Quote from: estar;603585Sorry for not being clear. I am talking about NPCs not PCs. Character that are under your control as the referee.

In my opinion, the same concept apply. The GM is role-playing that NPC and thus has ownership the same way as a player does of his PC. Thus he's guided by the same principles.

Quote from: gleichman;603579My position is this- it is possible to create a set of rules that cover all the circumstances the GMs desires to be covered in an objective manner. This includes all of combat and skill resolution. There should be no need for GM rulings on the fly in those areas in any game system.

Given all the limitation in your assertion then I agree it is possible to create a set of rules that covers the circumstances the GM desires to be covered in an objective manner.

My view this is only practical if a campaign is narrowly focused either geographically, temporally, or culturally, trading scope for depth. For all its legendary detail Harn/Harnmaster is focused on a single large island and the western fringe of the main continent.

My choice for the Majestic Wilderlands to cover a wider scope with less detail. Hence I developed various methods to create those details on the fly in a manner consistent with the players knowledge of my setting.

Quote from: estar;603607My view this is only practical if a campaign is narrowly focused either geographically, temporally, or culturally, trading scope for depth.

I run all of Middle Earth. Or the far reaches of the tri-galaxy.

The limits aren't contained in area, time period or culture. The limits are contained in the campaign focus (i.e. what it takes time to deal with and what it doesn't). It makes a difference if you playing with the forests in Middle Earth, or if you insist on detailing each individual tree.

Quote from: gleichman;603593In my opinion, the same concept apply. The GM is role-playing that NPC and thus has ownership the same way as a player does of his PC. Thus he's guided by the same principles.

Except that a referee running NPCs is not the same as players running PCs. It a element of the campaign that has to be resolved fairly and objectively just like combat or any other action. In this you are advocating using GM judgment over objective resolution of your NPC's behavior.

My viewpoint that adjudicating a person's (NPC) behavior is both simple and complex. Simple that a lifetime of dealing with people gives us a lot of information in deciding how NPCs should act in a given circumstance. Complex because of the sheer diversity of how and why people act.

Also I keep in mind several things while roleplaying NPCs. Is what I am doing follows from the characters' motivations and circumstances? Is it the most interesting of the probable ways I could be roleplaying the character? Does it reflect how the player character is acting toward the NPC?

It is not easily captured by a set of mechanics except for very specific and limited circumstances (like buying and selling). Attempts to do so lead to forge-like mechanics that wind up feeling like you are playing a game of parchessi than interacting with a person. It is one best left up to the GM judgement backed by good advice in the rules as to how people act in the setting or genre.

I don't see why combat or any other subsystem is any more special over social interaction with NPCs in terms of the need for objective and fair resolution. From reading your posts from the past it seems to me that your focus on combat detail (and other areas that you cover in Age of Heroes) originates from the same place where we both started, in playing wargames.

And I do the same exact things with the rules I use for my Majestic Wilderlands. Detailed combat, detailed characters, rules and tables covering character background, use of miniatures and battlegord.  The difference is that because I was extensively involved in other forms of roleplaying games (LARPS, MMORPGs) I see how alternatives worked. And because of the group I happened to be with, we dissected them to figure what worked and what doesn't.

I prefer the exact things you do. But the difference is that I admit they are my preferences. That alternatives exist and do work for other players. That every design decision comes with a benefit and a cost.

Quote from: estar;603549Challenges and otherwise miserable moments are considered fun by many including myself. The fun is because of the knowing that if you succeed you have pushed yourself in someway either mentally in the case of tabletop roleplaying or physically (mountain climbing, long distance hiking, etc). If you fail then you learn something for the next time.

In short the experience as a whole is fun. If it isn't then there little point to the whole exercise.

This isn't trying to trick you into admitting your game is less than it could be. This isn't trying to trick you into allying with badwrongfun. This is about helping demolish the idea of badwrongfun.

A moment of uncomfortable silence after somebody's PC dies. A nothing but frustration feeling when you screw up and something bad happens in the game world (maybe losing a favorite magic item in a potentially avoidable situation). An emotionally flat 10 minute chore of calculating xp for last month's session.

