TheRPGSite

I suppose all or most of GMing takes place behind the curtain, or a GM screen of some kind. Im not talking about hiding your notes or whatever though. I'm referring to decisions and actions taking place beyond the knowledge of the players, and in this case not hidden plot elements but actual game mechanics.

I have found in over 35 years of GMing that fairly regularly the actions of NPCs, if handled strictly as per the rules, would slow the pace of the game down and kill the tension/drama and excitement that is typically the goal of any session. No matter how versed you are with the rules, no matter how streamlined the process, it takes time to decide on an action, glance at a stat, consider modifiers, roll the dice, interpret and assign damage etc. then relay the information. (if indeed the players would notice) This is just a combat example but the same applies in any number of situations where there are a number of other figures involved.

I could give an actual example but I think most of you know exactly what Im talking about. Conclude a series of actions by the players with a long pause as you roll for henchmen #1 through #4 then check on the mooks your fighting, A-J etc.

BIG ADMISSION FOLLOWS - Please don't tell my buddies from 1979

When confronted with these situations I often fudge the die rolls and simply narrate the action in a way that seems plausible and typically beneficial to the flow of the story. I may roll the dice behind my screen, pretend to consult a chart or two to keep the players guessing but those NPCs and Mooks hit or miss based on my whim, not the dice.

There it is, I said it aloud.... I feel sooooo much better. Ok, Im prepared to take on whatever penance handed me.

Seriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Do you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

Ok, on second thought here are a couple examples....

1. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

2. The PCs are fighting in a saloon, a typical brawl. They square off with first one drunk cowboy then another. In between, are you actually rolling for any of the other guys?

3. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns? Or does it sound something like...

"Ok, Roderick hits an Indian pretty hard, the guy goes down. While you reload and pick out targets muskets continue to fire, filling the air with smoke. A few balls zip by and you hear more than one painful cry and see at least a couple of your fellow Englishman fall back from the barricade clutching their face. (GM rolls a few dice, interprets a better roll for the French as 3 kills to one by the English) Alright Bob, you've got initiative, your turn.

I will readily admit I always feel a little guilty about this. It completely eliminates the quality of the NPCs, their stats, talents, or whatever. Unless you spend the time to come up with some mass combat system that takes that into consideration. I do roll a random dice or two, just to see sort of how a side is doing but its nothing technical, just kind of helps me make up my mind. In the end, if the players were a major part of the action, then their performance steers the result, but if they weren't (Say in a battle of hundreds or thousands) then its totally up to me.

Thoughts?

I am guilty of similar crimes, and I suspect we are not alone.

Example: Two PCs (investigators for the League of Nations - fictitious - detection bureau) are attempting the arrest of a criminal mastermind on an island between Switzerland and Italy, in 1935. They are accompanied by 3 Italian OVRA agents (they dislike the fascist organisation, but have to work with them).

When one of the League agents is confronted by a guard and then a henchwoman of the major villain, gunplay ensues. Action has consequences - the PC has pushed ahead of her colleagues and has no back up - let the dice fall where they may. (She's a badass bitch and plugs the bad guys.)

Two of the Italian agents come up against a guard with a tommy gun - meanwhile the other League investigator is running down the head villain. A few quick  abstract rolls leave one OVRA man dead while the other kills the guard. Therefore I'm able to move on quickly to concentrate on the attempted arrest of the major villain by the other PC - that's what is important. (The villain is a pussy, so he surrenders).

It keeps the game moving and really, who cares about poor Luigi, the fascist creep? Similarly, in a small fight - the PCs do well, then their side does well - or not if they roll/plan bad. In a big battle, yeah - their actions just effect them and their immediate bit of the battle. I'll determine the major outcome with a few separate rolls based on troop levels/type/generals/ect.

At least with D&D just RPing the NPCs is how you are supposed to do it. You resort to dice rolls only when you are unsure or want a degree of uncertainty in how an NPC acts. Rolls then occur only when the players are trying to directly effect/change a NPCs reactions.

EG: You know the mayor is hostile to clerics due to some past problem. You didnt need to roll any of that. But say the PC cleric is trying to persuade the mayor to do something. Here you can either RP it as you think the mayor should act based on what the cleric said, or have a persuasion check to see if hes swayed despite his mood or because you are unsure if the cleric swayed him or not and so let the dice decide.

Thus you arent roll-roll-rolling and its down to common sense points that matter.

Example: when DMing Hoard of the Dragon Queen when the party encountered the first blue kobold band. Nox, a blue dragonborn, decided to bluff them. No rolls were made. I just played them believing his story enthusiastically. Later at the cult base he tried it with some black kobolds and here we did a check because they are predisposed to distrust a blue. But his cover story was believable.

Same with incidental NPCs. I roll only when its really needed. Like a morale check to see if followers break. Otherwise they are just doing their things. World in motion continues as it will if the PCs arent there so.

1: Why would the PCs not being there matter. Later they find out the boat was sank if they didnt stay around. If they did stay around then thered be a possible encounter depending on how the mooks go about sinking the boat.

2: Not unless theres a good reason for it.

3: I roll for the NPCs to-hits and such as in most RPGs thats usually pretty quick. Say 6 guys with bows thats just 6 rolls and its over in less than a minute. If some arent fighting then ignore them as needed.

Oh yeah. For background combats I'll usually guesstimate odds and roll just once to see which side won.
Giving players an auto-success for good play should be more of a thing, IMO.
And often in the interest of pacing I'll gloss over all kinds of stuff.

I have all the rolls in the open, but don't always have rolls for everything.  I think it's okay to make just make a decision where you deem necessary because, like you, I like to keep things moving along, and keep the actions of the players center stage. Whatever happens offscreen, I deal with offscreen, until it makes a difference. For example, we recently finished a short arc in which the encounter I presumed to happen simply didn't materialize, because the party made other decisions. So the encounter (a raid), happened without them there. I've deemed the raid a success, and had the perps eat feet back to their hideout. It is possible the PCs may cross paths with them in their current travels (they should -- they have a nemesis leading the bad guys), but, then again, they may not. Had we run the actual raid, I would certainly not have rolled for everyone involved. I'd have concentrated on the spotlit PCs.

As for your other examples:

Quote1. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

I assume the mooks will follow their orders, unless they've been told otherwise. So I'd assign an outcome (the boat is detained). Of course, if the players aren't there, the question is, how does the outcome affect anything? If it's a difference which makes no difference, then I don't bother with it. If they were waiting on the boat, and the mooks detained it or whatever, then I'd just make it clear to them that "Pushboat Willie is overdue...way overdue." Then see how they react. I guess the question is, who hired the mooks and why?

Quote2. The PCs are fighting in a saloon, a typical brawl. They square off with first one drunk cowboy then another. In between, are you actually rolling for any of the other guys?

Depends on the point of the brawl. If it's just a bar fight, you can narrate the entire thing, or go ahead and do the combat. If the point of the fight is to draw unwanted attention to them, the then have at, and have whoever's supposed to notice, notice. If it's just a fight, I run it by the rules. Since we've been using Dungeon World, the brawler's friends just add to the damage roll (at +1 per). I'd have them Defy Danger from getting jumped, dodging flying bottles, etc. Afterward, I'd assume their rep would suffer in some way, depending on the context of the brawl. Short version: No, I would not roll for every combatant.

Quote3. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns? Or does it sound something like..."Ok, Roderick hits an Indian pretty hard, the guy goes down. While you reload and pick out targets muskets continue to fire, filling the air with smoke. A few balls zip by and you hear more than one painful cry and see at least a couple of your fellow Englishman fall back from the barricade clutching their face. (GM rolls a few dice, interprets a better roll for the French as 3 kills to one by the English) Alright Bob, you've got initiative, your turn.

I'd more than likely go with the latter. But I think system can make a difference, too. If the Regulars augment the PCs abilities, I'll have them make use of them. Otherwise, I'd narrate the combat as it made sense with the scenario. In short, I'd go with the way you just described it.

The "Behind the Curtain" aspect you speak of here reminds me of the "Think offscreen" aspect of GMing, where the world moves on, sometimes reacting directly to what the PCs are doing, sometimes just moving on as the major players see fit.  For example, our current campaign has some offscreen political and commercial maneuvering going on. I handle these things logically and inexorably, until the PCs become embroiled. But, as a general rule, in a table situation with many actors doing their thing, I just don't make the rolls. I did that once before when we were doing a large, set piece battle involving a castle raid, and all I did was bore the players.

Quote from: Omega;911969At least with D&D just RPing the NPCs is how you are supposed to do it. You resort to dice rolls only when you are unsure or want a degree of uncertainty in how an NPC acts. Rolls then occur only when the players are trying to directly effect/change a NPCs reactions.

This, as a rule of thumb.

Savage Worlds addresses this by having a system which was designed to make large scale combats easy and fast and to allow players to control large quantities of NPCs along with their PCs.

So in these particular examples, you could easily assign the various groups of NPCs to specific PCs and have them fight it out, or in the case of the riverboat just let some players run the riverboat crew and some run the bandits and fight it out even if none of their PCs are present.

Another thing is you can treat a group of NPCs in a fight as a single unit. One roll to hit or just have them all on the same initiative for ease of handling. Works best when the NPCs are all the same sort.

Not only do I roll for every NPC, but all the NPCs tend to have different attributes, skills, equipment, etc. Often I'm even adding rolls for the state of mind and situational awareness of each NPC, too. And sometimes I do battles with hundreds of NPCs.

To me, the gameplay is one of the main reasons I am playing, so I rarely handwave anything unless I'm not interested in it, or circumstances require that I handwave it. Every time something gets ignored and handwaved, it's no longer really part of the game.

And no, it does not take me forever to run action, even in GURPS with many potentially complicating house rules. I can generally resolve it about as quickly as I can describe it in English. It probably actually helps that I always play on a hex map. It would be harder if there were no map showing where people are, as that limits what makes sense for them to do.

After a combat, I am also tracking the bleeding on every wounded figure (whose individual wounds have been recorded by type, hit location, severity and stuck weapons/arrows/etc), and figuring out who is stopping bleeding and who is applying first aid and who is looting or finishing off the fallen, and who might be playing dead and still trying to sneak away, etc.

The game situation and its cause & effects and the odds of things and factors involved, tend to be one of the main reasons I'm playing the game. So I want to savor that stuff, not throw it out.

If there's a LOT of monsters fighting the PCs I break them up into groups and roll them as one. One attack roll, one damage roll and then multiply it by the creatures. They either all hit or miss.

But if it's just NPC fighting NPC I just decide what happens. Rolls are only for players or when you don't have an answer already.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952When confronted with these situations I often fudge the die rolls and simply narrate the action in a way that seems plausible and typically beneficial to the flow of the story. I may roll the dice behind my screen, pretend to consult a chart or two to keep the players guessing but those NPCs and Mooks hit or miss based on my whim, not the dice.

On the rare occasion that I'm going to just decide something by GM fiat, I simply do that.  I don't ignore the dice or fudge, I just don't roll them at all.  If I roll something, then I am committing myself to letting fate decide the outcome.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952Seriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Yes, absolutely.  I can't imagine any situation where I would declare an attack against a PC to succeed or fail purely on my own whim instead of randomizing it.  That sort of thing is exactly why I stopped running Amber Diceless after only two or three sessions - I don't want the responsibility of deciding whether bad things happen to PCs or not.  I want to have a randomizer to blame it on when something bad happens.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952Do you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

I roll for it, but usually simplify/abstract it down to a single roll rather than going through the full process that would take place if we were playing it out with the PCs present.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9119521. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

If the entire process of the mooks being dispatched, the boat being intercepted (or not), and the PCs learning that the boat was behind schedule all took place within a single session, then I'd do a one-roll resolution.  e.g., Roll a d6 and on 1-3 the boat was detained by the mooks, 4-5 it was destroyed, and 6 the mooks weren't in position and it slipped past.

If that process was split between two or more sessions, I'd resolve it between sessions.  Probably in a more detailed manner, but just how detailed would depend on how much fun I thought it would be to deal with.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9119522. The PCs are fighting in a saloon, a typical brawl. They square off with first one drunk cowboy then another. In between, are you actually rolling for any of the other guys?

Probably not, because a bar brawl doesn't really matter, regardless of how things go.  I would still roll to see how much prior damage each new cowboy had already taken as they came to the players' attention, but that would usually be all I'd feel was necessary.

Well, that and I'd also throw a handful of d6s each round (one for each NPC who isn't engaged with a PC) to see how many of them go down while fighting amongst themselves.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9119523. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns? Or does it sound something like...

"Ok, Roderick hits an Indian pretty hard, the guy goes down. While you reload and pick out targets muskets continue to fire, filling the air with smoke. A few balls zip by and you hear more than one painful cry and see at least a couple of your fellow Englishman fall back from the barricade clutching their face. (GM rolls a few dice, interprets a better roll for the French as 3 kills to one by the English) Alright Bob, you've got initiative, your turn.

I would definitely determine group initiative for the opposition (probably as two groups, Frenchmen and natives), then handle their actions as part of the normal combat sequence, making all to-hit and damage rolls as appropriate.

For the Englishmen, it could go one of two ways:

1) I roll group initiative, to-hit, and damage for them, the same as the opposing groups.

2) Give one or more of the Englishmen to each player and have them act on the same initiative as that player's character, with the player making the NPC's to-hit and damage rolls.  (This is how Savage Worlds does it, as daniel_ream mentioned above.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952Seriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Yes. And I will generally stop playing with any GM doing what you describe doing.

QuoteDo you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

Generally no. The game world is self-evidently too large and too complicated for me to personally simulate every aspect of it to the same degree of detail that we do with the on-screen actions of the PCs.

Quote3. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns?

Again, yes. Sounds like you're describing a scenario with about two dozen combatants with maybe 3-5 distinct NPC stat blocks. I run similar encounters on a regular basis while rolling for each NPC's actions and attacks individually. As the encounter size grows larger, there are practical tricks I'll employ to keep focus and interest at the table. (For example, letting players control their NPC allies.)

At some point, of course, encounters get large enough that they're too large to handle through every-combatant-gets-an-individual-turn mechanics. (For example, if the PCs are fighting on the fields of Agincourt I'm not rolling for every French and English knight.) This generally doesn't mean that I start waving my hands: It means I either need a different mechanical structure for resolving that conflict (mass combat rules); or I've made in an error on what the focus of the scene actually is and I need to redefine what's onscreen. (In other words, PCs on the battlefield of Agincourt are only going to be concerned about what's happening immediately around them and that's what we should be focusing on. We don't need to describe/play through the actions on the other side of the battlefield for much the same reason that I don't act out the conversations of every NPC in a crowded bar.)

The point at which "this encounter is too large for me to manage" will, of course, vary from one GM to the next. But it is, in general, a skill that can be learned. And, as I mentioned above, there are a variety of practical tricks you can use. Off the top of my head:

- Use a system with group initiatives (all the goblins go on 12; all the ogres go on 15).
- Hand-off NPC allies to the players to keep them engaged through long initiative cycles (and to invest them in their fates).
- Use some form of battlemap to keep the battlefield clearly defined in everyone's mind.
- Print each NPC stat block on a single note card or sheet of paper. Lay them all out so that you can easily glance from one to another during combat
- Write down the initiative order so that you can jump quickly and efficiently from one character to the next.
- While Player 1 is rolling their dice to resolve their current action, tell the next player that they're on deck (if it's a PC) or roll the dice for their next action (if it's an NPC). (If you've got a really good group, you can often get to the point where you can have Player 2 declare and start rolling their dice while you bounce back to Player 1 to get the results of their roll.)
- Jot down key stats for the PCs (particularly target numbers like AC in D&D) so that you don't have to keep asking for them. (Works less well in systems where those target numbers are constantly shifting.)
- Make multiple rolls for your NPCs simultaneously. (If there are 8 goblins attacking, roll eight d20s all at once. You don't need to roll one d20 eight times.)

i generally would not roll in any of the three situations described. i'd just decide the outcome. but, if i wanted randomness to determine it, i would make one representational roll, or a percentile check - something quick and easy.

In general I only roll dice in my games for things that interface with the Player Characters. If it doesn't affect the PCs why roll? I have a special die I sometimes use, it is labled with a range from "certain" to "impossible". That to determine the odds followed by a dice tosss to determine the result if I really feel the need to roll something. But I am not going to roll every single check for every single NPC.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952I suppose all or most of GMing takes place behind the curtain, or a GM screen of some kind.

Not at my table. Any GM screens are folded up and put next to me for the reference material.

QuoteSeriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Yes, unless the players' roll is so good it will be an autokill anyway.

QuoteDo you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

I roll, though it might be just a single opposed roll with appropriate bonuses and penalties for skill.

Ok, on second thought here are a couple examples....

Quote3. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns? Or does it sound something like...

Neither: the players roll for everyone on their side, and I roll for the opposition.

QuoteI will readily admit I always feel a little guilty about this. It completely eliminates the quality of the NPCs, their stats, talents, or whatever.

Indeed it does, unless your "narration" accounts for all of these...which is possible, but I kinda doubt it's really the case:).

QuoteThoughts?

I really hope you don't run anything heavier than Risus or Barbarians of Lemuria. BoL+supplements, Savage Worlds or half the retro-clones would be pushing into "unnecessary and time-wasting mechanics" already when the PC's stats don't matter anyway:D!

Also, if it works for you and your group, keep doing it. If I ever apply for a game you run online, please notify me so I could skip it;)!

Interesting and about what I expected. Several different camps along the "Your the GM, do what you want" to "How dare you not follow the letter of the rules" path.

From my experience this points directly to where are the grid the gamer stands between the experience being a GAME or an interactive STORY.

Gamers take it pretty hard anytime anything deviates from the rules and mechanical resolution of the action whereas the StoryWriters find the rules help to manage the action but certainly aren't supposed to limit it in any way.

Its kind of funny really. The GM arbitrarily ruling that a PC slain guard managed to scream out a warning in order to mobilize the forts defenses would completely enrage one player group, if their intent was to sneak in, while another player group would take it in stride simply as "well that sucks, what now?" The former seeing it as a cheat that robbed them of some planned advantage while the latter view it as just another factor in the plot to consider.

It really is more about the players expectations and approach to gaming than the GM. Someone up above posted they wouldn't play with a GM that did something like this as if it was inappropriate in some way. Literally like cheating, counting the wrong number of squares on the Monopoly board when you move your token. Ive never seen it that way at all.

Of course, what I have come to understand, and this thread reinforces my thinking, is that my own approach is heavily biased by the fact that I rarely play as a character. I have been the GM easily 95%+ of the time. I see the interaction of players and GM as TOTALLY a tool to create a bit of collaborative fiction - winning, losing, fairness etc.. are concepts that just don't belong there. If the end result is exciting, dramatic and fun for all at the table, then the specifics really aren't that important.

I realize this is the worst kind of heresy in some groups however.

Quote from: Skarg;912007Not only do I roll for every NPC, but all the NPCs tend to have different attributes, skills, equipment, etc. Often I'm even adding rolls for the state of mind and situational awareness of each NPC, too. And sometimes I do battles with hundreds of NPCs.

To me, the gameplay is one of the main reasons I am playing, so I rarely handwave anything unless I'm not interested in it, or circumstances require that I handwave it. Every time something gets ignored and handwaved, it's no longer really part of the game.

And no, it does not take me forever to run action, even in GURPS with many potentially complicating house rules. I can generally resolve it about as quickly as I can describe it in English. It probably actually helps that I always play on a hex map. It would be harder if there were no map showing where people are, as that limits what makes sense for them to do.

After a combat, I am also tracking the bleeding on every wounded figure (whose individual wounds have been recorded by type, hit location, severity and stuck weapons/arrows/etc), and figuring out who is stopping bleeding and who is applying first aid and who is looting or finishing off the fallen, and who might be playing dead and still trying to sneak away, etc.

The game situation and its cause & effects and the odds of things and factors involved, tend to be one of the main reasons I'm playing the game. So I want to savor that stuff, not throw it out.

I apologize but Im not sure if Im supposed to take this post seriously.

In response to a couple of you that claim you do indeed roll for every NPC or lump them together let me comment briefly...

If you are clustering NPCs and using one overall roll of some kind I find this as deviating from the typical combat rules as any fudging Im doing. To imply that X number of mooks are identical and in this few seconds all perform identically is easily as off-rules as someone making a percentage roll or something to determine a rough guess on how they performed. I really don't see this as different enough to stand as a superior alternative. If you are using a mass combat system of some kind then great, most systems don't have them for intermediate sized conflicts. Its either dozens or hundreds involved for mass combat or man to man.

Now, as to rolling for every NPC.. Ive played SW which brags about being able to handle tons of combatants and no matter how fast and furious it is, if your rolling for every NPC it takes time, even if they are oddly all identically skilled and armed.

"OK, the guy behind the crate fires, umm... ok, nope he missed. Now the two guys on the cat walk, the one guy aiming at this guy... he umm, hits for 1 wound and his target goes down. The other one fires and ...umm, nope he missed. Ok, now the guy by the hanger entrance. The first guy sprays fire here and here, rolling.. well this guy is Shaken but the other umm... nope he is ok. This other guy at the door has a shotgun, max range here but ...umm.....and so on"

Terribly uninteresting bit of narration by the GM and I made it pretty fast, I doubt it would be that fast in real life. If he spends any more time in trying to make it more interesting, he is just wasting more time. I would almost guarantee the typical Players are sitting there thinking "Ok, ok great, wonderful, is it my turn?"
If I have to sit and wait even 30 seconds while the GM rolls dice and computes the resolution of actions not directly affecting my character, Im getting bored. So much easier and interesting to gloss over a few seconds with a bit of narrative creativity and get back to the PCs. This insures that the described activity is indeed, interesting and dramatic and not just a bunch of dry numbers in an attempt to get through it quickly.

"Fire reigns down from the catwalk, out of the hanger and from the loading platform off to the right. There are maybe a dozen muzzles blasting in your direction and the ping of ricochets and splatter of wood and earth around you is not stop. From somewhere ahead of you comes the steady thump of an automatic alongside the click and boom of bolt action rifles. One of your guards cries out, clutching his shoulder and dropping his gun, another winces as the fence rail he is hiding behind splinters in his face. Your people are returning fire but you are outgunned and your position seems completely disadvantaged. (Scratch 1 bad guy and 2 good guys -  Roll for one or two NPCs actually firing at the PCs and then back to Player 1's turn)"

Actually the rules in RPGs will sometimes advise to do exactly that. It was even easier in D&D where in some iterations you did roll for example initiative for a whole side. NOT individuals. Ammending as needed.

So if you had a bunch of archers you can can just roll one initiative for that group, and from there roll all their attacks or make one group roll. Im not keen on group attack rolls as its way too swingy. But someone else might think its ok. YMMV there. It does though work well for background battles where you want some uncertainty. So while the PCs are fiighting in the foreground you can just make a single roll for armies in the background. Especially if its large numbers.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178Gamers take it pretty hard anytime anything deviates from the rules and mechanical resolution of the action whereas the StoryWriters find the rules help to manage the action but certainly aren't supposed to limit it in any way.

You have critically failed your Reading Comprehension roll.

Challenge is not a primary factor for me. I won't play with shitty GMs like you because the "stories" you create with railroading are infinitely less interesting as narrative and in-character experiences than actual collaborative, open-ended play.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912182In response to a couple of you that claim you do indeed roll for every NPC or lump them together let me comment briefly...

Like many shitty GMs, I see you're busily trying to convince yourself that everyone better than you must be lying about their experiences.

For off-scene events, I decide what happened. Even if PC intervention might affect the outcome, I decide on what has happened based on how much the PCs have intervened.

For in-scene events, I roll openly and transparently. I might "forget" what an NPC's skill is and they might fail when they should have succeeded, or I might work out the special/critical chances "incorrectly", so they might be classed as fudges.

If the PCs are involved directly then every roll gets made per the rules. If it is strictly NPC vs. NPC action then it depends on how the players are involved. If the players are on the side of a particular NPC or group then I let them make those rolls while I handle the opposing group. If the PCs are not involved at all and it is just NPCs doing stuff I'm not going to ignore my players and take the time to resolve actions in front of them, effectively playing by myself while they sit there. I will then usually eyeball chances of success based on comparative abilities, and roll a quick d% to determine the outcome based on those probabilities.

So if the PCs are aboard a ship with marine sailor allies, I have the PCs make rolls for their allies while I handle the enemies.

If the PCs drift into town in the midst of shootout between rival outlaw gangs and don't know, and don't get involved with either side then I will do a quick estimate of outcome chances, roll and just announce who won the skirmish.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178From my experience this points directly to where are the grid the gamer stands between the experience being a GAME or an interactive STORY.

...and I'm pretty much off that axis entirely.  I prefer the experience to be the exploration of an alternate reality.  I don't particularly value either GAME or STORY.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178It really is more about the players expectations and approach to gaming than the GM.

Yes. Yes, it is.  What you're talking about is 100% a difference in approaches to gaming and any approach can work, provided that everyone at the table enjoys it and expectations are set accordingly.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178Of course, what I have come to understand, and this thread reinforces my thinking, is that my own approach is heavily biased by the fact that I rarely play as a character. I have been the GM easily 95%+ of the time. I see the interaction of players and GM as TOTALLY a tool to create a bit of collaborative fiction - winning, losing, fairness etc.. are concepts that just don't belong there. If the end result is exciting, dramatic and fun for all at the table, then the specifics really aren't that important.

Nope, that's not the cause.  I GM pretty much exclusively as well (probably closer to 99% of the time than 95%) and I don't see the game as "collaborative fiction" at all, nor do I feel any desire to apply fiat to make things more "exciting, dramatic and fun".  On the contrary, I find that a hands-off, neutral approach makes things far more exciting and fun than if I were to guide events by GM fiat.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912182"OK, the guy behind the crate fires, umm... ok, nope he missed. Now the two guys on the cat walk, the one guy aiming at this guy... he umm, hits for 1 wound and his target goes down. The other one fires and ...umm, nope he missed. Ok, now the guy by the hanger entrance. The first guy sprays fire here and here, rolling.. well this guy is Shaken but the other umm... nope he is ok. This other guy at the door has a shotgun, max range here but ...umm.....and so on"

Terribly uninteresting bit of narration by the GM and I made it pretty fast,

You're assuming that the GM must announce every result as it is rolled.  There's no reason that he can't make all the rolls and then announce that

Quote from: rgrove0172;912182"Fire reigns down from the catwalk, out of the hanger and from the loading platform off to the right. There are maybe a dozen muzzles blasting in your direction and the ping of ricochets and splatter of wood and earth around you is not stop. From somewhere ahead of you comes the steady thump of an automatic alongside the click and boom of bolt action rifles. One of your guards cries out, clutching his shoulder and dropping his gun, another winces as the fence rail he is hiding behind splinters in his face. Your people are returning fire but you are outgunned and your position seems completely disadvantaged."

after making all the rolls for each individual opponent.  Good narration does not demand that resolution be glossed over, fudged, or the result of pure GM fiat.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912180I apologize but Im not sure if Im supposed to take this post seriously.

You are.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178From my experience this points directly to where are the grid the gamer stands between the experience being a GAME or an interactive STORY.

Then your experience is limited and incomplete. My goal when playing is neither to experience being in someone else's skin, exploring a foreign setting, or both. It's not about the game*, nor is it to experience your story. Emphasis on *your* story: I'm fine with indie narrativist storytelling games**, but not with predetermined stories like yours.


*Chess is a better game than most RPGs.

**Amusingly, most popular indie games also consider your approach anathema for creating a story - they believe in creating a story together, and what you end up with is you creating the story, and the players writing, at best, the fluff text. Story-wise, I can't duspute their conclusion.

QuoteGamers take it pretty hard anytime anything deviates from the rules and mechanical resolution of the action whereas the StoryWriters find the rules help to manage the action but certainly aren't supposed to limit it in any way.

That's so far from the truth I can just laugh:D.

QuoteIts kind of funny really. The GM arbitrarily ruling that a PC slain guard managed to scream out a warning in order to mobilize the forts defenses would completely enrage one player group, if their intent was to sneak in, while another player group would take it in stride simply as "well that sucks, what now?" The former seeing it as a cheat that robbed them of some planned advantage while the latter view it as just another factor in the plot to consider.

In my experience, it's the complete opposite: gamers take this as "the GM raising the difficulty", while the story-gamers get upset that you're arbitrarily spoiling their story of covert infiltrations.

QuoteIt really is more about the players expectations and approach to gaming than the GM. Someone up above posted they wouldn't play with a GM that did something like this as if it was inappropriate in some way. Literally like cheating, counting the wrong number of squares on the Monopoly board when you move your token. Ive never seen it that way at all.

Believe me, there's more than one such person in this thread - myself included.

QuoteOf course, what I have come to understand, and this thread reinforces my thinking, is that my own approach is heavily biased by the fact that I rarely play as a character. I have been the GM easily 95%+ of the time. I see the interaction of players and GM as TOTALLY a tool to create a bit of collaborative fiction - winning, losing, fairness etc.. are concepts that just don't belong there. If the end result is exciting, dramatic and fun for all at the table, then the specifics really aren't that important.

Thing is, results aren't completely separated by the means used to achieve them, so that's BS again. The means can and do influence the outcome and the reaction people have to it.

Also, there are many stories that pretend to be "exciting, dramatic and fun", but when I finish them and laugh at the author. Because he (or she) didn't get the specifics right. And yes, specifics matter.

QuoteI realize this is the worst kind of heresy in some groups however.

Indeed. And what I said is, in turn, the worst kind of heresy in other groups.
Context matters, too.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912182In response to a couple of you that claim you do indeed roll for every NPC or lump them together let me comment briefly...

Let me explain briefly why your comments are off-base:).

QuoteIf you are clustering NPCs and using one overall roll of some kind I find this as deviating from the typical combat rules as any fudging Im doing.

BS. Are mass combat systems "deviating from the typical combat rules", too? Abstracting it into one roll is what many such systems use.

QuoteTo imply that X number of mooks are identical and in this few seconds all perform identically is easily as off-rules as someone making a percentage roll or something to determine a rough guess on how they performed.

Again, in many, many systems, that's pure BS.
In D&D, all of them are 1/2 HD, 1HD or 2HD creatures. Probably one of the first two.
In Exalted or other systems with similar (lack of) granularity, Savage Worlds, ORE, Unisystem and the likes included, all of them are Attribute 2, Skill 2, because the difference between 1and 2 or betwen 2 and 3 is large enough that most mooks will fall into the range of "average".

QuoteI really don't see this as different enough to stand as a superior alternative.

Look again.
Also, food for thought. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stochasticity)

QuoteIf you are using a mass combat system of some kind then great, most systems don't have them for intermediate sized conflicts. Its either dozens or hundreds involved for mass combat or man to man.

Wrong. Nothing says mass combat can't be used for intermediate sized conflicts. In fact, many systems explicitly list sizes you'd deem "intermediate" in the possible sizes of the troops.
And regardless of the rules, mass combat is closer than assuming that a 20 on 20 fight devolves into 20 duels.

QuoteNow, as to rolling for every NPC.. Ive played SW which brags about being able to handle tons of combatants and no matter how fast and furious it is, if your rolling for every NPC it takes time, even if they are oddly all identically skilled and armed.

See above why they're all d6 in all statistics.

Quote"OK, the guy behind the crate fires, umm... ok, nope he missed. Now the two guys on the cat walk, the one guy aiming at this guy... he umm, hits for 1 wound and his target goes down. The other one fires and ...umm, nope he missed. Ok, now the guy by the hanger entrance. The first guy sprays fire here and here, rolling.. well this guy is Shaken but the other umm... nope he is ok. This other guy at the door has a shotgun, max range here but ...umm.....and so on"

Terribly uninteresting bit of narration by the GM and I made it pretty fast, I doubt it would be that fast in real life.

If you narrate like a rookie, you get the results a rookie does. Nothing new here, nothing to see, move on, please!

QuoteIf he spends any more time in trying to make it more interesting, he is just wasting more time. I would almost guarantee the typical Players are sitting there thinking "Ok, ok great, wonderful, is it my turn?"

I'm seriously starting to pity the players that play with a GM that doesn't believe they have more attention span than a fly.

QuoteIf I have to sit and wait even 30 seconds while the GM rolls dice and computes the resolution of actions not directly affecting my character, Im getting bored.

Your attention span tops out at 30 seconds of stuff not directly affecting your character? Seriously?

Quote"Fire reigns down from the catwalk, out of the hanger and from the loading platform off to the right. There are maybe a dozen muzzles blasting in your direction and the ping of ricochets and splatter of wood and earth around you is not stop. From somewhere ahead of you comes the steady thump of an automatic alongside the click and boom of bolt action rifles. One of your guards cries out, clutching his shoulder and dropping his gun, another winces as the fence rail he is hiding behind splinters in his face. Your people are returning fire but you are outgunned and your position seems completely disadvantaged. (Scratch 1 bad guy and 2 good guys -  Roll for one or two NPCs actually firing at the PCs and then back to Player 1's turn)"

Great, I get pretty much similar descriptions after actually rolling the dice. Aren't players 2 and 3 already getting bored, though? According to your estimates of their attention span, that's quite a bit for something that didn't involve their characters, as far as I can see!

Quote from: soltakss;912223For in-scene events, I roll openly and transparently. I might "forget" what an NPC's skill is and they might fail when they should have succeeded, or I might work out the special/critical chances "incorrectly", so they might be classed as fudges.

No, forgetting things doesn't count as fudging whether it benefits the players or not. It counts as "GMs are humans, too". Well, we are, barrung unusual circumstances:D!
I mean, after running Usagi Yojimbo last week, I noticed I hadn't noticed a rather important rule. Was that fudging? No, I was simply running it for the first time.
Of course, I assume you're genuinely forgetting stuff, here.

Quote from: nDervish;912232...and I'm pretty much off that axis entirely.  I prefer the experience to be the exploration of an alternate reality.  I don't particularly value either GAME or STORY.



Yes. Yes, it is.  What you're talking about is 100% a difference in approaches to gaming and any approach can work, provided that everyone at the table enjoys it and expectations are set accordingly.



Nope, that's not the cause.  I GM pretty much exclusively as well (probably closer to 99% of the time than 95%) and I don't see the game as "collaborative fiction" at all, nor do I feel any desire to apply fiat to make things more "exciting, dramatic and fun".  On the contrary, I find that a hands-off, neutral approach makes things far more exciting and fun than if I were to guide events by GM fiat.



