I'm taling about when they have a little script of the players talking to each-other, describing what their characters do, talking about the rules, etc. I think these are very good, giving the flavour the game's trying to get across, and also helping you imagine playing the game, imagining your group sitting around a table doing it.

Not so many game books have them these days, which is a pity, because they're often useful. But sometimes, not so much.

I recently got HeroQuest, and the play examples there are... well, annoying. To a certain extent they're realistic, because they show a game group where one player is a lazy idiot - she won't read the rules, never has any clue what's going on, a sort of player everyone's had from time to time - and the GM is, well, crap.

For example, she rarely remembers where the individual PCs are. She goes through a combat, and then towards the end, tells one player, "a guy charges at you waving his sword." The player protests, "but I'm on the other side of the river! Have been since the start!" "Oh yeah..." she replies.

Another example, there's a whole page devoted to telling the reader/player that there shouldn't be killing in HeroQuest. "Killing" doesn't appear in the index, but the relevant section is pp75-76 of the 2003 Issaries edition. First it should be noted that the rules-as-written make it very hard for characters to be killed in the heat of battle - they're down and out, not dead, if defeated. But the game goes on to tell you that killing is wrong, wrong, wrong.

It suggests ways to discourage killing. There's being knocked out instead, encouraging ransoms for prisoners, enslaving, and the threat of vengeance from the slain guy's friends and relatives. There's aso weregild, you have to pay up big some comepnsation, and it's more money than any one person can afford, so you have to draw on your family and community, who are going to be pissed off with you if they keephaving to do it. I think those are fair enough. The GM's there to give the players choices and options, and consequences for those choices and actions. But then it goes on from there, and...

Threat of Psychic Damage. Many, even most eople have a hard time killing in cold blood. The narrator may assign a psychological flaw to the hero based on the circumstances of the killing. This should never be given lightly.

Narrators will have to decide how much of this to stress[ie, which of the approaches to focus on, whether ransom, weregild, or whatever]. But if pursued, they should always decide the consequences in game terms for literal-minded players. Different players require different approaches. Look at the "To Kill or Not to Kill" example on the next page to see how Kathy would apply the social and psychological damage for each player [sic, the comonly poor player/character distinction]

At first glance, this looks fair enough. After all, in my own d4-d4 I talked about "Will to Kill". However, there the rolling and roleplaying was about whether or not they could bring themselves to kill. I specifically said that while killing sometimes had psychological consequences, whatever the circumstances of it, but to roleplay this would be too depressing for almost any game group. "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the rpg," yay! Not so much. Few people want to explore that. So while it's "realistic" to impose psychological disadvantages on characters because of their killing, it's not fun. It's the GM making the character develop in a certain way. There's often a kind of code in game groups, a point of honour - the GM can't touch anything, except the hit points on the player's character sheet. The rest is up to the player. The GM can suggest and persuade, but can't impose.

And so they've said the GM has to alter their approach according to the personality of each player. Hey, that sounds good, remember what I say, the GM should ask the players what they want, and give it to them! So let's look over the page in HQ at the play example. Turns out, here the crap GMing is shown again. I reproduce it in full.

To Kill or Not to Kill?

Kathy [GM] (to Rick) Hengal [Rick's character] wants to kill Greim, sure, but he is suddenly aware that this is another human being, with a wife and kids, and that he has a choice. And if he does do it then he'll have a reputation as being Cold-Blooded 8 that is going to undermine all his social interactions ever after.

Kathy (to Bill): Yeah, he means nothing to Galan, and you can have Bison Brain stomp him now, but Galan reaises that he's back in a realm where everyone is a stranger and foreigner, and if he kills them because of that then he'll have to kill everyone. I'll give him some kind of behaviour for this, like Hate Everyone.

Kathy (to John): Ingomar will get a flaw of Guilt, and it will be an automatic penalty against his fighting skills. Remember in the Spider-Man movie when he pauses when he recognises that the criminal is Norman? Ingomar is going to have that hesitation.

Kathy (to Frederick): Mr. Puma has a flash: if he does this then he will be an animal, not a human.

Kathy (to Christine): If you kill him then you are going to get a trait of Psychopathic Pleasure from Killing. Killing in general will appeal to you and I'll make sure that you use it in the wrong circumstances.