Any one of those is, potentially, an un-fun bit of the game.

And it's okay to describe them as such. _Important_ to describe them as such, in fact.

Fun is not necessarily additive. Un-fun is not necessarily subtractive.

Continued dependence on the idea of "this element contributes to fun" is pointless; it doesn't really explain why a particular element is still worthwhile or important despite being potentially/obviously un-fun .

Continued use of "fun" as a reason (that isn't really a reason, or is a misleading justification) just perpetuates the concept of badwrongfun.

It leads to phrases like "you're not doing anything wrong if you're having fun," which superficially is fine, but has a subversively destructive implied inverse. It leads to thoughts like 20 minutes of fun in a four hour session, and the knee jerk reaction of possibly changing the whole game as a result. It leads to WotC developers posting an article about changing rust monsters because losing your equipment is not fun.

It's okay - good, even - to say, "yes, encumbrance tracking is not fun, but it makes gameplay more worthwhile because ."

Quote from: estar;603622Except that a referee running NPCs is not the same as players running PCs.

For me, they are the same.

I could at any given time for example turn the game over to another GM and take up a NPC as my PC- and my play of that NPC would be seamless and consistent.

I can't imagine it being done any other way to be honest, and that you claim to do so is something of a mystery to me. I've only seen that in GMs who are attempting to alter the course of the adventure at the cost of NPC consistency, and I didn't think you one of them.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;603627It's okay - good, even - to say, "yes, encumbrance tracking is not fun, but it makes gameplay more worthwhile because ."

I'd agree with this, although I'd tend to apply more to outcomes than inputs (like encumbrance).

Quote from: gleichman;603641For me, they are the same.

I could at any given time for example turn the game over to another GM and take up a NPC as my PC- and my play of that NPC would be seamless and consistent.

I can't imagine it being done any other way to be honest, and that you claim to do so is something of a mystery to me. I've only seen that in GMs who are attempting to alter the course of the adventure at the cost of NPC consistency, and I didn't think you one of them.

Because you are in an unequal relationship with the players. As you mentioned you are God within the setting with nothing that exists unless you say so. A referee can't play NPCs if they were his PCs. Because that means you are playing as if you, the referee, have free agency, which you don't. The players win because you only let them win. A good referee does this by being fair and impartial in all things within the campaign. By playing by the same rules as the PCs once play commences for the session.

A referee that is fair and impartial can only follow the probable consequences of the initial circumstances. For NPCs that mean however you roleplay them it MUST follow from the NPCs personality and motivations. If you want to incorporate unpredictable turns in a NPC's decision then use a random table or a rule incorporating random results. A referee doesn't get to change his mind on a whim if he wants to remain fair and impartially.

Where creativity comes into play is picking which of the PROBABLE consequences is the most interesting for the campaign. This is highly subjective and depends on the nature of the group and the campaign. I stress probable because whatever you decide as the referee it must be supported by what you prepared. To be fair and impartial you don't get to say something is so just because you feel like including the roleplaying of NPCs.

Creativity also comes into play in the design of the campaign both before and during.  For example, the players move into a new area and you need to detail some locales.

My viewpoint that once I come to the table whatever is I have written is what I go with. This includes the roleplaying of the NPCs. This is always been a hallmark of my refereeing since I started in the late 70s.

Your approach is not that far removed from mine, especially when you look at the other provision of your manifesto. However as a standalone maxim it leads to the worst of abuse and unfairness by referees. Which is why I would never explain roleplaying NPCs like you just did.

My attitude has only harden about this over the years especially after my involvement with LARPS. One of the areas that Live-Action Roleplaying shares with tabletop roleplaying is in the roleplaying of characters. Due the nature of LARPS you get to see a lot of people roleplaying at once. Both good and bad roleplaying.

And the things that is bad roleplaying is for a event staff member to treat the NPC as if they are playing as their own character. Which often causes them to start pursuing their own agendas rather those originally written for the character by the event staff.

