And sleep...
Well I had a mixed weekend. Saturday was the Magic prerelease for their new creature block Lorwyn. I built one good deck that won all my friendlies but lost all the matches in the competition (but, thanks to a bye, I still got a booster). In my second booster I effectively open two Wrath of Gods (mass creature destruction). Considering that in all my time buying Magic I have only ever naturally acquired (i.e. from a booster pack) any of the Wrath-variants, I was incredibly chuffed to get two of them. However, I couldn't stop myself shouting about it so everyone came prepared. I lost with that deck too!
Then Sunday I ran a Lawful Evil game for D&D.
This was an attempt to get our playgroup back together, but if anything it drew us further apart (I should note that two of the four players were quite happy with the story and how it was run). Stripping off frustration and other bad feelings that arose, it boiled down to play styles. I like a) to customise rules so they help tell the story I want to tell and b) to improvise with the rules in circumstances where the exact rules are not important. The two unhappy players would, at least in D&D, like the rules to follow exactly what it is in the book (and became increasingly distressed at each observed rules violation). I ought to expand on (a) and (b) above:-
Most of the games I have run are from White Wolf, and I often replace or clarify skills which I think are unclear or inappropriate; the actual mechanics of the White Wolf systems pretty much set the ST as arbitrator of mechanics and rules, so fit my style of Storytelling. For this D&D game, I brought wealth down to a more consistent level (for instance, the reward for the adventure was 2GP each, while a suit of armour might cost 80GP), which intrinsically made magical items rarer (+1 weapons are very rare; only potions are seen with any great regularity). This raised a few eyebrows but they largely coped. I also wanted to do something interesting with clerics, to give them a more flexible alternative to fixed Turning and Bonus Domain Spells based on how fervently they worship their god, but that never got out of the gates. As a side effect (deliberate, it has to be said), certain strong spells with expensive spell components became an academic exercise (e.g. Identify and, more relevantly, Animate Dead); while I allowed the Cultist of Nerull a limited version of this spell, it did stop the random hordes of zombies roaming the countryside just because he could cast Animate Dead.
The improvised rules caused more problems. Most - at least 90% - of the game worked off the printed mechanics. However, spells that didn't work as the players in question expected didn't just confuse them but upset them, while there were other rules deviations (mainly in combat, clearly) that caused them similar grief. I will also point to the occasions where I did not fully play out combat (or rather, I made assumptions about certain rolls to speed the game along). I have found before that players like to play out combat even when the result is guaranteed, but in this case I hoped (or rather assumed) that the plethora of fully rolled combat was enough to satisfy everyone. Compared to the rules violations, this was a relatively minor point but one I will try to remember.
I will state firmly that I have no problems with players who know the rules back-to-front. If anything, this is an aid to the ST because they can consult these knowledgeable players for rules questions. Where my objections fall is when they expect everything to fall within the rules. There are several reasons for this (that I can articulate):
a) I don't want to have to consult the rulebook for everything while the game is in mid-session. At the very least, it interrupts the flow of the game.
b) I like having flexibility, both in favour of a player with a bright idea and being able to resolve a situation with common sense (rolling dice or not).
c) I like to keep the PCs on their toes. NPCs should be able to surprise the PCs - their true capabilities should be a mystery to the PCs, even if they are just exaggerations or variations on the standard.
d) As a corollary to the last point, playing rigidly by the rules benefits those players who know the rules well, as indeed was demonstrated in the game on Sunday. Such players get creative by using stuff in the rulebook. Other players get creative using stuff in their heads. I know which I find more fun.
Unfortunately, I suspect that my approach is rarer than my friends' which only makes me more sad. It is not helped by computer "roleplaying" games (including MMORPs) where, of course, the rules ARE rigidly enforced and where often it becomes a numbers game. However, the difference in approaches means that I will not run any more games for those two players - the clash of styles is just too painful. Whether we can play together under a different ST remains to be seen.
Interestingly, the other two players (who didn't know the rules nearly as well) had a much greater understanding of what was going on and had little difficulty working out WHY the NPCs behaved as they did while those focussed on the rules just made incredulous comments.
