PDA

View Full Version : Game vs. Virtual Reality



Gamer Girl
2012-03-22, 01:20 PM
I have always though of role-playing games as more 'virtual reality simulators' then 'just games'. The fun for me is interacting with a whole, virtual world. Yet, a lot of gamers are stuck on the 'it's just a game' thing. A lot of players get stuck in this loop:They think RPGs are 'just games', so they play them like 'just games and have 'just a little' fun, then complain that they don't like RPGs all that much. But try as you might, you can't break the loop.

Take for example my simple 1st level D&D adventure from last week. It was simple enough: deliver a box from wizard A to wizard B, with some goblin bandits, two apprentices, a talking cat, and so forth thrown in. The game moves along until it get 'late' in game time and the characters get to a small village. Naturally this is planed as the village has a couple clues, items and such for the characters.

Unfortunately, the were 'game players' : Players:Bing!, village does not compute! We ignore it and continue to destination town! Bing! Boop! I try to say ''well you have been walking all day and need to rest and eat''. They respond with "Bing! Rest is irrelevant! Food is irrelevant! We must continue the quest!

So the game just kinda broke down here. They simply wanted to 'walk' to town B and deliver the box. They made it seem very boring. Like they did not even want to play the game much. Like there idea of a 'great game' would be them saying 'we walk the four days and delver the box' and then high five.

Now, staying on track is one thing, but ignoring the world is another. Worse they got into the whole 'well we kinda don't need to rest or eat as that is not in the rules'. This kinda boggles my mind. Sure page 60 does not say 'you must eat 1 food item per day' or something....but your not some kind of immortal.

The problem comes down to this: In order to play a role-playing game.....you need to role-play a bit. You need to do things like 'stop and have a drink at a tavern' or 'stop and make a campfire'. This kind of stuff adds to the story and allows for plot development. For example a person coming up to you in the tavern or your campfire. But the players have to do the set up first. They need to give the opening. Yet some players don't get that.

Anyone else encounter this?

Grinner
2012-03-22, 01:35 PM
You could have imposed fatigue on their characters. In fact, I think that's a rule...?

Mastikator
2012-03-22, 02:17 PM
New rule. The only source of experience points is roleplaying.

Or maybe try some free form to educate them on the delights of roleplay. Without an actual game to get in the way of roleplaying, as it clearly is for them, they'll have no choice but to roleplay, as there is nothing else to do.

Or just give up on them.

My 2 copper pieces.

tedthehunter
2012-03-22, 02:26 PM
New rule. The only source of experience points is roleplaying.

This. A thousand times this. They'll take the hint real quick, and at first, it might seem like they're only doing it for the XP, but most players eventually fall in love with roleplaying to some degree.

Also, I would suggest not giving them a particular goal, like a quest or anything like that. Sandbox games can be a lot of fun, and the players will be forced to think of how their characters would react to the world around them, rather than just doing what the quest giver asked them to.

MY two copper pieces. :smallsmile:

Rorrik
2012-03-22, 08:22 PM
I've got a couple players who tend to just follow the other people around until a battle comes up, like the whole point of the game is to find battles. This time around we're playing a PbP high RP game, though, and since the combat is so tedious and rare, one of them has begun to roleplay significantly. The other just posts rarely when not directly questioned or thrown into battle and has fallen behind in xp, waiting for the next battle to finally level up. Should take a page from Belkar's book. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html)

This is tough, but at least most of the players I've played with can be molded to try roleplaying, and they tend to enjoy it.

Raum
2012-03-22, 08:53 PM
I have always though of role-playing games as more 'virtual reality simulators' then 'just games'. The fun for me is interacting with a whole, virtual world. Yet, a lot of gamers are stuck on the 'it's just a game' thing. A lot of players get stuck in this loop:They think RPGs are 'just games', so they play them like 'just games and have 'just a little' fun, then complain that they don't like RPGs all that much. But try as you might, you can't break the loop.Ya know, I'd agree whole heartedly with your post...except for this paragraph.