Quote from: estar;603679And the things that is bad roleplaying is for a event staff member to treat the NPC as if they are playing as their own character. Which often causes them to start pursuing their own agendas rather those originally written for the character by the event staff.

I think I'm seeing our disconnect, and if correct- it's a rather serious one.


When I run an character, be it an NPC or a PC, I always run them according to their own agenda as determined by their personality and resouces.

I never run them as an extension of the Campaign's Agenda and indeed attempt to completely firewall away anything the character doesn't know to make certain of that fact. I also firewall them away from accessing any of the 'GM Powers' (to pick a label).

Some care is taken to during the creation step to insure that the NPC doesn't conflict with the Campaign Agenda. This is rather expected I'd think, because if they did conflict they are clearly poorly suited for the setting I just placed in them and likely couldn't exist in it in the first place.

I don't consider which of the NPCs options and role-playing are more suited to the campaign. I consider which the NPCs options and role-playing are more suited to the NPC (given their PoV limits).




You on the other hand seem to be saying that you approach an NPC not as a distinct identity- but as a extension of the Campaign Agenda and GM influence. A very different concept. I reject your statement that this approach is more fair.

As a side note, what you're saying here is that all your NPCs in your campaigns are similar in a way to my Orcs (which lack a soul and are nothing but the extension of Morgoth's Agenda). That's somewhat amusing.

Quote from: gleichman;603692I think I'm seeing our disconnect, and if correct- it's a rather serious one.

When I run an character, be it an NPC or a PC, I always run them according to their own agenda as determined by their personality and resouces.

I never run them as an extension of the Campaign's Agenda and indeed attempt to completely firewall away anything the character doesn't know to make certain of that fact. I also firewall them away from accessing any of the 'GM Powers' (to pick a label).

Some care is taken to during the creation step to insure that the NPC doesn't conflict with the Campaign Agenda. This is rather expected I'd think, because if they did conflict they are clearly poorly suited for the setting I just placed in them and likely couldn't exist in it in the first place.

I don't consider which of the NPCs options and role-playing are more suited to the campaign. I consider which the NPCs options and role-playing are more suited to the NPC (given their PoV limits).

You on the other hand seem to be saying that you approach an NPC not as a distinct identity- but as a extension of the Campaign Agenda and GM influence. A very different concept. I reject your statement that this approach is more fair.

For any circumstances there are a number of equally probable consequences. As God within the setting, in the manner you stated earlier, the referee has the luxury of considering all of them. And has option of picking the one the referee feels that is the most interesting.

To me it sounds like your methodology is to weight all the probable consequences and you always pick what you consider the most likely. To take a contrived example, with all other factors being equal, if Baron Aleric captures the players, you judge that there it is slightly more likely (say 51%) that he would have the players killed over throwing them into prison (say 49%). Then you would have them killed because that is the mostly despite it being 2% more likely in your judgment.

I am not critical of this approach, and many referees do this and run great campaigns. I on the other hand, when faced with this decision will also consider which is more interesting. And for me, I define interesting is what leads to more opportunities for adventures for the players. If it means killing a some the characters then that I will do, it means throwing them into prison I will do that. But I can't justify one of those outcome based on the NPC's agenda, personality, or resources. I won't consider it.

Quote from: gleichman;603692As a side note, what you're saying here is that all your NPCs in your campaigns are similar in a way to my Orcs (which lack a soul and are nothing but the extension of Morgoth's Agenda). That's somewhat amusing.

It is interesting that you brought this up. Because even with your stated method of dealing with the NPCs they are just an extension of yourself. Your likes, dislikes are very much a factor at the table when you decide what is the the mostly likely consequences and follow up on it. That is the fallacy of treating NPCs as the GM's PCs.

Now my method also reflect my like and dislikes as well. By being conscious that all referee choices are biased, I sit down figure out what other criteria should be considered with deciding the consequences. What I decided I would add as an important consideration which consequences was the most interesting. With interesting defined as those consequences that leads to most opportunities for adventure.

The limitation is that I can only pick them from probable consequences. For NPCs probable consequences are those based on their agenda, personalities, and resources.

