Quote from: Sommerjon;670185I see a spade as a spade.

"Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world."

Oh how will they find out things about the world?  Oh wait he tells us.

"However, if the characters listen to rumors and gather information before heading off they can have some idea of what "fixed location" things are in the area."

Oh look he is guiding them.  Wait,  maybe he has a rumors chart to roll on, you know cuz "The world doesn't care about level appropriate."  It much prefers "depending on what comes up on the random roll".
Cuz we alllll know the random chart roll fits setting logic. :rolleyes:

Not sure how others do it.  I simply rarely have anything jump the party, but rather, present it in a way that lets the party determine how it want to interact.

A dragon doesn't swoop down and attack, the party sees a dragon flying overhead.  A T-Rex doesn't come charging, the ranger sees T-Rex tracks.  An orc horde doesn't ambush the party, they come over the crest of a hill to see an orc horde surrounding a merchant wagon train.

Not sure if that means I am presenting level-appropriate or maybe softballing encounters, but it is how I DM the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670177No he doesn't.  In fact he says quite the opposite.  If PCs gather rumors, they gather *all* rumors, and then can decide for themselves where to go.

In most situations they are going to hear multiple rumors (some not even true). In larger towns and cities, what rumors they hear will even depend on where they hear them. the rumors they hear in a tavern with a criminal clientele will be different that those they could here at the Mage's guild or at the guard barracks. And in large towns and cities, chances are good it would take them weeks of chasing around town to hear most of the rumors, let alone *all* the rumors available at the time.

I don't use rumors to guide players to "my level-appropriate adventure for the session" because I don't have a prepared adventure for the session to begin with.  The adventure for the session is whatever the players decide their characters want to do. And as I've said before, "level-appropriate" doesn't even make much sense as a concept in my campaigns because the characters are unlikely to be at the same level, except for the first session.

It really does not matter to me if Summerjon and others assume that I really am guiding people to level appropriate adventures with rumors, except that if these people were playing in my campaign they would probably be very confused when they discovered that I really am not doing what they are claiming I am really doing (but am apparently too stupid to realize what I'm doing).

Quote from: Old One Eye;670261Not sure how others do it.  I simply rarely have anything jump the party, but rather, present it in a way that lets the party determine how it want to interact.

A dragon doesn't swoop down and attack, the party sees a dragon flying overhead.  A T-Rex doesn't come charging, the ranger sees T-Rex tracks.  An orc horde doesn't ambush the party, they come over the crest of a hill to see an orc horde surrounding a merchant wagon train.

Not sure if that means I am presenting level-appropriate or maybe softballing encounters, but it is how I DM the game.

It depends how smart and arrogant the encounter is, and the area and history.  Are they in their own area or roving?  And again, as we have all noted, the pcs become very careful many mindful after. They get jumped a few times.

No offense, but I am pretty much ready to lump the really, really old school approach (e.g. you start over at level 1) in with the other nonstandard games like Cthulu and Paranoia.  Because they are pretty different than what I currently see as mainstream.

Just as you can say that Investigators don't know about level appropriate challenges,  so applies the first generation DM style.

That said, the thread really has helped me to see the harm XP from defeating creatures did to the fantasy I genre.  It has led to some insanely bloodthirsty behavior.  Not that I think treasure was better, because it led to insanely greedy behavior.  No I think games like D6 WEG, SW, etc, probably got it right - you get points for surviving the night and more points for participating.

Quote from: jibbajibba;670139Check where he shows up on the thread and states his position (post 61) .

I checked it out and see your point. I think this may also be a case of things on the internet being taken too literally and we have ignored the tacit "in my opinion/in my style of play" assumption of the article. We probably do get too pedandic about that stuff online. Plus one to the OP for posting here to clarify his position. I guess for me, the reason I tend to push that this wont work for all styles, is because I have played for a while now and I have seen people too often try to carry GM advice designed for a particular style of play into groups where it is obviously a bad fit. On the internet, this tends to be exxagerated and you get universal advice where people get pretty militant about their style (and as you point out, we do it here as well).