It is a game. It has all the baggage of a game, both good and bad. ;) What the game is "about" depends on the mechanics - largely on the rewards system. D&D rewards killing things and taking their stuff, Wushu rewards story details, FATE rewards creativity and taking "damage", Shadowrun rewards mission completion, etc. Yes, I'm simplifying but it doesn't surprise me to see near pathological focus on the parts of a game which provide a 'reward'. Maybe even completely pathological focus in some cases. :smalleek:


Take for example my simple 1st level D&D adventure from last week. It was simple enough...<snip>This appears to be a case in point - they focused solely on the actions with a overt reward and avoided all side tracks. That sum it up?


The problem comes down to this: In order to play a role-playing game.....you need to role-play a bit. You need to do things like 'stop and have a drink at a tavern' or 'stop and make a campfire'. This kind of stuff adds to the story and allows for plot development. For example a person coming up to you in the tavern or your campfire. But the players have to do the set up first. They need to give the opening. Yet some players don't get that.Whether role play is a requirement or not I can't say - but it certainly helps make things easier on the GM. One of my 'goto' systems specifically rewards players for participating in the narrative building process. Some of the subsystems are built almost entirely around player scene building. Needless to say, you get a lot of player participation as they figure this out. They follow the rewards.

It makes sense - working against a system is usually difficult and often adversely affects the fun of everyone involved. Working with the system is easy and moves you directly towards the mechanical rewards. The only solution I've found is to find or create system mechanics to reward what you enjoy in a game.

valadil
2012-03-23, 08:32 AM
I don't know what system you're using but I'll pretend it's D&D for simplicity's sake.

There's no right way to play D&D. You can have 5 people at a table all playing a game with the same name and same rules, but entirely different games. When you invite someone to a D&D game, they approach it with whatever mindset they had in their previous games. For some this means exploring a character. For others it's exploring a dungeon. Neither is more correct than the other.

But because both games have the D&D name, people have trouble realizing there are different kinds of D&D. And even if they do, it's not always something they talk about. I may tell people I want to run a story heavy D&D game, but someone who has only seen dungeon crawl D&D may not understand that they have a preference that's a subset of D&D.

Anyway it's important to understand the expectations of both the players and the GM. Ideally you should find players with similar expectations, but that's not always an option if you're trying to game with your friends instead of strangers. Fixing your problem either means offering them a game they want to play or convincing them to give your way a try. If they're not okay with a game about acting as a person in a fantasy world, instead of playing a quest completing machine, well, that's their choice and you shouldn't force them.

For me, the main appeal of RPGs isn't so much exploring a new world as it is playing in a world that can react to me. When I play a computer game I can only deviate so far from whatever the game writers prepared for. I can happily jump through hoops and pick one of four dialog choices. But when I play an RPG, I want to explore those things that no writer could have planned. I'll always opt to write my own dialog instead of playing multiple choice. Maybe you can appeal to your players on these grounds?

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-23, 08:49 AM
I have always though of role-playing games as more 'virtual reality simulators' then 'just games'. The fun for me is interacting with a whole, virtual world. Yet, a lot of gamers are stuck on the 'it's just a game' thing. A lot of players get stuck in this loop:They think RPGs are 'just games', so they play them like 'just games and have 'just a little' fun, then complain that they don't like RPGs all that much. But try as you might, you can't break the loop.
Do they not like RPGs much, or just the RPGs you run?

I don't mean to sound accusative but what you've described is a classic mismatch of expectations. The Players are expecting a game -- you've given them an objective and they need to overcome challenges to complete that objective. You're trying to tell a story -- the characters are in a world and need to interact with it to develop a larger plot. You get frustrated because they don't stop their mission to visit a town and they get frustrated because nothing is happening in regards to their mission. Nobody is happy.

One of Oracle_Hunter's Maxims of RPGs is Always Run the Game Your Players Want, But Only With Players You Can Stand: you'll never convince a hack 'n slash Player that it is fun to spend all session having tea with a duchess; nor will the Thespian suddenly become enamored by troll killing. There are ways to fix the above problem, but it requires communication with your Players and compromise.

