Quote from: Phillip;884379...Some people don't like their own decisions to spell sudden death for their characters, but like the dice to do that in games such as RuneQuest. Is there a psychology of being relieved of responsibility?

Somewhat related:

For some, for sure, but combined with a popular desire to have "narrative" control over a character's fate, or even the "plot", has made me feel a real disconnect with a portion of the gaming community.

This was made very clear to me on another forum (3 guesses which*) in a thread called "What is your WORST rpg?". One poster said that Gumshoe was the worst because it promised to be THE clue-based investigative mystery game, but the players didn't have any sway in the decision of the final solution (he said that the players should decide the solution of a mystery after following the chain of clues even if it wasn't what the GM or module intended). Keep in mind that this game heavily empowers the PCs with a degee of narrative control. But it wasn't enough.

No one called this out but when others said that their worst game was Fate or an Apocalypse World hack, they were questioned or it was implied that they "didn't get it".

Outside of the Internet, I've encountered players like this: they wanted absolute control not only over who their characters were, their place in the world and how failure worked out (and the consequences of failure) but they also argued with me over the rules or setting details if they conflicted with their character concepts. They flat-out ruined my campaign.

So yeah, some people like to let the dice decide the consequences, but it gets worse when they want to be able to dictate the outcomes, even of failure.

* I don't post there anymore. The final nail in the coffin was not a ban, but being told that people must be lazy, socially-inept or simply less intelligent for liking a class that wasn't as technically optimized, complex or "balanced" as others.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884516I think he was referring to THIS line:

"3rd Wave Feminism: A movement that seems mostly dedicated to making sure no straight male has a lengthy erection ever again."

Ooo...That I care about.

Seriously, Thanks Shipyard Locked. When I was typing it i was trying to between "Long" and "Lengthy" and apparently decided on the worst in the middle.

Quote from: Nexus;884519Ooo...That I care about.

Seriously, Thanks Shipyard Locked. When I was typing it i was trying to between "Long" and "Lengthy" and apparently decided on the worst in the middle.

I dunno. "Longthy" would have been at least as bad.

Quote from: Necrozius;884518One poster said that Gumshoe was the worst because it promised to be THE clue-based investigative mystery game, but the players didn't have any sway in the decision of the final solution (he said that the players should decide the solution of a mystery after following the chain of clues even if it wasn't what the GM or module intended).

Some people really just want to play collaborative storytelling.

Nothing wrong with that if that's their thing.  I can see where it would get frustrating for them.

Quote from: Necrozius;884518The final nail in the coffin was not a ban, but being told that people must be lazy, socially-inept or simply less intelligent for liking a class that wasn't as technically optimized, complex or "balanced" as others.

Uhh, purple, awful, Gaming Den, EnWorld, GitP, Circus Maximus, Paizo, having trouble figuring out which site you mean.

Something to think about. The module was written partially as a "take that" at players bragging high level characters, and partially as an actual challenge to seasoned players.

So what is Tomb of Horrors? Something designed such that a smart group of level 12-15 characters can defeat. But will wipe out those supposedly sooo much more superior level 40 groups in short order if they didnt get that far by fair means and hard work.

An example on an MMO I used to play on way back. Youd have instances of players power levelling early on or rushing through the tutorials, oft boosted by another player. Then theyd get out into the main game at like level 20-30 and have no clue how to actually play. Then get promptly massacred by the equivalent of a rabbit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;884549Some people really just want to play collaborative storytelling.

Nothing wrong with that if that's their thing.  I can see where it would get frustrating for them.

But its self imposed frustration.

Instead of enguaging the system and playing the game that they apparently read and agreed to play. They want to highjack the adventure and tell their own story.

Its like in D&D where you get someone who agrees to participate in a module or even a non-module adventure and promptly walks off the map, falls off the table and gets lost in the carpet, under the couch.

