Quote from: RPGPundit;1004868Well? As a GM, do you feel that you need to cut players a break with their characters? How, and to what extent, if so?

Not especially. I think a GM should give the characters the benefit of the doubt. For instance, I assume that adventurous types are going to be looking for danger, and so I don't pixel bitch every perception check. I don't put piercers in a cave, and then play it for a "Gotcha!" if the player's don't announce their characters are looking up.
My rule of thumb to shoot for, is that if the characters fail, the players should feel that it was their own fault.

Quote from: Omega;1004897They get enough as is, or demand it. So Im usually disinclined to be handing out free goodies or bumping stats or whatever else is asked for.

We have all had both whiny, entitled players and deluded, self-congratulatory DMs. And (assuming that we are in fact the mature ones) we have dealt with those scenarios and changed said peoples' behaviors or jettisoned the unchangeable gamers. I think it makes sense to preemptively assign these types of questions like the OT with an assumed, "Once you have dealt with the truly bad actors, do you..."

Mike's right that it varies by game and by player and what the agreement is about the type of game...

But I discuss and look for what players before a campaign starts, and the range of ways I'm interested in playing has boundaries.

For example, I'm not going to want to run (or play in) a game where we pretend the PCs are in danger but the GM is expected to fudge things so they survive and prosper regardless of how dumb or unlucky they are.

But I have run some indulgent games, for example the one where one PCs goal was to be a murderous vigilante psychopath whose main goal in life was to run over people with a sci fi air car and loot people. I created a decadent world full of targets (both lame muggers and an annoying "good Samaritan" vigilante group designed to also be victims) and apathetic incompetent law enforcement and city parks suitable for air car rampages. But there were still tactical situations and eventually escalating police attention, and if the dice had gone wrong for the PC, there would have been no fudging.

Mainly, even in gonzo games and indulgent games where the premise is the PCs get to be really powerful, I see it as the GM's (especially when I'm the GM) to provide the experience of being in that situation in the game world, by providing a consistent game about that. If I were to then "be nice" by fudging rolls or allowing the PCs to be ass-tards and have NPCs not react appropriately to that, etc., then that seems to me like failing to provide a game about the experience.

So as Michael Gray said, I try to be very fair, both to PCs and to NPCs, and to have things happen that make sense.

If I'm particularly "nice", it tends to be in terms of having situations usually not being particularly murderous for the PCs, or not giving them opportunities to notice danger and re-think very foolish actions. And in letting them try things they want to try, do what they want to do, go where they want to go, as long as it makes reasonable sense.

Quote from: Tod13;1004902This. Best on topic reply for this thread.

Thank you, Tod!

Doesn't really sound like there's too much dissent here.  Given Pundit's vague question, we seem to agree that GMs have an obligation to discuss with his or her players the type of game being played, that gaming groups should all be onboard with the milieu and the paradigm, that it's okay for GMs to treat the PCs nastily if the game in question is a nasty paradigm.

I play with friends, so I generally won't screw them unless they are doing something really dumb. It's all for fun, so why piss off a freind?

Quote from: Ravenswing;1005164Doesn't really sound like there's too much dissent here.  Given Pundit's vague question, we seem to agree that GMs have an obligation to discuss with his or her players the type of game being played, that gaming groups should all be onboard with the milieu and the paradigm, that it's okay for GMs to treat the PCs nastily if the game in question is a nasty paradigm.

Well, add me to the choir of agreeing voices, then!

We are the chorus and we agree.

We agree, we agree, we agree.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1005188We are the chorus and we agree.

We agree, we agree, we agree.

Someone mark this day, we may not see its like again.

In a group of very new to RPGs players, I'm very accomodating. I pull some punches, make sure things are engaging and fun, and try to keep it light. For a bit. Then...

I try to portray the world, NPCs, and villains in the most verisimilitudinous manner possible. Events happen in ways that are internally consistent with the genre, theme and setting. People react in ways I feel they would react based on PC actions, attitude, etc. Also, in settings where it is appropriate, there may be social factors that influence behaviors. The bad guys are doing the bad thing for a reason. Or because #chaos #alien #destruction. Villains make choices based on goals, desires, etc. They modify plans based on PC actions and plots.

I believe it's my responsibility to be effective in my portrayal of these things. If something bad or challenging should happen, then I bring it. I feel like I'm robbing the players of a good time if I always react with easy consequences.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004868Well? As a GM, do you feel that you need to cut players a break with their characters? How, and to what extent, if so?

Well, for every action there is a reaction is all. Some here would say then, "Your players won't do anything then with their characters if punished for doing stuff." I say good deeds are worth their rewards, so make up your mind if your character is an adventurer or a Hollywood noble.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004868Well? As a GM, do you feel that you need to cut players a break with their characters? How, and to what extent, if so?

We all seem to be pretty much in the "tell your players what the game is about beforehand, and do that" camp.

Does this question come from anyplace in particular?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004868Well? As a GM, do you feel that you need to cut players a break with their characters? How, and to what extent, if so?

Nice as in polite and fair to Players, yes, right up until they act in a way that you do not tolerate at the game table. Nice as in easy on Player Characters, no, the GM should have the setting and NPCs respond to the PCs depending on their actions and their origins. Be equitable to the Players, but not necessarily fair to their characters.

I certainly agree with scrupulously fair.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1004880It's not like the World of Verandia TM[/SIZE][/I] has to be populated exclusively by people from Sevenoaks.

Though you must admit, the pleasantly lush parkland of Kent does make for a great backdrop to any Albion-ish gameworld.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004868Well? As a GM, do you feel that you need to cut players a break with their characters? How, and to what extent, if so?

Yeah, why not.

It's rare I don't give them a roll to avoid their stupidity. It's increasingly less rare these days that I pull any punches simply because I'm an increasingly jaded GM and sending my players' characters' on their bikes 'n' straight into the abyss is just. way. more. fun. for me. Plus I'm no with lack of decent players and those same players know they can roll up most any character and then get in on a pretty solid night of gaming full of C&C.

Quote from: trechriron;1005218In a group of very new to RPGs players, I'm very accomodating. I pull some punches, make sure things are engaging and fun, and try to keep it light. For a bit. Then...

I try to portray the world, NPCs, and villains in the most verisimilitudinous manner possible. Events happen in ways that are internally consistent with the genre, theme and setting. People react in ways I feel they would react based on PC actions, attitude, etc. Also, in settings where it is appropriate, there may be social factors that influence behaviors. The bad guys are doing the bad thing for a reason. Or because #chaos #alien #destruction. Villains make choices based on goals, desires, etc. They modify plans based on PC actions and plots.

I believe it's my responsibility to be effective in my portrayal of these things. If something bad or challenging should happen, then I bring it. I feel like I'm robbing the players of a good time if I always react with easy consequences.

I'm still not sure what that word means. It seems to mean different things to different people at different times over the years. I would just use "authentic" or "consistent" or "believable". That word really doesn't mean any of those.

Otherwise, mostly what you've said I'm agreeable to.