* * *

As an aside, RPGs are Roleplaying Games for a reason. You don't need rulebooks and dice to "explore a virtual world" -- that's called playing pretend and even children can do that. "RPGs" which do nothing but attempt to simulate a virtual world are usually too fiddly to use out of the box and rarely make for entertaining gameplay. Instead of learning a twenty-page subsystem for scavenging in the wild it would probably be better to have just described those hardships and move on to something more interesting.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-23, 03:16 PM
I get the vibe you're coming from. "It's just a game" is the biggest excuse I hear from folks trying to justify bad mechanics or sloppy storytelling. Yes, it's just a game, but that doesn't mean it can't be a good game, nor does that mean we shouldn't try to improve the quality of the games we play.

But -- and I admit that I don't know you or your group -- I suspect this is less about the game you're playing and more about the people you're playing with. And you, since you are also playing.

Oracle_Hunter has the right of it, I think, with the mismatch of expectations. Your players have accepted that their objective is to deliver a box, and they're not going to let anything stand in their way. They have a clear goal, a clear means to get there, and no obstacles in their way. And like Raum said, they believe a reward awaits them upon delivery, whereas they receive no reward for hanging out in Random Village #387. If they can keep going, why should they stop?

You, a least from the information presented, have created a village at which the players must stop (in fact, their refusal to stop dissolved your game), but you have given the players no real incentive to stop at this particular village. I mean, sure, you think they're tired, but... do they? You've created this secret need to stop at an otherwise random location for no discernible reason, otherwise the game does not move forward. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615) You've gotta give the players a reason to want to stop besides "suddenly, you are tired!" Some folks don't subscribe to such silly concerns.

My family used to make these epic cross-country trips. We would not stop. We would not rest. We got in the car and we would drive.

If you want the players to stop in the village, you need to give them a reason. Maybe there's a storm, and the downpour has made the ford too dangerous to cross. Boom, the PC's take shelter in the village, which happens to be the only shelter for miles. Maybe you take Scotchland's advice and start using fatigue to simulate the need for players to rest. Players will damn sure get the idea that sleep is good when it imposes penalties to their combat skills.

Talk to your players. Ask them what kind of game they want to play in. Talk to them about what kind of game you want to play in. Maybe there's overlap. Explore those areas.

If you really think it's the game and not the people around the game, then look for a system which rewards the kind of behavior you want. Exalted gives players bonus dice on actions which they roleplay out or describe well. If you want more roleplaying, look up a system that encourages it and actively rewards it. All it takes is one fight where member of the party roleplays his way to victory for everyone else to get the idea.

--

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not blaming you, nor am I saying that this is All Your Fault. I'm just pointing out that this could very much be a simple matter of needing to communicate with one another about what you want out of a system and how to best go about getting it.

endoperez
2012-03-24, 02:32 AM
As others have said, a mismatch of expectations might be the cause.

There are concepts about what people enjoy about games. Obviously they're not perfect, but they can be useful. One of these concepts is mimicry (http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/01/the_imagination.html): simulation, role-playing, imagination-based play. Another is Agon (http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/03/the_challenge_o.html), competition (winning over enemies in various ways) and Alea (http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2005/11/the_rituals_of_.html), luck, which is the reason dice-based mechanics are so common in RPGs.

The articles I linked to are all rather long, but they might offer some insight into why some people prefer different game experiences in role-playing games.

WitchSlayer
2012-03-24, 04:55 AM
Not really, the game I'm currently running is set in the Game of Thrones universe, and none of my players have really read much of the books. So I tell them about all these interesting places they might've heard of and they kind of willingly let themselves absorb the culture, drink drinks and not really fight all that much.

Except barfights.

They start a lot of barfights.

Morph Bark
2012-03-24, 05:32 AM
The problem here is not their "just a game" view, it's that they their concept of game apparently does not involve any roleplaying at all. I myself see it as both a virtual simulation of sorts and "just a game" at the same time. 'snot impossible.

Jay R
2012-03-24, 10:26 AM
New rule. The only source of experience points is roleplaying..