You're assuming that the GM must announce every result as it is rolled.  There's no reason that he can't make all the rolls and then announce that



after making all the rolls for each individual opponent.  Good narration does not demand that resolution be glossed over, fudged, or the result of pure GM fiat.

Pretty much everything you said, man, except I play more often;).
Also, announcing every result as it is rolled instead of as a coherent narrative, is a rookie mistake.



And after all the critics, I actually have an useful suggestion for you: Buy and run a few diceless games. No need to pretend there are dice that matter!
I quite like the Stalker RPG (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/100243/STALKER--The-SciFi-Roleplaying-Game) myself;). What I don't like is someone lying to me that there are random outcomes;).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912209You have critically failed your Reading Comprehension roll.

Challenge is not a primary factor for me. I won't play with shitty GMs like you because the "stories" you create with railroading are infinitely less interesting as narrative and in-character experiences than actual collaborative, open-ended play.  


Like many shitty GMs, I see you're busily trying to convince yourself that everyone better than you must be lying about their experiences.

Having a bad day are we? Damn man, is it so hard to express your opinion without being a prick. Go beat your dog or quit your job and deal with your issues. I'm pretty sure I haven't done anything to deserve your pissy attitude. Your welcome to your opinion, I honestly asked for it, but try and be civil. Geeze.

Our play is absolutely open ended and encourages creativity by all. At times the players have more control, and at others the GM. I'm sorry that threatens you in some way.

No worries my friend,  there is little chance ypu will ever play in one of my shitty games. Have fun in yours!

Just read through the rest of the threads and I appreciate your input.  The condescending attitude is a little hard to stomach but I still appreciate your time.  I'll bow or here,  it seems everything I post gets misunderstood. I'll try harder to be clear next thread.

Nothing like a thread like this to sort the wheat from the chaff. Some of us are able to disagree like adults, some of us are able to recognize that others may have radically different gaming styles, and some just want to squabble like children.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912239Just read through the rest of the threads and I appreciate your input.  The condescending attitude is a little hard to stomach but I still appreciate your time.  I'll bow or here,  it seems everything I post gets misunderstood. I'll try harder to be clear next thread.

It's probably for the better to let this thread die, yes:).

When you rethink this thread, you might want to notice that at least my condescending attitude only manifested when you began to answer condescendingly;).

Or you might want to ignore that, I don't know.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912180I apologize but Im not sure if Im supposed to take this post seriously.

Yes, I'm completely serious. I've been playing with individual foes with individual equipment and stats and rolling everything out and using tactical hex maps and dropped weapon counters since I started playing The Fantasy Trip when I was 10 or 11 years old.

I would really like to play with Skarg the human calculator DM.  

That said I have played with both types of DM. The one who rolls for everything, and the one who makes it up.  From what I can see either one can put their thumb on the scale.  Either one can equally enhance or curb (discourage/crush) player agency.  Either one can straight out cheat.  The DM picks the modifiers, decides the moral and level of hostility of the NPCs.

For myself, off screen I make a table of probabilities and roll.  I include some wierd outcomes on numbers like 21 and 66. But I want my world to feel like a living place.  If I was rushed for time I might not do that.

I find a lot of times, when a GM who.is running a traditional game says "It's about experiencing a story", what they mean is it is about experiencing the GM's story. In other words, the GM is not playing to find out what happens, but to get to the awesome parts of the story he has in mind.

To that end, such a GM will typically do things such as:

- Fudge dice so that combat and social encounters arrive at the conclusion the gm had in mind
- Create encounters and plot developments that are unavoidable.
- Render player choices meaningless as all decisions lead to the same place.
- Employ railroading and illusion of choice.

Basically it is the GM forcing his story on the players and it is the style of GMing which brings to mind a failed author in many players' minds.

I do think that players and GM can work together to create a game with the feel of fiction. But as the GM would you be happy about the players fudging their rolls the same way? A player who always chooses to roll critical hits because that's the story HE wants to tell?

Quote from: rgrove0172;912182...
"OK, the guy behind the crate fires, umm... ok, nope he missed. Now the two guys on the cat walk, the one guy aiming at this guy...

. . .

Terribly uninteresting bit of narration by the GM and I made it pretty fast . . .

One thing your example illustrates is one of the inherent advantages of using a combat system with a tactical hex map. No narration is required to keep people constantly imagining the spatial situation. So you don't have to re-explain the positions to everyone. That's partly why mapless combat drives me nuts. The other (even more important, to me) part of why I almost always require maps, is that the details are tactically important, especially when results (like being killed or maimed or not) are determined by rules and die rolls which are heavily modified by the spatial situation, and which, again, is one of the main reasons I play - to play out the details of situations and see how the characters use what's there to lead to a result.

So by contrast:

Quote"Fire reigns down from the catwalk, out of the hanger and from the loading platform off to the right. There are maybe a dozen muzzles blasting in your direction and the ping of ricochets and splatter of wood and earth around you is not stop. From somewhere ahead of you comes the steady thump of an automatic alongside the click and boom of bolt action rifles. One of your guards cries out, clutching his shoulder and dropping his gun, another winces as the fence rail he is hiding behind splinters in his face. Your people are returning fire but you are outgunned and your position seems completely disadvantaged. (Scratch 1 bad guy and 2 good guys -  Roll for one or two NPCs actually firing at the PCs and then back to Player 1's turn)"

So, this narration has many good things about it. It is an appropriate level of detail to convey what someone's experience of being surprised might be like. Maybe you even rolled out the results first and then narrated it vividly... that'd be cool, and is something I do. I even roll for the mental state of the PCs and take the properties of their characters into account when I make descriptions for them to describe what their characters likely do and don't perceive about what happened.

But if you didn't roll for any of this, then all of it isn't really a game. If the PCs have combat experience, are alert and/or clever, have tactical training or whatever (or even if they don't) and you didn't even roll to give them any chance to not get into this situation, or to reduce the effects of incoming fire, or for the chance that one of them gets hit rather than an anonymous guard, then my reaction to this is you're throwing away many very important elements of playing out the situation. Unless I think you are a genius and I am fascinated and satisfied by what your brain makes up as what happens, I will tend to feel like I came looking for a game about a situation, and instead you're making stuff up and giving me details that may have no effect on anything. I can't expect things to make sense or to be given a fair chance to do anything about my character's plight. My character is not really facing the danger you're asking us to pretend is there. There's no bolt action rifle or automatic fire - you seem to just be saying that because it sounds cool even though you're probably not really taking those things into much account. My gameplay is now about reading you as a storyteller and trying to figure out what will get you to give my character approving attention and have things work out for them because you approve of what I say I do and how I say I do it. And given that you don't care much about specifics of combat, most of what I think I understand about these situations is probably not going to work how I think it should. Again, unless I think you're brilliant and we're on the same page and the other players aren't problems for me, this is really unlikely to be something I want to do. Rules and maps and dice provide a consistent impartial system for the game situation that the GM's intuition can't really provide.

Even when I'm trying to figure out things as GM that I have no rules or stats for, I often roll dice so that I and the players can be surprised by circumstances without it being based just on my whim. Are there any weapons for sale in that market? Hmm, maybe 1/3 chance - roll 1d6, on a 5 there's something, on a 6 there's some good stuff. On a 4 maybe there's something that could work as an improvised weapon. On a 1 it's all clothes and soft vegetables. It adds no time because it's a practiced habit and I do it while I'm thinking about it. It also nicely makes the players wonder what I'm rolling about.

Quote from: Headless;912258That said I have played with both types of DM. The one who rolls for everything, and the one who makes it up.  From what I can see either one can put their thumb on the scale.  Either one can equally enhance or curb (discourage/crush) player agency.  Either one can straight out cheat.  The DM picks the modifiers, decides the moral and level of hostility of the NPCs.

Yes, though some GM's only have one scale to put a thumb on. I often like heroic over-the-top crazy weird unlikely and interesting situations, but the things I cheat about are just very different, because I don't just want the story to say it's about those wild things - I want the game to actually be exploring the cause and effect of those situations, so I carefully choose what to force to get the situation to be the one I'm interested in playing out. But once I've got there, I play out what's on the table with as little forcing as possible, because I'm really sensitive to the idea that whatever's forced isn't really the thing it says it is. If you defeat the evil boss but the GM fudged things, you didn't really do it. So what's the situation that's interesting to start with to get the conflict we're interested in playing out, and then actually play it out - that's usually the main point, for me.

So my "thumb" is on things like initial character design (if I want them to have a chance to survive lots of violence, I let them be people who have things that actually make sense in-universe to actually give them that chance, not 200 hit points nor protagonist plight protection points), and sometimes letting them meet interesting characters whom I've developed rather than always rolling to see if they happen to meet anyone interesting, and on what's in the world (like some nice clear despisable villains whose methods will tend to provide the situations I want to game out, and not ones I don't (so if I want heroic combat they may employ a bunch of henchmen and guards for the players to have fun dealing with, rather than other tactics a power monger might use which might be a lot more nasty, such as using assassins or bombs or snipers or magic the players may have little/no chance to deal with).

I am very open to my players going "off script". I once ran an entire Stormbringer campaign based on the players deciding to hunt down a treasure they heard mentioned in an overheard bit of tavern conversation. I had no idea what or where it actually was. I just was making up some snippets of background noise. I had a very different set of adventures in mind, but those all got shelved.

I once ran an entire four hour session at a con entirely dice-less simply because the way the game unfolded never required that dice be rolled. It certainly wasn't planned that way.

It is as much the players' story as it is mine. At the end of every session I ask my players if there is anything in particular they want to see in future, either more or less of. It doesn't always turn out exactly that way, but I want the game to be fun for everyone.

Good stuff guys really. I will refrain from commenting further, I don't want to stir up any more grief... but I am considering the matter and if I can come up with a less confrontational way of forming a thread, I will!

Quote from: rgrove0172;912235Our play is absolutely open ended and encourages creativity by all.

So we start with you asserting that everyone who's a better GM than you is lying about their experiences and we wrap with you in denial about your own descriptions of what you do at the table.

This attitude is why you're locked into mediocrity as a GM. Getting angry and upset and believing that people are picking on you when they point out the flaws in your GMing technique just further reinforces your inability to learn and improve.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912289So we start with you asserting that everyone who's a better GM than you is lying about their experiences and we wrap with you in denial about your own descriptions of what you do at the table.

This attitude is why you're locked into mediocrity as a GM. Getting angry and upset and believing that people are picking on you when they point out the flaws in your GMing technique just further reinforces your inability to learn and improve.

Don't be a griefer, JA:). Cut the guy some slack, he posted he's looking for a less confrontational way to make his point. An effort worth of respect, I'd say.
(Although I suspect he'll just find out that a lot of us simply don't like this playstyle - possibly with the addendum "unless it's a diceless game").

Quote from: rgrove0172;912285Good stuff guys really. I will refrain from commenting further, I don't want to stir up any more grief... but I am considering the matter and if I can come up with a less confrontational way of forming a thread, I will!

Good decision;)!

Quote from: DavetheLost;912270I am very open to my players going "off script". I once ran an entire Stormbringer campaign based on the players deciding to hunt down a treasure they heard mentioned in an overheard bit of tavern conversation. I had no idea what or where it actually was. I just was making up some snippets of background noise. I had a very different set of adventures in mind, but those all got shelved.

I once ran an entire four hour session at a con entirely dice-less simply because the way the game unfolded never required that dice be rolled. It certainly wasn't planned that way.

It is as much the players' story as it is mine. At the end of every session I ask my players if there is anything in particular they want to see in future, either more or less of. It doesn't always turn out exactly that way, but I want the game to be fun for everyone.

And you're the kind of Referee I'm trying to be.
Players say I'm successful at it. I hope they're not just trying to flatter me:p.


Also, I've started more than one campaign without any planning. In the extreme cases I gave the players the choice of 3 to 5 genres. After they made a choice, I assigned a system I believed fits well with it, sent them the quickstart or some kind of abridged version of the rules  (sometimes abridged by me), and went to make myself some tea.
Then they presented the characters, and off we went.
Oh, and I made tea for the players, too! I'm a GM that might TPK them with a smile, but not a monster:D!

Quote from: Manzanaro;912259I find a lot of times, when a GM who.is running a traditional game says "It's about experiencing a story", what they mean is it is about experiencing the GM's story. In other words, the GM is not playing to find out what happens, but to get to the awesome parts of the story he has in mind.

To that end, such a GM will typically do things such as:

- Fudge dice so that combat and social encounters arrive at the conclusion the gm had in mind
- Create encounters and plot developments that are unavoidable.
- Render player choices meaningless as all decisions lead to the same place.
- Employ railroading and illusion of choice.

Basically it is the GM forcing his story on the players and it is the style of GMing which brings to mind a failed author in many players' minds.

I do think that players and GM can work together to create a game with the feel of fiction. But as the GM would you be happy about the players fudging their rolls the same way? A player who always chooses to roll critical hits because that's the story HE wants to tell?

Drop "traditional", and you're right;).

I mean, can you imagine someone more "traditional" than Gronan, Chirine and MAR Barker:p? Yet according to their tales, they'd be amazed at the idea of using those tricks.

Quote from: Headless;912258I would really like to play with Skarg the human calculator DM.  

Me too - I'd like to compare computing power:D!

QuoteThat said I have played with both types of DM. The one who rolls for everything, and the one who makes it up.  From what I can see either one can put their thumb on the scale.  Either one can equally enhance or curb (discourage/crush) player agency.  Either one can straight out cheat.

Of course we can. Doesn't mean adding an element of chance isn't different from not having it, or that following the rules of the game is the same as not doing so;).

No offense to anyone in particular, but I can't tell who here is the better GM. I haven't played in any of your games.  What IS clear is there's a lot of "legend in our own minds" stuff going on, along with the requisite defensiveness. The only thing I'm sure of as a a GM is that I have a certain style, my players have certain expectations, and it's easier to go with what works for me and mine than try to adapt someone else's ideas of "proper" GM'ing.

I have a style. I can get some idea of other people's styles from what they post. Some of those styles do not sound like games I would enjoy playing in, others do. Doesn't mean someone is or is not a good GM.

Quote from: DavetheLost;912327I have a style. I can get some idea of other people's styles from what they post. Some of those styles do not sound like games I would enjoy playing in, others do. Doesn't mean someone is or is not a good GM.

Ditto

The last couple of posts were refreshing, we all have different styles and opinions. Opinions are great but condemnation less so. Some of the game styles,mentioned actually intrigued me, some didnt..as posted. I for one can't imagine playing in a completely impromptu game where the gm didn't plan or planned very little. I don't want to wander through his momentary inspiration, I want a well developed world and plot to emmerse myself in. Again, others may Geer at this. There is certainly room for all if us, isn't there. Asking for opinions is in itself a quest for growth.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912338The last couple of posts were refreshing, we all have different styles and opinions. Opinions are great but condemnation less so. Some of the game styles,mentioned actually intrigued me, some didnt..as posted. I for one can't imagine playing in a completely impromptu game where the gm didn't plan or planned very little. I don't want to wander through his momentary inspiration, I want a well developed world and plot to emmerse myself in. Again, others may Geer at this. There is certainly room for all if us, isn't there. Asking for opinions is in itself a quest for growth.

Thing is. Some DMs play the totally on the fly style really well. To the point that its impossible to tell they are because they weave the world and build on that foundation so well.

Others couldnt do that to save their lives. But. They run pre-gen settings really well and can bring those to life excellently.

The rest fall somewhere in the middle. Probably using hybrids of prep and improv, or pregens and winging it, or ample notes and contingencies. But nothing set in stone. Flexible muscle over a rigid skeleton.

I've done all of the above.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912338The last couple of posts were refreshing, we all have different styles and opinions. Opinions are great but condemnation less so. Some of the game styles,mentioned actually intrigued me, some didnt..as posted. I for one can't imagine playing in a completely impromptu game where the gm didn't plan or planned very little. I don't want to wander through his momentary inspiration, I want a well developed world and plot to emmerse myself in.

Some of the best most consistent creative detailed role playing I have done, I don't know that the DM did any prep at all.   He might have but it didn't show.  He just sat on his bed smoking beadys and ran Vampire.   It was awesome.

That said I am not that guy.  I need prep, and I think most of us do too.  But if you are the DM that can run a consistent immersive campaign that respects player agency out of your head, don't let us tell you you are doing it wrong.  Of course if you are that guy I expect you are not looking for gaming advice on the internet.


Yes that game with the Wizard gm was in college, yes my rose coloured glasses are on.

A lot to respond to so this will be a bit long....

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952When confronted with these situations I often fudge the die rolls and simply narrate the action in a way that seems plausible and typically beneficial to the flow of the story. I may roll the dice behind my screen, pretend to consult a chart or two to keep the players guessing but those NPCs and Mooks hit or miss based on my whim, not the dice.

As a GM I won't do that. As a player I'd hate that. If you don't want to use a particular set of rules or even any rules, that's fine. But, don't pretend you are using the rules when you aren't. It's dishonest. Eventually, if you play with anyone who cares about the rules they will catch you. Then angst, hard feelings, and sturm und drang are likely to follow. Rather than trying to fool your players, it's better to be honest about how you GM.

QuoteSeriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

If the 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/spear carriers/mooks are actually fighting against the PCs and the outcome matters, then of course I will roll. Otherwise what's the point of having the combat in the first place?[1]

And 8 Orcs, sound like some type of mook and mooks each have the same stats (that's part of what makes them mooks), so I only need to look stuff up one time. Rolling goes pretty fast if I avoid the Vegas gambler "Baby needs a new pair of shoes" antics and just roll the damn dice. I can also use different colors of dice to roll for more than one mook at a time. And of course a lot of systems have some method of combining actions for NPC opponents so you don't actually need to make 8 separate rolls.

QuoteDo you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

Usually. It depends on how much the NPC is likely to affect the PCs and what they observe.

Quote1. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

Again you need to ask yourself, how much does the outcome matter. If there are lots of boats to hire and each boat is just like another, who cares if one boat was sunk. In that case, I might simplify.

   Simplify: So I look at the two sides and decide how likely it is for the mooks to win and roll a die. Let's say it looks like the odds are against the mooks, but there is still a good chance they might sink the boat. So roll 1d6: 6=boat sunk, crew killed or captured, 5=boat sunk, some crew escaped to tell the tale, 3-4 boat took minor damage or crew suffered casualties, 1-2 mooks handily defeated with no damage to the boat or crew.

On the other hand if the outcome matters a lot (maybe the boat is the only one around or it is carrying precious gear owned by the PCs) then I'm much more likely to roll everything out. But even then there are options that don't require boring the players.

   Between Sessions: Roll out the encounter between actual sessions. This way the players don't get bored watching and I get an outcome that best matches what would happen based on the rules.

   Co-opt the Players: Let the players play the NPCs on one side of the encounter. That way they aren't just watching a scene. Typically, my players enjoy this as an occasional change of pace.

   Don't Make them Wait: If you absolutely can't resolve things any other way and the outcome (and hence the procedure) matters, then tell people to go get snacks, figure out some rules thing, take a short break or whatever, and do the rolling by myself. But only if the outcome matters. And only if I can't do it between sessions. And only if I can't let the players play at least one of the sides.

Quote2. The PCs are fighting in a saloon, a typical brawl. They square off with first one drunk cowboy then another. In between, are you actually rolling for any of the other guys?

Depends. How many other guys are there? If it's a lot, then just simplify for all the average Joes. Roll 1d6 for each Joe. On a 5-6 they knock out their opponent. Roll 1 die for each Joe. Dead easy.

Quote3. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns?

I might. Players often roll pretty slowly compared to me as the GM. Otherwise, look for a combined action or battle rule in the system to simplify stuff. Or see the various choices above. This seems like a perfect situation to have the players run the NPCs on their side.

QuoteUnless you spend the time to come up with some mass combat system that takes that into consideration.

Or use a game that has one. There are more than a few that do.

QuoteIn the end, if the players were a major part of the action, then their performance steers the result, but if they weren't (Say in a battle of hundreds or thousands) then its totally up to me.

WEG's Star Wars D6 system talked about this sort of situation. For example, during the Battle on Hoth, the Rebels cannot win. But the actions of the protagonists could affect how many Rebels are able to retreat.

[1] If the results are a foregone conclusion and you want to speed up combat then don't have anyone roll dice. Just say "On your way from point A to point B you run into eight [strike]mooks[/strike] Orcs of the Red Hand, who you easily defeat." Then move on to something where the conclusion is not foregone or the results are interesting.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178Gamers take it pretty hard anytime anything deviates from the rules and mechanical resolution of the action whereas the StoryWriters find the rules help to manage the action but certainly aren't supposed to limit it in any way.

I play (and GM) to find out what happens. If I want a story, I'll read one or write one.

QuoteThe GM arbitrarily ruling that a PC slain guard managed to scream out a warning in order to mobilize the forts defenses would completely enrage one player group, if their intent was to sneak in, while another player group would take it in stride simply as "well that sucks, what now?"

Well sure, someone who plays to create a story and then gets a story they didn't like, is likely to be unhappy.
   "What do you mean Snake Plisken didn't take out the guard before he could sound a warning? That doesn't sound like a Snake Plisken story and you said I could play Snake Plisken."
Or did you maybe have a different group of players in mind?

QuoteSomeone up above posted they wouldn't play with a GM that did something like this as if it was inappropriate in some way. Literally like cheating, counting the wrong number of squares on the Monopoly board when you move your token. Ive never seen it that way at all.

Cheating is one way one might look at it. I think that a better way is to say it is dishonest. In the same way that telling me we are going to go see a certain movie and then arranging it so we go to a different movie – the movie you intended us to go to in the first place – is dishonest.

QuoteOf course, what I have come to understand, and this thread reinforces my thinking, is that my own approach is heavily biased by the fact that I rarely play as a character. I have been the GM easily 95%+ of the time. I see the interaction of players and GM as TOTALLY a tool to create a bit of collaborative fiction - winning, losing, fairness etc.. are concepts that just don't belong there. If the end result is exciting, dramatic and fun for all at the table, then the specifics really aren't that important.

It has nothing to do with you being the GM. It has everything to do with you wanting to create a story while not being particularly interested in using rules to figure out what happens next in a fictional world.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178I realize this is the worst kind of heresy in some groups however.

It's not heresy. It's just an uninteresting style for some of us. But if you let the players think you are using rules to determine outcomes when frequently you are just making stuff up, it is dishonest. Dishonesty annoys some people. A lot.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912182If you are clustering NPCs and using one overall roll of some kind I find this as deviating from the typical combat rules as any fudging Im doing.

It's not. Probably the key difference is the lack of transparency in what it is you are doing and how you are doing it. Perhaps also why you are doing it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912182If you are using a mass combat system of some kind then great, most systems don't have them for intermediate sized conflicts. Its either dozens or hundreds involved for mass combat or man to man.

You appear to have managed to select one of the games that doesn't include a method. Lots of games have systems to handle multiple combatants. I mentioned Star Wars D6 as one example, but other rules such as Pendragon/BRP, Barbarians of Lemuria/Honor+Intrigue, OD&D/AD&D can handle small groups and skirmishes without separately rolling for each combatant. I've heard that Savage World can as well. I haven't played it, so I'll let those who have comment.

QuoteNow, as to rolling for every NPC.. Ive played SW which brags about being able to handle tons of combatants and no matter how fast and furious it is, if your rolling for every NPC it takes time, even if they are oddly all identically skilled and armed.

It does take time. But if one is familiar with the system, tolerably good at simple arithmetic, and possessed of either the ability to remember outcomes for a minute or two at a time or to jot down notes as reminders, it doesn't take any longer than it takes the 3-5 players that are probably sitting at the table to each roll for their one PC.

Quote"OK, the guy behind the crate fires, umm... ok, nope he missed. Now the two guys on the cat walk, the one guy aiming at this guy... he umm, hits for 1 wound and his target goes down. The other one fires and ...umm, nope he missed. Ok, now the guy by the hanger entrance. The first guy sprays fire here and here, rolling.. well this guy is Shaken but the other umm... nope he is ok. This other guy at the door has a shotgun, max range here but ...umm.....and so on"

It goes faster if you don't monologue.

Just roll a handful of differently colored dice (one for each NPC) and see if those five guys hit or missed. If they are mooks, there isn't going to be a lot of difference in their attack probabilities. So it shouldn't require a lot of looking up in tables or mental cogitation. It's +1 or 2 for aimed shot, close range, or a shotgun and -1 or -2 for firing at long range by the hanger entrance, drop a damage die or two for the shotgun at long range. I can roll dice, look at outcome, determine result, and announce it pretty fast.

QuoteTerribly uninteresting bit of narration by the GM and I made it pretty fast, I doubt it would be that fast in real life. If he spends any more time in trying to make it more interesting, he is just wasting more time. I would almost guarantee the typical Players are sitting there thinking "Ok, ok great, wonderful, is it my turn?"

It would have been more interesting without the "umm"s and the pointless, yet dull stream of consciousness commentary. Whether it was exciting or boring will have more to do with whether those guys shooting is a cause for concern or just ho-hum business as usual for your players and their PCs than with you trying to be Margaret Weis, much less, Dumas, Sabatini, or Shakespeare.

QuoteIf I have to sit and wait even 30 seconds while the GM rolls dice and computes the resolution of actions not directly affecting my character, Im getting bored.

Everyone is not you.

Quote"Fire reigns down from the catwalk, out of the hanger and from the loading platform off to the right. There are maybe a dozen muzzles blasting in your direction and the ping of ricochets and splatter of wood and earth around you is not stop. From somewhere ahead of you comes the steady thump of an automatic alongside the click and boom of bolt action rifles. One of your guards cries out, clutching his shoulder and dropping his gun, another winces as the fence rail he is hiding behind splinters in his face. Your people are returning fire but you are outgunned and your position seems completely disadvantaged. (Scratch 1 bad guy and 2 good guys -  Roll for one or two NPCs actually firing at the PCs and then back to Player 1's turn)"

Yep, sounds exactly like the GM has a story to tell us and we are just along for the ride. BORING!

Quote from: rgrove0172;912239Just read through the rest of the threads and I appreciate your input.  The condescending attitude is a little hard to stomach but I still appreciate your time.  I'll bow or here,  it seems everything I post gets misunderstood. I'll try harder to be clear next thread.

People would probably be less condescending or insulting if you didn't start out by claiming that people who don't do what you do when you GM are either dicks or lying.

Quote from: Skarg;912254Yes, I'm completely serious. I've been playing with individual foes with individual equipment and stats and rolling everything out and using tactical hex maps and dropped weapon counters since I started playing The Fantasy Trip when I was 10 or 11 years old.

Don't worry. Most of us knew you were serious. Some of us GM in a similar fashion.`

Quote from: cranebump;912324No offense to anyone in particular, but I can't tell who here is the better GM. I haven't played in any of your games.  What IS clear is there's a lot of "legend in our own minds" stuff going on, along with the requisite defensiveness. The only thing I'm sure of as a a GM is that I have a certain style, my players have certain expectations, and it's easier to go with what works for me and mine than try to adapt someone else's ideas of "proper" GM'ing.

"Better"?
That's like debating "stronger", as in, who is stronger, the elephant or the whale...
"Better for a certain group with certain people who have some preferences" is a better metric.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912338The last couple of posts were refreshing, we all have different styles and opinions. Opinions are great but condemnation less so. Some of the game styles,mentioned actually intrigued me, some didnt..as posted. I for one can't imagine playing in a completely impromptu game where the gm didn't plan or planned very little.

I had a guy telling me that, too. He also commended me for the preparation I'd done for the session he'd just played in, "unlike all those other GMs".
I blinked, and while my regulars were laughing, explained to him that my notes for that session amounted to three sentences on scratch paper.

QuoteI don't want to wander through his momentary inspiration, I want a well developed world and plot to emmerse myself in.

A well-developed world is what you get. A plot? What's that?

Quote from: Headless;912340Some of the best most consistent creative detailed role playing I have done, I don't know that the DM did any prep at all.   He might have but it didn't show.  He just sat on his bed smoking beadys and ran Vampire.   It was awesome.

That said I am not that guy.  I need prep, and I think most of us do too.  But if you are the DM that can run a consistent immersive campaign that respects player agency out of your head, don't let us tell you you are doing it wrong.  Of course if you are that guy I expect you are not looking for gaming advice on the internet.


Yes that game with the Wizard gm was in college, yes my rose coloured glasses are on.

What's so weird about it? Yes, I am that GM. I can also tell you how to be that GM...though it might get me a whole book. But I've taught it to people with all kinds of backgrounds, so I guess it can be learned. It might take a bit, but it's certainly possible.
Of course, making it immersive actually depends on the players as well. Those that don't want to try it, aren't going to immerse, no matter what I do. As long as they're not disruptive, that's fine.

I also don't see why I shouldn't be looking for GMing advice on the internet. A lot of people here have more experience than me. Sometimes that experience is useful. At other times it's not, because it's meant to achieve a goal I'm either not interested in, or trying to avoid. But then I also learn what not to do!
(And one of the first things I learned was "not fudging when there are dice". The qualifier is important - I've run freeform and diceless systems, too).

So when running a session from 3 sentences of prep you are creating the entire game in reaction to the players action on the spur of the moment. The entire world materializes on the gm's momentary whim. The players might feel like they were engaged in a rich, detailed and established setting but they werent. That's fine if you play that way but don't call me dishonest. My players,would have a fit if I pulled an entire session out of my backside.

Apologies, I did say I was bowing out. I got suckered back in. I'll step out now. Seeya next thread.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912348The entire world materializes on the gm's momentary whim.

It may not be simply whim. Die rolls may be involved. And random tables. Often both if I'm the GM.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912348So when running a session from 3 sentences of prep you are creating the entire game in reaction to the players action on the spur of the moment. The entire world materializes on the gm's momentary whim. The players might feel like they were engaged in a rich, detailed and established setting but they werent. That's fine if you play that way but don't call me dishonest. My players,would have a fit if I pulled an entire session out of my backside.

The crux is to build on what you create on the fly and once you know A is there then you know that probably B and C are there too. So the players have the party seek out the local militia captain for advice. So I as the DM can either say "No. There is no militia captain." or I can whip one up on the spot and roll from there. From that moment on this militia captain is set and rolling and I know know a few more things about the town. A: Theres a militia, and B: based on the captains personality, I know the general outlook of his men and the size of the militia based on the size of the town.

Or we take a step back further and Im creating the very town on the spot. Based on its size and location on the edge of civilization I might think theres a town militia. From there I can consider if they are organized or not, and if they are organized then likely theres a captain.

The pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

For some DMs this is immense fun for them as THEY dont know whats over the next hill either and theres a sense of exploration and discovery and world building.

Personally I run with a hybrid. I usually start with a seed of an idea and prep some basics. Often a town or a map of the region and then from there things grow during the session and whatever ideas inspired after session. If the PCs are local then I prep a little more with some "common knowledge and local history" bits of info everyone would know.

And lets be brutally to the point here. At various points the DM MUST make things up on the fly. Very few modules have everything hammerd down to the last nail in the welcome sign and piece of lint in the mayors pocket and sooner or later a player will venture into the uncharted and the DM has to wing it. Though I knew one DM that locked up at these decision gates and had to stop the session to parse it out.

I roll in the open. I rarely roll for NPC vs NPC combat, unless it's something like a 4e D&D battle where the PCs have brought some minions to the battlefield. A big 'cast of thousands' battle is done more like directing a Hollywood movie, with the focus on what's going on immediately around the PCs. In general I can adjudicate large battles better 'Free Kriegsspiel' - no rules - than by using systems designed for small scale combat.

Quote from: Omega;912354Personally I run with a hybrid. I usually start with a seed of an idea and prep some basics. Often a town or a map of the region and then from there things grow during the session and whatever ideas inspired after session. If the PCs are local then I prep a little more with some "common knowledge and local history" bits of info everyone would know.

That sounds like my approach for some games. I find having at least an area map is important, I wouldn't be creating cities on the fly. But certainly I may be creating NPCs, depending on where the PCs go. If I wasn't prepared to do that I'd only be able to run pre-written railroads or dungeon crawls where the environment strongly limits choice (of those, the dungeon is a superior style IMO).

Quote from: AsenRG;912345What's so weird about it? Yes, I am that GM. I can also tell you how to be that GM...though it might get me a whole book.

So, when will your book be finished?  :D  I generally make a point of avoiding GMing advice books/blogs (too much of it tends to fall under "how to shoehorn your game into a three-act structure"), but this sounds like one that would actually be worth my time to read.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912348That's fine if you play that way but don't call me dishonest.

Point of order:  The earlier references to dishonesty were specifically talking about your statement that you sometimes roll dice to make your players think something is random, then completely ignore the dice and make up a result from whole cloth.  This specific act is dishonest, as it deceives the players regarding the origin of the outcome presented to them.  I don't recall anyone saying that you're more broadly dishonest.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912348So when running a session from 3 sentences of prep you are creating the entire game in reaction to the players action on the spur of the moment.

No.
A core rule of my style of GMing is "thou shall know what things exist or don't before the players tell you what they do". It's not "in reaction to the players actions".

QuoteThe entire world materializes on the gm's momentary whim.

Not quite. I decide on the main principles this world obeys long before that. Details might manifest, or not.
"Is there someone very strong-looking in the crowd" is likely answered after a d6 roll. "How does law enforcement works" has been decided while you were creating characters, along with details.

QuoteThe players might feel like they were engaged in a rich, detailed and established setting but they werent.

Yes they were.

QuoteThat's fine if you play that way but don't call me dishonest.

Pretending to use a system you don't use is dishonest.
At least own up to it, tell them there's only narration, and tell them to focus on narration and forget the character list.

QuoteMy players,would have a fit if I pulled an entire session out of my backside.

Some of the players I experimented on went into it expecting a disaster, too. They were kinda confused at the first session's end:D!

Quote from: nDervish;912383So, when will your book be finished?  :D  I generally make a point of avoiding GMing advice books/blogs (too much of it tends to fall under "how to shoehorn your game into a three-act structure"), but this sounds like one that would actually be worth my time to read.

...I might think about writing one;). And I don't have much use for three-act structures, unless they can appear with what makes sense in the world.

