when good campaigns go bad

[MrBrown]

You can't really help it if you use the alignment system from the DnD rules.  I mean, most of these settings have gods.  Part of the balance of the Paladin class is that they have a code.  Morality is part of the game.

 

I don't like to lean on characters, but it falls on me to play the role of their deity.  That means I must make moral judgements regarding their in-game actions.

 

The Paladin has no inherent benefit (by the rules anyway, dunno about your houserules), so why would you need to watch over it?

 

And no, you really don't need to judge player's alignment through their actions, because in 3ed D&D, there really isn't any inherent benefit in having one alignment over the other (unless you put one there, of course).

 

I'm too bored to go over this since I've just done it on the official d& forums (last posts on the thread): http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=628618&page=2 I can give further opinions on it though, if anyone's interested.

 

 

And finally, alignment is "staying in character". It won't bring about moral decisions, or even drama.

 

 

However, trying to guide the players is not entirely out of the question.  The carrot/stick method that MrBrown described isn't my style.

 

It's hardly a carrot/stick method. Obviously, it comes with assumption that any spiritual attributes the players assign to their characters will come into play, AND that the players themselves want it to happen.

 

Like I said before, world simulation doesn't bring about drama (or moral decisions).

[Blank]

I kind of like Mr. Brown's presentation of the 4 trait system. It seems like there would be more RPing. However, Eldar's campaign now seems great to me. I look forward to the next session.

[MrBrown]

I have two sort of modes for GM'ing that usually go wrong

• I have a very detailed plot prepared = the players take an unexpected turn and I find myself throwing them in hours worth of random combat to get the time to think up with something decent but I fail and I need to end the session early to re-plan.
   
   
  
• I have a fairly plotless, non-linear, player-driven scenario prepared = the players sit on their asses and wait for the story to start.
  

Its hard to be a GM 

 

These are really problems of bad (or inexperienced) GMs.

 

The only things you need to do is discuss PC agenda before play, or provide it if the players do not want to co-create it, and get the players to agree to have the PCs pursue that agenda.

 

Then the GM just needs to provide the adversary and their actions.

[Cantousent]

I see what you're saying, MrBrown. I continue to disagree.

 

You know, I generally try not to worry over alignment in games, but it is a hefty part of the system. We can argue for or against absolutes, but spells like "detect evil" put paid to the idea that we can simply say "ah, it's not our job to keep track of the character's morals." When the spell states, "f you are the of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends."

 

If we just say that a character has a "good alignment," then we should sure as hell have some standard to understand what that "good alignment" means.

 

How about the statement:

 

"[t]he Paladin has no inherent benefit (by the rules anyway, dunno about your houserules), so why would you need to watch over it?

 

And no, you really don't need to judge player's alignment through their actions, because in 3ed D&D, there really isn't any inherent benefit in having one alignment over the other (unless you put one there, of course)."

 

What a ridiculous statement. The very definition of the paladin states "[a] paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act."

 

That means, regardless of your arguments to the contrary, that the "someone" must decide what constitutes an "evil" act. I guess we could decide it by committee, but it's probably best to have someone provide the final word. I think you must have misunderstood my statement. The paladin is balanced because the ruleset forces an alignment on him. He does not gain benefits from the alignment. He loses abilities if he does not adhere to it. It's part of the ruleset. There is no houserule here. There is the rule, and it is clear but for the meaning of the actual terms.

 

As for your 4 trait system, it's waaaaay over-engineered. It looks good on paper but turns into a pain in the ass during play. You know, if players want to role-play, they have nothing but to play a role. We don't need a 2, 4, or 16 trait system to play a role. We simply need a role to play.

[MrBrown]

I see what you're saying, MrBrown.  I continue to disagree.

 

Oh, I don't mind alignment as such. I know D&D doesn't work without alignment. Like I said, the example I provided doesn't really work (EDIT: in D&D that is, because D&D has alignment); it's just an example of how things could be done.

 

 

If we just say that a character has a "good alignment," then we should sure as hell have some standard to understand what that "good alignment" means.

 

Yeah yeah... Read the link I provided. Sorry, but I really don't want to get into this discussion again; it's repeated ad nauseum (sic) at the D&D boards.

