Quote from: Rincewind1;506483I had not bought a single module outside Warhammer line, and yet I can easily grasp a concept of sandbox. It's really not that hard - 3e's DMB gives advice how to do it.

To someone who's not used to it, though, the concept will look daunting - I have to manage all these characters and groups? And decide how they react to each other? And how they react to the PC's? And how do I get all this across to them?

It's getting past that first step that's probably the hardest thing for people, because they don't yet know that it's not as complicated as it looks, and no amount of say "it's not that hard, really!" is substitute for them experiencing that it's not so hard.

I mean, to put it another way - when I got my course books, I flicked through the assignments and had no idea what any of it meant, and it all looked daunting. Now I've done the prep work, it's pretty simple, but I wouldn't have believed you if you had told me that four months ago.

Quote from: Ladybird;506509To someone who's not used to it, though, the concept will look daunting - I have to manage all these characters and groups? And decide how they react to each other? And how they react to the PC's? And how do I get all this across to them?

It's getting past that first step that's probably the hardest thing for people, because they don't yet know that it's not as complicated as it looks, and no amount of say "it's not that hard, really!" is substitute for them experiencing that it's not so hard.

I mean, to put it another way - when I got my course books, I flicked through the assignments and had no idea what any of it meant, and it all looked daunting. Now I've done the prep work, it's pretty simple, but I wouldn't have believed you if you had told me that four months ago.

Never said it's easy. Beginnings are always hard, no matter what you do. There's an old saying about shortcuts - take them too much, and you get lost.

That's why I decided to try and raffle the GMPM - because it is dangerous to go alone, and an additional sword's useful. I know there are many books on GMing advice out there, but people still wonder about catstringing and railroading - so it means that another stone should be thrown into that pot.

My personal advice would be simple - use that time when you ride the bus, or walk the dog, or w/e to think a bit about your game and your world. Or just dedicate 30 minutes a day, or 15, for it.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. If you run your game "wrong" - it doesn't meant you shouldn't ever again GM. Learn from mistakes. I GMed my share of bad games, but I like to think I learnt from mistakes.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506516Never said it's easy. Beginnings are always hard, no matter what you do. There's an old saying about shortcuts - take them too much, and you get lost.

To drag things kicking and screaming back to the game at hand, I honestly think the encouragements stuff in AW - play to find out what happens, don't pre-plan a storyline, make characters lives not boring, address yourself to the characters, be a fan of the characters, etc - is good advice! And, y'know, read the text, don't just look at the bullet points.

QuoteYou knew the job was dangerous when you took it. If you run your game "wrong" - it doesn't meant you shouldn't ever again GM. Learn from mistakes. I GMed my share of bad games, but I like to think I learnt from mistakes.

But that's the thing, again, we know that. Someone just starting out? Might not. And that's the sort of thing that could demoralise someone out of GM'ing.

A "mistakes that a new GM is going to make, and how to fix them" chapter would be pretty much a necessity for a new GMing guide. Yeah, obviously the people who didn't have problems, didn't have problems - but there are more than enough stories of problem GM's and games to show that at least someone did. Everyone fucks up, and failures teach more than successes.

Quote from: silva;506472Here in Brazil the situation was worst. Without internet and Amazon, the hobby consisted of GURPs, AD&D and Vampire. I didnt knew more "sandboxy/open-ended" style games/modules like Griffin Mountain and Wilderlands of High Fantasy existed until the late-90s.

Amen, brother.

Holding on to the D&D RC, rather than "upgrade" to AD&D 2e, kind of protected me from the worst excesses of the age, though. Being a compilation of BECMI D&D, the RC's DM advice chapters still clung to a strong old school-ish ethos of exploration >>> storywank, do-it-yourself >>> buy our Dragonlance novels, etc.

Quote from: Ladybird;506618To drag things kicking and screaming back to the game at hand, I honestly think the encouragements stuff in AW - play to find out what happens, don't pre-plan a storyline, make characters lives not boring, address yourself to the characters, be a fan of the characters, etc - is good advice! And, y'know, read the text, don't just look at the bullet points.



But that's the thing, again, we know that. Someone just starting out? Might not. And that's the sort of thing that could demoralise someone out of GM'ing.

A "mistakes that a new GM is going to make, and how to fix them" chapter would be pretty much a necessity for a new GMing guide. Yeah, obviously the people who didn't have problems, didn't have problems - but there are more than enough stories of problem GM's and games to show that at least someone did. Everyone fucks up, and failures teach more than successes.