John: Can I get that one instead of Guilt?

So here we see what the GMing advice really is. It's saying, "the style of play of this game is, no killing. If your players want their characters to kill, punish them for it. Adjust the punishment to fit the player." When you look at the play examples in the rest of the book, you see the GM's trying to piss the players off.

Rick's character Hengal is one who relies on social interactions, that's what his play focuses on. Bill's character Galan is a bit bland in terms of personality, so Hates Everyone would annoy the player. John's character Ingomar of course doesn't want to hesitate in fighting, if he wanted to play a reluctant fighter he would have made one to begin with.  Frederick's character Mr. Puma, a lot of his play has focused on his animal vs human natures, with his striving to become human. Christine's character Jane is a little child-like woman who rides around on a deer being happy and friendless and clueless - it's like making someone's elven princess riding a unicorn eat the unicorn.

The real kicker, the thing that really reveals it all, is that John jokingly asks for the Psychopathic Pleasure from Killing. That's the player trying to tell the GM, "We don't want this shit, idiot." The GM, acting on the advice given in the section, has made an effort to give them the exact traits they don't want their characters to have. The GM is fucking over the players to unish them for their misdeeds in-game.

Good GMing is asking players what they want, and giving it to them. That doesn't mean piles of loot and xp, but the style of the game. If they asked to play Unknown Armies you don't give them Toon, and vice versa. The players want their characters to kill this guy - either let them do it, or don't let them do it, but don't turn their characters in directions they don't want. It's really bad advice, to punish the players for acting in a way the GM doesn't like, because the GM will end up with no group. Being in a group is about compromise. Everyone talks about the sort of game they want, and the GM gives it to them - the GM has a voice, too, and the most important voice, since the game can survive with one or two players occasionally bored or annoyed, but it can't survive a bored or annoyed GM.

It was bad play, not because the game world doesn't want lots of killing (the book contradicts itself, since elsewhere it says there's a lot of death and killing), but because the players want one thing, and the GM's forcing them to another. The players express displeasure at this. Notice the tone of the example - the GM is lecturing the players. "Alright, you shithead, if that's the way you want to be, I'll fix you. Now this is how you should be playing your character!"

To have death or not, to have a game world which has this or that in it, that's fine, just the game world's style. But the advice is to impose this on the players. Which is bad advice.

But aside from this bad GMing advice, what really came across in the examples was more of this bad play. Granted, bad play, people not having fun, being clueless or trying to force their way of play on others, it happens all the time. But should it be presented as an example? The example play, should it be "ideal" play of a "good" group? Or should it show crap playing and GMing? Not that the writers seem to think it's crap GMing and playing, but still...

Thoughts?

Play examples should be memorable and demonstrate what the game is "about", but they shouldn't present an ideal group. HeroQuest falls into the opposite trap. That the spirit of the game is created by some sort of "negotiation" among the participants (a fascinating topic, BTW!), should absolutely be addressed in the GM advice section; but it's probably not a good idea to present it as an "iconic" example.

Strangely, I find the dialogue example in the 1e AD&D DMG rather boring (pp. 97-100).

I think it's because none of the PCs have names!  Players refer to each other as 'gnome', 'magic-user', or 'cleric'.  Ugh.

In contrast, the 'combat example' on p. 71 is fucking brilliant, because it involves Team A (Aggro the Axe, a 4th level fighter; Abner, a 5th level m-u; Arkayn, a 4th level cleric; and Arlanni, a 2nd level thief), verus Team B (Gutboy Barrelhouse, a 6th level dwarf fighter; Balto, a 1st level monk [dead meat!]; Blastum, a 4th level m-u; and Barjin, a 4th/5th level half-elf figher/m-u.).

The latter example is brilliant -- and has been burned into my brain since the age of 11.

Quote from: MelanPlay examples should be memorable and demonstrate what the game is "about", but they shouldn't present an ideal group...

Exactly.  That's why the 'Team A versus Team B' example is so great.

Just to be clear: by "ideal" group, I wouldn't mean one which works together perfectly without effort. I mean one where people sometimes fuck up and do the wrong thing, but they talk, and through agreement, compromise, house rules and dice, sort it out.