I don't recommend this. The only thing worse than a session with no role-playing is a session in which people are role-playing only to troll for xps. I am reminded of "DM of the Rings", when the DM tries to force them to role-play, so Legolas says, "Hark! Thy fate sucketh."

The problem in this case has nothing to do with roleplaying vs. game mentality. The party correctly deduced that the biggest threats to this mission were in the village. Decent role-players would of course avoid any threats that aren't likely to produce any in-game value., because competent adventurers avoid any traps they can. You don't by choice walk through the quicksand swamp, the lava pit, or crowds of strangers while carrying an important item.

If you need them to go to the village, it's your job to get them there. Finding a five-year-old with a broken leg in the woods might do it. If necessary, throw in some wolf howls.

Or plan ahead, and have wizard A ask them to pick a package up in the village on their way.

Tactical gamers and roleplayers alike avoid sidequests whenever possible.

The party's job is to accomplish its mission. It is the DM's job to get them anywhere else.

Talakeal
2012-03-25, 02:09 PM
Tactical gamers and roleplayers alike avoid sidequests whenever possible.


Not sure I agree with that. Life is about the journeys, not the destinations, and if you don't stop to embrace opportunities for new experiences along the way you will never grow as a person, and you will miss out on lots of optional loot and XPs.

Slipperychicken
2012-03-25, 06:39 PM
Not sure I agree with that. Life is about the journeys, not the destinations, and if you don't stop to embrace opportunities for new experiences along the way you will never grow as a person, and you will miss out on lots of optional loot and XPs.

Basically, avoiding sidequests prevents this situation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbUqEPUZ-ds). I agree with you about the life-is-about-journeys thing, but most of the time, adventurers are on a tight schedule. It makes no RP sense to **** around while everything you ever loved hangs in the balance. Of course, not all adventures are so fast-paced, and sometimes sidequesting can make sense (suppose you have X days/weeks to gather strength and tie loose ends before the climactic battle). But, in my experience with rpgs, it's usually a better IC decision to get the main quest done ASAP.

Jay R
2012-03-26, 06:23 AM
Not sure I agree with that. Life is about the journeys, not the destinations, and if you don't stop to embrace opportunities for new experiences along the way you will never grow as a person, and you will miss out on lots of optional loot and XPs.

First of all, my experience is that the DM will put enough problems in my path; I don't need to seek out more of them.

Secondly, priorities exist for a reason. As the philosopher put it, "Now can we PLEASE resume saving the world? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html)"

Finally, taking a sidequest on purpose reminds of the old singing cowboy movies.

"The bandits are getting away, and they have Dale hostage! We have to go after them....

"But first, I'll sing you a little song."

valadil
2012-03-26, 08:41 AM
This whole sidequest is at best tangential to the rest of the thread, but seeing as I'm in no great hurry to preserve the original topic, let's go for it.

I think the sidequest while you're pressed for time is something that appeals in more of a superhero setting than an adventurer based one, especially with gritty shades of gray being so popular in gaming these days. If you had one day to save the world and a plot came up involving the rescue of a missing orphan, Superman would not stop to consider the outcomes. He'd try to have it all and handle both plots. If Superman saved the world, but left the orphan to die, he couldn't sleep at night.

I don't think that's true of adventurers. At least not the ones I play with. The gamers I've dealt with lately seem attracted to making hard decisions. They'll gladly say that the life of one orphan is worth saving the world and skip the sidequest (unless you somehow hint that the orphan may provide an advantage in the main quest, but that's another matter.)

Anyway I think this type of sidequest is useful in confronting the group's morality. Even if they decline, you learn something about the group. I like to offer up sidequests as a kind of morality limbo stick. Offer up some quests and see how low the group is willing to go to get things done. I also find that the best roleplaying comes when I find the height where only some of the group is willing to go for it.

Finally, when I present quests to the players I don't communicate if a quest is main or side. Quests are quests. If the players take interest in a quest, it becomes the main quest. Even if the picked something that's short and quickly resolved, I'm a decent enough plot writer that I can graft more on top of it. I point this out because it helps get the players invested in your quests. They end up playing the game with the main quest that they care most about.