Quote from: nDervish;912383Point of order:  The earlier references to dishonesty were specifically talking about your statement that you sometimes roll dice to make your players think something is random, then completely ignore the dice and make up a result from whole cloth.  This specific act is dishonest, as it deceives the players regarding the origin of the outcome presented to them.  I don't recall anyone saying that you're more broadly dishonest.

The OP said that other people would call what he did/does as a GM cheating (i.e. pretending to use the rules and pretending to roll the dice, then ignoring all that and just making stuff up). I pointed out that rather than label that cheating, I call it dishonesty.

I still think as a GM you can cheat equally eirther way.  For me as a player it's about player agency.  Do I understand my choices ?  Do my choices affect the world in meaningful predictable ways?  (I am not asking to get my own way all the time) if yes then great that will be a fun game for me.

 It doesn't really matter if the DM rolls dice and consults charts or spins out of whole cloth.  Either can ignore or enhance player choice.  And each method  is about communication with the DM.
 If I try to climb a tree a no dice DM can say yes or no, a dice and charts DM can assign high target numbers and penalities.  It amounts to the same thing.  Either "things in this world are harder to do than you think they are,". Which is a problem and eventually we will be killed.

 Or "the DM is not prepared to tell a story other than the one he has planned" and I am going to be very frustrated with that and hopefully I will have the good sense to bow out before ruining any one else's fun.

The whole idea of resolving an encounter depends on what's going on. I'll use dice to keep the results out of my hand, usually, unless doing so broadcasts some information the players shouldn't know.

Example
1) The players are up against a mob of goblins, and have a small company of militia with them. On paper, the goblins and militia are about equal, and will die to each other's blows in 1 hit, so I just roll pools of d6s with an even/odd result going to militia/goblins round to round. Saves time, basic same outcome. Players can witness these rolls, I don't care.
2) The players are up against a mob of goblins, and have a small company of militia with them - except one group of goblins is purple. For whatever reason, the players sick the militia at the band of purple goblins, and go after the larger group themselves. I know, as the DM, that the purple goblins are all much tougher due to a weird enchantment on them, so I'm giving the goblins a win on each 3-6 on the d6 roll. I roll this out of sight of the group, as this is information they don't know. I may note, though, that the purple goblins seem to be giving the militia a lot of grief, and point out the rapid attrition of their militia men.

Fudging die rolls as a DM happens. Players who think it doesn't happen need to grasp reality. Good DMs cheat to keep the game running smoothly. Bad DMs cheat to try and win/punish. Some people feel more secure if all rolls are in the open, though I think they are missing the entire point.

The idea that the only reason players would not want a GM fudging rolls is fear of being "cheated against" is a common misconception.

I would be just as put off by a GM who fudges to keep things "on track". The practice of a GM making sure things stay on track is called railroading.

My players are well aware of how much I wish I were the cheating sort of DM. Many are the times I've rolled so utterly abysmally for a monster or big villain. The most famous being an absurdly inept thieves guild who succeeded in TPKing themselves and never hit the party once. What was supposed to be a big showdown turned into the Keystone Cops. :o

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;912662Fudging die rolls as a DM happens. Players who think it doesn't happen need to grasp reality. Good DMs cheat to keep the game running smoothly. Bad DMs cheat to try and win/punish. Some people feel more secure if all rolls are in the open, though I think they are missing the entire point.

Some GMs feel more secure when they fudge die rolls, though I think they are missing the entire point.

Quote from: Omega;912691My players are well aware of how much I wish I were the cheating sort of DM. Many are the times I've rolled so utterly abysmally for a monster or big villain. The most famous being an absurdly inept thieves guild who succeeded in TPKing themselves and never hit the party once. What was supposed to be a big showdown turned into the Keystone Cops. :o

That's an awesome example of why rolling is important. It makes that a genuine, hilarious and unpredictable event, that gets remembered and shared for years and decades later. In contrast, every fudged roll or dictated outcome undermines such events, as well as the general logic and uncertainty and dynamic nature of what happens in play. Lando piloting the Millennium Falcon through a cramped path in the 2nd Death Star, and then blowing it and somehow flying out and surviving may be spectacular to watch, but it's also pretty ho-hum because it's clear there was zero real chance he was going to crash or miss, or if he did it'd just be taken as a writer-dictated sacrifice, because it would be... unless they were actually setting up a situation and having players decide what risks to take, and then rolling appropriate dice using appropriate game mechanics... now THAT is interesting to me, and when the odds are real and someone does actually manage to overcome the odds and pull off something amazing, that's actually amazing and not just make-believe fake fluff.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178The GM arbitrarily ruling that a PC slain guard managed to scream out a warning in order to mobilize the forts defenses would completely enrage one player group, if their intent was to sneak in, while another player group would take it in stride simply as "well that sucks, what now?" The former seeing it as a cheat that robbed them of some planned advantage while the latter view it as just another factor in the plot to consider.

Like many of those who are concerned with Story, you're completely missing the point and thought processes of those who are not.

Did the players make any attempt to silence the guard?  Did they kill the guard in a single hit according to the rules of the game?  Did the guard fall?  Are there actual rules for attempting a Silent Kill and did the characters successfully execute them?   What you're calling "concern about the Game" is really "how the setting is modeled".  If my character attempts to do something, the rules are there to determine success, failure and degrees thereof.  If I don't specifically state that I am trying to silence the guard as I'm killing him and making no attempt to stop him from screaming, I should not be surprised at all to hear him scream, even if it's a short cry of pain as he's being killed.  People getting killed tends to be a noisy affair.  I accept the GM's description not because I see it an a new avenue of Story Complication that might lead somewhere Dramatically Interesting, I accept it because dying men scream, I didn't stop it, and now we're in the shit, so what the hell are we going to do now.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912178I realize this is the worst kind of heresy in some groups however.

It's not Heresy, it's just Not Roleplaying. ;)

Yes it is. Different from the way you play sure but it's silly to claim it's not roleplaying at all.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912897Yes it is. Different from the way you play sure but it's silly to claim it's not roleplaying at all.

Roleplaying is playing a role.  You can claim something other than IC Roleplaying is roleplaying, but...well, you'd be incorrect. :)

What you're calling "roleplaying" is "Roleplaying plus Storytelling".  If players are removing themselves from the headspace of their characters to the third person and consider something bad that happened to their players as a good thing because it allows for a more interesting story, then they are combining "Roleplaying" with "Not-Roleplaying".  Neapolitan and rocky road contain chocolate, sure, but if I ask for chocolate ice cream and you give me neopolitan or rocky road, we're going to have a discussion about definitions I think.

When everyone comes over to your house and you serve them "chocolate" ice cream that's actually rocky road, no one gives a shit, it's your house, just like as long as your players are happy, no one gives a shit how you GM.  When you go to a forum on ice cream and start talking about what kind of nuts and marshmellows make the best chocolate ice cream, don't be surprised when people wonder what the hell you're talking about.

If you're concerned about Story and manipulate things with that in mind, your players know it and like it because they are looking for a good story, then all is well with the world, but that's not Roleplaying, it's a specific type of roleplaying that combines roleplaying with something else, namely "Not Roleplaying".

To be fair, I think this concept of "pure undiluted roleplaying" is an ideal which is seldom, if ever, achieved. Sure, OOC mechanics take players out of the role. Here are some other things which probably do the same thing:

- Speaking out of character

- Taking a bite of pizza or a swig of beer when your character is not doing these things

- Taking a bathroom break

- Answering the phone

- Tracking things that your character would have no firm grasp upon, or even knowledge of, such as HP, daily powers, XP, character levels and other specific game concepts with nebulous relation to the hypothetical "reality" of the game world

- Looking at a miniature of your character on a battle map and moving it around

- Hearing the GM talk about anything not directly related to the perceptions of your own character whose role you are assuming

So, you can say, "None of these things take me out of character as much as an OOC mechanic that requires me to step out of character" but that is just a personal judgement. Most roleplayers step out of character with great regularity anyway. It is kind of silly to talk about whose roleplaying is more pure.

Actors play roles, right? But actors don't typically actually believe they are the character they are portraying. Nor do they necessarily try to think purely as their characters. But if they are not playing a role, then the concept seems to be pretty well meaningless.

At the very least, I would think that if we want to aspire to pure roleplaying, we would want to take away the players' character sheets and present things to them in a manner which was totally stripped of game terminology of any sort. After all, we don't want to be breaking that sense of immersion.

Quote from: Manzanaro;912907To be fair, I think this concept of "pure undiluted roleplaying" is an ideal which is seldom, if ever, achieved. Sure, OOC mechanics take players out of the role. Here are some other things which probably do the same thing:

- Speaking out of character

- Taking a bite of pizza or a swig of beer when your character is not doing these things

- Taking a bathroom break

- Answering the phone

- Tracking things that your character would have no firm grasp upon, or even knowledge of, such as HP, daily powers, XP, character levels and other specific game concepts with nebulous relation to the hypothetical "reality" of the game world

- Looking at a miniature of your character on a battle map and moving it around

- Hearing the GM talk about anything not directly related to the perceptions of your own character whose role you are assuming

So, you can say, "None of these things take me out of character as much as an OOC mechanic that requires me to step out of character" but that is just a personal judgement. Most roleplayers step out of character with great regularity anyway. It is kind of silly to talk about whose roleplaying is more pure.

Actors play roles, right? But actors don't typically actually believe they are the character they are portraying. Nor do they necessarily try to think purely as their characters. But if they are not playing a role, then the concept seems to be pretty well meaningless.

At the very least, I would think that if we want to aspire to pure roleplaying, we would want to take away the players' character sheets and present things to them in a manner which was totally stripped of game terminology of any sort. After all, we don't want to be breaking that sense of immersion.

Pretty much the Bog Standard answer either accidentally or deliberately obfuscating the difference between impediments to roleplaying that come from playing a game and not actually being the person you are roleplaying as opposed to deliberately taking a 3rd person stance to look upon the character as an author would.

Since you brought up acting, it's the difference between acting and talking to the director about the character.  They are not the same thing, even though you may alternate between both.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912914Pretty much the Bog Standard answer either accidentally or deliberately obfuscating the difference between impediments to roleplaying that come from playing a game and not actually being the person you are roleplaying as opposed to deliberately taking a 3rd person stance to look upon the character as an author would.

Since you brought up acting, it's the difference between acting and talking to the director about the character.  They are not the same thing, even though you may alternate between both.

Sure, but when that actor goes back into character, I don't think you would say, "You are not playing a role, because you talked to the director earlier!" When someone is playing a role, they are role playing, even if that is not all they are doing. Any more then we would say someone isn't roleplaying because they chose to trigger a healing surge or used some other non-narrative mechanic that was meta to the playing of a role.

You were specifically saying that what rgrove is doing is not roleplaying, and I am simply noting that is silly. Especially if his players are not stepping out of their roles into authorial mode, I would pretty definitely say they were playing a roleplaying game, regardless of what rgrove's own approach to GMing is.

What they are not doing, is engaging in pure simulation, but that is hardly a requirement of something being considered an RPG.

Quote from: Manzanaro;912915Sure, but when that actor goes back into character, I don't think you would say, "You are not playing a role, because you talked to the director earlier!" When someone is playing a role, they are role playing, even if that is not all they are doing. Any more then we would say someone isn't roleplaying because they chose to trigger a healing surge or used some other non-narrative mechanic that was meta to the playing of a role.

You were specifically saying that what rgrove is doing is not roleplaying, and I am simply noting that is silly. Especially if his players are not stepping out of their roles into authorial mode, I would pretty definitely say they were playing a roleplaying game, regardless of what rgrove's own approach to GMing is.

What they are not doing, is engaging in pure simulation, but that is hardly a requirement of something being considered an RPG.

The question at hand isn't whether there is a role playing game going on. The difference between game forms is the nature of the assumed role. In a story focused game the roles assumed by the players are those of co-authors from specific perspectives. The players assume authorial control over certain characters in the story and different degrees of similar control over other story elements.

The player of a traditional rpg is assuming the role of an inhabitant of a fictional world. The character doesn't engage in activities for the sake of them "being good for the story" anymore than you or I would on a typical day here in our world. The most important aspect of the traditional rpg isn't constant immersion, it is that decisions in play come from the perspective of the character rather than the character/author.

So for me the question isn't "are we role playing?" but rather "what is the nature of these roles?"

Uh. Actually, the specific comment I was replying to was "It's just Not Roleplaying."

And besides, as far as I noticed, this thread has had nothing to do with authorial privilege outside that of the GM.

Quote from: Manzanaro;912915Sure, but when that actor goes back into character, I don't think you would say, "You are not playing a role, because you talked to the director earlier!"

I'm certain that all the participants in the filming of the movie Tootsie, understood that it was the real-life Dustin Hoffman and not his character, Michael Dorsey, who was talked to the real-life director Sydney Pollack about his character's role in some scene and that Dustin was not acting or roleplaying as either Michael Dorsy or Tootsie during that conversation.

The distinction between character and person playing the character seems obvious. I find it peculiar that the distinction seems unclear to some other folks.

Quote from: Manzanaro;912926Uh. Actually, the specific comment I was replying to was "It's just Not Roleplaying."

I believe the intent was to contrast roleplaying in a game without authorial control with roleplaying alternating with authorial storytelling. So the statement would be "It's not solely roleplaying, it is roleplaying alternating with authorial storytelling."

The distinction between player and character does indeed seem clear, and yet for a player to step out of the role of a character for the purpose of spending a bennie or whatever seems to completely invalidate the player being able to play the character's role FOR SOME PEOPLE. For others it doesn't. Some actors can talk to the director, play to the camera, maintain awareness of craft and presentation and STILL play a role.

But that is really neither here nor there when it comes to this thread, which seems to be about GMing rather than playing as a player.

And as far as GMing goes, I have a hard tine believing that there are any GMs who don't make stuff up on the fly or force coincidences. I mean, how many games start off with the PCs being approached in a tavern? I've never heard of a GM saying, "My players were in the wrong tavern. My NPC quest giver ended up finding some other NPCs to handle the quest".

Now, I so personally dislike fudging dice and some other elements of the OP's GMing style. But I'm not going to say he isn't really playing an RPG. By that measure, Adventure Path type modules should all bear a disclaimer: "Not a real RPG adventure".

And so once again we venture into the tanged forest of "What is an RPG?", Gygax help us all! Role. Playing. Game. It seems as if some are saying you have to pick either the first or the third to go with the second.

As for the temptation to fudge the dice, for me it is most often to keep the PCs alive a bit longer. It can be less than fun to have several characters die in the first combat of the night, especially for players new enough to gaming that they need considerable hand-holding to get through character generation. I don't like dice fudging or moving encounters just because the players went left when the encounter was to the right.

My tevern encounters tend to take the form of "In the next tavern the PCs enter..."

We get into these interminable discussions of "what is Role Playing?" when inevitibly some mental reject comes along and effectively claims its "Everything on Earth" and the few sane pockets of gaming come out swinging.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912900Roleplaying is playing a role.  You can claim something other than IC Roleplaying is roleplaying, but...well, you'd be incorrect. :)

What you're calling "roleplaying" is "Roleplaying plus Storytelling".  If players are removing themselves from the headspace of their characters to the third person and consider something bad that happened to their players as a good thing because it allows for a more interesting story, then they are combining "Roleplaying" with "Not-Roleplaying".  Neapolitan and rocky road contain chocolate, sure, but if I ask for chocolate ice cream and you give me neopolitan or rocky road, we're going to have a discussion about definitions I think.

When everyone comes over to your house and you serve them "chocolate" ice cream that's actually rocky road, no one gives a shit, it's your house, just like as long as your players are happy, no one gives a shit how you GM.  When you go to a forum on ice cream and start talking about what kind of nuts and marshmellows make the best chocolate ice cream, don't be surprised when people wonder what the hell you're talking about.

If you're concerned about Story and manipulate things with that in mind, your players know it and like it because they are looking for a good story, then all is well with the world, but that's not Roleplaying, it's a specific type of roleplaying that combines roleplaying with something else, namely "Not Roleplaying".

Emphasis mine... reread that, your admitting it is a type of roleplaying and therefor IS roleplaying. Weird ice cream analogies withstanding.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912914Pretty much the Bog Standard answer either accidentally or deliberately obfuscating the difference between impediments to roleplaying that come from playing a game and not actually being the person you are roleplaying as opposed to deliberately taking a 3rd person stance to look upon the character as an author would.

Since you brought up acting, it's the difference between acting and talking to the director about the character.  They are not the same thing, even though you may alternate between both.

As players do in EVERY roleplaying game probably ever played, with the possible rare exception of a really strict LARP.

Quote from: Manzanaro;912926Uh. Actually, the specific comment I was replying to was "It's just Not Roleplaying."

And besides, as far as I noticed, this thread has had nothing to do with authorial privilege outside that of the GM.

Exactly so. The thread assumes complete authorial privilege by the GM, probably the style used by a vast majority of games. Cooperative games are a whole different, very cool, but different animal.

I find it interesting that no matter how clearly you make the point that all approaches and styles are respected and that there is plenty of room for all of them, some people simply cannot help but present their own as the 'right' one.. and by contrast yours as 'shit'.

Ive actually played a number of different styles over the years, used several myself. I GMd a completely random Zombie apocalypse game a couple years ago and let it be known I would fudge nothing, every roll was in the open and stuck. Deadly game but lots of fun. Ive also GMd a pseudo historical murder mystery where the participants were all historical figures. Obviously none of them could actually die so I fudged ALOT to keep the action moving..lots of Hollywood near misses in that one and again, great fun. Its just interesting to see the different styles people use.

Im not about to call anyone's better than another. Everybody likes some kind of icecream after all.

Every roleplaying game I have played has at least occasionally required me to break character, even if only to ask a question like "what do I see?". My character is not asking that question because they are actually seeing what it is that I as a player am asking about.

Because of this, I as a GM, tend to be a bit lenient about PCs interacting with features of the environment that would logically be present even if I did not specifically describe them. "I dive for cover behind the trash cans in the alley," trash cans are likely to be in an alley, as long as I didn't say there weren't. "I pull the rocket launcher out from under the dumpster," would be met with a "no" because rocket launchers are not commonly found beneath dumpsters.  Bottles or bricks to throw would be likely, rats or cats to use animal control on.

 I would consider it cheating to have another bad guy burst out of a door behind the PCs just because they were too easilly defeating the ones they were fighting in the alley. Additional bad guys if I had already decided that the neighborhood was seeded with gang members, maybe. But adding more just because the PCs were winning, no.

One funny thing, I have a reputation as a killer DM, even though PCs rarely die in my games. When they do it is usually because the player did something suicidally stupid, like declaring that they don't run from the 18 foot tall demon upon which the best magic weapon in the party just shattered.

Yes but if the scene/encounter you planned was set up to introduce the players to their contact in the Thieve's guild who was to open a secret door in the alley to allow the group to escape a particularly deadly encounter... and by the luck of the dice the 'deadly encounter' turned into a boring slaughter... the 'coolness' of the scene has been ruined, and some of the drama in the game lost.

"A dagger wielding assassin falls at your feet but you see at least two more entering the alley beyond him and another moving across the rooftop above. Your pressed in, the dead end behind you leaving no real means of escape. The bodies of 4 assassins are testament to your skill but you are all bleeding and tiring and there appears to be no end to them. Argun grips his axe and steps forward, prepared to meet the overwhelming force with blood and steel. But then a voice issues from the shadows and you see a sliver of light appear in the deepest recess of the alley, a secret door! "Quickly" a voice whispers "Now, before they advance! Follow me!" '

or

Having quickly dispatched what must have been an inexperience group of would-be assassins you are cleaning the blood from your sword when a door opens in the previously solid wall. You all jump back but a trusting voice issues from within. "Well done, the rumors of your prowess are apparently true. Please, if you would follow me?"

ok, the latter one is fine but not nearly as cool/exciting/fun as the first. All that had to be done was filter in a few more bad guys until the players were at least taxed and hurt a little, then have the door open. Its scripting yes but towards a good end. Revealing the ploy as a ploy would be stupid, banishing the illusion that the players 'narrowly escaped' and ruining the moment. That's what its all about isn't it? Those moments in a game?

Quote from: DavetheLost;912963One funny thing, I have a reputation as a killer DM, even though PCs rarely die in my games. When they do it is usually because the player did something suicidally stupid, like declaring that they don't run from the 18 foot tall demon upon which the best magic weapon in the party just shattered.

I rarely allow a PC to die until after a brief sidebar discussion. Allowing one of a group of players to lose his character is a bummer, no way around it. The others feel a little guilty playing without him and allowing him to play a henchman or some quickly generated character they meet is just lame. When a character dies it fundamentally changes the atmosphere of the game and not for the better. Now if the player is willing to go through this, either sit and watch or play a henchman..sure, great. If not, I usually allow for some miraculous life saving miracle, but at a cost. Perhaps they live but are knocked out until healed and have to be toted around. Or they are severly injured suffer a reduction in ability for a time or maybe even owe the divine power that saved them a big favor. Anyway, again... some will balk about saving anybody but for me/us, its all about the story and dying, well, ends the story.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912965Yes but if the scene/encounter you planned was set up to introduce the players to their contact in the Thieve's guild who was to open a secret door in the alley to allow the group to escape a particularly deadly encounter... and by the luck of the dice the 'deadly encounter' turned into a boring slaughter... the 'coolness' of the scene has been ruined, and some of the drama in the game lost.

That's what its all about isn't it? Those moments in a game?

I am happy to allow the PCs to wipe out what was supposed to be a difficult encounter with ease. Not everything has to be this big, dramatic moment. Some things in life are anti-climactic. I think it lends some verisimilitude to the game world. When something like that happens, I generally figure the PCs earned a break. There will be more dramatic moments to come. And, it does go both ways. At some point the PCs will have a very difficult time with something that was supposed to be a minor encounter. Just a difference in taste.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912969I rarely allow a PC to die until after a brief sidebar discussion. Allowing one of a group of players to lose his character is a bummer, no way around it. The others feel a little guilty playing without him and allowing him to play a henchman or some quickly generated character they meet is just lame. When a character dies it fundamentally changes the atmosphere of the game and not for the better. Now if the player is willing to go through this, either sit and watch or play a henchman..sure, great. If not, I usually allow for some miraculous life saving miracle, but at a cost. Perhaps they live but are knocked out until healed and have to be toted around. Or they are severly injured suffer a reduction in ability for a time or maybe even owe the divine power that saved them a big favor. Anyway, again... some will balk about saving anybody but for me/us, its all about the story and dying, well, ends the story.

Dying doesn't have to end the story. My players know the risk. It keeps them on the edge of their seat. The risk doesn't ruin the fun, it's part of the fun! Does it suck to have a character die? Yes. Can it lead to greater drama, broader quests, and even more stories? Absolutely. My players would hate to know there was no risk of death. In fact, most of them wouldn't see a point to playing without it. Some of the most fond memories of my group come from heroic, yet tragic deaths. I'll even allow a campaign-ending TPK with no hesitation. Risk vs. reward is a major part of my campaigns. It lends itself to the dramatic and those amazing and memorable moments you mentioned earlier. Obviously, YMMV and it does. And that's cool. I was just providing an opposing PoV.

Quote from: Harlock;912975Dying doesn't have to end the story. My players know the risk. It keeps them on the edge of their seat. The risk doesn't ruin the fun, it's part of the fun! Does it suck to have a character die? Yes. Can it lead to greater drama, broader quests, and even more stories? Absolutely. My players would hate to know there was no risk of death. In fact, most of them wouldn't see a point to playing without it. Some of the most fond memories of my group come from heroic, yet tragic deaths. I'll even allow a campaign-ending TPK with no hesitation. Risk vs. reward is a major part of my campaigns. It lends itself to the dramatic and those amazing and memorable moments you mentioned earlier. Obviously, YMMV and it does. And that's cool. I was just providing an opposing PoV.

And it is understood and greatly appreciated!

I gave the player who sated "I don't run," as his response when confronted by the demon a chance to change his mind and join his comrades in fleeing. He stood his ground, so I rolled to hit and damage for the demon's attack. Like I said, when PCs die in my games it usually because the player did something to warrant that fate.

Quote from: DavetheLost;912994I gave the player who sated "I don't run," as his response when confronted by the demon a chance to change his mind and join his comrades in fleeing. He stood his ground, so I rolled to hit and damage for the demon's attack. Like I said, when PCs die in my games it usually because the player did something to warrant that fate.

I have a player who might do that to give his friends more time to escape. Now that's dramatic heroics!

Quote from: Manzanaro;912935And as far as GMing goes, I have a hard tine believing that there are any GMs who don't make stuff up on the fly or force coincidences.

Making stuff up and forcing coincidence are two unrelated things. It is true that at some point, every GM has to make up stuff. But they don't have to force coincidence and not everyone does force coincidence. In practice I often end up having to make stuff up because I didn’t force coincidence.

QuoteI mean, how many games start off with the PCs being approached in a tavern?

Personally, I've never run a game that required starting off in a tavern. It seemed a rather silly setting cliché way back in the 1970s. I, like many people, have used an inn or tavern as a convenient way to facilitate the PCs finding each. But at least as often I used some other rationale for how the PCs met e.g. “So, how do you know each other?” or simply skipped the unnecessary fictional step of “you all meet in a tavern and then decide to go to the dungeon together.” We all know we are playing a game. We all know that game requires each player to run one or more characters. And we all know that the game usually requires the characters of the players who showed up for the session to interact with each other. Most of that setup can be dealt with in a number of ways. None of it requires Elminster showing up in a tavern to hand out the quest of the night.

On the other hand, I’ve had players go to an inn or tavern to look for rumors or for NPCs to hire or ally with. Different drinking establishments had different reputations and typical clientele which PCs could easily learn about. So PC’s didn’t go to Skullsplitter’s Tavern to look for a cleric of a healing god, a good and honorable knight, or a paladin, but they might go there to find a shady magic user, thief, or a fighter in the vein of Fafhrd or Conan. But choosing to go to a tavern was their choice. If they didn't go to the tavern, they either looked somewhere else for rumors or NPCs. or muddled along without. (And of course some of the time they went to the tavern looking for a specific NPC and the one they were looking for wasn't there. Occasionally because the NPC was off on some adventure of their own.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;912965Yes but if the scene/encounter you planned was set up to introduce the players to their contact in the Thieve's guild who was to open a secret door in the alley to allow the group to escape a particularly deadly encounter... and by the luck of the dice the 'deadly encounter' turned into a boring slaughter... the 'coolness' of the scene has been ruined, and some of the drama in the game lost.

Worrying about losing his cool scene is what happens when the GM decides to be a combination of a movie author and director.

Quoteok, the latter one is fine but not nearly as cool/exciting/fun as the first. All that had to be done was filter in a few more bad guys until the players were at least taxed and hurt a little, then have the door open. Its scripting yes but towards a good end.

I LOATHE that. It undermines the reality of the setting and the integrity of my character. The means are annoying and the end is not “good” it is unwanted.

Notice that another way to describe this sort of behavior is

   All that had to be done was to continue to punish the PCs for their success until they are relieved to have GM fiat save them from the trouble the GM continued to force on them.

The beatings will continue until you agree to follow my plot.

Quote from: Harlock;912973I am happy to allow the PCs to wipe out what was supposed to be a difficult encounter with ease. Not everything has to be this big, dramatic moment. Some things in life are anti-climactic. I think it lends some verisimilitude to the game world. When something like that happens, I generally figure the PCs earned a break. There will be more dramatic moments to come. And, it does go both ways. At some point the PCs will have a very difficult time with something that was supposed to be a minor encounter. Just a difference in taste.

Allowing the dice to fall where they may allows the dramatic moment to feel dramatic as opposed to just looking dramatic or looking risky while in reality everyone knows or at least strongly suspects the drama and the risk are all contrived not real so it isn't dramatic it's just the next stop on the GM's plot railroad.

Quote from: Harlock;912998I have a player who might do that to give his friends more time to escape. Now that's dramatic heroics!

Yep.

The funny thing is if you were playing in my game you wouldn't know about any of this and have a great time. I should be ashamed I guess.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913058The funny thing is if you were playing in my game you wouldn't know about any of this and have a great time. I should be ashamed I guess.

This gets said oh so many times.

Quote from: Harlock;912998I have a player who might do that to give his friends more time to escape. Now that's dramatic heroics!

If only he was heroically sacrificing himself to save his friends. I think he didn't believe that character death was actually on the table as real possibility. Seeing one of their companions bitten in half sure put the rest of players on their toes.

Too often it seems that "fate" will step in to save the PCs from their own stupidity because otherwise the adventure writer's brilliant pllot will go hopelessly off the rails. Or else "fate" will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, because plot.

I try to write and design situations. How the players respond to them becomes the plot. Simply walking away is always an option open to the players. If they all decided their characters were going to settle down and live out the rest of their days as peaceful lettuce farmers in Happy Valley I would let them, and I wouldn't even send hordes of Orcs over the hills to force them into adventuring again.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913058The funny thing is if you were playing in my game you wouldn't know about any of this and have a great time. I should be ashamed I guess.

It's interesting that you think you know me better than I do. :rolleyes: The funny thing is you are almost certainly wrong.

People who GM like you frequently say this. Of course they base their belief on the evidence that their players, who clearly like being a character in the GM's story or they'd have gotten up from the table and walked long ago, don't complain. The fact that you have players who like that style of play and don't call you on your behavior tells us nothing about what a player who is bored or annoyed at that style of play will think or do. Some of your players may well be like the kid who no longer believes in Santa Claus but who goes along with the fiction and doesn't admit that to their parents because they are afraid they'll get less loot for Xmas if their parents know they no longer believe.

Quote from: Bren;913078It's interesting that you think you know me better than I do. :rolleyes: The funny thing is you are almost certainly wrong.

People who GM like you frequently say this. Of course they base their belief on the evidence that their players, who clearly like being a character in the GM's story or they'd have gotten up from the table and walked long ago, don't complain. The fact that you have players who like that style of play and don't call you on your behavior tells us nothing about what a player who is bored or annoyed at that style of play will think or do. Some of your players may well be like the kid who no longer believes in Santa Claus but who goes along with the fiction and doesn't admit that to their parents because they are afraid they'll get less loot for Xmas if their parents know they no longer believe.

Reminds me of the worse campaign I was ever in. I had a railroading GM who advanced his hopeless meta-plot while never allowing the PCs to really impact it. Eventually I gave up and began making increasingly worse decisions just to mock him. After talking to the GM a few times about the hopelessness of the campaign and nothing changing, my wife and I just stopped playing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952I suppose all or most of GMing takes place behind the curtain, or a GM screen of some kind. Im not talking about hiding your notes or whatever though. I'm referring to decisions and actions taking place beyond the knowledge of the players, and in this case not hidden plot elements but actual game mechanics.

I have found in over 35 years of GMing that fairly regularly the actions of NPCs, if handled strictly as per the rules, would slow the pace of the game down and kill the tension/drama and excitement that is typically the goal of any session. No matter how versed you are with the rules, no matter how streamlined the process, it takes time to decide on an action, glance at a stat, consider modifiers, roll the dice, interpret and assign damage etc. then relay the information. (if indeed the players would notice) This is just a combat example but the same applies in any number of situations where there are a number of other figures involved.

I could give an actual example but I think most of you know exactly what Im talking about. Conclude a series of actions by the players with a long pause as you roll for henchmen #1 through #4 then check on the mooks your fighting, A-J etc.

BIG ADMISSION FOLLOWS - Please don't tell my buddies from 1979

When confronted with these situations I often fudge the die rolls and simply narrate the action in a way that seems plausible and typically beneficial to the flow of the story. I may roll the dice behind my screen, pretend to consult a chart or two to keep the players guessing but those NPCs and Mooks hit or miss based on my whim, not the dice.

There it is, I said it aloud.... I feel sooooo much better. Ok, Im prepared to take on whatever penance handed me.

Uh, OK.

QuoteSeriously though, is this such a rare practice? Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Do you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?
 

Ok, on second thought here are a couple examples....

1. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

That really depends on whether the PCs are in a position to do something about it. While neither the party nor the henchmen could affect the outcome of a battle thousands of miles away, or stop the assassination of a king in a faraway land, they most certainly could intervene if they found out their base, ship or stronghold nearby was being threatened. Sometimes it's a grey area. For example, if the PCs are exploring inland and the crew left behind on their ship is entirely made up of newly hired NPCs is attacked by pirates, I might roll a weighted die or flip a coin BUT if the players really want to play out, I'm open to it.

Quote from: Harlock;913088Reminds me of the worse campaign I was ever in. I had a railroading GM who advanced his hopeless meta-plot while never allowing the PCs to really impact it. Eventually I gave up and began making increasingly worse decisions just to mock him. After talking to the GM a few times about the hopelessness of the campaign and nothing changing, my wife and I just stopped playing.

It would have been better to just quit to begin with. Sabotaging the game is,pretty crappy in any case. I get you were frustrated though.

Somebody mentioned the GM acting like the "author and director of a film" as a criticm. I think I've got at least 5 old RPG that suggest this very comparison in the introduction. I get that SOME GM s believe their games have progressed somehow or fundamentally changed over the years, and maybe some have, but there is still a place for the hobby as it was designed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912956As players do in EVERY roleplaying game probably ever played, with the possible rare exception of a really strict LARP.

Not really, no.  There is always a certain amount of OOC that comes with 1.) Playing a game.  2.) Not actually being there.  That is different from 3.) I'm going to be happy about something my character is going to hate because I find it interesting from a narrative perspective. or 4.) To engage this particular core mechanic of the game I must be OOC.

The oddest thing I have found in my forum journeys is not that there are a large amount of people for whom "roleplaying" actually means "roleplaying plus storytelling", the oddest thing is that with very few exceptions, they are completely unwilling to acknowledge the idea that there are gamers for who "roleplaying" means "just roleplaying".

Quote from: Harlock;912973I am happy to allow the PCs to wipe out what was supposed to be a difficult encounter with ease. Not everything has to be this big, dramatic moment. Some things in life are anti-climactic. I think it lends some verisimilitude to the game world. When something like that happens, I generally figure the PCs earned a break. There will be more dramatic moments to come. And, it does go both ways. At some point the PCs will have a very difficult time with something that was supposed to be a minor encounter. Just a difference in taste.

There are the times you absolutely destroy a powerful encounter, either through good strategy, planning, or luck.
Then there are the times you absolutely get your ass kicked by a weak encounter, either through bad strategy, lack of planning, or bad luck.
Both make some of the greatest stories, in the real definition of story, the tale retold after the fact.