So for example, whether or not there's killing in a roleplaying game is a pretty significant thing. It's bound to come up. So there could be some conversation example like this:

[GM] Anna: In this game, I'd like it to be that death and killing are really significant and important. So the rules will make it that no-one dies by accident in a fight or any other way. Some always has to decide to kill. And if you do kill, there'll be heavy consequences. It'll fuck with your character's heads, and I'll impose traits on them like Guilt and Nightmares. What do you guys think? [this is the key question, unasked in the HQ GM advice sections]

Bob: I'm comfortable with the GM's rules. My character won't be killing anyone anyway. I just like cool magic stuff. But tell me, does this mean our characters are immortal? Or don't the NPCs care about the psychological consequences of what they do? You told us this game used to be called "Hero Wars." What kind of a war has no-one die?

Charlie: Hah! Bob's right. Maybe all the warriors need therapy after the war. It's fair enough to say that killing should be a serious thing, and have consequences. So if you want to have their relatives hunt us down or whatever, fine. But you don't get to impose traits on us. You already get to control the whole game world - you don't get to control my character's development, too. Anyway people die in combat by "accident" all the time, it's a stupid rule to say they don't.

Dave: It's a stupid idea, Anna. How the fuck are we supposed to kill things and take their stuff if we can't kill? What kind of game is this, International Committee for the Red Cross, the RPG? I already have to spend all day at work compromising and thinking about the consequences of my actions, when I game, I want to be able to smash stuff.

Erika: It's okay by me. Violence is nasty, anyway. My character will use her seductive and persuasive powers to solve problems. Did I tell you she's really beautiful?

Anna: So we have two for, two against, and one with some different ideas. How about this, then: death will never be accidental, always a player decision to kill. And if you make that decision, and kill, then at that time I'll give you a choice - there'll be either consequences inside your character, like guilt and stuff, or consequences outside your character, like vengeful relatives. Okay?

The players argue some more, but eventually agree to that.

It's called discussion, and compromise. That's an "ideal" group. It's like driving a car or riding a bike, it never goes completely straight, it goes a bit to one side and then the other, but you try to adjust to bring it back to the middle and in the right direction.

Instead, they show us a vehicle swerving all over the road and smashing into things, with the GM sitting in the front seat, wagging her finger at the rest of them, blaming them for her poor driving.

Quote from: AkrasiaStrangely, I find the dialogue example in the 1e AD&D DMG rather boring (pp. 97-100).

I think it's because none of the PCs have names!  Players refer to each other as 'gnome', 'magic-user', or 'cleric'.  Ugh.

In contrast, the 'combat example' on p. 71 is fucking brilliant, because it involves Team A (Aggro the Axe, a 4th level fighter; Abner, a 5th level m-u; Arkayn, a 4th level cleric; and Arlanni, a 2nd level thief), verus Team B (Gutboy Barrelhouse, a 6th level dwarf fighter; Balto, a 1st level monk [dead meat!]; Blastum, a 4th level m-u; and Barjin, a 4th/5th level half-elf figher/m-u.).

The latter example is brilliant -- and has been burned into my brain since the age of 11.

I totally agree.  Other great play examples include the Call of Cthulhu example that was in the 3rd edition Keeper's book and has been reprinted at least a couple of times since.  The '81 Basic D&D example of play and combat example both feature vibrant PCs in interesting situations.  Who can forget Silverleaf, Black Dougal, Fredrik, and Morgan Ironwolf?

The play example in James Bond 007 is simply amazing.  It's done in a two-column format.  In one column in the transcript of the action between players and GM.  In the other is what is happening in the imaginations of the players.  The whole thing is capped off by the fact that the events being played exactly mimic a scene from one of the Bond movies.

Akrasia: except for the lack of names, I like that example - especially since EGG introduced an interesting NPC (the thief-guide) which hints at a complex world beyond the dungeon... it is interesting how the 3.0 DMG didn't reproduce that part, and only focused on the dungeoneering aspect. But I agree, many of the other examples in the book are better - my favourite being when a dumb fighter goes to the wizard Tregillish Mul for advice. :cool:

Now M.A.R. Barker's example of play in Empire of the Petal Throne is both funny and useful: PCs explore a weird temple in the Underworld, and are killed horribly. That's my Tékumel!