Snowbluff
2012-03-26, 09:48 AM
Secondly, priorities exist for a reason. As the philosopher put it, "Now can we PLEASE resume saving the world? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html)"



Vaarsuvius is best Ordermember. :smallbiggrin:

Talakeal
2012-03-26, 01:17 PM
Well, for RP purposes I think whether or not you take up side quests depends on the urgency of the mission. Obviously you don't dally when a maiden is about to be eaten by a dragon or the evil cultist is going to end the world with a dark ritual. In the case we are discussing, however, the PCs are little more than couriers, and the side quest might well be more important than the main plot (which I believe is what the DM intended).

From a tactical standpoint, unless you think you won't be able to complete the primary mission because of resource expenditure (something most modern games don't allow for) taking side missions is, imo, one of the fastest ways to rack up XP and loot.

Vitruviansquid
2012-03-26, 07:37 PM
I don't understand why you didn't just invent mechanical penalties for being hungry and sleep-deprived. The thing about role-playing games is that they're both role playing and games, so each part supports and supplements the other. Things that happen during role playing should impact things that happen in the game portion, and things in the game portion obviously impact role playing.

Milo v3
2012-03-26, 07:46 PM
Tell your players that it isn't a video game. My players are all gamers and they are always roleplaying so being a gamer isn't the factor.

You need to tell them that their characters are people. The village is a real place for these people. XP isn't real for these people.

Also in the rules it does say you need to eat, sleep, drink and breathe. Their is dehydration rules, I've seen starvation rules in DMG somewhere I think. And if your playing a humanoid then according to Monster Mannual and SRD:


Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-26, 09:02 PM
In the case we are discussing, however, the PCs are little more than couriers, and the side quest might well be more important than the main plot (which I believe is what the DM intended).

When I hire you to make a delivery, you damn well make that delivery.

Claiming that you were delayed by "confirming the presence or absence of potential alternate forms of employment and/or enjoyment in a location unrelated to the task for which compensation had previously been promised in exchange for completion" is not a valid reason for why my delivery is late.

I mean, yeah, I get the whole vibe of giving the party a small hook to draw them onto the larger hook. There's some good mileage you can get out of that. But a deal's a deal, and it's not crazy for a party to avoid abandoning its contracts just to go exploring on the off chance that this random village as opposed to that random village happens to hold a plot unrelated to the one you're already on. Some folks want to be seen as reliable, or they want to do the job and they want to get paid. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU7f3TiRRDw)

In Shadowrun, a team which doesn't get the job done rapidly finds itself short on jobs.

valadil
2012-03-26, 09:31 PM
Claiming that you were delayed by "confirming the presence or absence of potential alternate forms of employment and/or enjoyment in a location unrelated to the task for which compensation had previously been promised in exchange for completion" is not a valid reason for why my delivery is late.


Yes, but the couriers are going to stop for the night. If possible they'll probably stay at an inn. You might make a case for them traveling by night if the delivery is time sensitive, but going out at night might be dangerous and thus irresponsible.

The OP wasn't talking about the players picking up quests. She was talking about PCs not behaving like people because the players wanted to get the quest done immediately. The PCs should be hanging out in the bar and chatting up the locals. Deciding that the characters go to bed and hit the road at dawn doesn't actually deliver the package any quicker in game time and has no effect on their performance. It only gets the quest completed more quickly outside of game, so that the players can level up after 3 sessions instead of 4.

Totally Guy
2012-03-27, 04:45 AM
I make sure to ask questions to the players that both highlight the risk and the necessity to take action.

"How will you avoid becoming fatigued on this trek?"

The players will then describe some course of action and I as the GM use that action to engage the system.

"We set up camp" - dice are rolled. The system was engaged.
"We push onward regardless" - Then you become fatigued on the trek. The system was engaged.
"Our sheer mettle sustains us" - dice are rolled. The system was engaged.
"We visit the inn" - money gets spent. The system was engaged.