My issue hasnt been so much with the OP,(whose exact position I was never 100% clear on until now) but in some of the responses which have stated a style of play I see and have participated in is either impossible or undesireable. It is true though that I am probably more inclined to notice it when it is directed at a style of play I enjoy, rather than when it is directed the other way. To be clear, I think there is a huge spectrum and there isn't a wrong way. DeadGMs style for example is entirely valid and I have embraced when the players in my group preferred that. I think one thing every GM can benefit from is occassionally getting outside your comfort zone and trying a a different approach on its own terms.

So all that said, the OPs appraoch is one I can see a lot of people enjoying. It isnt quite how I prefer to do things, but it isn't radically outside my norms of play either and it is something I could enjoy playing or GMing (Lord Vreeg's approach is probably closest to my comfort zone at the moment). It is certainly not a bad piece of advice for folks want the kind of experience enjoyed by the OP (I suspect he speaks for a large chunk of the hobby). The only thing I would add to what he is saying, is it can also be fun to go the other direction and, not compete with the players, but crank up the carnage and make it a real challenge where players have less expectation of survival. For some reason, the older I get, the more exciting I find it when our party gets slaughtered. There are lots of different guidelines out there for gamemastering. It can be fun to try them all on for size. This is why I have said in the past, paying for an optimized group can be fun. That is the polar opposite of my prefered style, but I was forced into it as a GM by circumstance and found I really enjoyed the challenge of running a game for a group of optimized system mastery folk. It taught me a lot (such as It is not a lesser style of play, and what matters really is the expectations of people at the table).

Quote from: mcbobbo;670268No offense, but I am pretty much ready to lump the really, really old school approach (e.g. you start over at level 1) in with the other nonstandard games like Cthulu and Paranoia.  Because they are pretty different than what I currently see as mainstream.

Just as you can say that Investigators don't know about level appropriate challenges,  so applies the first generation DM style.

That said, the thread really has helped me to see the harm XP from defeating creatures did to the fantasy I genre.  It has led to some insanely bloodthirsty behavior.  Not that I think treasure was better, because it led to insanely greedy behavior.  No I think games like D6 WEG, SW, etc, probably got it right - you get points for surviving the night and more points for participating.

No offense taken.  I sort of agree.  And new PCs are given the choice to come in as level 1 or 10% less exp than the lowest in our groups.  I post on other boards, and some of the really good GMS and I talk all the time about the differences in attitude.  I also agree about the affects of the reward have created behavior patterns.

I personally made the choice years ago about exp, from a psychological standpoint.  There are people who think it does not matter, but from what I see every single game I really delve into or talk about with others, progress and how progress is charted is a reward system.  

And bringing that around to the OP, since I am the one rewarding the players for their good play, they are not defeating me, they have done my bidding....

Quote from: LordVreeg;670286I personally made the choice years ago about exp, from a psychological standpoint.  There are people who think it does not matter, but from what I see every single game I really delve into or talk about with others, progress and how progress is charted is a reward system.QUOTE]

Can you elaborate and explain this to me?

I scrapped tracking xp 25 years ago and it seems to have been a positive thing.

But I like to keep an open mind.

Quote from: Bill;670287

Quote from: LordVreeg;670286I personally made the choice years ago about exp, from a psychological standpoint.  There are people who think it does not matter, but from what I see every single game I really delve into or talk about with others, progress and how progress is charted is a reward system.QUOTE]

Can you elaborate and explain this to me?

I scrapped tracking xp 25 years ago and it seems to have been a positive thing.

But I like to keep an open mind.

Sure, as far as my head understands it.

We both scrapped the trad exp mode of the time way back when.  We share that.

At the time when I really changed it, I had just started my progression towards my psych degree, and over the next 5 years would end up running a lot of experiments, and I used my games and players often, ad a few times, we'd use other groups to get a better 'n'.  

Really.  I laugh now.

And we played a few different types of games, as well.  which was nice to highlight differences.

But one theory from psych I always liked and fit into my own is that something that is earned is a stronger reinforcer than something given, because there is a connection to understanding where it comes from.  It's Why it is nearly impossible to be happy without being satisfied with the effort you are putting in.  Satisfaction with yourself is an essential building block to happiness.