 

 

As for your 4 trait system, it's waaaaay over-engineered.  It looks good on paper but turns into a pain in the ass during play.  You know, if players want to role-play, they have nothing but to play a role.  We don't need a 2, 4, or 16 trait system to play a role.  We simply need a role to play.

 

It is not a "roleplaying" mechanic. It's a drama driving mechanic.

 

It isn't telling the players how or what they should play; the players change it according to how they play.

Edited May 4, 2006 by MrBrown

[Atreides]

Back to the paladin losing powers due to allignment shift, I think it would make an interesting campaign if the players need to convince a disillusioned paladin to return to righteous ways so that he can/will resurrect their companion.

[Cantousent]

Actually, I did read your statements. I was expecting to respond to some of them restated here. However, I totally respect your aversion to the argument itself.

 

Alignment arguments are especially ugly over at the DnD boards. In fact, paladin arguments are completely viscious. That's somewhat ironic in that arguments regarding paladins are ugly and paladins in arguments can be pretty ugly as well. Sorry for the puns. Lack of sleep.

 

In reality, however, I agree with you that most players are pretty good about policiing themselves. Sure, they're greedy. Sure, they try to bend the rules in their favor. ...But most folks who play a paladin make at least some attempt to stay within the confines of reason. Otherwise, they'd probably play something else. Most clerics of good deities. likewise, make an honest attempt to play by the rules.

 

Nevertheless, the players try to get away with whatever they can. No matter how old or young, the players look to the DM to keep things in order. They want a final decision and it's the DM's job to provide it for them. Hell, my 65 year old mother tried DnD for the first time last year and manages to drive over from Las Vegas to participate every few months. She tries to get away with murder, there's no doubt. She also wants me to make a decision for the group.

 

However, I'm probably a bad example. I say I need to enforce rules, but I'm actually a "soft approach" sort of DM. I don't like to coerce players. I'd rather convince them. In fact, I'd rather let them think everything is their idea.

[Cantousent]

Back to the paladin losing powers due to allignment shift, I think it would make an interesting campaign if the players need to convince a disillusioned paladin to return to righteous ways so that he can/will resurrect their companion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah. I agree that it could make a compelling story, but it's a lot easier to define good and evil for an NPC than to make sure the player and DM are always on the same page in terms of these definitions.

[MrBrown]

Actually, I did read your statements.  I was expecting to respond to some of them restated here.  However, I totally respect your aversion to the argument itself.

 

EDIT: I don't mind the topic as such... I just don't want start it from the beginning, again.

 

Ok. Well, let me add this:

 

For the kind of playing I described in the d&d forums post, there should be no penalty to the player for changing alignment, in any instance.

 

That is to say, if the player of the paladin decides that his paladin has now changed alignment and loses all paladin powers, then the GM/system/the whole game as such should provide (not force) him with means to gain back his original power almost immediately. Whether that means atonement, a new character, turning into an "anti-paladin" (using any of the several rules for such out there; I find the Unearthed Arcana variant Paladins to be the best), or something else.

 

Without this, the system only works when "staying in character" is top priority. Which is rather hard to maintain in D&D, due to the competitiveness of the rules (to use theory jargon: the rules of D&D make it so easy to drift from "staying in character" to competitiveness, willingly or not).

 

 

Nevertheless, the players try to get away with whatever they can.

 

Get away from.... What? If there are no penalties for changing alignment and being of any specific alignment, the players don't need to "get away" with anything.

Edited May 4, 2006 by MrBrown

[Cantousent]

My statement was not reserved for alignment alone, although it's true that the rules regarding alignment fall into the same category of something the players often try to manipulate.

 

We can assuem that players just want a good game, but you've identified above that competitiveness encroaches on role-playing. You've also done a great job of providing a theoretical basis for your entire argument. However, in actual gameplay, the DM is essentially an arbiter. He passes judgement on how the players interact with the environment, whether that environment is a creature encounter or a locked chest. Sometimes, he's even forced to act as an arbiter between players.