Quote from: jrientsThe '81 Basic D&D example of play and combat example both feature vibrant PCs in interesting situations.  Who can forget Silverleaf, Black Dougal, Fredrik, and Morgan Ironwolf?

Don't forget Sister Rebecca!  She threatened to withhold healing from Morgan if they killed the captured goblins!

While it doesn't have character names, using the players' names instead, I really like the example of play from Traveller Book 0.  It shows a bit of the fast and loose style of GMing I like, and has the new guy showing up the experienced people in small, subtle ways.

The James Bond example sounds awesome.

Quote from: JimBobOzJust to be clear: by "ideal" group, I wouldn't mean one which works together perfectly without effort. I mean one where people sometimes fuck up and do the wrong thing, but they talk, and through agreement, compromise, house rules and dice, sort it out.

It's called discussion, and compromise. That's an "ideal" group. It's like driving a car or riding a bike, it never goes completely straight, it goes a bit to one side and then the other, but you try to adjust to bring it back to the middle and in the right direction.

I think this is good general play advice/example. If designers had the space (I don't know much about publishing, so I'm just assuming here) to incorporate advice like this into their work  would be very a good idea.

For most games though it woud seem that the main point of play examples is to illustrate what the rules can do and sometimes to establish mood and theme.

Regards,
David R

H&S example of play is 1 fictional player and "Editor" it replaced an actual play used from an IRC play where NOTHING happened until the end and was just PC dialogue. The purpose of it is to show the rules, and it can be found in complete form in the H&S preview. I don't care for much of the "realistic" or "unrealistic" efforts so much as they show what's going on with a bit of humor.

Quote from: JimBobOzThoughts?

Well, first, this was a fascinating thing to post. Normally posts with such dense blocks of text make my eyes glaze over, but this one was an interesting read.

Second, your HeroQuest example is really thought-provoking. It gives insight into the designers' thought processes in writing the game. I'm not familiar with HeroQuest (I am familiar with RuneQuest, which is apparently related to HQ), so it's interesting to get a glimpse inside the game. I see echoes of Pendragon in there. Although Pendragon's Traits and Passions system works differently (and better, based on your example), it seems to leave more of the decision making up to the player in regards to how a character will act and react.

You're right about the HQ example being annoying. It seems to indicate the game is way too heavily weighted towards moral hand-wringing than emulating heroic fantasy. It's bad enough when a game gets bogged down due to the mechanics of the combat system; to see it get bogged down due to the mechanics used for the roleplaying side of the game sets off an alarm in my head. My own preference is to have such things determined by roleplaying, with the GM perhaps noting from time to time how this or that action might prey upon a PC's mind, based on how the PC's personality has been established in prior play or the PC's background. Again, that's just my preference; apparently some enjoy such mechanics.

Quote from: MelanNow M.A.R. Barker's example of play in Empire of the Petal Throne is both funny and useful: PCs explore a weird temple in the Underworld, and are killed horribly. That's my Tékumel!

I forgot about that one!  I really ought to get myself one of the reprints of that game.  Tékumel is a little too big for me nowadays, but the original EPT suits me to a 'T'.

Quote from: jrientsI forgot about that one!  I really ought to get myself one of the reprints of that game.  Tékumel is a little too big for me nowadays, but the original EPT suits me to a 'T'.

It is the perfect game for someone who doesn't care that much about amateur linguistics, but loves dungeon crawling in weird locations. People say Tékumel is inaccessible. That's not true. EPT is easy to grasp and very straightforward to run. Also, it is a great, much better organised alternative system to Original D&D!

(Just don't start PCs on 1st level, since they will die a LOT.)

Quote from: JimBobOzBut aside from this bad GMing advice, what really came across in the examples was more of this bad play. Granted, bad play, people not having fun, being clueless or trying to force their way of play on others, it happens all the time. But should it be presented as an example? The example play, should it be "ideal" play of a "good" group? Or should it show crap playing and GMing? Not that the writers seem to think it's crap GMing and playing, but still...

Thoughts?

Idealized play is okay, but I think the best idea would be semi-dysfunctional play that's got editor's notes calling out instances where play can be improved and how.

The point of these things is to instruct GMs and players, after all.