Lhurgyof
2012-03-27, 11:34 AM
I make sure to ask questions to the players that both highlight the risk and the necessity to take action.

"How will you avoid becoming fatigued on this trek?"

The players will then describe some course of action and I as the GM use that action to engage the system.

"We set up camp" - dice are rolled. The system was engaged.
"We push onward regardless" - Then you become fatigued on the trek. The system was engaged.
"Our sheer mettle sustains us" - dice are rolled. The system was engaged.
"We visit the inn" - money gets spent. The system was engaged.

I like this suggestion. You can accomplish a lot with a little coaxing, and it's much less extreme than say removing all XP from battles and forcing them to roleplay.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-27, 12:26 PM
Yes, but the couriers are going to stop for the night. If possible they'll probably stay at an inn. You might make a case for them traveling by night if the delivery is time sensitive, but going out at night might be dangerous and thus irresponsible.

*shrug* Clearly, the players felt like they had no incentive to stop. Alternatively, they felt like they had an incentive to keep going. As I know several folks in real life who behave this way, I do not find it particularly "gamey" for folks to behave this way in a game. Heck, I'd argue that the mindset of "hey, look, a village, I'll bet they have quests there! I should drop what I'm doing and talk to everyone" is even more of a "gamey" attitude.

--Note: "Gamey" in this context is being used to describe the video-game mentality derided by the OP--

Giving players incentive is not hard.


The OP wasn't talking about the players picking up quests. She was talking about PCs not behaving like people because the players wanted to get the quest done immediately. The PCs should be hanging out in the bar and chatting up the locals. Deciding that the characters go to bed and hit the road at dawn doesn't actually deliver the package any quicker in game time and has no effect on their performance. It only gets the quest completed more quickly outside of game, so that the players can level up after 3 sessions instead of 4.

...why should the PCs be hanging out in the bar and chatting up the locals? What if the adventurers want to adventure?

Look, we happen to know that the DM had a secret plan to dump a plot on the party in this random town, so it's easy to criticize the players for making the "wrong" decision. But we could just as easily be reading a slightly different thread where the DM complains that every time they make a plot, the players immediately ignore it in favor of talking to random NPCs who have nothing to do with anything, investigating every two-bit back alley, and generally insisting on ignoring the story in the hopes of finding a different story stealthily hiding where no story appears to be.

The funny thing is, those are both the same thread, because in both cases it's a disconnect between the motivations of the players and the incentives provided by the DM. What are the players looking for, what are their characters looking for, and how the DM uses that to encourage them to progress the plot -- those are the key questions when "the PCs are doing something unexpected!" comes up.

Here, for example, what incentives do the characters have to stop vs. what incentives do the characters have to keep going?

From what we've been given, the DM was relying entirely on "you are suddenly tired and hungry" as a motivation for the players to stop. Food is a "bad" incentive, since that matters more to some people than to others. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDWR-dOjDA0)

And if all else fails, Totally Guy is correct:


I make sure to ask questions to the players that both highlight the risk and the necessity to take action.

(emphasis mine)

As the DM, you can totally remind players how the world works. You can let them make decisions while reminding them that decisions have consequences.

The best DM's never quite say no...

Ironvyper
2012-03-27, 10:43 PM
assuming that this is actually a player problem and they just are used to a style of gaming with little RP you could just change the mechanism of quests where a little RP is neccesary to expose them to it.

For instance next time instead of taking object A to person B in town C give them object A and tell them they must deliver it to person B WHO WAS LAST SEEN HEADING WEST SEARCHING FOR CLUES TO AN ANCIENT TREASURE.

Bam job done. Now the players clearly must investigate towns along the way and talk to people.

If they foolishly think they can just ride west real fast to find him remind them that he was looking clues. One of those clues may very well have led him in a different direction and they could ride west until they circle the whole damn globe and not find him.

Then you have at least exposed them to it and you can see if any of them take to the idea of more RP in a game.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-27, 11:13 PM
Dude, that's a really elegant solution. Nice!