On a personal level, the most galling part of the weekend was how much time and effort I put into writing the background and memorising as much as I could of that and the printed material on the area, only for it to be used in one session of mixed accomplishments. The best part was the 10+ hours of sleep last night.
Then Sunday I ran a Lawful Evil game for D&D.
This was an attempt to get our playgroup back together, but if anything it drew us further apart (I should note that two of the four players were quite happy with the story and how it was run). Stripping off frustration and other bad feelings that arose, it boiled down to play styles. I like a) to customise rules so they help tell the story I want to tell and b) to improvise with the rules in circumstances where the exact rules are not important. The two unhappy players would, at least in D&D, like the rules to follow exactly what it is in the book (and became increasingly distressed at each observed rules violation). I ought to expand on (a) and (b) above:-
Most of the games I have run are from White Wolf, and I often replace or clarify skills which I think are unclear or inappropriate; the actual mechanics of the White Wolf systems pretty much set the ST as arbitrator of mechanics and rules, so fit my style of Storytelling. For this D&D game, I brought wealth down to a more consistent level (for instance, the reward for the adventure was 2GP each, while a suit of armour might cost 80GP), which intrinsically made magical items rarer (+1 weapons are very rare; only potions are seen with any great regularity). This raised a few eyebrows but they largely coped. I also wanted to do something interesting with clerics, to give them a more flexible alternative to fixed Turning and Bonus Domain Spells based on how fervently they worship their god, but that never got out of the gates. As a side effect (deliberate, it has to be said), certain strong spells with expensive spell components became an academic exercise (e.g. Identify and, more relevantly, Animate Dead); while I allowed the Cultist of Nerull a limited version of this spell, it did stop the random hordes of zombies roaming the countryside just because he could cast Animate Dead.
The improvised rules caused more problems. Most - at least 90% - of the game worked off the printed mechanics. However, spells that didn't work as the players in question expected didn't just confuse them but upset them, while there were other rules deviations (mainly in combat, clearly) that caused them similar grief. I will also point to the occasions where I did not fully play out combat (or rather, I made assumptions about certain rolls to speed the game along). I have found before that players like to play out combat even when the result is guaranteed, but in this case I hoped (or rather assumed) that the plethora of fully rolled combat was enough to satisfy everyone. Compared to the rules violations, this was a relatively minor point but one I will try to remember.
I will state firmly that I have no problems with players who know the rules back-to-front. If anything, this is an aid to the ST because they can consult these knowledgeable players for rules questions. Where my objections fall is when they expect everything to fall within the rules. There are several reasons for this (that I can articulate):
a) I don't want to have to consult the rulebook for everything while the game is in mid-session. At the very least, it interrupts the flow of the game.
b) I like having flexibility, both in favour of a player with a bright idea and being able to resolve a situation with common sense (rolling dice or not).
c) I like to keep the PCs on their toes. NPCs should be able to surprise the PCs - their true capabilities should be a mystery to the PCs, even if they are just exaggerations or variations on the standard.
d) As a corollary to the last point, playing rigidly by the rules benefits those players who know the rules well, as indeed was demonstrated in the game on Sunday. Such players get creative by using stuff in the rulebook. Other players get creative using stuff in their heads. I know which I find more fun.
Unfortunately, I suspect that my approach is rarer than my friends' which only makes me more sad. It is not helped by computer "roleplaying" games (including MMORPs) where, of course, the rules ARE rigidly enforced and where often it becomes a numbers game. However, the difference in approaches means that I will not run any more games for those two players - the clash of styles is just too painful. Whether we can play together under a different ST remains to be seen.
Interestingly, the other two players (who didn't know the rules nearly as well) had a much greater understanding of what was going on and had little difficulty working out WHY the NPCs behaved as they did while those focussed on the rules just made incredulous comments.
On a personal level, the most galling part of the weekend was how much time and effort I put into writing the background and memorising as much as I could of that and the printed material on the area, only for it to be used in one session of mixed accomplishments. The best part was the 10+ hours of sleep last night.