 

So, we can make statements like "f there are no penalties for changing alignment and being any specific alignment, the players don't need to 'get away' with anything." Sure. ...But the rules do provide for, even demand, penalties for changing alignment and being of some specific alignment. We can say, "it's not a penalty for a paladin to lose his powers." It's simply untrue. Furthermore, I've never said that a paladin shoul d have no means of atonement. That's part of the game. However, how many chances does a paladin get? Is that "means to gain back his original power almost immediately" going to serve as an excuse for a paladin to break the system, because that's what's going to happen. My original statement, as much as folks might hate the truth behind it, is still valid. The DM, if he is to stay within the rules, must address alignment. Alignment is an essential part of the game. It can only be avoided if the DM intentionally reworks the rules to avoid alignment in the first place.

 

Moreover, moving past alignment, I've often had players argue with a decision. Maybe some of you have never had a disagreement between players and the DM or players between each other. My hat is off to you. I have nothing but respect for you. Nevertheless, I find it a hard scenario to believe.

 

The players will often try to "get away with things." It's the nature, in one way or another, of most games. Players try to manipulate the rules in their favor. Hey, I don't disagree with it. ...But I don't fool myself into thinking that the greater part of that competition you cited above isn't between the players and the DM.

 

Now, my experiences in DMing might not be typical. Maybe I'm playing the game the wrong way. I'll concede that. Maybe noone else here has had a similar experience. Then again, I've never been a stickler for following the rules to the letter in every situation. I guess I"m crazy that way.

[MrBrown]

My statement was not reserved for alignment alone, although it's true that the rules regarding alignment fall into the same category of something the players often try to manipulate.

 

We can assuem that players just want a good game, but you've identified above that competitiveness encroaches on role-playing.  You've also done a great job of providing a theoretical basis for your entire argument.  However, in actual gameplay, the DM is essentially an arbiter.  He passes judgement on how the players interact with the environment, whether that environment is a creature encounter or a locked chest.  Sometimes, he's even forced to act as an arbiter between players.

 

There is nothing wrong with competitiveness as such. It's a goal in playing as much as "staying in character" or "drama" can be. There is no universal "good game", and it doesn't happen without talking about it and recognizing it.

 

As a sidenote, my posts in the Dead Horse: The Beating -thread were mainly about D&D having rules that encourage competitiveness, and thus causing D&D play to often "drift" from other kind of goals (such as "staying in character") to creating competitiveness. This is usually a bad thing, as at least some participants probably don't want it to.

 

There is no need for GM arbitration in such matters, as long as the group agrees on the goal of play, and use a system that supports it and doesn't cause "drifting" from it.

 

 

Most of the comments like "players try to get away with anything" and "the GM needs to arbitrate the game" come from people who try to GM D&D (or other competitiveness -oriented games) without competitiveness, only to find their play drifting to it, and thus feeling a need to scold the players for their "bad behaviour"

 

 

So, we can make statements like "if there are no penalties for changing alignment and being any specific alignment, the players don't need to 'get away' with anything."  Sure.  ...But the rules do provide for, even demand, penalties for changing alignment and being of some specific alignment.  We can say, "it's not a penalty for a paladin to lose his powers."  It's simply untrue.

 

Penalties to the player, not the character.

 

Character "power" is important, because that is how the player affects the game world (in D&D, and many other games, but not all). If the player's character has no power, that player is as good as impotent. If something the player does in the game makes him lose his power, then naturally he strives not to lose it.

 

If, in the case of the paladin, the paladin changing alignment means the player loses his power (by not being able to atone, not being able to create a new character, etc etc), then the player will strive not to change alignment.

 

This is where the "GM-arbitrated alignment" makes itself "necessary". If you feel a need to punish the player for not "staying in character", then of course someone needs to arbitrate it.

 

If you take player punishment out of it, then the player can make his paladin fall when he feels like he did something to cause that, and the player can make it by his own accord. And, there is no need for GM-arbitration.

 

 

Moreover, moving past alignment, I've often had players argue with a decision.  Maybe some of you have never had a disagreement between players and the DM or players between each other.  My hat is off to you.  I have nothing but respect for you.  Nevertheless, I find it a hard scenario to believe.

 

There's nothing uncommon about having disagreements about rules. To connect it with my previous paragraph, these are disagreements on the system.