That's why I hate games that look to a Narrative Order of Being for the opponents, Mooks, Minions, Lieutenants, Leaders, Elites, Legendaries, etc... The irony is, the games that use these systems do so for the purpose of Story as in "we're actively and collaboratively creating it together now", but in reality they are robbing the characters of their Agency and granting that Agency to the GM who sets the stage and to the players who pull the strings.

The characters are denied the possibility of an easy victory, because the Law of Drama says "This fight shall be hard".  They are denied consequences of their actions because the Law of Drama says "A lone Mook cannot kill anyone."

The narrative stance is about as far from Roleplaying as you can get.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913104It would have been better to just quit to begin with. Sabotaging the game is,pretty crappy in any case. I get you were frustrated though.

Well, after talking to him and nothing changing as well as the PCs having exactly zero influence on the game itself, I was trying to find the threshold for how badly I could mess things up for it to finally make a difference. Truth be told, I sabotaged nothing, because, again, nothing we did mattered. The DM just railroaded us along on his dismal campaign where we could do nothing to change the always horrible outcomes. There were instances where he changed key story elements because we solved his mysteries too quickly. He had his meta-plot, after all, and he couldn't let us ruin "his" story. So, he railroaded us. When a DM favors his story, actually penalizes the players for smart play because it ends his planned story too early, and makes things "less dramatic," he has crossed the line from referee, to puppetmaster.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913114Not really, no.  There is always a certain amount of OOC that comes with 1.) Playing a game.  2.) Not actually being there.  That is different from 3.) I'm going to be happy about something my character is going to hate because I find it interesting from a narrative perspective. or 4.) To engage this particular core mechanic of the game I must be OOC.

The oddest thing I have found in my forum journeys is not that there are a large amount of people for whom "roleplaying" actually means "roleplaying plus storytelling", the oddest thing is that with very few exceptions, they are completely unwilling to acknowledge the idea that there are gamers for who "roleplaying" means "just roleplaying".

That's because, and I'm not trying to be snarky here, your concept makes no sense to most of us. If I pretend to be a character during the game I'm roleplaying. Every thing else is the game part, including the story telling. You can't have one without the other. You, or your GM, absolutely tell a story, no matter how you phrase it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913106Somebody mentioned the GM acting like the "author and director of a film" as a criticm.

That would be me who said that. It's meant to be descriptive not pejorative. It may sound like a criticism because I don't like that style of play. But for those who do like that style of play, its a desirable feature.

Also in regards to "progress" in GM styles. Not being an author/director auteur GM isn't progress since I ran games as a DM that way in 1974. That's how the game was originally designed by Gygax and Arneson. The auteur GM is a chronologically later development. How much later, I can't say. It certainly seemed much more commonly seen and talked about after TSR published adventure modules became popular. I'm not sure when that was, maybe 1980 or so?

Quote from: Harlock;913117Well, after talking to him and nothing changing as well as the PCs having exactly zero influence on the game itself, I was trying to find the threshold for how badly I could mess things up for it to finally make a difference. Truth be told, I sabotaged nothing, because, again, nothing we did mattered. The DM just railroaded us along on his dismal campaign where we could do nothing to change the always horrible outcomes. There were instances where he changed key story elements because we solved his mysteries too quickly. He had his meta-plot, after all, and he couldn't let us ruin "his" story. So, he railroaded us. When a DM favors his story, actually penalizes the players for smart play because it ends his planned story too early, and makes things "less dramatic," he has crossed the line from referee, to puppetmaster.

Despite what some might think, I have never been guilty of taking it that far.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913116There are the times you absolutely destroy a powerful encounter, either through good strategy, planning, or luck.
Then there are the times you absolutely get your ass kicked by a weak encounter, either through bad strategy, lack of planning, or bad luck.
Both make some of the greatest stories, in the real definition of story, the tale retold after the fact.

That's why I hate games that look to a Narrative Order of Being for the opponents, Mooks, Minions, Lieutenants, Leaders, Elites, Legendaries, etc... The irony is, the games that use these systems do so for the purpose of Story as in "we're actively and collaboratively creating it together now", but in reality they are robbing the characters of their Agency and granting that Agency to the GM who sets the stage and to the players who pull the strings.

The characters are denied the possibility of an easy victory, because the Law of Drama says "This fight shall be hard".  They are denied consequences of their actions because the Law of Drama says "A lone Mook cannot kill anyone."

The narrative stance is about as far from Roleplaying as you can get.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't roleplaying. I mean, an actor plays a role in Hamlet and we all know the outcome, and know it won't change. I will say something as scripted as that, where the players "improv," as it were, has no affect on the outcome isn't really a game. It's a play and a PC simply plays their role. Not something I want to do with the little free time for gaming I have available to me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913120Despite what some might think, I have never been guilty of taking it that far.

That's great! I wasn't trying to imply you were guilty of it. I was just relating the story since it was relevant. It truly was the worst gaming experience of my life. It's pretty telling when you wake up on Saturday morning and instead of thinking, "Game Day!" you think, "man, I have to play D&D today. Maybe someone will be sick and we'll cancel!" Looking back, it's actually funny how much I hated that game. I would have quit much earlier if it was a random group, but it was a game with my in-laws.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913116Both make some of the greatest stories, in the real definition of story, the tale retold after the fact.

I agree with you. As a player, if I sense or can determine that the GM is adjusting the opponents, the odds, and the difficulty to ensure that a story goes in a predetermined manner, it decreases my engagement in and enjoyment of the session and makes it all less dramatic for me.

QuoteThat's why I hate games that look to a Narrative Order of Being for the opponents, Mooks, Minions, Lieutenants, Leaders, Elites, Legendaries, etc...

I may be missing some narrative notion here, but I don’t see those sorts of classifications as qualitatively any different than the levels and hit dice in D&D, the point totals for GURPS and HERO, or the Poor, Average, Good, Excellent NPC labels that showed up in Runequest 3.0. They are a handy shorthand or proxy for labeling the power and threat provided by a given NPC.  

Honor+Intrigue classifies opponents as Villains, Retainers, and Pawns with mechanical differences between the three categories. Those differences make it very unlikely that a PC Hero will be killed by a Pawn (or even several pawns) or by a Retainer. A Villain, on the other hand, is mechanically identical to a Hero. But the statistical fact that a Retainer or a few Pawns are unlikely to be able to kill or seriously harm a PC isn’t any different than the fact that a Gnoll or a few Goblins in OD&D are unlikely to be able to kill or seriously harm a 9th level Lord.

Quote from: Harlock;913121I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't roleplaying. I mean, an actor plays a role in Hamlet and we all know the outcome, and know it won't change. I will say something as scripted as that, where the players "improv," as it were, has no affect on the outcome isn't really a game. It's a play and a PC simply plays their role. Not something I want to do with the little free time for gaming I have available to me.

Not all actors do the DeNiro, Bale, Lewis, Leto thing.  Some do, some don't.

If we're running with the analogy of player=actor, director=gm, then Michael Mann or Steven Spielberg didn't tell Daniel Day Lewis his crazy immersive shit wasn't going to fly on the set, so he has to use a different mode of acting.  That's exactly what playing to story does to roleplaying.  When you assume we are here to create story, when you assume the most Dramatically Interesting event is always welcomed, when you craft mechanics specifically for that purpose, you actively impede the act of "Just Roleplaying" to replace it with "Roleplaying Plus Storytelling".

Not something I want to spend my time doing.  Others want to do it, fine.  But be honest about what your game is supposed to be about and what the play is going to be like.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913126Not something I want to spend my time doing.  Others want to do it, fine.  But be honest about what your game is supposed to be about and what the play is going to be like.

Yeah, I agree completely. If my DM told me going in what his game was all about, I'd have said, "No thanks," saved myself dozens of frustrating hours, and done something productive. If the players know the game is, for lack of a better word here, "rigged" going into it, and that's the style of game they enjoy, it's all good. I'm all about people enjoying whatever it is they like. And I try not to knock them for liking things different from my tastes. Hopefully, I can maintain that respect and not tell people they are doing it wrong while quibbling over the real definitions of terms.

rgrove, while I find calling your approach "Not Roleplaying" to be extreme, it isn't an approach I myself care for, and I am going to try to lay out the reasons.

I get that in the abstract, we want to have a very dramatic game, and I get that just trusting in chance can't guarantee emergent drama, at least not on superficial consideration. But let's look at this more closely, returning to our recurring film analogy.

When I was a little kid, I used to love those rare occasions when I would catch those old Republic cliffhanger serials on TV. If you aren't familiar with these, every episode would end with a cliffhanger where it looked like for sure our hero was doomed! On first exposure, I found these cliffhangers to be the very height of adrenaline pounding dramatic tension. What would happen? How would our hero escape certain death?

But, as you can probably guess, it didn't take all that long, even as a small child to realize that our fictional protagonist was not actually in one bit of danger. He was entirely protected by the authorial hand of the serial's creator. The danger was entirely illusory. And once I realized that? The drama was gone. I mean, sure, I could pretend to myself that there was genuine jeopardy, but it was just play acting a sense of suspense. There was no real doubt as to how things would end up. And often, the author did not even try and hide their hand, saving the hero through blatant deus ex machina or even retconning the previous episode so that, for instance, even though we saw that the hero was in the car when it plunged off the cliff, in the next episode the hero was shown to have jumped out before the car left the road. Hmm.

As I became older I absorbed a metric shit ton of fiction and film. While the narrative conventions of much authored work is not quite as transparent as it was in those old Republic serials, they certainly did not tend to be exactly opaque either. it is a very rare work of genre fiction that genuinely surprises me and leaves me with feelings of actual suspense or drama.

Now, when it comes to RPGs? I am with you: I want the game to form a narrative that everyone at the table finds to be compelling and dramatic. And one's first instinct as a GM in how to achieve that is to take an authorial role and manipulate events as you see fit for maximum dramatic effect. But players are a savvy lot. As sneaky and clever as we think we are being in our subtle manipulations? With experienced players we end up being just as obviously manipulative and predictable as those old Republic serials. It really does not take long to realize if a GM will not let characters die, or if he is railroading events in such fashion as to make player choices meaningless in an "All roads lead to Rome" sense.

So I guess RPGs as drama just don't really work, right?

Ah, but wait. They actually work just fine, and in fact in my opinion, can elicit drama more easily than probably any other "narrative form" (if you'll excuse the expression). The key is to stop trying to manufacture the drama and simply to find it; to let it emerge organically.

RPGs are a unique medium in that they inherently defy predictable narrative tropes unless given a layer of meta rules dictating otherwise. When your heroic knight PC is facing off against 3 of the baron's corrupt militia? He is not protected by the author's hand, or any sort of protagonist status. He may genuinely be killed! To survive he will need to be lucky or skilled or make good tactical choices or some combination of the three. This results in real, genuine drama. And what is so cool about it? No one at the table knows how it will turn out. We play to find out what happens. Even the GM. And this is a feeling very unique to RPGs... which you end up losing entirely by stepping in and playing author and fudging dice to arrive at some preordained outcome that you are sure will elicit maximum feelings of "drama".

Now, I don't want you to feel like I am just shitting verbally all over your play style. There is a lot that you have talked about doing that I like. I like that you revel in description. I like that you take the time to play out journeys and create atmosphere. I think you can bring these skills to the table without falling back on the dice fudging and behind the scenes manipulation. That stirring way you like to describe combat? Use that same descriptive approach in interpreting the actual dice rolls by the rules of the game. You may be pleasantly surprised by how well it works.

To close on a little tangent, there are a lot of modern genre fiction authors who have RPG experience and bring this kind of mindset to their fiction. They at least partially set aside cliched narrative tropes and notions of major characters having "protected" status. They aren't afraid to let major characters die, even in what seem to be ways that are counter to what most genre fiction would lead us to think of intuitively as dramatic. George R R Martin, Steve Erikson, Robert Kirkman... These are guys who have had great success in creating dramatic works with a "let the dice fall as they may" sensibility, and it is a sensibility which is entirely appropriate and at home in the context of most RPGs.

Just some things to think about.

Quote from: Bren;913125I may be missing some narrative notion here, but I don’t see those sorts of classifications as qualitatively any different than the levels and hit dice in D&D, the point totals for GURPS and HERO, or the Poor, Average, Good, Excellent NPC labels that showed up in Runequest 3.0. They are a handy shorthand or proxy for labeling the power and threat provided by a given NPC.  

Honor+Intrigue classifies opponents as Villains, Retainers, and Pawns with mechanical differences between the three categories. Those differences make it very unlikely that a PC Hero will be killed by a Pawn (or even several pawns) or by a Retainer. A Villain, on the other hand, is mechanically identical to a Hero. But the statistical fact that a Retainer or a few Pawns are unlikely to be able to kill or seriously harm a PC isn’t any different than the fact that a Gnoll or a few Goblins in OD&D are unlikely to be able to kill or seriously harm a 9th level Lord.

If a character is a "mook" it generally doesn't mean that they are sickly or even unskilled. Most games allow for mooks who are strong, healthy, and skilled at combat. What being a "mook" generally does mean is that the character is narratively unimportant.

Quote from: Manzanaro;913132rgrove, while I find calling your approach "Not Roleplaying" to be extreme, it isn't an approach I myself care for, and I am going to try to lay out the reasons.

I get that in the abstract, we want to have a very dramatic game, and I get that just trusting in chance can't guarantee emergent drama, at least not on superficial consideration. But let's look at this more closely, returning to our recurring film analogy.

When I was a little kid, I used to love those rare occasions when I would catch those old Republic cliffhanger serials on TV. If you aren't familiar with these, every episode would end with a cliffhanger where it looked like for sure our hero was doomed! On first exposure, I found these cliffhangers to be the very height of adrenaline pounding dramatic tension. What would happen? How would our hero escape certain death?

But, as you can probably guess, it didn't take all that long, even as a small child to realize that our fictional protagonist was not actually in one bit of danger. He was entirely protected by the authorial hand of the serial's creator. The danger was entirely illusory. And once I realized that? The drama was gone. I mean, sure, I could pretend to myself that there was genuine jeopardy, but it was just play acting a sense of suspense. There was no real doubt as to how things would end up. And often, the author did not even try and hide their hand, saving the hero through blatant deus ex machina or even retconning the previous episode so that, for instance, even though we saw that the hero was in the car when it plunged off the cliff, in the next episode the hero was shown to have jumped out before the car left the road. Hmm.

As I became older I absorbed a metric shit ton of fiction and film. While the narrative conventions of much authored work is not quite as transparent as it was in those old Republic serials, they certainly did not tend to be exactly opaque either. it is a very rare work of genre fiction that genuinely surprises me and leaves me with feelings of actual suspense or drama.

Now, when it comes to RPGs? I am with you: I want the game to form a narrative that everyone at the table finds to be compelling and dramatic. And one's first instinct as a GM in how to achieve that is to take an authorial role and manipulate events as you see fit for maximum dramatic effect. But players are a savvy lot. As sneaky and clever as we think we are being in our subtle manipulations? With experienced players we end up being just as obviously manipulative and predictable as those old Republic serials. It really does not take long to realize if a GM will not let characters die, or if he is railroading events in such fashion as to make player choices meaningless in an "All roads lead to Rome" sense.

So I guess RPGs as drama just don't really work, right?

Ah, but wait. They actually work just fine, and in fact in my opinion, can elicit drama more easily than probably any other "narrative form" (if you'll excuse the impression). They key is to stop trying to manufacture the drama and simple to find it; to let it emerge organically.

RPGs are a unique medium in that they inherently defy predictable narrative tropes unless given a layer of meta rules dictating otherwise. When your heroic knight PC is facing off against 3 of the baron's corrupt militia? He is not protected by the author's hand, or an sort of protagonist status. He may genuinely be killed! To survive he will need to be lucky or skilled or make good tactical choices or some combination of the three. This results in real, genuine drama. And what is so cool about it? No one at the table knows how it will turn out. We play to find out what happens. Even the GM. And this is a feeling very unique to RPGs... which you end up losing entirely by stepping in and playing author and fudging dice to arrive at some preordained outcome that you are sure will elicit maximum feelings of "drama".

Now, I don't want you to feel like I am just shitting verbally all over your play style. There is a lot that you have talked about doing that I like. I like that you revel in description. I like that you take the time to play out journeys and create atmosphere. I think you can bring these skills to the table without falling back on the dice fudging and behind the scenes manipulation. That stirring way you like to describe combat? Use that same descriptive approach in interpreting the actual dice rolls by the rules of the game. You may be pleasantly surprised by how well it works.

To close on a little tangent, there are a lot of modern genre fiction authors who have RPG experience and bring this kind of mindset to their fiction. They at least partially set aside cliched narrative tropes and notions of major characters having "protected" status. They aren't afraid to let major characters die, even in what seem to be ways that are counter to what most genre fiction would lead us to think of as intuitive. George R R Martin, Steve Erikson, Robert Kirkman... These are guys who have had great success in creating dramatic works with a "let the dice fall as they may" sensibility, and it is a sensibility which is entirely appropriate and at home in the context of most RPGs.

Just some things to think about.

Excellent post!

Quote from: Bren;913125Honor+Intrigue classifies opponents as Villains, Retainers, and Pawns with mechanical differences between the three categories.

In D&D, AC, HPs, etc everything work the same, it's just that Goblins tend to be lower than Orcs, except maybe for a Goblin Chieftain.  There are no different rules that really apply for "things less skilled than PCs", it's just numbers.  And the thing you are overlooking is that since they are numbers and not Dramatic Orders of Being, they do not scale.  At first level, everything is a "Villain" because most things can kill you in one shot.  Also that Ogre might not be a "Villain" to a 8th level Fighter in a one-on-one fight, but sure as heck might be to a 8th Level Magic-User who has 16 HPs and AC 7.

What happens when the PCs decide to try something higher then their level?  When what amounts to a low to mid power PC decides to assault the Citadel of Sauron?  Is Sauron still a "Villain" for that guy, the same way he would also be a "Villain" to Gandalf the Grey Uncloaked?

Now Honor and Intrigue is a game with all humans, so we're not really talking about the difference between a kobold and a Fire Giant to a 1st level PC or 12th level PC.  Also, I don't know exactly what Pawn vs. Villain means in that system.  

Still what happens when in the afternoon Group A gets involved with Cardinal Richelieu's Elite Guards, lets call them Retainers, and during the night, Group B gets involved with more of those Retainers.  Group A is the equivalent of Gerard the Ex-Baker who spent 2 weeks on the front before being discharged.  Group B is the Three Musketeers.  Does the group of Retainers who can somewhat challenge the Three Musketeers bring the same level of challenge to the Three Amigos?

If so - narrative nonsense.

You'll have to tell me more about how H+I deals with Pawns etc.

Quote from: Manzanaro;913132Ah, but wait. They actually work just fine, and in fact in my opinion, can elicit drama more easily than probably any other "narrative form" (if you'll excuse the impression). The key is to stop trying to manufacture the drama and simply to find it; to let it emerge organically.

RPGs are a unique medium in that they inherently defy predictable narrative tropes unless given a layer of meta rules dictating otherwise. When your heroic knight PC is facing off against 3 of the baron's corrupt militia? He is not protected by the author's hand, or any sort of protagonist status. He may genuinely be killed! To survive he will need to be lucky or skilled or make good tactical choices or some combination of the three. This results in real, genuine drama. And what is so cool about it? No one at the table knows how it will turn out. We play to find out what happens. Even the GM. And this is a feeling very unique to RPGs... which you end up losing entirely by stepping in and playing author and fudging dice to arrive at some preordained outcome that you are sure will elicit maximum feelings of "drama".

(http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gfMOjrV.gif)

Comparing this to the "What is a Storygame" thread, and the proposed Venger definition of "Storygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us. " brings up an interesting observation.

The story told after the fact, based on roleplaying events without the invisible hand, or ooc manipulation, can deliver a better "Story" then one created through Storygame methods and mechanics.

We are back now to "The Real World is more interesting than Fiction", only now it's "Fictional events organically created through roleplay are more interesting than events authored through Storygame mechanics and methods."

Quote from: rgrove0172;913135Excellent post!

Yes it was. I think most folk were trying to get that across, though much less eloquently and in some cases, much less civilly.

Quote from: Manzanaro;913134If a character is a "mook" it generally doesn't mean that they are sickly or even unskilled. Most games allow for mooks who are strong, healthy, and skilled at combat. What being a "mook" generally does mean is that the character is narratively unimportant.

Yes, I understand a mook might be a big, strong bruiser. I don't actually play any games that use the term "mook", but I presume that Pawns in H+I are an example of a mook. A Pawn in H+I, no matter how strong or skilled, is unlikely to be able to defeat or seriously injure a heroic PC. But that's typical in lots of games. Unless the game rules actively prevent the mook from even the possibility of damaging, defeating, killing, or foiling the PCs, the mook isn't narratively unimportant any more than is OD&D goblin #4 or Runequest trollkin #9. (Or any less unimportant for that matter.) Minor adversaries in most game systems are unlikely to have any  significant impact on the outcome of play. So individually they are pretty unimportant. But in most game systems, there is a small chance that they might have an impact.

And of course, as the GM I can play Pawns and mooks in a way that they may have some impact even if they can't defeat the PCs. Case in point, Saturday night the PCs easily defeated twice their number of opponents. Since their opponents were 1 Retainer and 5 Pawns the result was not much in doubt. After killing half the enemy, the three surviving Pawns backed away. But they refused to allow themselves to be tied up. They were OK with the idea of surrendering, but wanted some honorable terms and they became very suspicious at the PCs insistence that the Pawns should agree to let themselves be tied up. This led to a standoff that frustrated the players and at least a couple of their PCs. One PC pulled out a pistol and that triggered another one-sided combat as the pawns thought they were about to be shot down. The end result was that two more pawns got dead. One of whom gasped out as he was killed, "I knew you were lying about leaving us alive." That seemed to disturb one of the players/PCs. Thus I'd say that Pawn ended up being narratively somewhat important.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913136Now Honor and Intrigue is a game with all humans, so we're not really talking about the difference between a kobold and a Fire Giant to a 1st level PC or 12th level PC.  Also, I don't know exactly what Pawn vs. Villain means in that system.  

It's mostly humans. But there are also natural creatures like wolves and lions and there may be monsters, like loup garou or vampires. So not so different in design from D&D or other FRP games.

QuoteStill what happens when in the afternoon Group A gets involved with Cardinal Richelieu's Elite Guards, lets call them Retainers, and during the night, Group B gets involved with more of those Retainers.  Group A is the equivalent of Gerard the Ex-Baker who spent 2 weeks on the front before being discharged.

Heroes in H+I, like characters in Barbarians of Lemuria on which it is based, are presumed to be competent. Even Gerard the ex-baker is going to be decent at combat even if that only means being good at not getting hit. So that extreme of an example won't really occur.

QuoteDoes the group of Retainers who can somewhat challenge the Three Musketeers bring the same level of challenge to the Three Amigos?

Although all PC heroes are competent, some are much more competent at certain actions than are others. So a Retainer who might be a moderate impediment but no real challenge to the Master Duelist PC, might be a struggle to defeat for the Scholar PC and Rochefort, a master duelist Villain will be a challenge for the Master Duelist PC, but the Scholar PC will have no real chance to defeat Rochefort in a duel and would be wise to avoid getting into that situation.

QuoteYou'll have to tell me more about how H+I deals with Pawns etc.

If you are interested, this post (https://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/search?q=pawns) might help.

Yeah, I don't really have anything against the "mook" type concept myself, but I do think it is a pretty clear example of genre emulation, and thus has narrative roots. I do tend to prefer "mooks go down in one hit" type rules over the "mooks can't kill PCs" style. It lets things lean towards genre while still being simulation oriented at heart.

Also, I appreciate the positive reactions to my wall of text post, guys. I wasn't sure how well I would be able to make myself clear.

Quote from: Manzanaro;913132rgrove, while I find calling your approach "Not Roleplaying" to be extreme, it isn't an approach I myself care for, and I am going to try to lay out the reasons.

Lucid and well said. Bravo.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913116There are the times you absolutely destroy a powerful encounter, either through good strategy, planning, or luck.
Then there are the times you absolutely get your ass kicked by a weak encounter, either through bad strategy, lack of planning, or bad luck.
Both make some of the greatest stories, in the real definition of story, the tale retold after the fact.

That's why I hate games that look to a Narrative Order of Being for the opponents, Mooks, Minions, Lieutenants, Leaders, Elites, Legendaries, etc... The irony is, the games that use these systems do so for the purpose of Story as in "we're actively and collaboratively creating it together now", but in reality they are robbing the characters of their Agency and granting that Agency to the GM who sets the stage and to the players who pull the strings.

The characters are denied the possibility of an easy victory, because the Law of Drama says "This fight shall be hard".  They are denied consequences of their actions because the Law of Drama says "A lone Mook cannot kill anyone."

The narrative stance is about as far from Roleplaying as you can get.

I still, decades later, remember the time I decided to stiffen a band of orcs by giving them and ogre to provide extra staying power. The first blow of the combat was the Cavalier nailing ogre with a solid lance hit and one shot killing it. So much for my tough encounter.  I had the brief though of "more ogres!" but decided that wouldn't be fair. I had simply been outplayed, so I allowed the players their victory. 1st level AD&D characters, so an ogre should have been tough.

Had I been playing for the scripted drama it is likely that a hill giant would have come out of that cave to give the party a "real" fight.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913202Had I been playing for the scripted drama it is likely that a hill giant would have come out of that cave to give the party a "real" fight.

And then when the Hill Giant clobbered one of the PCs in the head, you'd end up wanting to weaken the Hill Giant or  fudge that outcome - chasing the drama can be a vicious cycle.

Quote from: Bren;913203And then when the Hill Giant clobbered one of the PCs in the head, you'd end up wanting to weaken the Hill Giant or  fudge that outcome - chasing the drama can be a vicious cycle.

Yes. Instead I got an unexpected moment of drama by letting the game unfold naturally. One character got a moment of being a Big Damn Hero.

Quote from: Manzanaro;913132rgrove, while I find calling your approach "Not Roleplaying" to be extreme, it isn't an approach I myself care for, and I am going to try to lay out the reasons.

I get that in the abstract, we want to have a very dramatic game, and I get that just trusting in chance can't guarantee emergent drama, at least not on superficial consideration. But let's look at this more closely, returning to our recurring film analogy.

When I was a little kid, I used to love those rare occasions when I would catch those old Republic cliffhanger serials on TV. If you aren't familiar with these, every episode would end with a cliffhanger where it looked like for sure our hero was doomed! On first exposure, I found these cliffhangers to be the very height of adrenaline pounding dramatic tension. What would happen? How would our hero escape certain death?

But, as you can probably guess, it didn't take all that long, even as a small child to realize that our fictional protagonist was not actually in one bit of danger. He was entirely protected by the authorial hand of the serial's creator. The danger was entirely illusory. And once I realized that? The drama was gone. I mean, sure, I could pretend to myself that there was genuine jeopardy, but it was just play acting a sense of suspense. There was no real doubt as to how things would end up. And often, the author did not even try and hide their hand, saving the hero through blatant deus ex machina or even retconning the previous episode so that, for instance, even though we saw that the hero was in the car when it plunged off the cliff, in the next episode the hero was shown to have jumped out before the car left the road. Hmm.

As I became older I absorbed a metric shit ton of fiction and film. While the narrative conventions of much authored work is not quite as transparent as it was in those old Republic serials, they certainly did not tend to be exactly opaque either. it is a very rare work of genre fiction that genuinely surprises me and leaves me with feelings of actual suspense or drama.

Now, when it comes to RPGs? I am with you: I want the game to form a narrative that everyone at the table finds to be compelling and dramatic. And one's first instinct as a GM in how to achieve that is to take an authorial role and manipulate events as you see fit for maximum dramatic effect. But players are a savvy lot. As sneaky and clever as we think we are being in our subtle manipulations? With experienced players we end up being just as obviously manipulative and predictable as those old Republic serials. It really does not take long to realize if a GM will not let characters die, or if he is railroading events in such fashion as to make player choices meaningless in an "All roads lead to Rome" sense.

So I guess RPGs as drama just don't really work, right?

Ah, but wait. They actually work just fine, and in fact in my opinion, can elicit drama more easily than probably any other "narrative form" (if you'll excuse the expression). The key is to stop trying to manufacture the drama and simply to find it; to let it emerge organically.

RPGs are a unique medium in that they inherently defy predictable narrative tropes unless given a layer of meta rules dictating otherwise. When your heroic knight PC is facing off against 3 of the baron's corrupt militia? He is not protected by the author's hand, or any sort of protagonist status. He may genuinely be killed! To survive he will need to be lucky or skilled or make good tactical choices or some combination of the three. This results in real, genuine drama. And what is so cool about it? No one at the table knows how it will turn out. We play to find out what happens. Even the GM. And this is a feeling very unique to RPGs... which you end up losing entirely by stepping in and playing author and fudging dice to arrive at some preordained outcome that you are sure will elicit maximum feelings of "drama".

Now, I don't want you to feel like I am just shitting verbally all over your play style. There is a lot that you have talked about doing that I like. I like that you revel in description. I like that you take the time to play out journeys and create atmosphere. I think you can bring these skills to the table without falling back on the dice fudging and behind the scenes manipulation. That stirring way you like to describe combat? Use that same descriptive approach in interpreting the actual dice rolls by the rules of the game. You may be pleasantly surprised by how well it works.

To close on a little tangent, there are a lot of modern genre fiction authors who have RPG experience and bring this kind of mindset to their fiction. They at least partially set aside cliched narrative tropes and notions of major characters having "protected" status. They aren't afraid to let major characters die, even in what seem to be ways that are counter to what most genre fiction would lead us to think of intuitively as dramatic. George R R Martin, Steve Erikson, Robert Kirkman... These are guys who have had great success in creating dramatic works with a "let the dice fall as they may" sensibility, and it is a sensibility which is entirely appropriate and at home in the context of most RPGs.

Just some things to think about.

I really appreciate the post, as said before - good stuff. But after reading I realized something.

Your comments seems to assume the players are aware of the actions taken by the GM to 'artificially' present the sought for drama. In your example you became aware that the cliffhangers (yep I remember them too - Saturday matinees throwing popcorn off the balcony of the old theatre and having Mr. Billings chase us with his flashlight) provided for the safety of the main character but until that point you admit it was great. The movie writers and director failed to maintain that illusion because the plot manipulation was overused, expected even anticipated at some point. As a GM running a game that would be a fatal error for the very reason you describe, you caught on and as a result, lost interest.

Of course you have to let character's die, plots fail, battles be lost, mayhem ensue etc. First I should state this kind of well, interference in the natural progression of the game isn't constant, or even regular - its a rarity and usually involves less than critical elements in the game -altering subtly rather than controlling outright. But even so, when implemented care is taken to disguise any GM license - and I cant imagine how a player could tell the difference other than in the way you mention wherein the tactic is overused. It would be akin to the writers in your cliffhanger analogy allowing the character to get hurt or even killed but saving him, sometimes. How would you know which risky situation was potentially deadly and which were planned as drama only?

Now some will claim this is dishonest. I just cant see that. This isn't monopoly we are talking about here. There is nothing competitive going on. I good GM doesn't play against his players, in fact in this case any meddling with the natural flow of the game is done in the player's favor or at least in their best interest as participants enjoying the game. I don't see where honesty is even an issue. GMs keep things from the players all the time, are they being dishonest? They are running the game, controlling the world - the GM can strike the players dead at any time, but he doesn't and the players trust that he will present them with exciting, challenging but generally fair situations. If they don't, they need a new GM. If the GM chooses to make a seemingly impossible situation suddenly survivable or perhaps escalate a simple situation into a threatening one, its his call - again if there comes a time when the players feel he isn't being fair and they aren't having fun, they have the choice to leave.

Someone mentioned that this may rob the players of their satisfaction when overcoming something if they were to discover the GM helped. Well yeah, sure - I get that. They were about to get TPKd and I stepped in and allowed the 7th Cav to arrive when originally they weren't supposed to. Are they really going to bitch about it? Seriously? Start questioning me on how far away they were, how were they notified etc. (Frankly if they did I would have appropriate answers for all of that but whatever) The result was a dramatic and exciting bit of play wherein the characters almost but didn't quite buy the farm. They were robbed of their experience?

If a boss type bad guy misses a few times during a fight and allows the characters to just defeat him, they missed out on something?

The only way any of this makes sense is to assume the GM informs the players not only of the practice but exactly WHEN he is doing it. My players are well aware that at times I step in as a master of Fate in the game and may tweak the odds, embellish the circumstances or bend the setting in the interests of a better experience. In 35+ years of gaming the only reply I have ever heard is  "Your the GM, its your world... just be fair about it", and I always have been.

IM learning something here though, the stance against what I am describing is truly eye opening.

Do you really consider the following examples dishonest and ill advised?

1) Early in a random encounter a lucky shot by a no-name enemy potentially kills a player character. I fudge the roll and leave him with a couple HP instead.
2) A combat is taking place on a narrow walkway. I allow a couple bad guys to stumble when hit (not killed) and fall (no game rules would cover this) for dramatic effect.
3) Characters are approaching the Wraith's castle. I bring in a storm for effect and flood the ravine behind them as they cross, trapping them there.
4) The characters party it up at a tavern. I decide to make the bartender an agent for their enemy and he drugs their wine. They wake up locked in a wagon on the way to a slave camp. (I of course allow them a chance to detect the drug, notice him watching them etc. but he wasn't planned as an agent, it just permitted an opportunity for an exciting plot twist.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;913206First I should state this kind of well, interference in the natural progression of the game isn't constant, or even regular - its a rarity

I think most of us already assumed this was rare, not constant.

QuoteBut even so, when implemented care is taken to disguise any GM license - and I cant imagine how a player could tell the difference other than in the way you mention wherein the tactic is overused.

It is interesting, but GMs who use these techniques often cannot fathom how someone can see through their self assessed cleverness. Well there are in fact a number of ways:

First, most game rules are fairly simple arithmetically and statistically. I’m one of those players who learns the rules to the games that I play and even in my declining years, I’m still pretty fast at math and I have an intuitive understanding of most of the probabilities that arise in gaming gained through over four decades of play. What this means in practice is that I often know what die rolls are successes and what die rolls are failures. So if you adjust the probabilities to favor your outcome there is a reasonable chance that I will notice that the very first time you do it. And if you do it with some regularity (say one or more times per session) I will notice.