AW is terrible GMing advice, because it basically states "Play the right game, and do not worry - the game's design will do the job for you."

A veteran GM can handle that.

If a newbie starts with such piece....

May the Light Side protect his future players.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506705AW is terrible GMing advice, because it basically states "Play the right game, and do not worry - the game's design will do the job for you."

A veteran GM can handle that.

If a newbie starts with such piece....

May the Light Side protect his future players.

God forbid you play different games differently based on them describing their procedures to you rather than relying on subcultural indoctrination to figure out (or fuck up) your ability to GM.

And if you're really worried that there's something that's destroying a ton of people's ability to GM, you're a bit late, Rince.  d20 RPGA/Adventure-path stuff and White-Wolf already did that.  I haven't been able to play in a single game that wasn't GM-as-storyteller time.  Ever.  Really.  I almost succumbed to that shit but playing with one particularly hipster/artsy Vampire GM made me realize what shit it was and I modified my GMing accordingly.

Of course Peregrin, you can pretend that a system will handle good GMing for you.

But then stop calling yourself a GM, as you are nothing more then a calculating machine with a bit of imagination thrown in it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506723Of course Peregrin, you can pretend that a system will handle good GMing for you.

But then stop calling yourself a GM, as you are nothing more then a calculating machine with a bit of imagination thrown in it.

If it were a "system" in a pure mechanical sense, you might have a point.

Quote from: Peregrin;506724If it were a "system" in a pure mechanical sense, you might have a point.

The "GM" advice is carefully tailored to the game's mechanical system
The system may only work correctly if proper GMing advice, provided with the game, is used
Therefore, the game must be GMed in a very specific manner, which means that the GM is nothing else but a calculating machine for the mechanics.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506726The "GM" advice is carefully tailored to the game's mechanical system
The system may only work correctly if proper GMing advice, provided with the game, is used
Therefore, the game must be GMed in a very specific manner, which means that the GM is nothing else but a calculating machine for the mechanics.

All games have built-in assumptions about play, what is or isn't proper for a GM to do.  Some are more broad than others, but all proper games contain limits and goals, or they're not complete.  And in tabletop RPGs, the interaction between mechanics and the imagined space is often subjective, so pure calculation isn't possible.  A lot of it is based on gut feeling, even in something like AW.

The limits and goals -- the guiding posts for play -- are just more spelled out in AW than other RPGs.

Quote from: Peregrin;506728All games have built-in assumptions about play, what is or isn't proper for a GM to do.  Some are more broad than others, but all proper games contain limits and goals, or they're not complete.  And in tabletop RPGs, the interaction between mechanics and the imagined space is often subjective, so pure calculation isn't possible.  A lot of it is based on gut feeling, even in something like AW.

The limits and goals -- the guiding posts for play -- are just more spelled out in AW than other RPGs.

1) Even if what you said about built - in assumptions for a game was true, it still does not change the fact that AW is doing the equivalent of "you may be too stupid to run this game, so you must run it my way". In other words, it stealthily insults the reader.
2) A well - written game'd give away a "proper" way to play it, without going off with pretentious advice.
3) Even if a game is written for a very selective playstyles, it's still your damn free right to play it as you will, and the author should not try to hardcode some meaning of "failure" or "doing it properly" into the game - Call of Cthulhu's designed for hardcore Lovecraftian game, but nowhere in there will you find "Lol, fool" if you try to run it as a pulp adventure.
4) A good RPG, like a good boardgame, should allow at least a few playstyles (or in case of a boardgames - tactics/strategies).
5) Of course pure calculation isn't possible, but that is where the Forge school of design is headed. While 4e tried to turn a GM into a computer, Forge does the same - except less crunch, and more flavourful text.

It doesn't stealthily insult the reader, it's a procedurally complete game.  It may not be useful for you, but how it's worse than giving the reader a neutral task-resolution system with some vague advice on how everything should work is lost on me.  No more insulting than Trail of Cthulhu by telling people outright "Hey, there were some vague things that should've been spelled out more clearly about how you should design adventures.  Here are some procedures to help you do that better."

If you don't want a procedurally complete game and would rather design your own on top of whatever you're given, that's your right, sure, it's your table.  But just because someone dares to design a game that takes all of its procedures into account doesn't make it a bad game.  Different, but not bad.  The procedures will be inserted at some point, anyway, whether it's dictated by your own personal preferences or the text.