 

Just don't mistake them for disagreements on the goal.

Edited May 4, 2006 by MrBrown

[Fenghuang]

People who play in the Forgotten Realms dont go "OMG there are monsters and evil villains everywhere! This is a major risk to the people of these lands, lets gather a massive army, kill all the monsters, cave-in every dungeon and imprison every villain for the good of us all!" because that would completely ruin the setting. You just accept that this is what the setting is like and you roll with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If I ever play a PnP DnD game this is what I am going to do now. Heheheh.

[Atreides]

I'm with you CoF. Army size +1.

[Cantousent]

What I'm saying, MrBrown, is that all my experiences as DM have included making and passing judgement at some point or another.

 

I guess what I find frustrating is that your views make a lot of sense, but I've found them almost impossible to attain during play. Granted, I can't get folks to play anything other than DnD. If I did, they'd still probably treat the game as the same.

 

Let's take the example of the player doing what he considered "in-character." The players generally try to act in character. What about that paladin that finds it easier to slaughter the surrendering enemy even when his the dictates of his code demand that he spare anyone who supplicates himself and appeals to Zeus? The player slaughters the enemy and then says, "well, this is a roleplaying game and your job isn't to enforce the rules. I mean, sure I've created this character and one of the stipulations my order has made for the sake of my paladin status is that I spare anyone who appeals to Zeus for guest-friendship. It doesn't matter. I can make the arguments that..... insert lame, clever, or just plain crazy excuse here... and therefore I should not lose any of my class abilities."

 

You know, even though that's completely bogus, I might be willing to let the player do that. Hell, I've seen cases where the player thinks he's in the right. Fine, say I let the player get away with something so ridiculous and lame. The other players will scream bloody murder. ...And we're not talking our local teen group, every one of whom has a special plus twenty sword of everything slaying. I'm talking about adults with advanced degrees and successful careers.

 

Don't get me wrong because, even though I find your arguments frustrating, I can appreciate the fact that you're obviously quite intelligent. I can tell that you've given these rules careful consideration. Far more than have I.

 

So, I don't mean insult when I say that your position is a pie in the sky sort of wishful thinking. I don't have, and don't anticipate, having a group in which your hands-free method would work. Your position is greatly appealing until you actually try to keep a game going.

 

...And here's the truth. Most players, even dear old mum, are like children. No matter what they say, when they sit down to play, they want a DM who is in control and makes decisions.

 

I might want to just be there to provide the story. That's what I actually like best about the game in the first place. Dammit, I like to play the NPCs and describe the setting and pit my obstacles against the players. What I desire might be to act out the part of the Baron's evil daughter, but what I'm going to end up doing somewhere along the line is enforcing the rules. Maybe I've been playing wrong lo these many years, but that's my experience.

[Blank]

Poor Eldar. I think you've had it pretty easy with our group. I mean, we don't try to break the rules, we just wander into the wilderness, listen to a bard sing, and maybe cast a couple gallons of harmless water on our enemies when we see them.

[Cantousent]

See, that's where the DM can just sit back and enjoy the game. Even so, Baley wasn't any too happy that I chose to keep my initiative roll I made while Horace was an NPC. There's never going to be a time when the DM doesn't have to be the final word on the rules.

[MrBrown]

What I'm saying, MrBrown, is that all my experiences as DM have included making and passing judgement at some point or another.

"Judgement" is such and abstract term that I can't really know what kind of things you're thinking of there, so I'll leave that general statement unanswered.

 

 

I guess what I find frustrating is that your views make a lot of sense, but I've found them almost impossible to attain during play.

Well, the only thing I can say is, I've found them ridiculously easy.

 

Just one more thing: The kind of play I'm advocating here with the alignment stuff, is one where the competitiveness (actually, I prefer the word "challenge") is top priority is and "staying in character" secondary. It's the type I think works best in D&D, and that I personally try to get my groups to play if we play D&D.

 

 

Granted, I can't get folks to play anything other than DnD.  If I did, they'd still probably treat the game as the same.

I recommend to keep trying. I don't think D&D is (that) bad or anything, but playing only one system can easily get you stuck in thinking it's the world, and other systems are just providing them same thing in a different package.