Now obviously if the GM rolls all the dice for NPCs and PCs alike and keeps those die rolls hidden so the players never see the die rolls, I can’t do the same simple calculation. But having the GM roll all the dice is unusual enough in RPGs (and even against the rules in a few) that a GM wanting to do that is already going to make me wonder why he is doing that. And many GMs openly roll the dice so it is clear and obvious that they don’t have a thumb on that scale.

Second, few people are really all that good at lying, concealing their tells, and covering up rapid changes in direction. So the GM may be providing clues that he doesn’t even know he is providing that he doesn’t like the direction that things seem to be proceeding. So that when he forces events to intervene and save his plot or desired drama, his intervention is nowhere near as undetectable as he thinks it is.

Third, over time the pattern of PCs saved from the brink of disaster and easy successes leading to unforseen complications and other attempts to force drama are recognizable. As much by the absence of their opposite as by the presence of the save or complication.

QuoteNow some will claim this is dishonest. I just cant see that.

You are attempting to deceive your players into thinking you GM according to the rules when in fact you just change the situation to suit your notions of drama, fun, or to maintain your plot. The dishonesty is either by omission, you never tell the players that you change rolls to suit your occasional whims, or by commission by rolling dice which you then ignore, or by other means of active deception.

QuoteThis isn't monopoly we are talking about here.

It is not monopoly. It is a shared and supposedly consensual social activity where you prefer to trick your players. That you seem to think you are doing it for their own good, doesn’t alter the inherent dishonesty in what you are doing. Whether your players mind your dishonesty is an entirely different matter than whether or not you are in fact being dishonest.

Quote… in fact in this case any meddling with the natural flow of the game is done in the player's favor or at least in their best interest as participants enjoying the game.

Not everyone sees the changes you make as favorable changes. And by concealing what you do, you lessen their ability to make choices about what kind of game they want to play and when they want to vote with their feet and leave.

QuoteI don't see where honesty is even an issue.

I find that somewhat troubling.

QuoteIf the GM chooses to make a seemingly impossible situation suddenly survivable or perhaps escalate a simple situation into a threatening one, its his call - again if there comes a time when the players feel he isn't being fair and they aren't having fun, they have the choice to leave.

If you truly believed that, you would be honest and upfront with the way you GM rather than trying to trick your players for their own good as you perceive it.

QuoteThey were about to get TPKd and I stepped in and allowed the 7th Cav to arrive when originally they weren't supposed to. Are they really going to bitch about it? Seriously?

Most won’t. A rare few will. If you are correct that your players won’t mind (and many players won’t), you don’t need to deceive them. And if some of your players do mind, you do them a disservice by deceiving them and make it difficult for them to vote with their feet to get the kind of game they would enjoy more.

QuoteThe result was a dramatic and exciting bit of play wherein the characters almost but didn't quite buy the farm. They were robbed of their experience?

Yep they were robbed. Excitement comes from risk. But you don’t have risk unless you sometimes get failure. And you don’t have naturally occurring drama without the other side of the coin which is an occasionally unsatisfying and undramatic resolution.  

QuoteIf a boss type bad guy misses a few times during a fight and allows the characters to just defeat him, they missed out on something?

Things they missed out on:

• The drama of an exciting flight for their lives.

• The pleasure of having their choices in the game really matter.

• The satisfaction of seeing their choice to wear lighter armor so they could run faster validated.

• The reinforcement that risks are real.

QuoteThe only way any of this makes sense is to assume the GM informs the players not only of the practice but exactly WHEN he is doing it.

It makes perfect sense if you give your players credit for occasionally being as smart or smarter than their GM and for knowing what they do and don't enjoy in their leisure activity.

QuoteDo you really consider the following examples dishonest and ill advised?

1) Early in a random encounter a lucky shot by a no-name enemy potentially kills a player character. I fudge the roll and leave him with a couple HP instead.

Clear GM cheating. Very ill advised. Frequently easy to catch.

Quote2) A combat is taking place on a narrow walkway. I allow a couple bad guys to stumble when hit (not killed) and fall (no game rules would cover this) for dramatic effect.

Common sense would lead me as a GM to allow an opportunity for a bad guy (or a PC) to stumble. But I’d use some random method for determining when that occurred. Probably factoring in things like damage done, DEX and SIZ of target, etc. I would not add it solely because it sounds dramatic. It would sound dramatic because the result is plausible and the outcome is dangerous and the outcome also applies to the PCs.

Quote3) Characters are approaching the Wraith's castle. I bring in a storm for effect and flood the ravine behind them as they cross, trapping them there.

Railroady. Quite possibly ill advised. And now there is a definite probability that soon you will want to cheat in the players favor when they cannot escape the wraith because of the flood you created for your attempt to boost the drama.

Quote4) The characters party it up at a tavern. I decide to make the bartender an agent for their enemy and he drugs their wine. They wake up locked in a wagon on the way to a slave camp. (I of course allow them a chance to detect the drug, notice him watching them etc. but he wasn't planned as an agent, it just permitted an opportunity for an exciting plot twist.)

It depends. How plausible is it for this random bartender to be an agent of their enemy? Is this a world where normal logic and plausibility apply or is this some over the top and stereotypical pulp genre like the Perils of Fu Manchu, Doc Savage, or the Shadow or better yet, the Spider where uncounted hordes of nefarious agents implausibly being everywhere the protagonists go is part of the expected and agreed upon genre shtick?

Personally, if it occurred to me during play that “Hey it might be interesting if this bartender is a secret agent for the villain” or “Hey I wonder if this bartender could be an agent of the villain.” Then first I’d ask myself, does that contradict what I know about the bartender? And if it didn't, then I’d ask is that even remotely possible? If not, then I ignore that thought and move on. Undoubtedly soon something else dramatic will happen along one way or another.  On the other hand, it is doesn't contradict and if it is possible, then I’d assign some level of probability based on how likely or plausible such an event seems based on the setting rather than just using some rule of cool or quest for drama. Then I’d roll to find out whether the bartender was a secret agent. Because I value a coherent and consistent world almost infinitely more than I value trying to force my idea of drama on my players. YMMV.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913202I still, decades later, remember the time I decided to stiffen a band of orcs by giving them and ogre to provide extra staying power. The first blow of the combat was the Cavalier nailing ogre with a solid lance hit and one shot killing it. So much for my tough encounter.  I had the brief though of "more ogres!" but decided that wouldn't be fair. I had simply been outplayed, so I allowed the players their victory. 1st level AD&D characters, so an ogre should have been tough.

Had I been playing for the scripted drama it is likely that a hill giant would have come out of that cave to give the party a "real" fight.

No need. One could simply take that great shot by the Cavalier, allow it to kill the Ogre, but delay his death for a turn or two - have him scream with rage and clutch at the lance fixed in his chest. He swings wildly on his turn (auto missing but with the dice rolled to keep the players wary) and finally drops dead after narrowly missing (again, a narrative addition) one of the characters with a massive swing of his club.

Same result, more dramatic and fun.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913223Same result, more dramatic and fun.

Maybe it's just me and the many people I've gamed with over the decades, but I find that more often than not the player of the cavalier who one-shots the ogre is actually really happy with that result and he or she finds that outcome satisfyingly dramatic. It is more often the GM who finds it anticlimactic not the players.

Quote from: Bren;913222I think most of us already assumed this was rare, not constant.

It is interesting, but GMs who use these techniques often cannot fathom how someone can see through their self assessed cleverness. Well there are in fact a number of ways:

First, most game rules are fairly simple arithmetically and statistically. I’m one of those players who learns the rules to the games that I play and even in my declining years, I’m still pretty fast at math and I have an intuitive understanding of most of the probabilities that arise in gaming gained through over four decades of play. What this means in practice is that I often know what die rolls are successes and what die rolls are failures. So if you adjust the probabilities to favor your outcome there is a reasonable chance that I will notice that the very first time you do it. And if you do it with some regularity (say one or more times per session) I will notice. You assume you are privy to my die rolls. You would not be. All GM rolls are made behind the screen, to keep such things as hidden modifiers, unknown results to fumbles etc. a secret. And in this case to disguise GM license.

Now obviously if the GM rolls all the dice for NPCs and PCs alike and keeps those die rolls hidden so the players never see the die rolls, I can’t do the same simple calculation. But having the GM roll all the dice is unusual enough in RPGs (and even against the rules in a few) that a GM wanting to do that is already going to make me wonder why he is doing that. And many GMs openly roll the dice so it is clear and obvious that they don’t have a thumb on that scale. Ive never heard of a GM rolling for players. I certainly wouldn't.

Second, few people are really all that good at lying, concealing their tells, and covering up rapid changes in direction. So the GM may be providing clues that he doesn’t even know he is providing that he doesn’t like the direction that things seem to be proceeding. So that when he forces events to intervene and save his plot or desired drama, his intervention is nowhere near as undetectable as he thinks it is. Not trying to SAVE anything. Just providing the best experience I can.

Third, over time the pattern of PCs saved from the brink of disaster and easy successes leading to unforseen complications and other attempts to force drama are recognizable. As much by the absence of their opposite as by the presence of the save or complication. They might be if used regularly, which we already established, they are not.

You are attempting to deceive your players into thinking you GM according to the rules when in fact you just change the situation to suit your notions of drama, fun, or to maintain your plot. The dishonesty is either by omission, you never tell the players that you change rolls to suit your occasional whims, or by commission by rolling dice which you then ignore, or by other means of active deception. A practice known and permitted by trusting players who understand my chief objective is their fun.

It is not monopoly. It is a shared and supposedly consensual social activity where you prefer to trick your players. That you seem to think you are doing it for their own good, doesn’t alter the inherent dishonesty in what you are doing. Whether your players mind your dishonesty is an entirely different matter than whether or not you are in fact being dishonest.

Not everyone sees the changes you make as favorable changes. And by concealing what you do, you lessen their ability to make choices about what kind of game they want to play and when they want to vote with their feet and leave. They certainly have that option. No one has ever exercised it.

I find that somewhat troubling.

If you truly believed that, you would be honest and upfront with the way you GM rather than trying to trick your players for their own good as you perceive it. I think I made it clear that the possibility of GM license is understood.

Most won’t. A rare few will. If you are correct that your players won’t mind (and many players won’t), you don’t need to deceive them. And if some of your players do mind, you do them a disservice by deceiving them and make it difficult for them to vote with their feet to get the kind of game they would enjoy more. Deception is required for the experience, again as I explained. We enjoy being fooled, as long as its done well and increases our enjoyment.

Yep they were robbed. Excitement comes from risk. But you don’t have risk unless you sometimes get failure. And you don’t have naturally occurring drama without the other side of the coin which is an occasionally unsatisfying and undramatic resolution.  Excitement? Check  - Risk? Check - Failure? Check - Sometimes unsatisfactory results? Check - what am I missing?

Things they missed out on:

• The drama of an exciting flight for their lives.

• The pleasure of having their choices in the game really matter.

• The satisfaction of seeing their choice to wear lighter armor so they could run faster validated.

• The reinforcement that risks are real.

Hmm, they had every bit of that and more. Guess you would have to be there to understand.

It makes perfect sense if you give your players credit for occasionally being as smart or smarter than their GM and for knowing what they do and don't enjoy in their leisure activity.

Clear GM cheating. Very ill advised. Frequently easy to catch. Arguable point, especially if kept to a minimum.

Common sense would lead me as a GM to allow an opportunity for a bad guy (or a PC) to stumble. But I’d use some random method for determining when that occurred. Probably factoring in things like damage done, DEX and SIZ of target, etc. I would not add it solely because it sounds dramatic. It would sound dramatic because the result is plausible and the outcome is dangerous and the outcome also applies to the PCs. I actually did require a couple of DX rolls to avoid falling, doesn't change the situation with the NPCs though so I didn't mention it.

Railroady. Quite possibly ill advised. And now there is a definite probability that soon you will want to cheat in the players favor when they cannot escape the wraith because of the flood you created for your attempt to boost the drama. If ill advised Id have to hear an argument. Slim to none probably that it will make me want to do something or not do something later.

It depends. How plausible is it for this random bartender to be an agent of their enemy? Is this a world where normal logic and plausibility apply or is this some over the top and stereotypical pulp genre like the Perils of Fu Manchu, Doc Savage, or the Shadow or better yet, the Spider where uncounted hordes of nefarious agents implausibly being everywhere the protagonists go is part of the expected and agreed upon genre shtick? Im the GM, the world and its logic are mine to set. Makes sense to me, who else should I ask? Sorry, that sounded really smart assed but it stands. I wouldn't have done it if it wasn't plausible.

Personally, if it occurred to me during play that “Hey it might be interesting if this bartender is a secret agent for the villain” or “Hey I wonder if this bartender could be an agent of the villain.” Then first I’d ask myself, does that contradict what I know about the bartender? And if it didn't, then I’d ask is that even remotely possible? If not, then I ignore that thought and move on. Undoubtedly soon something else dramatic will happen along one way or another.  On the other hand, it is doesn't contradict and if it is possible, then I’d assign some level of probability based on how likely or plausible such an event seems based on the setting rather than just using some rule of cool or quest for drama. Then I’d roll to find out whether the bartender was a secret agent. Because I value a coherent and consistent world almost infinitely more than I value trying to force my idea of drama on my players. YMMV.

I don't know. I use a lot of random rolls in my games as well but only for variety. I don't see how providing the percentage chance of an outcome completely arbitrarily then seeing if it happens is all that different from simply stating it does, from the GMs perspective. He can levy whatever likelihood he wants and therefore influence the outcome. Same result.

Thanks for the lengthy and well thought out reply!

Quote from: Bren;913225Maybe it's just me and the many people I've gamed with over the decades, but I find that more often than not the player of the cavalier who one-shots the ogre is actually really happy with that result and he or she finds that outcome satisfyingly dramatic. It is more often the GM who finds it anticlimactic not the players.

Well sure, at least some of the time. Many players are interesting only in their own success - min/maxing their characters etc. Such players wouldn't even be interested in the supplied narrative. Telling them they hit for 3X damage and killed the thing would be sufficient. Ive been fortunate not to have those kinds of players in my group. We tend to minimize 'game speak' during play and try to communicate with real world and dramatic terms whenever possible. It cant be helped sometimes of course. (informing a player how many hits they took for example) but is certainly accompanied with a more descriptive and interesting narrative.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912965Yes but if the scene/encounter you planned was set up to introduce the players to their contact in the Thieve's guild who was to open a secret door in the alley to allow the group to escape a particularly deadly encounter... and by the luck of the dice the 'deadly encounter' turned into a boring slaughter... the 'coolness' of the scene has been ruined, and some of the drama in the game lost.

I'd say rather that the drama the GM intended would be replaced by whatever else happened, which if the GM is not counting on his intended result, but instead is looking to develop whatever happens in interesting ways, could be even more interesting than what he planned.

Quote"A dagger wielding assassin falls at your feet but you see at least two more entering the alley beyond him and another moving across the rooftop above. Your pressed in, the dead end behind you leaving no real means of escape. The bodies of 4 assassins are testament to your skill but you are all bleeding and tiring and there appears to be no end to them. Argun grips his axe and steps forward, prepared to meet the overwhelming force with blood and steel. But then a voice issues from the shadows and you see a sliver of light appear in the deepest recess of the alley, a secret door! "Quickly" a voice whispers "Now, before they advance! Follow me!"

This would be very exciting to me if I were playing it and this was the actual result of applying tactical decisions and using fair die rolls. However, as in the very way that you can narrate that by yourself like that, if this is something the GM (or even the game system) makes happen, then it strikes me as rather fake and forced. Instead of actually relating to it as the situation described, I relate to it as "the GM is putting us on auto-pilot and forcing an outcome, ignoring the actual situation and odds and anything we might try to do about it. We're not playing a game or being given any choices or put in any danger. We're being asked to pretend like that's what we'd do and that we actually were in that situation and that's what happened, but really we're just being made to accept that invented improbable story, and asked to pretend it was really like that, and was meaningful, and that we should go along with whatever the GM has in mind because he thinks that's cool and we he's providing us little option and not much we can probably do about it."

Quoteor

Having quickly dispatched what must have been an inexperience group of would-be assassins you are cleaning the blood from your sword when a door opens in the previously solid wall. You all jump back but a trusting voice issues from within. "Well done, the rumors of your prowess are apparently true. Please, if you would follow me?"

ok, the latter one is fine but not nearly as cool/exciting/fun as the first. All that had to be done was filter in a few more bad guys until the players were at least taxed and hurt a little, then have the door open. Its scripting yes but towards a good end. Revealing the ploy as a ploy would be stupid, banishing the illusion that the players 'narrowly escaped' and ruining the moment. That's what its all about isn't it? Those moments in a game?

Wow, so you have the opposite sense of what "its all about" as I do. Interesting.

To me, "those moments" aren't really those moments, if they're fake. The fake ones are "those OTHER moments" where the GM lost it and forced something annoyingly fake to happen. The real moments for me are when there is an actual situation on the table which looks like it is going to end horribly for the players, and then through some brilliant unexpected move and/or some freakish luck, or even just the application of some actual really high skill levels on any character's sheet, the expected result is turned on it's head, leading to a new situation, that then also has to be dealt with in a way that makes sense, because it is also actually in play.

That is, a more interesting version to me is one where the new potential ally has contrived the scene. He actually can open the door at any time, but is pretending to be working on unlocking it, and is testing the PCs to see how they interact with these assassins, perhaps expecting them to need an escape and to provide it for them in order to get them to do something that he wants done but doesn't want to do himself for some reason that also makes sense. I would play out the contriving that leads to the scene too, lest the setup be inconsistent forced nonsense, too. The thief/mastermind will need to figure out how to get the assassins and the PCs to both be in the alley with him, and if that goes in an unexpected way, then it does. Assuming it does work out, the assassins then actually fight the PCs. If the assassins should be able to get the PCs to flee but they don't and they actually beat the assassins, then it would not be "what must have been an inexperience group of would-be assassins" nor "the rumors of your prowess are apparently true" - both the PCs and the thief/mastermind NPC would get their usual in-game ability to assess both side's skills and the degree of luck as shown in the actual encounter. Also given the rules for noise from combat and the bleeding/injury rules, the NPC thief would probably not be complimenting the PCs at that point but rather saying something like, "Quick! This way! People will soon come and see you, and you need a healer! This way is safe! Hurry!" The players would then also have an actual tense situation to decide how much time to spend searching the bodies or assessing or chatting with this insistent stranger, and whether to risk being seen standing over dead bodies or not...

Quote from: rgrove0172;913230Well sure, at least some of the time. Many players are interesting only in their own success - min/maxing their characters etc. Such players wouldn't even be interested in the supplied narrative. Telling them they hit for 3X damage and killed the thing would be sufficient. Ive been fortunate not to have those kinds of players in my group. We tend to minimize 'game speak' during play and try to communicate with real world and dramatic terms whenever possible. It cant be helped sometimes of course. (informing a player how many hits they took for example) but is certainly accompanied with a more descriptive and interesting narrative.

Jesus H. Christ, do you have any idea how unbelievably condescending you sound?

Bren was pointing out that a 1st Level Cavalier one-shotting an Ogre is a great accomplishment, worthy of praise and certainly a high point of that adventure, to be told as tales told in inns and taverns for months if not years to come.

Your response is to call that player a min-maxing gamist because they might find their own accomplishment more interesting than your flavor text about the ogre flailing around for two rounds?

Jesus Wept.

You're beginning to sound like the kind of GM who when he says "drama" means "the superior drama that only I can provide".   You do realize that your players have their own image of what's happening with their characters playing in their own heads, right?  All you're doing by constantly insisting on providing your own drama is ensuring that you overwrite whatever they had going on in their own heads, with *your* "dramatic" version.

Yeah, not everyone GMs like that, not even remotely close.

Chiming in on this:

Quote from: rgrove0172;913206...
Do you really consider the following examples dishonest and ill advised?

1) Early in a random encounter a lucky shot by a no-name enemy potentially kills a player character. I fudge the roll and leave him with a couple HP instead.

Certainly dishonest. Probably unwise, yes. If it's impossible for a PC to get killed by a fluke shot, then you're warping reality and undermining your own game. If you really want to play a game where that's impossible, I'd suggest putting that explicitly in the rules. And, I don't suggest you do that. If I play a game about actual combat, I want it to be a game about actual combat, where getting shot at means there is a chance my character might get hit and die, even if the attacker is a random bozo. Otherwise, it's not really a game about that situation. And, then I and other players can and will start to do nonsense things about it at some level.

Also, when a player got his character killed by some random shot, it makes everyone wake up and realize the reality of the game's risks, which in general I think makes the whole game much more interesting.

Quote2) A combat is taking place on a narrow walkway. I allow a couple bad guys to stumble when hit (not killed) and fall (no game rules would cover this) for dramatic effect.

What lame combat system doesn't have rules for results of falling? I advise not playing such games and/or adding a DX/awareness check (modified by the amount of shock from the injury) to determine whether someone falling down does so in a bad or interesting way, based on the situation (which is one reason why I also always use maps for combat). If you're using a lame combat system without such rules and then making up that they fall, not even giving them a chance, and you don't have an agreement that that's what you're going to do, then that's dishonest. But of course you can have an agreement that this is a story game and you're going to make up interesting results for any and everything - that's fine too if you're honest about it, but it's not the way I usually like to play unless I'm fascinated by the stuff you make up.

Quote3) Characters are approaching the Wraith's castle. I bring in a storm for effect and flood the ravine behind them as they cross, trapping them there.

Dishonest though not too bad, though I'd prefer a random chance of different storm and ravine conditions, and a map of all the terrain around the castle, and rules for crossing each type of terrain in different weather, full travel rules, etc. There could also be someone/something that causes floods or obstacles intentionally. I'd find all of that more much more interesting (an actual game about the situation) than a world where the universe does magic dramatically convenient things in response to the players.

Quote4) The characters party it up at a tavern. I decide to make the bartender an agent for their enemy and he drugs their wine. They wake up locked in a wagon on the way to a slave camp. (I of course allow them a chance to detect the drug, notice him watching them etc. but he wasn't planned as an agent, it just permitted an opportunity for an exciting plot twist.)

Dishonest and ill-advised but again, easily made much more fair and honest. When I think of an interesting possibility like this that I haven't developed yet, what I do is reflect upon the world and the situation and try to impartially estimate the odds that that possibility would in fact be true. So, what's the chance that their enemy has bartender agents at all? Say 50% - roll. If yes, how many do they have, and distributed in which towns, and how many bars are there, roughly - quick mental estimate results in the chance this bar actually has such an agent. Probably slim. Roll. He IS here? Wow! That IS interesting. Oh wait, how many shifts are there - is he working right now? Hmm, good chance, but should roll. Maybe he's not here but will just relay info. And if not, it also generates interesting content for the campaign - maybe now there is a villain agent in some other tavern in some other town, and that will be relevant and interesting in some other way in the future. e.g. The players at some point interrogate some henchman, and he tells them about this agent at the Greendale Purple Moose... That, to me, is fair and quite interesting/preferable. This is a taste I've developed from having started out as a GM having plenty of coincidences I thought of just happen, and realizing that was annoying and surreal and unsatisfying to me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913235Jesus H. Christ, do you have any idea how unbelievably condescending you sound?

Bren was pointing out that a 1st Level Cavalier one-shotting an Ogre is a great accomplishment, worthy of praise and certainly a high point of that adventure, to be told as tales told in inns and taverns for months if not years to come.

Your response is to call that player a min-maxing gamist because they might find their own accomplishment more interesting than your flavor text about the ogre flailing around for two rounds?

Jesus Wept.

You're beginning to sound like the kind of GM who when he says "drama" means "the superior drama that only I can provide".   You do realize that your players have their own image of what's happening with their characters playing in their own heads, right?  All you're doing by constantly insisting on providing your own drama is ensuring that you overwrite whatever they had going on in their own heads, with *your* "dramatic" version.

Yeah, not everyone GMs like that, not even remotely close.

Wow you totally miss the points I'm making. I'll accept that I may not be making a few of them clear enough or something but there's no reason to start blaspheming.

The cavalier story began as a comment toward an anticlimactic battle. I explained how it need not be. If someone resented structuring the kill to provide everyone with a bit more fun I felt they would be pretty closed minded. That's all.

Quote from: Skarg;913239Chiming in on this:


Certainly dishonest. Probably unwise, yes. If it's impossible for a PC to get killed by a fluke shot, then you're warping reality and undermining your own game. If you really want to play a game where that's impossible, I'd suggest putting that explicitly in the rules. And, I don't suggest you do that. If I play a game about actual combat, I want it to be a game about actual combat, where getting shot at means there is a chance my character might get hit and die, even if the attacker is a random bozo. Otherwise, it's not really a game about that situation. And, then I and other players can and will start to do nonsense things about it at some level.

Also, when a player got his character killed by some random shot, it makes everyone wake up and realize the reality of the game's risks, which in general I think makes the whole game much more interesting.


What lame combat system doesn't have rules for results of falling? I advise not playing such games and/or adding a DX/awareness check (modified by the amount of shock from the injury) to determine whether someone falling down does so in a bad or interesting way, based on the situation (which is one reason why I also always use maps for combat). If you're using a lame combat system without such rules and then making up that they fall, not even giving them a chance, and you don't have an agreement that that's what you're going to do, then that's dishonest. But of course you can have an agreement that this is a story game and you're going to make up interesting results for any and everything - that's fine too if you're honest about it, but it's not the way I usually like to play unless I'm fascinated by the stuff you make up.


Dishonest though not too bad, though I'd prefer a random chance of different storm and ravine conditions, and a map of all the terrain around the castle, and rules for crossing each type of terrain in different weather, full travel rules, etc. There could also be someone/something that causes floods or obstacles intentionally. I'd find all of that more much more interesting (an actual game about the situation) than a world where the universe does magic dramatically convenient things in response to the players.


Dishonest and ill-advised but again, easily made much more fair and honest. When I think of an interesting possibility like this that I haven't developed yet, what I do is reflect upon the world and the situation and try to impartially estimate the odds that that possibility would in fact be true. So, what's the chance that their enemy has bartender agents at all? Say 50% - roll. If yes, how many do they have, and distributed in which towns, and how many bars are there, roughly - quick mental estimate results in the chance this bar actually has such an agent. Probably slim. Roll. He IS here? Wow! That IS interesting. Oh wait, how many shifts are there - is he working right now? Hmm, good chance, but should roll. Maybe he's not here but will just relay info. And if not, it also generates interesting content for the campaign - maybe now there is a villain agent in some other tavern in some other town, and that will be relevant and interesting in some other way in the future. e.g. The players at some point interrogate some henchman, and he tells them about this agent at the Greendale Purple Moose... That, to me, is fair and quite interesting/preferable. This is a taste I've developed from having started out as a GM having plenty of coincidences I thought of just happen, and realizing that was annoying and surreal and unsatisfying to me.

Of course there are rules for falling. I was referring to a rule allowing for a simple hit in combat to displace a target resulting in a fall. Straight up DnD for example. Geeze, you guys are in a blood lust, looking for an argument instead of listening.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913227You assume you are privy to my die rolls. You would not be. All GM rolls are made behind the screen, to keep such things as hidden modifiers, unknown results to fumbles etc. a secret. And in this case to disguise GM license.

Having the die rolls in the open is one possibility. I mentioned that many GMs roll openly. That certainly makes it faster and easier to detect the GM ignoring die rolls. Quite often the GM ignoring die rolls can be probabilistically detected even without seeing the exact die rolls. The result may be outside the possible range or the extremely low probability results may occur multiple times. And of course I can still see the die rolls of all the players and run calculations on those rolls.

QuoteIve never heard of a GM rolling for players. I certainly wouldn't.

Little known fact, the DM rolling for things that most gamers traditionally allow the players to roll is actually referred to in the original D&D rules. In addition, a lot of GMs roll for things like stealth, perception, sense motivation, and knowledge where the PC wouldn't necessarily know that they succeeded or failed their roll at the time of the roll.

And again I mention the kids who don't let mom and dad know they have stopped believing in Santa. Your players may detect a lot more of your fiddling than you think they detect, but they may just be playing along with you pretending that the pretend risk of death is a real risk of death either so as not to cause a conflict with you or because they actually enjoy sort of fooling themselves.

QuoteNot trying to SAVE anything. Just providing the best experience I can.

Best in your judgment. Not necessarily in the judgment of all the players. As a number of us have said in this thread, we wouldn't want you to do that.

QuoteThey might be if used regularly, which we already established, they are not.

Either they are almost never used when it matters so as to be virtually undectable, in which case what's the point? Or these techniques are used in critical situations that occur infrequently, but are of sufficient magnitude as to be very noticeable and memorable over time, e.g. when a PC's life is clearly on the line or when a PC has just one-shotted the big bad who doesn't die right away or when the big bad dumbly fumbles so as to lose easily when the PC is almost out hit points or never, ever fumbles so as to lose easily in the first round or when the PC's life is not at risk. So in effect, each of those rare occurrences can, because of their memorable nature, be treated as occurring one right after the next.

QuoteA practice known and permitted by trusting players who understand my chief objective is their fun.

Well a certain type of fun. No one has a problem if your players are happily playing along with your tricks. But you aren't talking to your players here. You are talking to other people who don't want and wouldn't permit a GM to do the fiddling you describe. So for a GM to be able to do that to us, the GM would have to be dishonest about what they do as a GM.

QuoteThey certainly have that option. No one has ever exercised it.

How fortunate. But as you should be able to see by now, that is a matter of fortune, not certainty. You've been fortunate in your players.

QuoteI think I made it clear that the possibility of GM license is understood.

Then there may be a misunderstanding based on what you see as benevolence and that what you think makes the game more fun would actually make the game less fun for some players, like say, me. So the only way that could occur with me as a player is if the GM is not being honest.

QuoteDeception is required for the experience, again as I explained. We enjoy being fooled, as long as its done well and increases our enjoyment.

Deception is, by definition not honest. That's why I've said the sort of GM fiddling you describe is dishonest. I dislike the sort of deception that you enjoy.

To be clear, if everybody at the table really enjoys being fooled, I have no complaint, since I'm not going to be at the table and I don't want to be.

QuoteExcitement? Check - Risk? Check - Failure? Check - Sometimes unsatisfactory results? Check - what am I missing?

• That safety nets, GM fiddling in favor of the PC, and such substitute the pretense of risk to the PCs for the actuality of risk to the PCs. And since the risk is in part a pretense it is inherently less exciting that a risk that is never a pretense.

• I think you also miss that undramatic resolutions provide an important validation that the world is consistent and coherent and that if follows the game rules not mere drama lama whim.  Also, you don't seem to realize that some people enjoy finding out what happens when the dice get rolled even if the result isn't good or consistent with your notions of the dramatic. If one doesn't actually want to let the dice decide, then don't roll the dice.

QuoteHmm, they had every bit of that and more. Guess you would have to be there to understand.

Apparently I am not understanding something. I thought their retreat was blocked, so how did they flee and how did their movement rate matter for their retreat past the blocked route?

Quote from: rgrove0172;913227

QuoteClear GM cheating. Very ill advised. Frequently easy to catch.

Arguable point, especially if kept to a minimum.

The GM cheating is not arguable. You clearly stated the result of the dice was ignored. Whether that is ill advised is subjective and you asked my opinion. I say it is ill advised. How easy it is to catch is also opinion, but one I base on a lot time spent gaming.  

Notice that we aren't talking about the fact that your players haven't complained about your GM fiddling. You asked for our opinions. Now either you can believe that those of us who have detected GM fiddling really can and did detect it. Or you think we are confused or dishonest in our statements, which would be kind of uncharitable.

QuoteI actually did require a couple of DX rolls to avoid falling, doesn't change the situation with the NPCs though so I didn't mention it.

Mechanically it does change the situation for the NPCs. And if the players don't have to roll not to fall, then it changes the situation significantly and that provides one of those obvious to me examples of GM fiddling.

QuoteIf ill advised Id have to hear an argument. Slim to none probably that it will make me want to do something or not do something later.

Again, you asked our opinion. I don't particularly feel like providing an argument for why what you suggest seems railroady to me nor why railroading players is ill advised. Either you accept that some people disagree with you about the matter or you don't.

QuoteIm the GM, the world and its logic are mine to set. Makes sense to me, who else should I ask? Sorry, that sounded really smart assed but it stands. I wouldn't have done it if it wasn't plausible.

And yet you've stated multiple times that you choose the dramatic over what would otherwise occur. What would otherwise occur was clearly plausible. After all it happened. So you clearly do choose the dramatic over the plausible.

As for who else to ask, I would think that would be obvious. You ask the players. In this case you did. You asked us what we would think as players. You don't seem to want to accept our answers though.

QuoteI don't know. I use a lot of random rolls in my games as well but only for variety. I don't see how providing the percentage chance of an outcome completely arbitrarily then seeing if it happens is all that different from simply stating it does, from the GMs perspective.

One way is a certainty. The other is not.

QuoteHe can levy whatever likelihood he wants and therefore influence the outcome.

The process of assessing the odds provides a filter of assessed plausibility. That filter lessens the chance that the GM chooses something implausible but that momentarily sounded cool over something plausible.  It also allows the GM to be surprised by the outcome rather than have everything default to first impressions. And that's likely to be a different result.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913230Well sure, at least some of the time. Many players are interesting only in their own success - min/maxing their characters etc. Such players wouldn't even be interested in the supplied narrative. Telling them they hit for 3X damage and killed the thing would be sufficient. Ive been fortunate not to have those kinds of players in my group. We tend to minimize 'game speak' during play and try to communicate with real world and dramatic terms whenever possible. It cant be helped sometimes of course. (informing a player how many hits they took for example) but is certainly accompanied with a more descriptive and interesting narrative.

Some people see killing the ogre in one blow as dramatic. Because killing an ogre in one blow  obviously is dramatic. It’s the sort of thing heroes do. But here you characterize that normal perception of drama as the player just being selfishly interested only in their own success, or in min/maxing their character, or in limiting play to game speak. That seems a very uncharitable view of the situation presented and the reaction I suggested.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913227A practice known and permitted by trusting players who understand my chief objective is their fun.

