captures a lot of my intent, well said!

[SterlingBlake]

Think about what you just wrote: where is the rule that a cleric loses their abilities if they violate their faith?

DMG p. 38. Unfaithful clerics can't access spells above 2nd level until they atone, is one example.

Excellent! I thought you were right, but read the PHB notes on the cleric and didn't find them. Since the Paladin was mentioned, I wasn't sure. However, this isn't within SterlingBlake's move concept, is it? The DM must make a subjective decision on the cleric's behavior based on the entire situation, except for the most egregious offenses.

The rule that @Inferno is citing on p. 38 of the DMG says, "It is this background which enables the cleric character to use first level spells. Furthermore, continued service and activity on behalf of the player character's deity empower him or her to use second level spells as well, but thereafter another agency must be called upon. Cleric spells of third, fourth, and fifth level are obtained through the aid of supernatural servants of the cleric's deity. That is, through meditation and prayer, the cleric's needs are understood and the proper spells are given to him or her by the minions of the deity. Cleric spells of sixth and seventh level are granted by direct communication from the deity itself. There is no intermediary in this case, and the cleric has a direct channel to the deity, from whom he or she receives the special power to cast the given spells of these levels.

"If they have not been faithful to their teachings, followed the aims of their deity, contributed freely to the cause and otherwise acted according to the tenets of their faith, it becomes unlikely that they will receive intermediary aid unless they make proper atonement and sacrifice. There can be no question that such clerics must be absolutely exemplary in their activities, expressions, and attitudes if they dare to contact their deity directly!"

The cleric violating his faith should definitely be considered a move if it has game mechanic consequences. Like so much of AD&D, the rule, as represented in print, is insufficiently defined to prevent it from ending up as a negotiation or DM fiat. This is the kind of rule that needs to be explicitly either dropped or refined before it comes into play at my table. A player should firmly understand the tradeoff he's making for his character before having the character violate the faith, and know where the line is between violating and not violating it; at least know well enough to roughly estimate the risk that an action could be a violation.

[SterlingBlake]

There's another possibly telling item here, I think. You say the story is about redemption and forgiveness. That's only true if Hemia succeeds her roll to turn the zombies, right? What if she dies unforgiven? We don't know until the dice tell us in this combat situation. Unless we do know, and then I would argue it is only a story and not a game at all.

This story moment was about redemption and forgiveness because she succeeded. What if the roll had failed? It could be about forgiveness that she needs to seek, but that could be from her deity or from herself. Had she failed the story would have taken a different turn, and that's how dice add random direction to the game.

This story happened after the game then. It's how the results were interpreted, not the play of the game when it was still transpiring and uncertain. It might have been a story about something else entirely in the end. But still only a story in the end, not as it happened. As it happened it was events to which we have not yet ascribed meaning.

Inferno pointed out where the DMG says that clerics are subject to loss of spells and powers. Page 38 "If they have not been faithful to their teachings, followed the aims of their deity, contributed freely to the cause, and otherwise acted according to the tenets of their faith..." But there's no chart for that, is there? No dice roll either.? It is totally up to the DM to subjectively evaluate the actions and direct the story appropriately.

Sorry I replied to your earlier statement about this before seeing this more recent one. To emphasize the point I meant to make there though in light of your characterization of the rule here, I completely disagree it's up to the DM to "subjectively evaluate the actions and direct the story appropriately." In my estimation, it's up to the DM to objectively evaluate the situation and evaluate the action's effect on the setting appropriately. This might be hair-splitting, but it's an important distinction for me. For me, the first way sounds like the DM telling a story and the second way sounds like playing a refereed game.

[Inferno]

your use of a societally charged example a bit disingenuous

In my defense, I tried "raining on the moon" first and it just bounced off.

Let me rephrase; the dice influence the game and may include character death. But there is more to the game than just the dice rolls. I explained this in Post # 6.

Post 6 doesn't say the dice influence the game and may include character death. But that you're saying it now clears up a lot and makes your approach more of a game. Thanks!

[Leitz]

SterlingBlake, have you seen my post on gaming like a wargamer?

[SterlingBlake]

SterlingBlake, have you seen my post on gaming like a wargamer?

I had not, but read it just now. That is how I like to play as well, and when playing AD&D usually choose a fighter or cleric and put my best roll on charisma for exactly the reason you did, especially thinking ahead to making name level, and domain play.

If you're relating this to the discussion about story versus game though, I need a little help to make the connection.