 

As for the last comment, I think there's 2 groups of people in this case: people who have a specific type of playing and try to fit that into any system they encounter, and people who try to play by a system first and see where it takes them. It might be pretty obvious from what I've written, but I highly prefer the second approach.

Edited May 5, 2006 by MrBrown

[Cantousent]

Well, let me just let you have the last word. I've really enjoyed the discussion.

 

More to the point, I'd love to play in one of your campaigns. It's just a shame that time and distance don't allow us to participate in every campaign we find appealing. Hell, I'd love to play a CoC game. Maybe a Paranoia game. Maybe a modern spy game.

 

If you ever feel up to running one of these online things, you should let everyone here know. I'd join. ...And I'm far too lazy to try to break the system.

[Ginthaeriel]

Not to interrupt the excellent discussion going on here, but what if in Gromnir's campaign, he were to trap the players in some combat related situation that drained all the Player's brain batteries, to the point where if they were going to survive, they could either stop relying on their psychic technology... or scoop out the brains of one of their companions to power their equipment?

 

Now THERE'S a moral quandary! Maybe harvesting the brains of a fellow teammate might be all it takes to get them to start fighting against "the system"

[Fenghuang]

Have you ever played a PnP game? They'd just kill one of their party members. Trust me.

[Ginthaeriel]

Have you ever played a PnP game?  They'd just kill one of their party members.  Trust me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The whining from that one party member ought to do the trick. Although PnP players are vicious in terms of acquiring power, they are equally loathe to lose it. Watching them draw straws to figure out who gets their brains sucked out is probably going to be a riot. Think Head of Vecna. And if worse comes to worse, you can just dock their xp for bad roleplaying. Game, set, match. If a GM really wants to control his players, he'll play their desires against each other.

 

I was actually semi-sarcastic when I said "Now THERE'S a moral quandary!" I mean, after all, we are talking about people who are using the brain matter of sentient beings as tools. Morality has pretty much gone out the window.

[Walsingham]

Good read.

 

This is why I probably wouldn't be confident in myself as a DM, esspesally as jerk players would find themselves being hit in the face with a meteor any time they rolled a 1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had this sudden image of this happening, followed by a Marx Brothers 'wubwubwubwub'. :D

[Jhereg42]

I ran into a lot of problems similar to this when I first started GMing, and over the years I managed to learn that the issue of ignored storylines was my fault in how I prepped the campaign, not my player's fault for doing there thing. Keep in mind, I have a good 5 person group that has been gaming solidly together for close to 8 years.

 

First, when starting a campaign I discovered that players almost ALWAYS go off the beaten path. In one campaign they took an interest in a little girl I had put in there for scenery, so there was nothing on her. Because of their interest, though, I made up a whole story for her when I was back to my prep work. In the starwars game I'm in now, the PCs rescued a slave girl (again, in there as scenery) while trying to rescue the sister of one of their associates and took an interest in her. Now Ketherin (name made up on the spot because there was no info on her) is a sniper and the romantic interest of another PC. My favoite case, though was the case of Tormar Darkheart. Tormar was a CE Mage in Planescape that totally wrecked the campaign merely by being a chaotic evil, stubborn, greedy little POS. Funny thing is, even as he backstabbed the players and betrayed them to the evil bastard that was the main baddy in our campaign, we were all laughing because not even the player saw it ending up that way. We wrote it off as a "this time the bad guys won" campaign and made another set of characters that we then put into the same setting a few years later. Tormar was now a nasty NPC who was the new party's problem.

 

At that point I realized that the first few sessions of a game were a piss poor time to introduce a complicated plot. Instead, I started making up a "3 session outline" where I slapped together some very targetted (morally), but somewhat random and isolated (Storywise) adventures that allow both the GM and the players to decide where their characters are now, and where they want them to go. After I have a better feel for the game, I start working in earnest and get my serious campaign rolling. By that time I'll have a better feel for what the players want out of the game, as well as what I want to explore as far as the theme.

 

It's not as time consuming as it sounds, either. It's actually less intensive because you start making your prep work more modular as a result of the design.