Wait. So your players do know that you forego the rules and rolls at times? That you change outcomes of combats or encounters? That you ignore possible mechanically beneficial results to further your story, meta-plot, or to increase the drama?

Quote from: Harlock;913252Wait. So your players do know that you forego the rules and rolls at times? That you change outcomes of combats or encounters? That you ignore possible mechanically beneficial results to further your story, meta-plot, or to increase the drama?

I think he is saying they know he does it sometimes, but that they don't know when.

This thread actually sparked a lively debate between my wife and I about what was acceptable levels of GM fiddling. Also, the benefits and drawbacks of prep VS gming "on the fly". (I'll grant that second one typically comes up when we compare GM styles. I'm heavy in the "prep" camp).

So it's valid room for discussion. In that it can't be assumed which is the "default" or "superior".

A lot of this thread is dancing around the social contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract) without actually name-dropping it.

My take on the matter breaks it down simply: If you've all agreed that the GM's whim is law, well then, that's that isn't it? It's what you've all decided to play. I would personally recommend not rolling the dice if you're just going to announce the outcome, because it just saves time.
If you've agreed that the dice are the arbiter of circumstance and that the GM is the referee, well, then you're sworn to do that as the GM, aren't you? Doing anything less would be a violation of your agreement, no matter the intent or outcome.

I don't comprehend where rolling the dice to add an artificial sense of drama comes in. "I'm rolling, but it's whatever I decide" or "I'm rolling, but I already know what will happen". It seems like you're relying on your player's expectation that the dice will provide a result, but then ignoring that result in favor of your predetermined outcome. That strikes me as deceiving the players. Or at least, ignoring one of them (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/05/game-is-player.html).

(As an aside, I know there is a content warning on the above link. You, the OP, seem like your morals/beliefs/whathaveyou would generally prevent you from reading the article there protected. I cannot stress enough how salient and interesting that article is though, so trust me when I say that the above link is indeed SFW)

Quote from: rgrove0172;913223No need. One could simply take that great shot by the Cavalier, allow it to kill the Ogre, but delay his death for a turn or two - have him scream with rage and clutch at the lance fixed in his chest. He swings wildly on his turn (auto missing but with the dice rolled to keep the players wary) and finally drops dead after narrowly missing (again, a narrative addition) one of the characters with a massive swing of his club.

Same result, more dramatic and fun.

How is dragging out the fight more "fun"?

This is a prime example of why so many detest the "storygame" sort of plotted adventure. In one move you've taken control of the action away from the player. Youve extended the fight to serve your idea of drama.

If I want to play through a storybook theres Mice & Mystics or any given Fighting Fantasy book. Neither are RPGs though.

In a way this is the opposite end of the extremes of the worst of storygaming. Instead of pulling the teeth and shackling of the DM as so many want to do so they can play their story. You have instead turned the players into dice rolling vend bots for your story. Its one step short of Fantasy Wargaming what tells the GM to actually take over players characters if they arent acting as the GM thinks they should or are co-operating with eachother too much.

All that said. There are indeed players who LOVE this sort of RPing. Sounds like your group is one of them. (or at least really tolerant.) And under the right circumstances I as a player am one of those sorts. And as a GM I've run quite a few sessions for players who wanted  that sort of RP.

But there are others to whom it is deadly poison. They cant stand even the hint of planning or plot. The RP has to be spontaneous and on the fly.

Quote from: Harlock;913252Wait. So your players do know that you forego the rules and rolls at times? That you change outcomes of combats or encounters? That you ignore possible mechanically beneficial results to further your story, meta-plot, or to increase the drama?

Yes, yes and yes. And they do the same when they run a session. It's hardly a big secret, the practice that is. When it's done is another thing entirely.

How is dragging out the fight more fun? It's not necessarily but someone commented the quick kill could be anticlimatic. For the 2nd time now let me explain my alternate narrative was a means of removing that aspect, if it truly bothered you. It's the perfect example of where my gm fiddling usually occurs. Tweaking the results or perception of them to overcome some negative aspect.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913267Yes, yes and yes. And they do the same when they run a session. It's hardly a big secret, the practice that is. When it's done is another thing entirely.

Which plays into my comment above. If everyone is on the same page then its not a problem.

It IS a problem when you try to tell everyone else that this is how it should be and that their way of playing is wrong. Which you do alot here. Which is why you keep getting punted around.

Quote from: Bren;913257I think he is saying they know he does it sometimes, but that they don't know when.

That's interesting. Sadly, the more that is explained, the less I like it. It wreaks of arrogance, or to use the Biblical term, pride, to read things like: done in the player's favor or at least their best interest; providing the best experience; deception is required for the experience; I'm the GM, the world and its logic are mine to set; I can't imagine how a player could tell the difference; same result, more dramatic fun; you'd have to be there to understand; if someone resented structuring the kill to provide everyone with a bit more fun; the assumption that a party blowing through an encounter is somehow anticlimactic and inferior to your preferred version.

These are all statements that assume you know better than your players do about what they would find entertaining. I do hope you can see that. Most disturbing to me was this:

QuoteI don't see how providing the percentage chance of an outcome completely arbitrarily then seeing if it happens is all that different from simply stating it does, from the GMs perspective. He can levy whatever likelihood he wants and therefore influence the outcome. Same result.

Emphasis added

Why would a DM playing as referee, not puppet master, change what should be a random percentage influenced by circumstance, and not the influence of his whim? An unbiased referee should look at the situation, factor in actual circumstances, and simply roll the dice. A biased DM is one who would levy whatever likelihood he wants to actually influence the outcome. Again, one is chance, the other is merely the illusion of chance. And, that you cannot see the difference is alarming to me as a player.

I'm not saying your group is wrong for playing this way or for liking this form of gaming, but it would definitely be wrong for me. I prefer GM as impartial referee, not as, for lack of a better term, the god who chooses outcome based upon what he prefers or thinks is best for me.

Quote from: Azraele;913261A lot of this thread is dancing around the social contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract) without actually name-dropping it.

Mostly I don’t name it because I think that The Social Contract is too pretentious a term to use when talking about playing a game with some friends. In the same way that I wouldn't use the phrase The Social Contract to explain why someone telling me we are going to see Seven Samurai when all along they planned on having me watch Master of the Flying Guillotine because they thought I would like that movie more is a bad idea.

One shotting the ogre did not mke the fight anticlimactic for the players. They loved it! It was a very lucky set of dice rolls and they knew it. The orc band was not a major encounter, they were an obstacle in the path of the players and I expected them to withdraw and go around when they saw the ogre. Failing that I thought it would provide them with a tough fight. Prolonging the orge's death with a round of missed attacks, etc would lessened the triumph of the moment.

It really was one of those moments that come from letting the dice fall where they may. The odds were very much against it. But, sometime you roll that natural twenty followed by near maximum damage. Other times you roll a one. The suspence comes in that moment when the dice are rolling across th etable and anything is possible.

Quote from: Bren;913272Mostly I don’t name it because I think that The Social Contract is too pretentious a term to use when talking about playing a game with some friends. In the same way that I wouldn't use the phrase The Social Contract to explain why someone telling me we are going to see Seven Samurai when all along they planned on having me watch Master of the Flying Guillotine because they thought I would like that movie more is a bad idea.

I agree that it's a touch pretentious... But once, in the before time, in the long long ago, when I was strictly a poster on the now long-vanished warhammer forums, a little game designer by the name of Andy Chambers* name-dropped the social contract into a discussion I was having, and it opened a world of thought I had been ignorant of and changed my life.

So yeah, I'll take the flack for being pretentious if it means that someone who hasn't heard of something awesome gets to hear about it from me.

*Andy Chambers, you're my heeero (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP0-XWHkTdc)

Quote from: rgrove0172;913242Wow you totally miss the points I'm making. I'll accept that I may not be making a few of them clear enough or something but there's no reason to start blaspheming.

The cavalier story began as a comment toward an anticlimactic battle. I explained how it need not be. If someone resented structuring the kill to provide everyone with a bit more fun I felt they would be pretty closed minded. That's all.

Nice try, but here's what actually happened...

Quote from: rgrove0172;913223No need. One could simply take that great shot by the Cavalier, allow it to kill the Ogre, but delay his death for a turn or two - have him scream with rage and clutch at the lance fixed in his chest. He swings wildly on his turn (auto missing but with the dice rolled to keep the players wary) and finally drops dead after narrowly missing (again, a narrative addition) one of the characters with a massive swing of his club.

Same result, more dramatic and fun.

Quote from: Bren;913225Maybe it's just me and the many people I've gamed with over the decades, but I find that more often than not the player of the cavalier who one-shots the ogre is actually really happy with that result and he or she finds that outcome satisfyingly dramatic. It is more often the GM who finds it anticlimactic not the players.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913230Well sure, at least some of the time. Many players are interesting only in their own success - min/maxing their characters etc. Such players wouldn't even be interested in the supplied narrative. Telling them they hit for 3X damage and killed the thing would be sufficient. Ive been fortunate not to have those kinds of players in my group. We tend to minimize 'game speak' during play and try to communicate with real world and dramatic terms whenever possible. It cant be helped sometimes of course. (informing a player how many hits they took for example) but is certainly accompanied with a more descriptive and interesting narrative.

...as Bren pointed out...

Quote from: Bren;913247Some people see killing the ogre in one blow as dramatic. Because killing an ogre in one blow  obviously is dramatic. It’s the sort of thing heroes do. But here you characterize that normal perception of drama as the player just being selfishly interested only in their own success, or in min/maxing their character, or in limiting play to game speak. That seems a very uncharitable view of the situation presented and the reaction I suggested.

In other words, the 100% organic, natural drama from the player's point of view (or really anyone's) of killing an ogre in a single blow isn't enough, because it didn't come from YOU.

YOU expected a longer fight, so when the Ogre was one-shotted, to YOU that seemed Dramatically Unsatisfying, therefore you deny the player his dramatic moment of ending the fight in a single blow, to replace it with drama of YOUR creation, which, like all your drama it seems, is based on falsehood and deception.  So you overwrite what actually happened, killing the ogre in one blow, with what YOU think is more Dramatically Satisfying, ie. have the Ogre stumble around with completely fake threats for the characters, simply so YOU can take center stage as the Source of All Drama, kicking the player's accomplishment off to the side as you do so.

And any player that disagrees is a filthy munchkin min-maxer.

That's what actually happened in that exchange.

At first I thought you were a StoryGamer, but you're not.
You're the type of GM that the whole StoryGame movement was created to deny, handcuff, chain and place forever beyond the Doors of Night.  
I thought those only existed in Storygamers fevered nightmares of dead childhood characters.  I'm sorry I was wrong.

I roll for it all, that's why I have a big bag of differentially colored dice so can roll to hit and damage at the same time (same colors). If the hit doesn't happen ignore the damage dice.  I've enough color differentiation to do 10 different NPCs all at once in one big pile o' dice, just sort the colors.

I'm very fast on most NPC decisions, but my players usually give me plenty of time as I allow some out of character talk to reflect the experience and coordination of the group.

It's really not that hard, been doing it since 1979.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913273...

It really was one of those moments that come from letting the dice fall where they may. The odds were very much against it. But, sometime you roll that natural twenty followed by near maximum damage. Other times you roll a one. The suspence comes in that moment when the dice are rolling across th etable and anything is possible.

That's what makes it great for me and my players, the best laid plans of mice and men and all that :)   As GM I love when my NPCs well crafted plans fail, I kid you not.  It causes me to think on my feet.  I especially love it when it is due to the players coming up with something completely out of left field or taking a heroic risk for the party.

Quote from: Omega;913270Which plays into my comment above. If everyone is on the same page then its not a problem.

It IS a problem when you try to tell everyone else that this is how it should be and that their way of playing is wrong. Which you do alot here. Which is why you keep getting punted around.

Go back and read more closely. I have never made any such accusation. Hell I make it very clear there are lots of ways to run games. What thread are you reading?

Quote from: Harlock;913271That's interesting. Sadly, the more that is explained, the less I like it. It wreaks of arrogance, or to use the Biblical term, pride, to read things like: done in the player's favor or at least their best interest; providing the best experience; deception is required for the experience; I'm the GM, the world and its logic are mine to set; I can't imagine how a player could tell the difference; same result, more dramatic fun; you'd have to be there to understand; if someone resented structuring the kill to provide everyone with a bit more fun; the assumption that a party blowing through an encounter is somehow anticlimactic and inferior to your preferred version.

These are all statements that assume you know better than your players do about what they would find entertaining. I do hope you can see that. Most disturbing to me was this:

Emphasis added

Why would a DM playing as referee, not puppet master, change what should be a random percentage influenced by circumstance, and not the influence of his whim? An unbiased referee should look at the situation, factor in actual circumstances, and simply roll the dice. A biased DM is one who would levy whatever likelihood he wants to actually influence the outcome. Again, one is chance, the other is merely the illusion of chance. And, that you cannot see the difference is alarming to me as a player.

I'm not saying your group is wrong for playing this way or for liking this form of gaming, but it would definitely be wrong for me. I prefer GM as impartial referee, not as, for lack of a better term, the god who chooses outcome based upon what he prefers or thinks is best for me.

Geeze this sucks. It seems impossible to get a clear meaning through. It's not that I know better than my players but rather it's my responsibility as gm to provide them with a fun time. They can't do it on their own. They are actors without a script, costumes, set or a stage without the gm. There's a reason we say "they play in MY game."

Quote from: DavetheLost;913273One shotting the ogre did not mke the fight anticlimactic for the players. They loved it! It was a very lucky set of dice rolls and they knew it. The orc band was not a major encounter, they were an obstacle in the path of the players and I expected them to withdraw and go around when they saw the ogre. Failing that I thought it would provide them with a tough fight. Prolonging the orge's death with a round of missed attacks, etc would lessened the triumph of the moment.

It really was one of those moments that come from letting the dice fall where they may. The odds were very much against it. But, sometime you roll that natural twenty followed by near maximum damage. Other times you roll a one. The suspence comes in that moment when the dice are rolling across th etable and anything is possible.

Would we have this same discussion if the ogre had TPK as it should have?

Quote from: CRKrueger;913283Nice try, but here's what actually happened...





...as Bren pointed out...

In other words, the 100% organic, natural drama from the player's point of view (or really anyone's) of killing an ogre in a single blow isn't enough, because it didn't come from YOU.

YOU expected a longer fight, so when the Ogre was one-shotted, to YOU that seemed Dramatically Unsatisfying, therefore you deny the player his dramatic moment of ending the fight in a single blow, to replace it with drama of YOUR creation, which, like all your drama it seems, is based on falsehood and deception.  So you overwrite what actually happened, killing the ogre in one blow, with what YOU think is more Dramatically Satisfying, ie. have the Ogre stumble around with completely fake threats for the characters, simply so YOU can take center stage as the Source of All Drama, kicking the player's accomplishment off to the side as you do so.

And any player that disagrees is a filthy munchkin min-maxer.

That's what actually happened in that exchange.

At first I thought you were a StoryGamer, but you're not.
You're the type of GM that the whole StoryGame movement was created to deny, handcuff, chain and place forever beyond the Doors of Night.  
I thought those only existed in Storygamers fevered nightmares of dead childhood characters.  I'm sorry I was wrong.

You misread or got the entire context wrong. I was replying to the intention that the ogre was to make the fight tough and didnt. There was a way to salvage that. But ok, no prob. Take your condescending attitude and well...Nuff said.

Enjoying bashing the new Comer who arrives with his arms open for friendly debate guys? What a fun group.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913316...it's my responsibility as gm to provide them with a fun time.

Many people would disagree with that statement. Many people feel that the game is supposed to provide the fun time. And it's yet another statement that seems egocentric. The focus in your game, in all of the examples you give, seems to be you.

OMFG...seriously guys? Really? I've been gang banged by several (not all) incredibly opinionated egos and I'm the instigator? Wow, just wow.

I found it startling that my way of gaming was so rare and apparently resented but I haven't criticized anyone for theirs despite being lined up and shot at. I respect your opinions, otherwise I wouldn't ask for them. I'm even willing to tolerate the superior pack mentality as I'm in the minority here but I have a right to debate my point. It doesn't make me an ass if I don't fall over and bow at your feet in compliance.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913318Enjoying bashing the new Comer who arrives with his arms open for friendly debate guys? What a fun group.

Is that what happened?  I saw a guy come in and be arrogantly surprised that everyone didn't do things his way, completely misrepresent other's point of view, and claimed to be the aggrieved party despite demonstrating overt condescension in response to other's posts.

Was that the "open arms" part?  I guess I missed it.

Quote from: Harlock;913319The focus in your game, in all of the examples you give, seems to be you.

Yeah pretty much.

But...you have a table of players who keep showing up, so good on you.

Quote from: Bren;913272Mostly I don't name it because I think that The Social Contract is too pretentious a term to use when talking about playing a game with some friends. In the same way that I wouldn't use the phrase The Social Contract to explain why someone telling me we are going to see Seven Samurai when all along they planned on having me watch Master of the Flying Guillotine because they thought I would like that movie more is a bad idea.

But-but... I like Flying Guillotine? :(

This is actually akin to my railing against designers who want to market their 2 player game as being playable solo. Um. No. Thats me-vs-me. If your game doesnt have an actual AI to run the other side and I have to play both then its NOT solo and youve lied about what was in the box!

end rant.

As noted above. Seems like his players are a little or alot on board for that style of play.

Quote from: Omega;913330As noted above. Seems like his players are a little or alot on board for that style of play.

Agreed.  All our players are on board a little or a lot with our particular style or else they wouldn't be there.

But, if the question is, "You mean everyone doesn't do things this way?"  The answer is "No, we most certainly do not."

Quote from: rgrove0172;913317Would we have this same discussion if the ogre had TPK as it should have?

Why is the ogre supposed to TPK the party?

Lets step back into the cotton candy like mists of yore and look at Keep on the Borderlands. It is perfectly possible for a 1st level party to end up walking into the cave with the ogre. I know. Because the party I was in did exactly that. Oger got surprise on us. The magic user (me) went down before could even cast a spell, and one other member followed the next round. Here though some planning payed off. I'd handed my funds over to the fighters to better equip them and they did indeed survive and win. One raise dead later and we were pretty stoked about that encounter. The two fighters thanked me for the donations that they believed saved their lives.

Fastforward to the NEXT playtest and we are blundering into that same cave and getting wiped out due to the new system. But after some thought funally won out too. Owlbears on the other paw Im not so sure we could have survived at 1st level.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913328OMFG...seriously guys? Really? I've been gang banged by several (not all) incredibly opinionated egos and I'm the instigator? Wow, just wow.

I found it startling that my way of gaming was so rare and apparently resented but I haven't criticized anyone for theirs despite being lined up and shot at. I respect your opinions, otherwise I wouldn't ask for them. I'm even willing to tolerate the superior pack mentality as I'm in the minority here but I have a right to debate my point. It doesn't make me an ass if I don't fall over and bow at your feet in compliance.

Firstly, I'm sorry if I offended you. That was certainly not my intent. Neither am I trying to "gang bang" the newcomer, as I am newer than even you. Nor do a subscribe to any pack mentality felt in a forum of which I have only been a part of 4 days. Further, I do not think your way of gaming is rare in the least. I think it is very common. What I am hoping to do is open your eyes to the possibility that there is a way of playing that can be just as compelling, that allows the majority of the group to be the stars of the game, not just feel like the stars of the game. Even if they are completely unaware of the GM interference, the players are not being allowed to fully interact with the campaign world, with both the positive and negative results that entails.

DM interference, deception, and outright changing results diminishes the PCs impact. When DM fiat can tarnish their great victories and rob them of the real thrill of risk and possible failure is it really as rewarding as it could be if they knew they were doing it on their own? Again my standard disclaimer that you an d you're group are not playing wrong. You are clearly having a good time. It's ya'lls game. Also, don't play the victim. No one has lined up and shot at you nor have they said you have no right to debate your point. Clearly you do, as you still are. That's the sort of egocentric thing I was mentioning. I'm not even sure you see it, but I really hope you do when looking at it from a neutral position. And finally, your hyperbole and deflection don't help.

The ogre wasn't neccesarilly supposed to TPK the party. It was there to give orcs a heavy punch. My expectation was that it would shift the encounter from being a straight up frontal assault stand up fight to something with a little more tactical nuance. A challenge for the players. I knew the orcs would lose on their own. In fact the sudden and unexpected demise of the ogre lead to an imediate morale check for the orcs.

There is a middle ground between cakewalk and TPK.

Quote from: Harlock;913339Firstly, I'm sorry if I offended you. That was certainly not my intent. Neither am I trying to "gang bang" the newcomer, as I am newer than even you. Nor do a subscribe to any pack mentality felt in a forum of which I have only been a part of 4 days. Further, I do not think your way of gaming is rare in the least. I think it is very common. What I am hoping to do is open your eyes to the possibility that there is a way of playing that can be just as compelling, that allows the majority of the group to be the stars of the game, not just feel like the stars of the game. Even if they are completely unaware of the GM interference, the players are not being allowed to fully interact with the campaign world, with both the positive and negative results that entails.

DM interference, deception, and outright changing results diminishes the PCs impact. When DM fiat can tarnish their great victories and rob them of the real thrill of risk and possible failure is it really as rewarding as it could be if they knew they were doing it on their own? Again my standard disclaimer that you an d you're group are not playing wrong. You are clearly having a good time. It's ya'lls game. Also, don't play the victim. No one has lined up and shot at you nor have they said you have no right to debate your point. Clearly you do, as you still are. That's the sort of egocentric thing I was mentioning. I'm not even sure you see it, but I really hope you do when looking at it from a neutral position. And finally, your hyperbole and deflection don't help.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comment a great deal. I am absolutely opening my mind the arguments presented here, even the rude ones. I hope I didn't offend anyone either and apologize if I did.

I accept some culpability in the direction this thread took but I'm not alone. Some how my approach to GM ING seems to offend some. Yours certainly don't offend me.

Gloves back on, no hard feelings everyone I hope.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913340The ogre wasn't neccesarilly supposed to TPK the party. It was there to give orcs a heavy punch. My expectation was that it would shift the encounter from being a straight up frontal assault stand up fight to something with a little more tactical nuance. A challenge for the players. I knew the orcs would lose on their own. In fact the sudden and unexpected demise of the ogre lead to an imediate morale check for the orcs.

There is a middle ground between cakewalk and TPK.

Gotcha, I assumed the ogre dying so quickly was a dissapointment.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913317Would we have this same discussion if the ogre had TPK as it should have?

It the outcome had been a TPK instead of a one round, one-shot kill, I would think it would be a different discussion. One that focused on whether it was the GM's responsibility or prerogative to unilaterally ignore the ogre's successful to hit and high damage rolls or not.

Quote from: Omega;913330But-but... I like Flying Guillotine? :(

You are not alone. I'm pretty sure BedrockBrendan does too. And to be honest I enjoyed Guillotine, but mostly in an OMG I can't believe that guy's flying hat just killed someone sort of way. But I'd have enjoyed the flying hat a lot less if I had expected to get Kurosawa and only to get the Shaw Brothers instead.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913328I found it startling that my way of gaming was so rare and apparently resented but I haven't criticized anyone for theirs despite being lined up and shot at.

As has been pointed out. That style isnt rare. But usually its more a storygaming thing from the GM side as opposed to the player side. But it is also in no way a new style either despite what some might like to claim.

Also as noted. Its not the style thats drawing fire. Its the HOW you keep talking about other styles as lesser that keeps setting people off.

But really. Why is it so hard to accept that there are other styles, some diametrically opposed to your own that are just as valid and viable. Quite a few here dislike the GNS "narrativist" style of play that flips your style to make the players the ones in control of the story and you the GM little more than a dice roller for them. The vend bot. Most of us here at least accept that while they may not like that style. That its still valid and works for some tables and DMs. But for others its utterly horrible.

Would you enjoy a game where you arent in control of the story at all as mentioned above? If Yes? Why so? If No? Why not?

Quote from: Omega;913357But it is also in no way a new style either despite what some might like to claim.

The auteur GM who has a story to tell or who is responsible for bringing the fun and expected to weight the scales one way or another to ensure his idea of fun dates back to some time after the OD&D rules were first published in 1974. The prior style of the GM as a fair and impartial referee who brings a challenge but does not weight the scales either for or against the PCs dates back to the original pre-publication days. It's likely that some time after the rules were published and set loose in the wild that some GMs started leaning their thumb on the scales for one reason or another. Now maybe that happened before the rules were published, but if so, I've yet to hear anyone provide a citation.

That some GMs unfairly slanted the odds or ignored the dice in the PCs favor was recognized as a style very early in the hobby. We called that K-Mart style. Later I heard it called Monty Haul after the game show host who gave away gifts to some contestants.

Quote from: Bren;913355It the outcome had been a TPK instead of a one round, one-shot kill, I would think it would be a different discussion. One that focused on whether it was the GM's responsibility or prerogative to unilaterally ignore the ogre's successful to hit and high damage rolls or not.

You are not alone. I'm pretty sure BedrockBrendan does too. And to be honest I enjoyed Guillotine, but mostly in an OMG I can't believe that guy's flying hat just killed someone sort of way. But I'd have enjoyed the flying hat a lot less if I had expected to get Kurosawa and only to get the Shaw Brothers instead.

Wow a kindred spirit it seems. That's exactly what I was thinking, regarding the ogre. Sorry cant edit the text very well on my phone.

Quote from: Bren;913359The auteur GM who has a story to tell or who is responsible for bringing the fun and expected to weight the scales one way or another to ensure his idea of fun dates back to some time after the OD&D rules were first published in 1974. The prior style of the GM as a fair and impartial referee who brings a challenge but does not weight the scales either for or against the PCs dates back to the original pre-publication days. It's likely that some time after the rules were published and set loose in the wild that some GMs started leaning their thumb on the scales for one reason or another. Now maybe that happened before the rules were published, but if so, I've yet to hear anyone provide a citation.

That some GMs unfairly slanted the odds or ignored the dice in the PCs favor was recognized as a style very early in the hobby. We called that K-Mart style. Later I heard it called Monty Haul after the game show host who gave away gifts to some contestants.

1: Im pretty sure from about day one of the game being on the shelves and in someone elses hands other than Gary and Dave that people were playing it in every imaginable way because theres no guidelines in OD&D and even if there were. People would still ignore them and do things their way just like any other houserule.

2: I wouldnt call it unfair. Just not challenging. Handing out magic items willy nilly is the Monty Haul style. Holding the players hand as it were by tweaking the rolls incognito not sure what was called way back. hmm.

Quote from: Omega;913357As has been pointed out. That style isnt rare. But usually its more a storygaming thing from the GM side as opposed to the player side. But it is also in no way a new style either despite what some might like to claim.

Also as noted. Its not the style thats drawing fire. Its the HOW you keep talking about other styles as lesser that keeps setting people off.

But really. Why is it so hard to accept that there are other styles, some diametrically opposed to your own that are just as valid and viable. Quite a few here dislike the GNS "narrativist" style of play that flips your style to make the players the ones in control of the story and you the GM little more than a dice roller for them. The vend bot. Most of us here at least accept that while they may not like that style. That its still valid and works for some tables and DMs. But for others its utterly horrible.

Would you enjoy a game where you arent in control of the story at all as mentioned above? If Yes? Why so? If No? Why not?

I thought i made it clear I've played differently and enjoyed the games only that I've come to prefer this approach.

I wish you would show me where I've talked about other styles as lesser. If I did it was completely unintentional. I read back through but I can't see where I could have been misunderstood. Lastly I don't have a hard time accepting anything. I just asked why people play as the do.

Krueg and the others have listed that enough. You keep wording your questions and answers in such a way it keeps coming off as condescending. Not heavily so. But there.

As for why play some way? Why not? Its that Player, or GM, or DM and Player's idea of fun. It might be because that was how their first good experience was and so they gravitate to more of the same. Or maybee they had a bad experience with one style and so locked on to another style that seemed to be what the other was not.

Some just really love the DMs particular style and dont care what they run or how. Others like a DMs particular style but arent so on board for certain elements or changes. They  might love how the DM runs modules but hate how they improv. The DM might love how the players improv. But hate how they rules-lawyer.

Others develop a pathological hatred of some style or element and really theres no talking to these fruitcakes. Especially when they start seeing their hated foe in every damn thing. "Yes. Its true I tell you! Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread are malicious DM spawned RAILROADS designed to crush player agency and stifle the free will of mankind! Its true!"

Quote from: Omega;9133641: Im pretty sure from about day one of the game being on the shelves and in someone elses hands other than Gary and Dave that people were playing it in every imaginable way because theres no guidelines in OD&D and even if there were. People would still ignore them and do things their way just like any other houserule.

That's more or less what I said and why I said that any other styles post date the 1974 publication date. Which is why I said other styles came later.

Quote2: I wouldnt call it unfair.

I would and do. When it is has been agreed that the dice are supposed to determine outcomes* then the DM/GM ignoring die rolls when the dice give a result they don't like is cheating whether the GM does it in favor of or against the players. Fair is abiding by the agreed outcome method. Fair is not cheating.

QuoteHolding the players hand as it were by tweaking the rolls incognito not sure what was called way back. hmm.

I think we included it in what we called the K-Mart DM style because we lumped it together with handing out too much magic and treasure as each made the game less challenging. You are right that Monty Haul probably isn't a good description since, Monty Haul correlates to the DM/GM as the giver of unearned treasure and magic. I believe we also used the phrase "too easy" as in he's too easy of a DM.


* And the dice are the agree method in the general case during play in OD&D and no I don't want to tangent into discussion about rulings not rules since rulings in the original notion of a referee are also supposed to be fair, not slanted for or against the players.

Quote from: Omega;913375Krueg and the others have listed that enough. You keep wording your questions and answers in such a way it keeps coming off as condescending. Not heavily so. But there.

As for why play some way? Why not? Its that Player, or GM, or DM and Player's idea of fun. It might be because that was how their first good experience was and so they gravitate to more of the same. Or maybee they had a bad experience with one style and so locked on to another style that seemed to be what the other was not.

Some just really love the DMs particular style and dont care what they run or how. Others like a DMs particular style but arent so on board for certain elements or changes. They  might love how the DM runs modules but hate how they improv. The DM might love how the players improv. But hate how they rules-lawyer.

Others develop a pathological hatred of some style or element and really theres no talking to these fruitcakes. Especially when they start seeing their hated foe in every damn thing. "Yes. Its true I tell you! Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread are malicious DM spawned RAILROADS designed to crush player agency and stifle the free will of mankind! Its true!"

Then let me apologize sincerely. The information in the thread has been awesome. Some of the attitudes, including mine apparently, less so. Good stuff for a gamer admittedly a bit sheltered over the years.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952Ok, Im prepared to take on whatever penance handed me.

:eek: BURN THE HERETIC!! :eek:

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952Do you guys really roll for each and every one of 8 Orcs/Pirates/Ape Soldiers/Romulans/Democrats that your players are up against?

Yes.

Especially when fighting Romulan Democrats.

But that's why I run rules light games and own lots of dice.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952Do you make rolls for NPCs who aren't even in the scene but are performing some function that may affect the story or do you just rule it?

Yes, because the results may be more interesting than my whims.

Also, my RPG "story" doesn't happen until the game session is over and we're talking about what happened (past tense).

Quote from: rgrove0172;9119521. Players are waiting for a riverboat, the pilot was supposed to meet them at sundown. As GM you know a group of mooks were following the boat and ordered to detain or sink it. Do you roll for this encounter or do you just assign an outcome given the player characters weren't even there?

Hell yeah I roll them dice!

But I assign odds based on what I know about both sides, and then I take myself out of the equation by tossing the bones.

FOR ME, that's a huge part of the fun of GMing RPGs.

And it keeps me from being burnt for heresy!!!

Quote from: rgrove0172;9119522. The PCs are fighting in a saloon, a typical brawl. They square off with first one drunk cowboy then another. In between, are you actually rolling for any of the other guys?

I would use a quick & dirty chart off the top of my head (roll 1D6, 1-2 = flee the saloon, 3-4 keep punching, 5-6 get knocked out) and roll a handful of dice for the brawlers not in the fight with the PCs. And I may put aside some dice to get a modifier based on particular NPCs.

Again, it would be about me being surprised too.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9119523. The PCs are stuck behind a barricade fighting a group of musket armed Frenchmen. There are a dozen or so indian warriors with them. The characters have 6 English regulars lending a hand. Do you really roll for each and every combatant between players turns?

Most players enjoy rolling for allied NPCs. That would add to the fun as players often begin to personalize their mooks.

Quote from: rgrove0172;911952I will readily admit I always feel a little guilty about this.

That guilt is the last fragment of your soul talking to you!!

In another thread there is discussion about what constitutes a story game, and in that thread I mention that "traditional" RPGs can be played as story games, just because they give the GM unlimited narrative authority (even if they don't express it that way) which means the GM can treat the game entirely as a story if he chooses to do so. This thread shows exactly what I was talking about, and as others have observed, it isn't anything new.

rgrove, one thing that you should understand is that this site tends to be a bit reactionary towards story gaming, or even against use of the word "narrative" in a non GNS sense. Don't take it personally. I have been lambasted just as thoroughly as you for my own views.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to your statement that my objections to your style only make sense if the players are aware that the GM is manipulating things behind the scenes.

Firstly, that invites an entire debate about deception and dishonesty, but I'm not going to go there. You say your players know that you do indeed manipulate things at times and that they are fine with it, and I accept that.

In fact, I do know that some players want exactly this kind of thing. Not long ago, I had a player tell me that I was GMing wrong; that I was supposed to roll all my dice behind a screen so that I could fudge to avoid one shot kills of PCs and TPKs and etc. I had to chuckle at this naive notion at the time, but to be fair to the player, we were playing Savage Worlds, and I am a real beast when it comes to exploding dice. Seemingly unnatural luck.

But yes, some players want the illusion of danger. They want a good story with themselves in the starring role. And they want the GM to provide these things. This is why I am not saying "Your GMing style sucks" but rather, "Your style does not work for me".

So, back to the point of whether the players being aware of GM manipulation behind the curtain changes anything.

You say your players ARE aware, so there's that. if the GM tries to hide it, though? It is not that hard to pick up on. I believe myself to be VERY good at picking up on when a GM is up to these kind of tricks, and I am not alone. I mean, just to draw an example from what you yourself have said? If you start narrating a bunch of missed attacks without rolling any dice? That's a pretty good clue that you have set aside the rules of simulation and begun to directly narrate events.