Players like to have meaningful choices and I strive to maximize them in my decision.

Another technique I will use are random tables. Often I will roll 3d6 or 2d6 and if I get a outlier results (2 or 12 on 2d6 for example) I will have the NPC do something unlikely but possible for him to do. This adds verisimilitude as the NPCs act more like real people in doing weird shit or acting out of character from time to time. Also enhances the illusion that NPCs has free will like the players.

Quote from: estar;603716To take a contrived example, with all other factors being equal, if Baron Aleric captures the players, you judge that there it is slightly more likely (say 51%) that he would have the players killed over throwing them into prison (say 49%). Then you would have them killed because that is the mostly despite it being 2% more likely in your judgment.

I don't think in such terms. The character will always do what the character would do- there are never weighted options. In this they are limited by the social contract, but nothing else.

Quote from: estar;603716It is interesting that you brought this up. Because even with your stated method of dealing with the NPCs they are just an extension of yourself. Your likes, dislikes are very much a factor at the table when you decide what is the the mostly likely consequences and follow up on it. That is the fallacy of treating NPCs as the GM's PCs.

While I will agree that being human some bleed over is likely, I don't agree that it's significant. By far the largest element is the NPC. And when such bleed over does appears, it's almost always already covered in the Social Contract in any case.

Quote from: estar;603716Players like to have meaningful choices and I strive to maximize them in my decision.

I in contrast don't and I don't see a need to. The setting itself together with the game system has always produced enough interesting choices for my players. I don't need to override the personalities and nature of my NPCs to increase them.

Further I'd say that too many choices is counter-productive, as each loses importance as the total number grows. There's a lot to be said for 'You get one chance at this', and deciding to take on the Baron and then losing was simply one fatal mistake too many. Time to pay the piper even if the 'more interesting choice was for the Baron to let them live and to continue the game'.

Quote from: estar;603716Another technique I will use are random tables.

I will only use random tables for NPCs that I haven't fully created yet. Typically for unimportant matters.

Quote from: gleichman;603727I don't need to override the personalities and nature of my NPCs to increase them.

You not getting what I do. I don't override the personalities and nature of my NPCs. For every situation there are number of probable actions a NPC can take and remain consistent to their personalities and nature.

Are you not understanding the difference between probable and possible?

Moreso your technique is prone to being hacked by the players learning to read you. They can always rely on you picking what you consider the most likely action of the NPCs. Learn that and learn what motivate the given NPCs they can predict what you will do and manipulate that.

My players don't have that advantage in my campaign. Instead dealing with my NPCs is like dealing with people in real life. If you know them, most of the time you can predict what they are going to do next. But on occasion they will do something that surprises you, that only in hindsight will make sense. Or sometimes it just doesn't make sense period.

Quote from: estar;603733You not getting what I do. I don't override the personalities and nature of my NPCs. For every situation there are number of probable actions a NPC can take and remain consistent to their personalities and nature.

If you make NPC decisions based upon a Campaign Agenda (or picking the most interesting choice) instead of the NPCs Agenda, then yes It's very clear that you are overriding the personalities and natures of your NPCs.

Quote from: gleichman;603735If you make NPC decisions based upon a Campaign Agenda (or picking the most interesting choice) instead of the NPCs Agenda, then yes It's very clear that you are overriding the personalities and natures of your NPCs.

(sigh) I guess I have to paint a picture.

NPC
|---------------------------------------------------|
The range of possible decision made by the NPC
|-----------------------|
The range of probable decision made by the NPC based on their agenda.
|-----*--*----------*---|
The ones I consider to lead to more opportunities for adventure. .

I pick one or roll randomly to see which action he does rather pick the most likely every single time.

At no time I am considering anything outside of the NPC's agenda, personality, or having him attempt something that his resources don't allow.

Quote from: estar;603754(sigh) I guess I have to paint a picture.

Your picture does you no favor in my eyes unless I'm reading it completely wrong. The limit imposed by "The ones I consider to lead to more opportunities for adventure" poisons the well.

This is just a point we must disagree on.