As for the Forge, it's prettymuch irrelevant at this point as an entity.  But I would like to know for you what separates a "GM as calculator" and "GM as referee."  Because in both classic tabletop play and something like AW, you're applying a set of procedures to respond to what players do in the game.  The only difference is that in one they're explicitly spelled out, and in the other you may sometimes apply your own when the system doesn't give you a clear answer.  But they serve the same exact function -- a means of adjudicating what happens.  That's not creativity, that's just deciding on how to resolve a conflict so you can move the game forward.

If you truly believe there is one way RPGs should be made, and that other approaches to game design are bad, wrong, or don't work, then I suggest you avoid a lot of games.  But IMO, there's room for both approaches to design.  Most video-gamers aren't bitching about how Mass Effect is an affront to gamerdom because it has clear goals for the player and a fairly linear story, or how Minecraft is better because you can do whatever the fuck you want with it.  They play and enjoy both games on their own terms.

QuoteIt doesn't stealthily insult the reader, it's a procedurally complete game. It may not be useful for you, but how it's worse than giving the reader a neutral task-resolution system with some vague advice on how everything should work is lost on me. No more insulting than Trail of Cthulhu by telling people outright "Hey, there were some vague things that should've been spelled out more clearly about how you should design adventures. Here are some procedures to help you do that better."

Trail of Cthulhu is just as much worthy of scorn for that, because it bases itself on a false assumption that a GM will be incompetent with a tailored mechanic. I like the system, and use it, but it's default premise is a load of bollocks, because a well - tailored scenario, combined with a good GM and creative and cunning party will never, ever, depend on one roll. Esoterrorists were certainly written in a way designed to ridicule Call of Cthulhu - Kenneth Hite just has much more class.

QuoteIf you don't want a procedurally complete game and would rather design your own on top of whatever you're given, that's your right, sure, it's your table. But just because someone dares to design a game that takes all of its procedures into account doesn't make it a bad game. Different, but not bad. The procedures will be inserted at some point, anyway, whether it's dictated by your own personal preferences or the text.

See, all this talk about procedures and whatsonot is the problem with AW - I'm not running procedures when I play the game.

I play the damn game. That's it. Me and my friends sit down, and play the game, using a set of rules to referee when there's a need to see if the character is capable of doing something, and neither me nor player can respond to that. Nothing more to it.

And even if we go into the Land of Big Words, and  talk about procedures in RPGs - it is impossible to design a complete procedurally RPG, for  the same reason it is impossible to paint a painting that'll be liked by everyone - because Experiences Will Vary. It is impossible to tailor RPGs rules to deliver the same form of experience to every users, and it's simple pretentiousness (it'd be arrogance, if it was at least written well), to do so.

If you still don't see that, I can't help you. You had believed a carefully tailored lie, and I am not paid to somehow save your "gaming soul". But I can  try to save another damn bastard from falling prey to it.

QuoteAs for the Forge, it's prettymuch irrelevant at this point as an entity. But I would like to know for you what separates a "GM as calculator" and "GM as referee." Because in both classic tabletop play and something like AW, you're applying a set of procedures to respond to what players do in the game. The only difference is that in one they're explicitly spelled out, and in the other you may sometimes apply your own when the system doesn't give you a clear answer. But they serve the same exact function -- a means of adjudicating what happens. That's not creativity, that's just deciding on how to resolve a conflict so you can move the game forward.

If you really make such a claim, then go and play a game under a competent GM.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506705AW is terrible GMing advice, because it basically states "Play the right game, and do not worry - the game's design will do the job for you."
A veteran GM can handle that.
If a newbie starts with such piece....
May the Light Side protect his future players.

You start learning to walk with crutches, you'll never put 'em down.  That's why I group ToC with AW as games that are solutions to problems that don't exist.

I've run games the way you describe "good" GMing.  My longest running campaign was a 3-year sandbox, and I've been running Basic D&D on and off the past several months.  You can talk down to me all you want and assume I don't get it, but then you're "falling prey" to the same pretensions you try to cast onto AW and Baker by assuming I can't tell what does and doesn't work for me at the table.

And if you think those are "big words", avoid any sort of principled game design class or discussion in more successful game fields, because those aren't big words at all.  The truth is that game are designed to produce certain behaviors in players.  You can try to pretend that's not true and that games shouldn't do that, or just ignore the game's goalposts and make up your own game as you go, but it's not some Forgist conspiracy, it's game design 101 shit.