I think that part of what you mean to say is, "My players know I do this on occasion, but they don't know exactly when, and so the events of the game feel uniformly valid and honest." Whereas for me it is pretty much the exact opposite. Let me explain that.

See, there really is no "half measures" to this kind of thing. If you do it once, you are effectively doing it ALL THE TIME. If you are willing to overrule the results of the combat rules once, because they weren't dramatically satisfying to you, then I would assume that you would ALWAYS be willing to do this. Nothing in the game will be allowed to stand unless it meets your sense of a good story.

You may only fudge things in one combat out of fifty, and only to avoid a TPK. But as a player, that tells me that a TPK is not going to be possible in your games. So every fight we go into, my sense of the dramatic stakes is vastly diminished by this knowledge.

And if you won't allow a PC to die? Why bother planning? Why bother with tactical thinking? Why bother treating the gameworld as something real, when whatever I do as a player it is going to end up the same way, as everything of importance gets decided based upon your particular ideas about what makes for a good story.

To me, if a GM is going to play that way? Well then let's just play a story game. Don't ask me to track my HP if they don't matter. HP are supposed to be an indicator of how close a character is to death. But if you as a GM won't let my character die? Then tracking HP just becomes nonsensical busy-work. In fact, rolling initiative, damage, tactical positioning... All of that stuff is a complete waste of time in a game where the outcome is actually determined by the GM's dramatic instincts.

And you might say, "Well I DO let characters die sometimes!" But if so, what do your players think about that? What does Jeff think about you letting his character die, when earlier you used GM fiat to spare Jane's character?

I had some other things to say, but I feel myself petering out. I'll probably come back to it later.

Quote from: Spinachcat;913382Most players enjoy rolling for allied NPCs. That would add to the fun as players often begin to personalize their mooks.

Not in my experience. All the players I've had as a DM or been at a table with have wanted, or at tomes demanded the DM run and roll the NPC retainers. Their fun was interacting with the retainers. They didnt want to be effectively talking to themselves.

Interesting!

I agree for NPCs such as retainers with names / class, etc, but that hasn't been an issue for me with mass combats where its' Mook #3 vs. Orc #7.

Right. In mass combat its usually been the players rolling for the armies. Thats a different matter.

I have seen a few players who dont want to talk for the NPCs. But are ok with rolling for them to free up the DM for other things. Effectively "You hired them. You roll for them."

Quote from: Manzanaro;913385Don't take it personally. I have been lambasted just as thoroughly as you for my own views.

Your posting in this thread has been consistently good sometimes even great.

Quote from: Bren;913395Your posting in this thread has been consistently good sometimes even great.

I appreciate that, though I will note my views here don't represent a sudden change of heart on my part, but are consistent with the positions I've held for years.

For some reason you have me thinking of Toshiro Mifune as Master of the Flying Guillotine, directed by Kurosawa, which might just be a recipe for the greatest movie ever made.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913267Yes, yes and yes. And they do the same when they run a session. It's hardly a big secret, the practice that is. When it's done is another thing entirely.

Well, all right, then!  Like you said earlier about completely open sandboxes, the way that you prefer to run games is perfectly fine as long as everyone is aware and accepting of what the game is.  I know I've gone on a bit about honesty in these discussions, but I do think that being honest about "sometimes I'll roll dice and ignore the result" is sufficient and there's no need to announce "I'm ignoring this particular die roll" every time you do it.

However, you do get into potential problems when a new player comes in and isn't aware of how you do things.  Then you get situations like the one that prompted your original posting to RPGnet.  (Which is not to imply that this is unique to your preferred style.  No matter how a group plays, incompatibility with new players will always be a potential problem.  Personally, I consider it the responsibility of every gaming group and/or GM to make new players aware of their style up front and ensure that the new player is accepting of that style, regardless of what the style in question is.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;913403For some reason you have me thinking of Toshiro Mifune as Master of the Flying Guillotine, directed by Kurosawa, which might just be a recipe for the greatest movie ever made.

I'd pay to see that!

Quote from: Omega;913390Right. In mass combat its usually been the players rolling for the armies. Thats a different matter.

I have seen a few players who dont want to talk for the NPCs. But are ok with rolling for them to free up the DM for other things. Effectively "You hired them. You roll for them."

My players have claimed rolling for others takes them out of character and feels "wargamey". I think I woukd feel the same way when playing. But that's just us.

Interesting thread.
I do everything out in the open and never fudge. I think fudging is the hallmark of a bad gamemaster, because fudging means you have a preordained outcome for things. Preordained outcomes or just the gamemaster thinking that "this would make a better story" means that the decisions of the players become meaningless. And if that happens, what is the point?

I never run store bought modules though and mostly just create NPCs with motivations and see where that leads us.

Hi Op,

I have very much enjoyed this thread.  Don't worry about the gang pile.  I think you made the mistake of sharing too much with ass hole on the internet.  I did too in my first post.  Actully I think the post was about what it was like to be a player in your game.  They were complete assholes and told me to quit and find a new DM, and that was about the best advice they offered.

So I hear you about this not always being a supportive environment conducive to open discussion.

That said your DM style seams to prevent your players from telling their story.  They have to tell yours.

No matter what tenique you use, no matter how subtle you are, that the players will notice.  

And some of us will deeply resent.

Basically we don't like it when you add drama. For any reason under any circumstance.  

That said sounds like you have a great group who live playing with you.  I am jelouse.

Quote from: Spinachcat;913388Interesting!

I agree for NPCs such as retainers with names / class, etc, but that hasn't been an issue for me with mass combats where its' Mook #3 vs. Orc #7.

My group leans towards "GM, will you please run all of the NPCs including our allies, fudge it, or do whatever you have to do?  I just want to focus on my character."  As a result, I end up running few large combats with these players that have NPCs on both sides.  And as a wargamer, I am a GM who really likes war and mass conflict as a theme for RPGs.  It's interesting to reflect how player preferences, which must seem minor to the players, can push a game in certain directions and limit what scenarios I can effectively run for them as a GM.  

If I do run these types of mass combats, I generally treat them as an environment or a hazard and I focus on how it directly impacts the PCs or on how the PCs could directly effect the outcome of the conflict without getting into the fiddly bits of mook #3 vs. orc #7.  If the specifics of what happens to mook 3 and orc 7 is really important to the PCs, I'll abstract some system that can approximate the results without the detail of RPG combat, (OK the d6s are mooks and the d8s are orcs and have them move around and roll off), or I'll pull out some minis rules as a subsystem for when PCs aren't directly engaged.

This thread doesn't really need more branches, but in trying to catch up, I notice I missed another post which seems convinced of the opposite of my  perspective, so chiming in for contrast (not to say "bad wrong fun").

Quote from: rgrove0172;912969I rarely allow a PC to die until after a brief sidebar discussion. Allowing one of a group of players to lose his character is a bummer, no way around it. The others feel a little guilty playing without him and allowing him to play a henchman or some quickly generated character they meet is just lame. When a character dies it fundamentally changes the atmosphere of the game and not for the better. Now if the player is willing to go through this, either sit and watch or play a henchman..sure, great. If not, I usually allow for some miraculous life saving miracle, but at a cost. Perhaps they live but are knocked out until healed and have to be toted around. Or they are severly injured suffer a reduction in ability for a time or maybe even owe the divine power that saved them a big favor. Anyway, again... some will balk about saving anybody but for me/us, its all about the story and dying, well, ends the story.

I see what you are saying but very much feel the opposite of most of this.

• Buy-in for PC death for me comes at the point of "we're playing a game which includes weapons and mortal PCs and aims to be somewhat like impartial reality in that weapons can kill people".
• Allowing the chance for a PC in a group to die, is what makes a dangerous game situation actually a dangerous game situation. If you don't allow that, you're kidding yourself that there's danger. "Oh no a spike trap - worry, but only for fun, because you will never actually fall in and be killed..." - so it's a bit like a Disney ride, with fake danger for scenery.
• Other players feeling guilty when another player's PC dies, have boundary issues, which hopefully the gaming experience will help them heal, which is less likely to happen if everyone avoids letting them have that (dysfunctional) reaction.
• Having consequences and loss is also a very valuable and interesting experience. Removing that from play is what seems lame to me.
• Playing a character from the setting such as a hireling or soldier or something is not lame. In general, I often find this to be very interesting and fun for everyone. Even the players who sulk about it often actually have a good time doing it, and do interesting roleplaying with it, partly because they aren't being shut down by their usual weird attachment to their PC.
• I think that the atmosphere after a PC dies, while often somber, is also an interesting and valuable thing. It shows gravitas and significance and stirs people up and exposes them to grieving and leads to new interesting situations. Losing all of that seems undesirable to me, even if it can be sad and unpleasant. "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life" - Captain Kirk, The Wrath of Khan. Also, removing the possibility of it happening is also removing a very fundamental thing from play, and makes all the danger more or less fake.
• What? You create a resurrection opportunity out of thin air based on whether the player is willing to play an NPC or not? That strikes me as highly dysfunctional meta-game cause & effect.
• Dying only ends the story for the PCs that die. The story can go on, and is a far more interesting story if it includes the possibility and logical consequences of death. Without it, all sorts of things are lost. The most important thing on a PC sheet in such games is the unwritten "this character can never die, and the fabric of the universe will warp in whatever way needed to have that not happen". Quite a super-power - kind of makes most of the other stats into minor details.

Ok, since it seems we have worked out the misunderstandings and hostilities (Ive taken responsibility for causing some of that - apologies again) Im going to throw in a few more examples for comment. These aren't just something I threw together for purposes of the thread however. These examples occurred in last evening's game. Ill try not to bore with too much background detail but a little may be necessary.

1876 - New Orleans

1. PC is trying to convince a spooky old negro voodoo swamp woman to help her with a problem. The initial reaction roll for the old woman man sucks and she orders her to leave. The PC attempts to win her over and succeeds but only mildly. The woman doesn't throw her out but is hesitant to help this well-dressed, well-spoken, southern belle so soon after emancipation. The PC tries to use the plight of the young girl she is trying to save as leverage. I consider rolling to see if the old woman has ever had children, grandchildren etc or perhaps lost one - which might make her more prone to help and offer a positive modifier to the diplomacy roll - BUT instead I decide to just make it so. The idea that the old woman lost her only child years ago in the war and had carried the bitterness and sadness all these years makes for a good STORY - so I go with it, decide to really up the modifier and almost ensure the PC is successful, which with a nice fat +3 modifier, was.

2. The PC is trying to catch a train but runs into a randomly generated political demonstration near the station. The crowd prohibits her from making much headway. She uses a Contacts ability with the folk of New Orleans and manages to locate someone she knows. By random roll its a big burly dock worker who she has had acquaintance with. He is demonstrating alongside some of the workers there and notices her. She asks for help getting through and he obliges. Rather than actually have him roll to buffet his way through I just narrated the big guy back handing, knocking heads and pushing his way through the crowd and allowed her to get to the train. She rolled well enough finding the guy I just allowed him to be successful.

3. The PC and a NPC preacher are accosted by masked (KKK types) men while returning to the city on a dark road. They are threatening the preacher for his part in building a mission for negroes. They mean to beat him soundly, perhaps worse and order the PC to just go. She refuses and decides again, using her Contacts in the city, to 'name drop' a few prominent business men she knows that are rumored to support the masked men's organization. She rolls well and comes up with a couple good ones, highly respected men. She tells them they wouldn't  appreciate hearing that she was treated this way, regardless of who she chooses to have in her company and means to tell them immediately. "Play your little games boys but do so when a lady isn't present please!"   I roll for their reaction and it isn't overwhelming, they hesitate only but by the rule should continue. However, her brazen and brave response was so well roleplayed and actually surprising that I just let it work. They look at each other uneasily and finally one of them tips a hat apologizing then warns the preacher he wont have a skirt to protect him next time. They ride off.

4. A mysterious man has been following the PC. She has spotted him once or twice but never gotten a close look. I know who the man is of course and have plans for him to become more of a factor in the game at a later time. His entrance now would complicate a running plotline however so I would rather he remain the mystery he is, his appearances serving only to foreshadow his eventual introduction. He appears across a crowded saloon floor and the PC notices him. She makes her way to try and catch him and he slips off. I roll for him and he makes a terrible roll which may well allow her to catch up. Her roll in turn is pretty good. If I don't intervene he is caught. Instead I give her a good look at him, more than I liked honestly (It allowed her a chance to remember she had seen him before as a youth, and did) but then brought a group of rowdy drunks between them to let him escape.

This is very typical of the FUDGING we have been discussing in my game. A strict interpretation of the rules or perhaps the actual use of a game mechanic is neglected in favor of a result that rewards the players efforts, provides for a bit of drama/humor/horror/atmosphere and extends the storyline in YES WHAT I BELIEVE is a favorable direction.

Quote from: Skarg;913458This thread doesn't really need more branches, but in trying to catch up, I notice I missed another post which seems convinced of the opposite of my  perspective, so chiming in for contrast (not to say "bad wrong fun").

I see what you are saying but very much feel the opposite of most of this.

• Buy-in for PC death for me comes at the point of "we're playing a game which includes weapons and mortal PCs and aims to be somewhat like impartial reality in that weapons can kill people".
• Allowing the chance for a PC in a group to die, is what makes a dangerous game situation actually a dangerous game situation. If you don't allow that, you're kidding yourself that there's danger. "Oh no a spike trap - worry, but only for fun, because you will never actually fall in and be killed..." - so it's a bit like a Disney ride, with fake danger for scenery.
• Other players feeling guilty when another player's PC dies, have boundary issues, which hopefully the gaming experience will help them heal, which is less likely to happen if everyone avoids letting them have that (dysfunctional) reaction.
• Having consequences and loss is also a very valuable and interesting experience. Removing that from play is what seems lame to me.
• Playing a character from the setting such as a hireling or soldier or something is not lame. In general, I often find this to be very interesting and fun for everyone. Even the players who sulk about it often actually have a good time doing it, and do interesting roleplaying with it, partly because they aren't being shut down by their usual weird attachment to their PC.
• I think that the atmosphere after a PC dies, while often somber, is also an interesting and valuable thing. It shows gravitas and significance and stirs people up and exposes them to grieving and leads to new interesting situations. Losing all of that seems undesirable to me, even if it can be sad and unpleasant. "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life" - Captain Kirk, The Wrath of Khan. Also, removing the possibility of it happening is also removing a very fundamental thing from play, and makes all the danger more or less fake.
• What? You create a resurrection opportunity out of thin air based on whether the player is willing to play an NPC or not? That strikes me as highly dysfunctional meta-game cause & effect.
• Dying only ends the story for the PCs that die. The story can go on, and is a far more interesting story if it includes the possibility and logical consequences of death. Without it, all sorts of things are lost. The most important thing on a PC sheet in such games is the unwritten "this character can never die, and the fabric of the universe will warp in whatever way needed to have that not happen". Quite a super-power - kind of makes most of the other stats into minor details.

Well you will note I said I don't let them die until after a discussion. Often, in fact damn near every time, the players agrees and the character dies. There have been a couple times where the player was very attached to the character or perhaps very involved in the story and put up a fight. In these cases we derived some sort of compromise, as I mentioned.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913243Of course there are rules for falling. I was referring to a rule allowing for a simple hit in combat to displace a target resulting in a fall. Straight up DnD for example. Geeze, you guys are in a blood lust, looking for an argument instead of listening.

Um ok, so then it seems I still don't understand what you were describing in your scenario. What did you mean by:

Quote2) A combat is taking place on a narrow walkway. I allow a couple bad guys to stumble when hit (not killed) and fall (no game rules would cover this) for dramatic effect.

?

What do you mean? If there are rules for falling in this case, why not just use the rules? What do you mean you "allow" it? What do you mean "no game rules would cover this" and how does that coexist with "of course there are rules for falling" etc? I just don't get what you mean.

Also, I thought you were asking for a candid reaction to the scenarios you listed. How does my view turn into blood lust and arguments?

Quote from: rgrove0172;913461Well you will note I said I don't let them die until after a discussion. Often, in fact damn near every time, the players agrees and the character dies. There have been a couple times where the player was very attached to the character or perhaps very involved in the story and put up a fight. In these cases we derived some sort of compromise, as I mentioned.

You've also mentioned altering circumstances in which players may actually find themselves in a deadly situation to make it less deadly, to keep your story and high drama going.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913460Ok, since it seems we have worked out the misunderstandings and hostilities (Ive taken responsibility for causing some of that - apologies again) Im going to throw in a few more examples for comment. These aren't just something I threw together for purposes of the thread however. These examples occurred in last evening's game. Ill try not to bore with too much background detail but a little may be necessary.

1876 - New Orleans

1. PC is trying to convince a spooky old negro voodoo swamp woman to help her with a problem. The initial reaction roll for the old woman man sucks and she orders her to leave. The PC attempts to win her over and succeeds but only mildly. The woman doesn't throw her out but is hesitant to help this well-dressed, well-spoken, southern belle so soon after emancipation. The PC tries to use the plight of the young girl she is trying to save as leverage. I consider rolling to see if the old woman has ever had children, grandchildren etc or perhaps lost one - which might make her more prone to help and offer a positive modifier to the diplomacy roll - BUT instead I decide to just make it so. The idea that the old woman lost her only child years ago in the war and had carried the bitterness and sadness all these years makes for a good STORY - so I go with it, decide to really up the modifier and almost ensure the PC is successful, which with a nice fat +3 modifier, was.

2. The PC is trying to catch a train but runs into a randomly generated political demonstration near the station. The crowd prohibits her from making much headway. She uses a Contacts ability with the folk of New Orleans and manages to locate someone she knows. By random roll its a big burly dock worker who she has had acquaintance with. He is demonstrating alongside some of the workers there and notices her. She asks for help getting through and he obliges. Rather than actually have him roll to buffet his way through I just narrated the big guy back handing, knocking heads and pushing his way through the crowd and allowed her to get to the train. She rolled well enough finding the guy I just allowed him to be successful.

3. The PC and a NPC preacher are accosted by masked (KKK types) men while returning to the city on a dark road. They are threatening the preacher for his part in building a mission for negroes. They mean to beat him soundly, perhaps worse and order the PC to just go. She refuses and decides again, using her Contacts in the city, to 'name drop' a few prominent business men she knows that are rumored to support the masked men's organization. She rolls well and comes up with a couple good ones, highly respected men. She tells them they wouldn't  appreciate hearing that she was treated this way, regardless of who she chooses to have in her company and means to tell them immediately. "Play your little games boys but do so when a lady isn't present please!"   I roll for their reaction and it isn't overwhelming, they hesitate only but by the rule should continue. However, her brazen and brave response was so well roleplayed and actually surprising that I just let it work. They look at each other uneasily and finally one of them tips a hat apologizing then warns the preacher he wont have a skirt to protect him next time. They ride off.

4. A mysterious man has been following the PC. She has spotted him once or twice but never gotten a close look. I know who the man is of course and have plans for him to become more of a factor in the game at a later time. His entrance now would complicate a running plotline however so I would rather he remain the mystery he is, his appearances serving only to foreshadow his eventual introduction. He appears across a crowded saloon floor and the PC notices him. She makes her way to try and catch him and he slips off. I roll for him and he makes a terrible roll which may well allow her to catch up. Her roll in turn is pretty good. If I don't intervene he is caught. Instead I give her a good look at him, more than I liked honestly (It allowed her a chance to remember she had seen him before as a youth, and did) but then brought a group of rowdy drunks between them to let him escape.

This is very typical of the FUDGING we have been discussing in my game. A strict interpretation of the rules or perhaps the actual use of a game mechanic is neglected in favor of a result that rewards the players efforts, provides for a bit of drama/humor/horror/atmosphere and extends the story-line in YES WHAT I BELIEVE is a favorable direction.

1. Part of the difference in our games is that you think of reasons for things before I would even need to. If there were a roll for a reaction from the old woman in this case, the DICE would indicate what reason would need to be given. If it was a bad result for the PC, the woman's reaction is unchanged. If the die result favored the PC, THEN I might role-play the old woman as having a soft spot due to her own loss. In this case, it is random and a sudden thought or whim didn't influence anything. And this if a reason needs to be given at all. Sometimes the players ask the dragon for mercy and he just belches fire without going into his life story.

2. In this case I am just baffled at why a protester who is part of the group impeding your PC suddenly decides whatever cause he felt strongly enough to protest for with like-minded people no longer matters and in fact matters so little he assaults his comrades.

3. Why are you even rolling the dice in this case if you weren't even interested in the result? If you and your group like such high drama, why not allow the roll to stand and the drama build?

4. This one is the sort of thing I would not put up with from a GM. The PC gets a good roll. She knows this. Yet by GM fiat, on a failed roll no less, she is deprived of what surely would have been a great confrontation and a stellar role-playing opportunity for both player and GM. So it complicates things for you? So what? Roll with it! See where it goes. There's no reason to deprive the PC of this small victory and opportunity. Especially just because you think it would be better later. Because you didn't role-play the opportunity, because you didn't get to spend some time during or between sessions mulling over the encounter and building off of it, you and your group will NEVER know what might have been. In the name of what you deem "better" drama. What's sad is there was no opportunity to know your version is better than what the player might have created. And that is precisely the thing I keep harping on regarding ego. She never had a chance. You robbed her of it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913460This is very typical of the FUDGING we have been discussing in my game. A strict interpretation of the rules or perhaps the actual use of a game mechanic is neglected in favor of a result that rewards the players efforts, provides for a bit of drama/humor/horror/atmosphere and extends the storyline in YES WHAT I BELIEVE is a favorable direction.

I can see why you have your detractors up in arms about your style of GMing. IMO, you're taking a very heavy-handed approach to get the results that appeal the most to you. Moving the 'story' in a direction you want it to go, rather than letting the event play out in a more... organic fashion.

Two of your examples involve assured success; the other, assured failure. The assured successes come across like treating your players with kid gloves, gently guiding them to resolutions rather than letting them deal with challenges and consequences. The problem with this approach, for me, is that you don't get to see how your players react to some adversity. You say that you're using this to push the storyline in a favorable direction. But, I think you might be surprised by the 'drama/horror/atmosphere/humor' that could result from not man-handling these conflicts, and letting the results develop as-is, and seeing how your players react and cope with these challenges. They might be surprised and flounder because they're not use to more player-autonomy - for lack of a better word. Or they might step up to these adversities, resolve them in ways that you wouldn't consider or imagine, and improve the 'story' without the need to have it shaped for them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913461Well you will note I said I don't let them die until after a discussion. Often, in fact damn near every time, the players agrees and the character dies. There have been a couple times where the player was very attached to the character or perhaps very involved in the story and put up a fight. In these cases we derived some sort of compromise, as I mentioned.

Interesting - thanks for sharing. It really is interesting to compare views. I think this particular issue of PC death is really interesting, particularly when players are actually conscious of what is going on, and looking at what the choices and consequences are, and choosing from that place.

There are all sorts of players, and yes some for various reasons may not be up for accepting their character's death... but it's best if that's figured out before the rules call for their death. When I answer your questions about our perspectives from the perspective I like to play with, I'm just saying what I enjoy, and why and how I feel about it, even if I'm expressing what I find problematic about it from my perspective. While I agree that some players might prefer to have tacitly immortal characters and their danger be actually fake, and that's okay, I still think that they are missing some major things. I also miss out on other things when I for example let my character die and stop playing a game that expected me to pretend it didn't happen and keep playing (like 95% of all computer RPGs). And I'm missing out on whatever great pre-concocted stories GMs had planned, who wanted to force those plots to happen in games I wasn't interested in because I didn't want to play that way (unless they or someone else just told me what the story was...).

I have certainly been at a place a few times, particularly in the first several years of gaming, where I found a PC death a bit shocking and upsetting and I chose to fudge a die roll or create a circumstance to save a PC. However it always felt to me like a major problematic integrity issue to have fudged to cheat death. I remember each time I did that, and it stuck with me and made me think about the consequences of doing that. One response too is to alter the rules, for example by making it more likely that when characters fall in combat from typical wounds, they are just unable to fight or unconscious but not dead yet... there are various settings available there. I noticed that even the times I had kept someone alive, it was always a case of just a few points over the line (which in TFT is very small - one point left is unconscious, and below that is dead), so just making a slightly larger cushion would have made those cheats unnecessary. (I hadn't been tempted to saved PCs who had taken more clearly fatal hits.)

Quote from: Skarg;913462Um ok, so then it seems I still don't understand what you were describing in your scenario. What did you mean by:

?

What do you mean? If there are rules for falling in this case, why not just use the rules? What do you mean you "allow" it? What do you mean "no game rules would cover this" and how does that coexist with "of course there are rules for falling" etc? I just don't get what you mean.

Also, I thought you were asking for a candid reaction to the scenarios you listed. How does my view turn into blood lust and arguments?

First off, your reaction specifically wasn't combative, more the culmination of several.

Anyway, what I meant was that in the system we were using, as in most games honestly, if a character gets hit with a sword for example and takes 5 hit points of damage... they don't get shoved back, stumble, drop their shield, lose a piece of armor or any other unfortunate occurrence as a result of the hit. Not particularly realistic but that's gaming - oh well. I like to throw some of this sort of thing into the mix, typically just in the narrative, for color and effect.

"You smash through the guy's guard, driving him back as you rain sword blows upon his shield then connect across his armored chest plate."

In this case a couple of NPCs who where hit but not killed - I sent them falling to their deaths from the blow. There are rules for the fall obviously but none to indicate they were made to fall from being hit in combat - unless I put some in place on that narrow edge, which I did and introduced them to the characters by letting a couple NPCs take a plunge.

"The walkway sways precariously under your feet, lurching with the flow of bodies upon it. Suddenly one of the enemy swings too wide and loses his balance, careening over the edge - quickly followed by the one you smashed with your mace, the impact sending him stumbling back and over to his doom."

Quote from: Harlock;913463You've also mentioned altering circumstances in which players may actually find themselves in a deadly situation to make it less deadly, to keep your story and high drama going.

Yes, I wont shy away from that. Its common place. Sort of like bracing to fight the fastest gun in town and knowing you are about to die only to have the sheriff intervene and the gunfighter smile as he walks away. Good drama, preps for even more fun later.

Quote from: Harlock;9134681. Part of the difference in our games is that you think of reasons for things before I would even need to. If there were a roll for a reaction from the old woman in this case, the DICE would indicate what reason would need to be given. If it was a bad result for the PC, the woman's reaction is unchanged. If the die result favored the PC, THEN I might role-play the old woman as having a soft spot due to her own loss. In this case, it is random and a sudden thought or whim didn't influence anything. And this if a reason needs to be given at all. Sometimes the players ask the dragon for mercy and he just belches fire without going into his life story.

OK, I prefer to have a reason though, as the GM I like knowing what is going on behind the scenes. Its sort of a "setting with or without the players" kind of approach but I enjoy it.

2. In this case I am just baffled at why a protester who is part of the group impeding your PC suddenly decides whatever cause he felt strongly enough to protest for with like-minded people no longer matters and in fact matters so little he assaults his comrades.

You had to be there. He is in the mix because he is supposed to be working there, gets caught up in it with a bunch of Union protestors etc. I was trying to be brief.. the issue is with his actions not his reasoning.

3. Why are you even rolling the dice in this case if you weren't even interested in the result? If you and your group like such high drama, why not allow the roll to stand and the drama build?

There wouldn't have been anymore drama, they would have hung him. You can only make so many negotiation rolls afterall. I thought her attempt was cool enough and close enough to success to deserve a fudge.

4. This one is the sort of thing I would not put up with from a GM. The PC gets a good roll. She knows this. Yet by GM fiat, on a failed roll no less, she is deprived of what surely would have been a great confrontation and a stellar role-playing opportunity for both player and GM. So it complicates things for you? So what? Roll with it! See where it goes. There's no reason to deprive the PC of this small victory and opportunity. Especially just because you think it would be better later. Because you didn't role-play the opportunity, because you didn't get to spend some time during or between sessions mulling over the encounter and building off of it, you and your group will NEVER know what might have been. In the name of what you deem "better" drama. What's sad is there was no opportunity to know your version is better than what the player might have created. And that is precisely the thing I keep harping on regarding ego. She never had a chance. You robbed her of it.

Noted and disagreed with. It was my idea in the first place to even make the guy exist. It was my creative energy that went into his background, circumstances and his plans. Im the one that figured out how he would fit into the storyline and what part he could play with the players once introduced. I believe I am in the best place to determine when he shows up. The unfortunate premature discovery would have made, IN MY OPINION, for some negative outcomes. Yeah, I guess it is kind of selfish, egotistical or what have you - Ill accept that. I don't go in for the GM/Player coop thing where story is concerned unless the game is originally set up that way.

At the risk of sounding really old I will have to interject a comment here.

For years, decades really, almost every RPG you picked up included a section on "What is a Roleplaying Game".

Typically what followed was a definition of Game Master and Player, explanation of their roles etc. In everyone I can remember the GM was described as something along the lines of "Author", "Director", "Referee" etc. with the express responsibility of creating the gaming world, playing the part of the NPCs, refereeing the action and GUIDING THE PLAYERS THROUGH THE PLOTLINE OR STORY. Phrases like "Deciding which rules apply" and "determining the outcome of actions taken" were in every book.

Those sections seemed to favor the kind of approach I, and my friends, developed - and served us well for years. What I am reading here in this thread and through some reading across the net, is that the fundamentals of Roleplaying have changed. We, in our insulated little corner of the universe, didn't get the memo. If any of my players did, they failed to pass it on. I wont go into a long winded description of what I think changed but obviously the power of the GM has been curtailed to a great degree. The transgressions I am being found guilty of were far more commonplace years ago - of that I will testify as I played a wide range of games and with many different groups back in the late 70s, early 80s.

Perhaps that's what is so glaring here in this thread, my age, my gaming background, and a change in the hobby of which I wasn't aware. That being said, I don't plan to change anytime soon. Im too old and my players are too few and too accustomed and too content for me to even try.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913485Noted and disagreed with. It was my idea in the first place to even make the guy exist. It was my creative energy that went into his background, circumstances and his plans. Im the one that figured out how he would fit into the storyline and what part he could play with the players once introduced. I believe I am in the best place to determine when he shows up. The unfortunate premature discovery would have made, IN MY OPINION, for some negative outcomes. Yeah, I guess it is kind of selfish, egotistical or what have you - Ill accept that. I don't go in for the GM/Player coop thing where story is concerned unless the game is originally set up that way.

And that sort of arrogant GM railroading, for the greater good of your story means you don't have players. You have puppets. I see no point in playing in such games. I can read a novel and generally get better writing, greater drama, and a more enjoyable evening without the false pretense that I am involved. I'm glad your group find that level of control enjoyable. I know it cannot be easy to find any sort of group at all in Big Spring.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913420My players have claimed rolling for others takes them out of character and feels "wargamey". I think I woukd feel the same way when playing. But that's just us.

Im ok with it as a player and really, if I or someone else hires or collects a small, or not small, army, then, you know... We are being wargamey.

Some players like to be hands on with armies under their command. Others want no part of it aside from issuing orders and hoping they obey.

Though we had way back one short campaign in BX where an NPC retainer became the leader of the party because no one else wanted to call the shots and the NPC had proven more tactically savvy than us. I ended up something like second in command/advisor as, as usual, I had a good CHA and had been the recruiter for 90% of the NPCs. (Also probably because for that group I was the only one interested in learning anything resembling wargaming.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;913486At the risk of sounding really old I will have to interject a comment here.

For years, decades really, almost every RPG you picked up included a section on "What is a Roleplaying Game".

Typically what followed was a definition of Game Master and Player, explanation of their roles etc. In everyone I can remember the GM was described as something along the lines of "Author", "Director", "Referee" etc. with the express responsibility of creating the gaming world, playing the part of the NPCs, refereeing the action and GUIDING THE PLAYERS THROUGH THE PLOTLINE OR STORY. Phrases like "Deciding which rules apply" and "determining the outcome of actions taken" were in every book.

Those sections seemed to favor the kind of approach I, and my friends, developed - and served us well for years. What I am reading here in this thread and through some reading across the net, is that the fundamentals of Roleplaying have changed. We, in our insulated little corner of the universe, didn't get the memo. If any of my players did, they failed to pass it on. I wont go into a long winded description of what I think changed but obviously the power of the GM has been curtailed to a great degree. The transgressions I am being found guilty of were far more commonplace years ago - of that I will testify as I played a wide range of games and with many different groups back in the late 70s, early 80s.

Perhaps that's what is so glaring here in this thread, my age, my gaming background, and a change in the hobby of which I wasn't aware. That being said, I don't plan to change anytime soon. Im too old and my players are too few and too accustomed and too content for me to even try.

You've merely moved the goalpost, my friend. Nothing changed. You're merely excusing yourself. Obviously, rule zero always applies. But even the Moldvay Basic set describes the DM as a referee. You realize that it is almost universally accepted in sports to gaming to anything else where a referee is needed the expectation going in is that the ref is impartial? There's even a truism about it: a good ref is one that doesn't influence the outcome of the game. Further, going back to Moldvay, page B4 "the DM must not take sides." Please sir, what "decades really" are you referring to? Yes. At times the GM is asked to adjudicate discrepancies. They are usually assumed to do so without bias. Please don't blame anyone else's reaction to your play style as their problem because they're just too young or have evolved away from the original intent in some manner.

So, you have a different play style. It's not an uncommon one. Nor is it universally hailed as the best. Really, at this point, I'm not sure what is gained by going on. We're all different and like different things.

Quote from: Harlock;913487And that sort of arrogant GM railroading, for the greater good of your story means you don't have players. You have puppets. I see no point in playing in such games. I can read a novel and generally get better writing, greater drama, and a more enjoyable evening without the false pretense that I am involved. I'm glad your group find that level of control enjoyable. I know it cannot be easy to find any sort of group at all in Big Spring.

Laugh, see I just don't get the railroading insult, no matter how many times its thrown around. As a GM, unless you present nothing but random dungeon crawls or something, you cannot help but steer the plot to some degree. The more intricate and involved the plot, the more the GM has to juggle the choices and actions of the players with those of the game beyond their influence.

I assume when you guys hurl the ole "railroading" dart you mean that the GM makes a decision and implements an outcome adverse to or without benefit of a game mechanic. So therefore every single thing that happens or doesn't happen in game has to be determined in some way by a rule or die roll. No room at all for the GM to simply decide something happens.