Quote from: Omega;884556Its like in D&D where you get someone who agrees to participate in a module or even a non-module adventure and promptly walks off the map, falls off the table and gets lost in the carpet, under the couch.

You know the mini isn't actually the player, right?

Quote from: Necrozius;884518Outside of the Internet, I've encountered players like this: they wanted absolute control not only over who their characters were, their place in the world and how failure worked out (and the consequences of failure) but they also argued with me over the rules or setting details if they conflicted with their character concepts. They flat-out ruined my campaign.

Why did you allow the game to happen in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I'm just curious why didn't you say something along the lines of "guys, this isn't gonna work for me, how about we switch places?"

Gary Greenwald disagreed. :duh:

Quote from: CRKrueger;884561You know the mini isn't actually the player, right?

Gary Greenwald disagrees? :duh:

Quote from: Omega;884553So what is Tomb of Horrors? Something designed such that a smart group of level 12-15 characters can defeat. But will wipe out those supposedly sooo much more superior level 40 groups in short order if they didnt get that far by fair means and hard work.

I think to one degree or another this is something that I feel ought to be standard in adventure design. I mean, it's my personal opinion and preferred aesthetic. A good adventure should be self-regulatory in a way.

One thing I think is there always ought to be at least a chance that party members will lose items at some point. If I write a module for 2nd-4th level characters, the rewards are going to be commensurate with that level of play. So if a level 3 character loses his +1 sword at some point in the adventure, this is balanced off by finding another +1 sword among the rewards for successful completion of the adventure. And of course the gold and XP make for a net gain. But if someone wants to come and stomp through it with their level 20 and they lose their vorpal sword only to get a +1 sword as an adventure reward, that's going to be a net loss for that player.

On the other hand, if someone is smart enough to get through the adventure with a 1st level character, losing only his store-bought sword during the adventure but replacing it with the +1 sword for successful play, then he's gained a lot more than the level 3 guy.


So now that I have my copy of Tomb of Horrors, I've noted some interesting things. First of all, the XP reward for winning the whole thing is 100k + XP for treasure. That basically means for characters level 8 and below (and for some classes 9th or 10th level) you're pretty much going up a full level if you beat this adventure. (Cover says it's designed for levels 10-14, but pregens range from 6-14).

On the other hand, the real entrance corridor, I estimate, based on the traps there, a foolish player of a 12th level character has a 90% survival rate just based on good stats saving him. Whereas if the player places wisely, survival is above 98%. Compound these odds over 30 similar encounters, and the survival rate for the fool drops down to about 7.5%, whereas the wise player is about 60%. It's still dangerous, to be sure, but more than half of the party should survive. And certainly at that level raise dead spells are in the cards.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884571(Cover says it's designed for levels 10-14, but pregens range from 6-14).

And certainly at that level raise dead spells are in the cards.

1: That is what makes it an even funnier a jab at the blowhards. A lowly level 6 character has a chance of beating the Tomb.

2: The 14th level pregen could stock up to 3 and the 9th level pregen cleric can stock 1. 8 and down lack access. The level 14 magic user could pack reincarnation. Though that is an unpredictable save.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;884565Why did you allow the game to happen in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I'm just curious why didn't you say something along the lines of "guys, this isn't gonna work for me, how about we switch places?"

At the time I was all about collaborative world building. In fact, the campaign itself was created based on group voting. Every ruling or tweak in the setting or campaign style had to be approved by the players (this was my idea).

It didn't go well. In fact, it was a fucking trainwreck.

Quote from: Necrozius;884578At the time I was all about collaborative world building. In fact, the campaign itself was created based on group voting. Every ruling or tweak in the setting or campaign style had to be approved by the players (this was my idea).

It didn't go well. In fact, it was a fucking trainwreck.

I see. This explains a lot.

Frankly, I consider myself very liberal at the beginning, but I become very strict the moment players betray my trust and demand too much. I lost a few groups this way, but I regret nothing.