So I realized my playstyle was becoming less combat driven and less adventure driven, and yet rewards came heavily from this. And while this caused a lot of changes, I realized that there was no denying the power of reinforcement (I am not an ardent behaviorist, but not do I deny the fact that there is too much research supporting much of it), and that some of the greatest satisfactions for a Player came from truly earning their achievement, and the closer I tied the rewards to the type of achievement I wanted (behavior), the more satisfying and enjoyable the game to these players.

So I did not remove combat experience, but I lessened it  I added in a lot of skill based experience, so players really get better in the skills they use, and that is probably 30% of the total experience, but the goal and roleplay exp is a full 50% of the experience, because while my players enjoy roleplay and the game, I have rarely seen the satisfaction of a player who gets a high reward at the end of a well-played session taking in the congratulations of the other players around the table.

Something is working.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;670240Players make up their own minds where to go. The rumors are there as a reference.

Using a familliar example of a mini sandbox, if the PCs are playing in module B2 and gather rumors at the keep they have some information with which to make decisions.

They are advised that the upper caves are more dangerous but no one guides them to ensure they stick to the lower caves until a certain level. Greedy player might want to explore the upper caves in search of better loot and be willing to face the dangers.

Veteran Gamer knows what's what.  Sure if your table is full of newest players possible that is one thing, playing with people who have been gaming for any length of time have a much firmer grasp on how to 'read' into what is being related to them.

Quote from: Sommerjon;670291Veteran Gamer knows what's what.  Sure if your table is full of newest players possible that is one thing, playing with people who have been gaming for any length of time have a much firmer grasp on how to 'read' into what is being related to them.

That's still not guiding them though.  The DM isn't doing anything different regardless of players.  He's only providing information based on character action.  That's it.

What you're saying is that the schedule coordinator is guiding a team when he tells them, "You can choose to play the New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks, or Jacksonville Jaguars this upcoming week."  People not familar with football might randomly choose any of the three, while people familiar with football would choose Jacksonville in a heartbeat.  The schedule coordinator is not guiding at all, not by any definition of the word.  He's simply providing options.

Quote from: LordVreeg;670289

Quote from: Bill;670287Sure, as far as my head understands it.

We both scrapped the trad exp mode of the time way back when.  We share that.

At the time when I really changed it, I had just started my progression towards my psych degree, and over the next 5 years would end up running a lot of experiments, and I used my games and players often, ad a few times, we'd use other groups to get a better 'n'.  

Really.  I laugh now.

And we played a few different types of games, as well.  which was nice to highlight differences.

But one theory from psych I always liked and fit into my own is that something that is earned is a stronger reinforcer than something given, because there is a connection to understanding where it comes from.  It's Why it is nearly impossible to be happy without being satisfied with the effort you are putting in.  Satisfaction with yourself is an essential building block to happiness.

So I realized my playstyle was becoming less combat driven and less adventure driven, and yet rewards came heavily from this. And while this caused a lot of changes, I realized that there was no denying the power of reinforcement (I am not an ardent behaviorist, but not do I deny the fact that there is too much research supporting much of it), and that some of the greatest satisfactions for a Player came from truly earning their achievement, and the closer I tied the rewards to the type of achievement I wanted (behavior), the more satisfying and enjoyable the game to these players.

So I did not remove combat experience, but I lessened it  I added in a lot of skill based experience, so players really get better in the skills they use, and that is probably 30% of the total experience, but the goal and roleplay exp is a full 50% of the experience, because while my players enjoy roleplay and the game, I have rarely seen the satisfaction of a player who gets a high reward at the end of a well-played session taking in the congratulations of the other players around the table.

Something is working.

What I do, with level based games, in a nutshell, is reward the players as a group with a level when:

They, as a group, are giving off a vibe, or even patting themselves on the back, over thier characters acomplishments.

Tempered by not wanting the rate of advancement to be too fast or too slow in a general sense.

If the players happen to ask "When do we get a level?" I will usually reply with something like "When you have accomplished more of X ( X being whatever the characters goals are)" Or I  might say "When you manage to reveal to the king that his brother plans to steal the throne instead of screwing up like you have and making the brother's regicide easier"

Depend son what the players are trying to do.

I can't speak for others, but I personally think a player should be concerned with what their character is doing, and immerssion in the game, and not metagamethinking about how to earn xp for the next level.

Quote from: RandallS;670263In most situations they are going to hear multiple rumors (some not even true). In larger towns and cities, what rumors they hear will even depend on where they hear them. the rumors they hear in a tavern with a criminal clientele will be different that those they could here at the Mage's guild or at the guard barracks. And in large towns and cities, chances are good it would take them weeks of chasing around town to hear most of the rumors, let alone *all* the rumors available at the time.

I don't use rumors to guide players to "my level-appropriate adventure for the session" because I don't have a prepared adventure for the session to begin with.  The adventure for the session is whatever the players decide their characters want to do. And as I've said before, "level-appropriate" doesn't even make much sense as a concept in my campaigns because the characters are unlikely to be at the same level, except for the first session.

It really does not matter to me if Summerjon and others assume that I really am guiding people to level appropriate adventures with rumors, except that if these people were playing in my campaign they would probably be very confused when they discovered that I really am not doing what they are claiming I am really doing (but am apparently too stupid to realize what I'm doing).

I've played with a number of Gms like you in my time.  Your setting matters more than anything the players do.

You say the players can take weeks running through the whole town catching all of the rumors?  WTF are the townsfolk doing during that time?  Standing in a specific spot waiting for the players to come to them?  Gossip doesn't stay in one area.  People talk then go someplace else and talk then go someplace else and talk.  That's just the way it is.  That doesn't mean that the gossip stays 100% accurate through all the 'filtering'.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670294That's still not guiding them though.  The DM isn't doing anything different regardless of players.  He's only providing information based on character action.  That's it.

What you're saying is that the schedule coordinator is guiding a team when he tells them, "You can choose to play the New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks, or Jacksonville Jaguars this upcoming week."  People not familar with football might randomly choose any of the three, while people familiar with football would choose Jacksonville in a heartbeat.  The schedule coordinator is not guiding at all, not by any definition of the word.  He's simply providing options.

He sure as shit better do something different based on the players.

Quote from: Bill;670295

Quote from: LordVreeg;670289What I do, with level based games, in a nutshell, is reward the players as a group with a level when:

They, as a group, are giving off a vibe, or even patting themselves on the back, over thier characters acomplishments.

Tempered by not wanting the rate of advancement to be too fast or too slow in a general sense.

If the players happen to ask "When do we get a level?" I will usually reply with something like "When you have accomplished more of X ( X being whatever the characters goals are)" Or I  might say "When you manage to reveal to the king that his brother plans to steal the throne instead of screwing up like you have and making the brother's regicide easier"

Depend son what the players are trying to do.

I can't speak for others, but I personally think a player should be concerned with what their character is doing, and immerssion in the game, and not metagamethinking about how to earn xp for the next level.

I think we do what we do for the same reason, and maybe even get similar results from different directions.

Something else I did was break every skill into it's own level, so a beginning character may have 10-15 skills they have going on, and a mid level one may have 20-25 skills, as growth is very free form and is as much about acquiring new skills and sub skills as getting better at a class.  So a player normally breaks 1-3 small skill levels per session.

And one of the dynamics of rewarding skill use is character's becoming what they do.  The more they bribe people, they better they get at it, the more they schmooze, the better they get at schmoozing, the more they try to identify magic, the better they get at it.

So players get used, and start to live out the whole, "become what they do" ideal. One of the casters had a little restorative spell ability when a priest went down (with a bunch of scrolls) early in an adventure, and his response was, "guess I'm going to become a better healer, huh?".  

I also play stupid long games, so I did this to also keep them happy with lots of little progressions, since I don't like high-power games.

Quote from: Sommerjon;670301He sure as shit better do something different based on the players.

You said he flip flopped and was guiding players.  He hadn't done any such thing.  You also said that you know his kind, where the world is more important than the players when nothing he had said implies that.

I think you like making up reasons that don't exist to justify your incorrect assumptions.