If I decide there is a village up ahead and don't roll for it Im railroading.
If I decide there are orcs waiting at the bridge but don't roll for a random encounter Im railroading
If I decide a character has no chance to hear a distant scream rather than rolling and levying a heavy modifier, Im railroading.
If I decide the bad guy doesn't want to fight the group today and runs instead, Im railroading.

I find that all kind of ridiculous. Most games mention clearly that the rules are there to HELP the GM and players interact and create a story. Ive got a couple brand new games on my shelf, published this year and both have something akin to that very phrase. "Rules are there to assist, they should not hinder the action and creativity of the group."

How is what I am doing not that? I use the rules and even some percentage randomization easily 90% of the time but on occasion I DONT LET THE RULES HINDER THE ACTION OR CREATIVITY, just as it says in the rulebooks. Surely you guys have read something like that in dozens of game systems?

Quote from: Harlock;913489You've merely moved the goalpost, my friend. Nothing changed. You're merely excusing yourself. Obviously, rule zero always applies. But even the Moldvay Basic set describes the DM as a referee. You realize that it is almost universally accepted in sports to gaming to anything else where a referee is needed the expectation going in is that the ref is impartial? There's even a truism about it: a good ref is one that doesn't influence the outcome of the game. Further, going back to Moldvay, page B4 "the DM must not take sides." Please sir, what "decades really" are you referring to? Yes. At times the GM is asked to adjudicate discrepancies. They are usually assumed to do so without bias. Please don't blame anyone else's reaction to your play style as their problem because they're just too young or have evolved away from the original intent in some manner.

I didn't, get off your high horse. I clearly blamed my own circumstances for a lack of understanding. The defensiveness some of you portray is really hard for me figure out. I go out of my way to put all the emphasis on my own lack of understanding and you still have to come at me with accusations of imagined slights. Geeze, can we not get past that, please?

Quote from: rgrove0172;913483Anyway, what I meant was that in the system we were using, as in most games honestly, if a character gets hit with a sword for example and takes 5 hit points of damage... they don't get shoved back, stumble, drop their shield, lose a piece of armor or any other unfortunate occurrence as a result of the hit. Not particularly realistic but that's gaming - oh well. I like to throw some of this sort of thing into the mix, typically just in the narrative, for color and effect.

This is a limitation of most D&D games, not gaming in general. There are a number of systems that handle this easily and produce 'narrative' results like your quotes provide. From the complex systems, like Gurps, to the middling, like various editions of RuneQuest. You can narrate the abstraction, or maybe you just need a better tool for the job. ;)

Quote from: K Peterson;913493This is a limitation of most D&D games, not gaming in general. There are a number of systems that handle this easily and produce 'narrative' results like your quotes provide. From the complex systems, like Gurps, to the middling, like various editions of RuneQuest. You can narrate the abstraction, or maybe you just need a better tool for the job. ;)

Your right, there are... and there are many games that are played by millions of gamers that don't. We were playing one of those. Its like narrating someone is bleeding badly, out of breath, limping heavily or clutching their side in pain, needs to see to their hacked up armor, should tend to the edge of their sword, might be advised to water and rest their horse and so on. Most games ignore this sort of stuff. Some GMs like to include it as way of making the game more immersive.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913486At the risk of sounding really old I will have to interject a comment here.

...

Perhaps that's what is so glaring here in this thread, my age, my gaming background, and a change in the hobby of which I wasn't aware. That being said, I don't plan to change anytime soon. Im too old and my players are too few and too accustomed and too content for me to even try.

Your background and group-dynamic is more likely a factor than age. There seem to be many, many middle-aged, and older gamers on the RpgSite. I'm in that demographic.

Truth be told, I have used some of your approaches in past decades - what others refer to as illusionism, or man-handling plots, or forcing the story resolutions that I want to see. But, I've never felt satisfied with those outcomes - in retrospect they've been disappointing decisions. And after enough disappointments, or enough paying attention and learning, I've gone away from those 'techniques'. But, that's what works for me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913491Laugh, see I just don't get the railroading insult, no matter how many times its thrown around. As a GM, unless you present nothing but random dungeon crawls or something, you cannot help but steer the plot to some degree. The more intricate and involved the plot, the more the GM has to juggle the choices and actions of the players with those of the game beyond their influence.

I assume when you guys hurl the ole "railroading" dart you mean that the GM makes a decision and implements an outcome adverse to or without benefit of a game mechanic. So therefore every single thing that happens or doesn't happen in game has to be determined in some way by a rule or die roll. No room at all for the GM to simply decide something happens.

If I decide there is a village up ahead and don't roll for it Im railroading.
If I decide there are orcs waiting at the bridge but don't roll for a random encounter Im railroading
If I decide a character has no chance to hear a distant scream rather than rolling and levying a heavy modifier, Im railroading.
If I decide the bad guy doesn't want to fight the group today and runs instead, Im railroading.

I find that all kind of ridiculous. Most games mention clearly that the rules are there to HELP the GM and players interact and create a story. Ive got a couple brand new games on my shelf, published this year and both have something akin to that very phrase. "Rules are there to assist, they should not hinder the action and creativity of the group."

How is what I am doing not that? I use the rules and even some percentage randomization easily 90% of the time but on occasion I DONT LET THE RULES HINDER THE ACTION OR CREATIVITY, just as it says in the rulebooks. Surely you guys have read something like that in dozens of game systems?

As I have stated before, that you do not understand the difference between what you do (specifically: ignoring the result of the accepted method of random adjudication in favor of your preferred outcome to advance your story) and a simple quick and dirty, unbiased GM ruling is your failing. That rules are there to assist is what I say you are ignoring. You ignore the rules. By doing so in favor of your own favored story you are indeed hindering the creativity of your group. Specifically, your players which are presumably the largest portion of your group. In example 4 above, you hindered that player's creativity by never even giving her the opportunity to express it. I'm truly sorry you do not understand the distinction.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913460Ok, since it seems we have worked out the misunderstandings and hostilities (Ive taken responsibility for causing some of that - apologies again) Im going to throw in a few more examples for comment. These aren't just something I threw together for purposes of the thread however. These examples occurred in last evening's game. Ill try not to bore with too much background detail but a little may be necessary.

1876 - New Orleans

1. PC is trying to convince a spooky old negro voodoo swamp woman to help her with a problem. The initial reaction roll for the old woman man sucks and she orders her to leave. The PC attempts to win her over and succeeds but only mildly. The woman doesn't throw her out but is hesitant to help this well-dressed, well-spoken, southern belle so soon after emancipation. The PC tries to use the plight of the young girl she is trying to save as leverage. I consider rolling to see if the old woman has ever had children, grandchildren etc or perhaps lost one - which might make her more prone to help and offer a positive modifier to the diplomacy roll - BUT instead I decide to just make it so. The idea that the old woman lost her only child years ago in the war and had carried the bitterness and sadness all these years makes for a good STORY - so I go with it, decide to really up the modifier and almost ensure the PC is successful, which with a nice fat +3 modifier, was.

2. The PC is trying to catch a train but runs into a randomly generated political demonstration near the station. The crowd prohibits her from making much headway. She uses a Contacts ability with the folk of New Orleans and manages to locate someone she knows. By random roll its a big burly dock worker who she has had acquaintance with. He is demonstrating alongside some of the workers there and notices her. She asks for help getting through and he obliges. Rather than actually have him roll to buffet his way through I just narrated the big guy back handing, knocking heads and pushing his way through the crowd and allowed her to get to the train. She rolled well enough finding the guy I just allowed him to be successful.

3. The PC and a NPC preacher are accosted by masked (KKK types) men while returning to the city on a dark road. They are threatening the preacher for his part in building a mission for negroes. They mean to beat him soundly, perhaps worse and order the PC to just go. She refuses and decides again, using her Contacts in the city, to 'name drop' a few prominent business men she knows that are rumored to support the masked men's organization. She rolls well and comes up with a couple good ones, highly respected men. She tells them they wouldn't  appreciate hearing that she was treated this way, regardless of who she chooses to have in her company and means to tell them immediately. "Play your little games boys but do so when a lady isn't present please!"   I roll for their reaction and it isn't overwhelming, they hesitate only but by the rule should continue. However, her brazen and brave response was so well roleplayed and actually surprising that I just let it work. They look at each other uneasily and finally one of them tips a hat apologizing then warns the preacher he wont have a skirt to protect him next time. They ride off.

4. A mysterious man has been following the PC. She has spotted him once or twice but never gotten a close look. I know who the man is of course and have plans for him to become more of a factor in the game at a later time. His entrance now would complicate a running plotline however so I would rather he remain the mystery he is, his appearances serving only to foreshadow his eventual introduction. He appears across a crowded saloon floor and the PC notices him. She makes her way to try and catch him and he slips off. I roll for him and he makes a terrible roll which may well allow her to catch up. Her roll in turn is pretty good. If I don't intervene he is caught. Instead I give her a good look at him, more than I liked honestly (It allowed her a chance to remember she had seen him before as a youth, and did) but then brought a group of rowdy drunks between them to let him escape.

This is very typical of the FUDGING we have been discussing in my game. A strict interpretation of the rules or perhaps the actual use of a game mechanic is neglected in favor of a result that rewards the players efforts, provides for a bit of drama/humor/horror/atmosphere and extends the storyline in YES WHAT I BELIEVE is a favorable direction.

In all 4 of these examples I am not sure why you rolled the dice. It seems that in each case you disregarded or heavily modified the outcome of the dice throw to push the story in the direction you wanted it to go. As a player I would prefer a GM who was upfront that they were going to tell a collaborative story, with perhaps more emphasis on the role playing than the game, and not bother pretending that reaction rolls and such were going to determine what happens.

I tend to roleplay first and roll dice after if needed in most games. So a player who makes a brilliant oration will probably succefully influence the NPC and no roll will be made on the reaction table at all. If the player just says "I try to persuade the guard to let me pass," I will roll on the reaction table or have the player make a persuasion check, the results of which will determine the guard's action. I run rules light and sometimes diceless with a fairly large amount of improvisation. That is my style and I am quite upfront about it.

There are some in this discussion who would probably not like my games at all. They prefer to play much more by the mechanics and the dice.

Both are valid aproaches to RPGing. For me the issue comes when the GM presents as taking one approach but is really taking the other.  For me when the dice are rolled that result is final. I use dice to resolve uncertainty. If I am certain of the outcome there is no need for a dice roll, I can just narrate what happens and the game continues. If a character wishes to climb a tree to get a view of the surrounding countryside I don't see a need to roll if it is an ordinary tree. If that same character attempts to climb an old dead tree in a howling rainstorm, then I will require a roll because it is far from certain that the climb will be a success.

In combat there is a great deal of uncertainty about which attacks will hit and how much damage they will do, so out come the dice. But, by entering combat there is teh chance that a character may be killed. If that happens it is unfortunate, but te life of an adventurer is risky.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913492I didn't, get off your high horse. I clearly blamed my own circumstances for a lack of understanding. The defensiveness some of you portray is really hard for me figure out. I go out of my way to put all the emphasis on my own lack of understanding and you still have to come at me with accusations of imagined slights. Geeze, can we not get past that, please?

It's not your age. Nor is it a paradigm shift of the hobby. That is what my post pointed out and your indignant response ignored. I didn't attack you. I said you moved the goalpost, and clearly you did by trying to claim that the hobby and time had changed expectations after decades. They clearly have not.

Quote from: Harlock;913489You've merely moved the goalpost, my friend. Nothing changed. You're merely excusing yourself. Obviously, rule zero always applies. But even the Moldvay Basic set describes the DM as a referee. You realize that it is almost universally accepted in sports to gaming to anything else where a referee is needed the expectation going in is that the ref is impartial? There's even a truism about it: a good ref is one that doesn't influence the outcome of the game. Further, going back to Moldvay, page B4 "the DM must not take sides." Please sir, what "decades really" are you referring to? Yes. At times the GM is asked to adjudicate discrepancies. They are usually assumed to do so without bias. Please don't blame anyone else's reaction to your play style as their problem because they're just too young or have evolved away from the original intent in some manner.

So, you have a different play style. It's not an uncommon one. Nor is it universally hailed as the best. Really, at this point, I'm not sure what is gained by going on. We're all different and like different things.

By the way, I was a Holmes fan and played a little Moldvay but not long, took a break and came back in with Mentzner. I was looking at some commentary on the differences since you seem to be such a fan of Moldvay and found this.

•Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered.

This following is straight out of the Moldvay basic intro. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them.

Quote from: K Peterson;913495Truth be told, I have used some of your approaches in past decades - what others refer to as illusionism, or man-handling plots, or forcing the story resolutions that I want to see. But, I've never felt satisfied with those outcomes - in retrospect they've been disappointing decisions. And after enough disappointments, or enough paying attention and learning, I've gone away from those 'techniques'. But, that's what works for me.

I believe most of us have at one time or another been through this same process. I for one am really glad I chose to let the players tell the stories. I've been surprised, in the best of ways, many times. Turns out, my players stories, while perhaps different from mine, are as worthwhile or moreso than mine.

Quote from: Harlock;913496As I have stated before, that you do not understand the difference between what you do (specifically: ignoring the result of the accepted method of random adjudication in favor of your preferred outcome to advance your story) and a simple quick and dirty, unbiased GM ruling is your failing. That rules are there to assist is what I say you are ignoring. You ignore the rules. By doing so in favor of your own favored story you are indeed hindering the creativity of your group. Specifically, your players which are presumably the largest portion of your group. In example 4 above, you hindered that player's creativity by never even giving her the opportunity to express it. I'm truly sorry you do not understand the distinction.

I do not. you seem to be placing emphasis on the fact that when I fudge I do so in favor of what I feel is best - as if that is a bad thing. You mention an unbiased GM ruling as seemingly permissible. Unbiased according to who? I dont see a difference. If I decide something for the players advantage, its a decision I made. IOf I decide something for the advantage of an NPC, its a decision I made. If an unbiased GM makes a ruling, its a decision he made. The only way to truly be unbiased is not to decide at all but just flip a coin. I find your argument really hard to follow. You cant blame someone for having an opinion, they cant have someone elses opinion afterall.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913497In all 4 of these examples I am not sure why you rolled the dice. It seems that in each case you disregarded or heavily modified the outcome of the dice throw to push the story in the direction you wanted it to go. As a player I would prefer a GM who was upfront that they were going to tell a collaborative story, with perhaps more emphasis on the role playing than the game, and not bother pretending that reaction rolls and such were going to determine what happens.

I tend to roleplay first and roll dice after if needed in most games. So a player who makes a brilliant oration will probably succefully influence the NPC and no roll will be made on the reaction table at all. If the player just says "I try to persuade the guard to let me pass," I will roll on the reaction table or have the player make a persuasion check, the results of which will determine the guard's action. I run rules light and sometimes diceless with a fairly large amount of improvisation. That is my style and I am quite upfront about it.

There are some in this discussion who would probably not like my games at all. They prefer to play much more by the mechanics and the dice.

Both are valid aproaches to RPGing. For me the issue comes when the GM presents as taking one approach but is really taking the other.  For me when the dice are rolled that result is final. I use dice to resolve uncertainty. If I am certain of the outcome there is no need for a dice roll, I can just narrate what happens and the game continues. If a character wishes to climb a tree to get a view of the surrounding countryside I don't see a need to roll if it is an ordinary tree. If that same character attempts to climb an old dead tree in a howling rainstorm, then I will require a roll because it is far from certain that the climb will be a success.

In combat there is a great deal of uncertainty about which attacks will hit and how much damage they will do, so out come the dice. But, by entering combat there is teh chance that a character may be killed. If that happens it is unfortunate, but te life of an adventurer is risky.

The difference between simply, and openly, declaring an outcome and subtly modifying or disguising a die roll is that in the eyes of the player it was fate or your whim that caused it to happen that way. If they get used to you being the judge the game becomes much more of what some here are accusing me of - a story I am telling and occasionally allowing the players a little input. If they remain connected to the randomness of a die roll, even when on occasion another method is used to determine outcome, they aren't so secure in their choices and you retain more drama. Not to mention they don't blame or thank you when something happens.

Quote from: Harlock;913501I believe most of us have at one time or another been through this same process. I for one am really glad I chose to let the players tell the stories. I've been surprised, in the best of ways, many times. Turns out, my players stories, while perhaps different from mine, are as worthwhile or moreso than mine.

Just don't let them add anything to the world you didn't already decide was there, because then you're a filthy hippie storygamer.

Man, I'm really enjoying the collective shit-losing in this thread.

Hey, rgrove172, mention Vincent Baker.  Let's see if we can get someone to have an aneurysm.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913500By the way, I was a Holmes fan and played a little Moldvay but not long, took a break and came back in with Mentzner. I was looking at some commentary on the differences since you seem to be such a fan of Moldvay and found this.

•Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered.

This following is straight out of the Moldvay basic intro. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them.

Again, that you do not understand the distinctions being made... forget it. Clearly, you just want a pat on the back for being a brilliant GM. You can't debate on substance. It's all part and parcel with the ego mentioned before. I have been very careful not to say you are wrong for how you play. And, you are not. But don't try and convince me what you do, being a puppeteer and not a referee, snatching real dramatic, storytelling opportunities from your players in favor of what must be a better story because you, after all, contrived it, is something praiseworthy or worthy of emulation or congratulations. What was the point of posting more examples? Feedback? Don't be mad when you don't get the answers you're looking for and some people find criticisms. If you can't handle the critique, don't ask for it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913494Your right, there are... and there are many games that are played by millions of gamers that don't. We were playing one of those. Its like narrating someone is bleeding badly, out of breath, limping heavily or clutching their side in pain, needs to see to their hacked up armor, should tend to the edge of their sword, might be advised to water and rest their horse and so on. Most games ignore this sort of stuff. Some GMs like to include it as way of making the game more immersive.

D&D doesnt ignore it. It merely abstracts it as it can and does turn into needless bookkeeping.

My first published RPG had armour and weapon wearing down, and several other factors that in all honesty it didnt really need. But I wanted to have it there for players and GMs to use if they so wanted that level of detailing. A character sheet looked more like a BattleTech mech sheet. (Which I was totally unaware of as had never seen Battle tech at that time.)

But if you want that sort of detail in say AD&D there are actually rules in place to handle it. But in BX there are none. There we can use the basic stat or percentile checks if need be. Though having watched several demonstrations of weapons against some armour and shields I can see why its not a big factor in D&D. Especially shields.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913502I do not. you seem to be placing emphasis on the fact that when I fudge I do so in favor of what I feel is best - as if that is a bad thing.

It's not always a bad thing. When you took the opportunity away from the player, in favor of your storyline, in my opinion, it was a bad thing.

Quote from: Omega;913508D&D doesnt ignore it. It merely abstracts it as it can and does turn into needless bookkeeping.

My first published RPG had armour and weapon wearing down, and several other factors that in all honesty it didnt really need. But I wanted to have it there for players and GMs to use if they so wanted that level of detailing. A character sheet looked more like a BattleTech mech sheet. (Which I was totally unaware of as had never seen Battle tech at that time.)

But if you want that sort of detail in say AD&D there are actually rules in place to handle it. But in BX there are none. There we can use the basic stat or percentile checks if need be. Though having watched several demonstrations of weapons against some armour and shields I can see why its not a big factor in D&D. Especially shields.

I agree, for the most part needless bookkeeping, especially when you can get the same effect through a little creative narrative.

I'm going to answer without looking at other responses.

Quote from: Harlock;9134681. PC is trying to convince a spooky old negro voodoo swamp woman to help her with a problem.

One question first, was there a negative modifier for the well-dressed, well-spoken southern belle (because it seems like there should have been one)? Or was that color added after the first failed roll?

Sounds like you used 3 different rolls (i) initial reaction, (ii) can I get her to listen longer, and (iii) the final "think of the children" plea. I might have limited the rolling to 2 rolls. Unless one uses a best 2 out of 3 type mechanic, using multiple rolls to determine what is essentially one outcome [does she or does she not help the southern belle] often cause conflicting results. Which is what we see here.

Unless I had some reason to assume the old woman hated children, a positive modifier for the "think of the children" approach is reasonable; +3 is too high though. Assuming you are using a 2d6 reaction roll, +2 doesn't seem too out of line. I see no need to assume or figure out if some larger modifier should apply since a 2d6 reaction roll already contains enough variation to account for unusually apt, or un-apt responses.

If the help of the voodoo woman is key, i.e. if the PCs/players can't progress or succeed without her help, then from a game design perspective it's better game design provide a couple of other ways of getting similar key information without the old woman's help or, failing that, don't bother to require a roll, just have the old woman provide the information if the PCs think to contact her. That way you don't end up with a complete roadblock that prevents any possibility of forward progress and you don't have to fudge after the fact.

2. The PC is trying to catch a train but runs into a randomly generated political demonstration near the station.

If he's sufficiently big and burly compared to the southern belle (seems likely) and/or he is well known to the other demonstrators then assuming he can get through the crowd without a roll doesn't seem unreasonable. (However punching his way through the crowd sounds unproductively violent and more likely to impede than advance her progress or at least to turn a peaceful demonstration into a casualty causing riot brutally suppressed by the police. Which would be dramatic but maybe not in a way you or your wife would find fun.)

One other point about whether to require a second roll or not: requiring too many successive rolls for success can, statistically speaking, force failure. Generally, from a game design perspective and often also from a common sense simulation perspective, setting up multiple sequential rolls where any failure is a complete failure is poor design. So maybe don't do that.

3. The PC and a NPC preacher are accosted by masked (KKK types) men while returning to the city on a dark road.

You might want to consider not mandating rolling so much when you don't actually want to use the outcome.

Also, the preacher not getting lynched might be considered a success in the situation you outlined. Especially if the general populace is aware something bad is happening to children.

4. A mysterious man has been following the PC.

You might want to consider not allowing a roll when you don't actually want to use the outcome.

For instance, unless she has some sort of experience tailing or being tailed, why assume she gets a roll to notice some stranger who was in her vicinity a couple of times or that this would be suspicious. In certain locales or venues I often see the same person multiple times in real life. I don't find that suspicious enough to confront or follow them though.

Also what's the big deal if she spots him or talks to him now? He feigns innocence. She either does or doesn't believe him but has no proof. So what can she do? Of course now he will need to be more careful in the future and may need to hire some minions to watch her for him. A bit of an obstacle for him in the future, but it doesn't sound like a game ending change.

Now I'll go back and see what others said.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913502I do not. you seem to be placing emphasis on the fact that when I fudge I do so in favor of what I feel is best - as if that is a bad thing. You mention an unbiased GM ruling as seemingly permissible. Unbiased according to who? I dont see a difference.

I think in this sense, an "unbiased GM" is the equivalent of a neutral arbiter. A GM who, yes, presents challenges, interprets results, and narratively describes outcomes - but who does not shape the outcomes according to their own whims or requirements to complete a story that they envision.

Where you are getting lashback from your detractors is not in the way that you interpret rules and provide narrative outcomes, but in how you force the direction of the stories. To me, it's an unpleasant approach; to others, it comes across as selfish, domineering, and showing disrespect towards your players. You know the correct resolution for the storyline; you apply the kid gloves, or narrative restrictions at your whim. And it's arbitrary decisions like this - focused on shaping your storyline, rather than the story that evolves from the GM's and players' input - from what many consider to be from the role as a neutral arbiter, that angers people.

Quote from: Harlock;913507Again, that you do not understand the distinctions being made... forget it. Clearly, you just want a pat on the back for being a brilliant GM. You can't debate on substance. It's all part and parcel with the ego mentioned before. I have been very careful not to say you are wrong for how you play. And, you are not. But don't try and convince me what you do, being a puppeteer and not a referee, snatching real dramatic, storytelling opportunities from your players in favor of what must be a better story because you, after all, contrived it, is something praiseworthy or worthy of emulation or congratulations. What was the point of posting more examples? Feedback? Don't be mad when you don't get the answers you're looking for and some people find criticisms. If you can't handle the critique, don't ask for it.

Why would you think I cant handle criticism? Because I don't mutely praise those providing it? Does the fact that I defend my play style (Not elevate it to any degree) mean Im seeking praise? I am and have been asking for opinions and some, most, even you were happy to give them and I responded in turn with my own opinions on what you provided. Its called D E B A T E, something you might have heard of. (ok that was snarky, I apologize, you had it coming though, reread your nasty post!)

Im tempted to say F..K IT and just log off but hate to blow a lid for something so silly.

How can I say it any other way? I play one way, you play another, there is room for both, its really interesting to compare the differences, don't have a f...g cow...

Quote from: K Peterson;913514I think in this sense, an "unbiased GM" is the equivalent of a neutral arbiter. A GM who, yes, presents challenges, interprets results, and narratively describes outcomes - but who does not shape the outcomes according to their own whims or requirements to complete a story that they envision.

Where you are getting lashback from your detractors is not in the way that you interpret rules and provide narrative outcomes, but in how you force the direction of the stories. To me, it's an unpleasant approach; to others, it comes across as selfish, domineering, and showing disrespect towards your players. You know the correct resolution for the storyline; you apply the kid gloves, or narrative restrictions at your whim. And it's arbitrary decisions like this - focused on shaping your storyline, rather than the story that evolves from the GM's and players' input - from what many consider to be from the role as a neutral arbiter, that angers people.

Well said, except for the anger part. I cannot for the life of me see how what I do at the gaming table angers others who will never sit at this table. Inspire communication? Sure. Bring out questions and responses on the perceived goods and bads of the style? Sure... but the anger? Its kind of weird. I wouldnt have thought this aspect of gaming so controversial, and even if so not worthy of the emotion evident in this thread. Ive only gotten heated when attacked, several times. Ive choked it down, enjoyed a few civil responses and then wham! Hit again.

Quote from: Bren;913513I'm going to answer without looking at other responses.


One question first, was there a negative modifier for the well-dressed, well-spoken southern belle (because it seems like there should have been one)? Or was that color added after the first failed roll?

Sounds like you used 3 different rolls (i) initial reaction, (ii) can I get her to listen longer, and (iii) the final "think of the children" plea. I might have limited the rolling to 2 rolls. Unless one uses a best 2 out of 3 type mechanic, using multiple rolls to determine what is essentially one outcome [does she or does she not help the southern belle] often cause conflicting results. Which is what we see here.

Unless I had some reason to assume the old woman hated children, a positive modifier for the “think of the children” approach is reasonable; +3 is too high though. Assuming you are using a 2d6 reaction roll, +2 doesn’t seem too out of line. I see no need to assume or figure out if some larger modifier should apply since a 2d6 reaction roll already contains enough variation to account for unusually apt, or un-apt responses.

If the help of the voodoo woman is key, i.e. if the PCs/players can’t progress or succeed without her help, then from a game design perspective it’s better game design provide a couple of other ways of getting similar key information without the old woman’s help or, failing that, don’t bother to require a roll, just have the old woman provide the information if the PCs think to contact her. That way you don’t end up with a complete roadblock that prevents any possibility of forward progress and you don't have to fudge after the fact.

2. The PC is trying to catch a train but runs into a randomly generated political demonstration near the station.

If he’s sufficiently big and burly compared to the southern belle (seems likely) and/or he is well known to the other demonstrators then assuming he can get through the crowd without a roll doesn’t seem unreasonable. (However punching his way through the crowd sounds unproductively violent and more likely to impede than advance her progress or at least to turn a peaceful demonstration into a casualty causing riot brutally suppressed by the police. Which would be dramatic but maybe not in a way you or your wife would find fun.)

One other point about whether to require a second roll or not: requiring too many successive rolls for success can, statistically speaking, force failure. Generally, from a game design perspective and often also from a common sense simulation perspective, setting up multiple sequential rolls where any failure is a complete failure is poor design. So maybe don't do that.

3. The PC and a NPC preacher are accosted by masked (KKK types) men while returning to the city on a dark road.

You might want to consider not mandating rolling so much when you don’t actually want to use the outcome.

Also, the preacher not getting lynched might be considered a success in the situation you outlined. Especially if the general populace is aware something bad is happening to children.

4. A mysterious man has been following the PC.

You might want to consider not allowing a roll when you don’t actually want to use the outcome.

For instance, unless she has some sort of experience tailing or being tailed, why assume she gets a roll to notice some stranger who was in her vicinity a couple of times or that this would be suspicious. In certain locales or venues I often see the same person multiple times in real life. I don't find that suspicious enough to confront or follow them though.

Also what’s the big deal if she spots him or talks to him now? He feigns innocence. She either does or doesn’t believe him but has no proof. So what can she do? Of course now he will need to be more careful in the future and may need to hire some minions to watch her for him. A bit of an obstacle for him in the future, but it doesn’t sound like a game ending change.

Now I'll go back and see what others said.

Recommendation to not roll noted and appreciated. I don't think that would help me out here though. There are some that are only balking at the 'fake die rolling' but most are hot because of the perceived superego of the GM who just pushes his way around the game. Your suggestion would only make that worse.

You do realize that you're posting in the Mos Eisley Cantina of Rpg forums, right? :) (If not, it sounds like you're starting to get acquainted). Read some other threads around here, and view some of the other heated exchanges. Anger and bile is part of the wallpaper.

Quote from: Harlock;913511It's not always a bad thing. When you took the opportunity away from the player, in favor of your storyline, in my opinion, it was a bad thing.

Just noticed, you and many refer to the story as MY STORYLINE - as if I have it scripted and written down word for word. The players have a tremendous amount of influence on how the story develops. The fact that I step in temporarily and nudge it in a direction that typically it was already moving, doesn't make it entirely mine. Its very much OUR story.

Quote from: K Peterson;913521You do realize that you're posting in the Mos Eisley Cantina of Rpg forums, right? :) (If not, it sounds like you're starting to get acquainted). Read some other threads around here, and view some of the other heated exchanges. Anger and bile is part of the wallpaper.

You know what? Thanks for that! I mean it. When I was booted from RPG.net for some ridiculous perceived sexist infraction I was warned this was a tough house. I kind of forgot that. I am fully reminded! It makes a difference. Rolling up my sleeves, cracking knuckles.. feeling lots better about my rude ass, obnoxious, opinionated brothers!

Quote from: rgrove0172;9134601. PC is trying to convince a spooky old negro voodoo swamp woman to help her with a problem. The initial reaction roll for the old woman man sucks and she orders her to leave. The PC attempts to win her over and succeeds but only mildly. The woman doesn't throw her out but is hesitant to help this well-dressed, well-spoken, southern belle so soon after emancipation. The PC tries to use the plight of the young girl she is trying to save as leverage. I consider rolling to see if the old woman has ever had children, grandchildren etc or perhaps lost one - which might make her more prone to help and offer a positive modifier to the diplomacy roll - BUT instead I decide to just make it so. The idea that the old woman lost her only child years ago in the war and had carried the bitterness and sadness all these years makes for a good STORY - so I go with it, decide to really up the modifier and almost ensure the PC is successful, which with a nice fat +3 modifier, was.

This is ok by me because of several considerations. Although I would notice that I was causing the game world to have this woman have had a child for not 100% logical reasons, it's likely she would, it's probably mostly immaterial, the meddling is mostly outside the main scope of play and in the realm of world creation, pre-made tables are liable to make less sense and take less into account than channeling answers from my imagination/intuition.

Quote2. The PC is trying to catch a train but runs into a randomly generated political demonstration near the station. The crowd prohibits her from making much headway. She uses a Contacts ability with the folk of New Orleans and manages to locate someone she knows. By random roll its a big burly dock worker who she has had acquaintance with. He is demonstrating alongside some of the workers there and notices her. She asks for help getting through and he obliges. Rather than actually have him roll to buffet his way through I just narrated the big guy back handing, knocking heads and pushing his way through the crowd and allowed her to get to the train. She rolled well enough finding the guy I just allowed him to be successful.

This is ok by me since again there are many fuzzy factors here for which there are probably no rules which apply. GM assessment of the odds of something working out may be more accurate (since he knows the situation) than consulting tables of factors that don't have this situation specifically in mind. It's not life or death, and the player is not asking to engage every aspect of the action. In fact, the player is seeing if someone else will help her through the crowd. Unless the game's point is a detailed tactical simulation of travel times and techniques, why not just have one roll to handle various chances, as long as the GM is taking things into account. Now, I would find it fairly sloppy if (as some GM's do) they only rolled against base Contacts skill, and they always just do that in every situation, because some situations are more or less likely than others. But it doesn't seem like cheating or ill-advised, if factors described are being taken into account, and/or it's not really the concern of the game to determine in detail exactly how and when and why someone manages to catch a train. On the other hand, I would also see how such details CAN be interesting, and making individual rolls for each aspect of the situation may be more interesting, but that's just level of focus, to me.

Quote3. The PC and a NPC preacher are accosted by masked (KKK types) men while returning to the city on a dark road. They are threatening the preacher for his part in building a mission for negroes. They mean to beat him soundly, perhaps worse and order the PC to just go. She refuses and decides again, using her Contacts in the city, to 'name drop' a few prominent business men she knows that are rumored to support the masked men's organization. She rolls well and comes up with a couple good ones, highly respected men. She tells them they wouldn't  appreciate hearing that she was treated this way, regardless of who she chooses to have in her company and means to tell them immediately. "Play your little games boys but do so when a lady isn't present please!"   I roll for their reaction and it isn't overwhelming, they hesitate only but by the rule should continue. However, her brazen and brave response was so well roleplayed and actually surprising that I just let it work. They look at each other uneasily and finally one of them tips a hat apologizing then warns the preacher he wont have a skirt to protect him next time. They ride off.

Giving reaction roll modifiers for good roleplaying seems like it should be a standard rule, not an exception, unless the game is designed to be a strict simulation based on character numbers and not roleplaying. In which case, probably don't even have them roleplay the interaction, because then it gets to be non-represtational in the opposite direction!

Quote4. A mysterious man has been following the PC. She has spotted him once or twice but never gotten a close look. I know who the man is of course and have plans for him to become more of a factor in the game at a later time. His entrance now would complicate a running plotline however so I would rather he remain the mystery he is, his appearances serving only to foreshadow his eventual introduction. He appears across a crowded saloon floor and the PC notices him. She makes her way to try and catch him and he slips off. I roll for him and he makes a terrible roll which may well allow her to catch up. Her roll in turn is pretty good. If I don't intervene he is caught. Instead I give her a good look at him, more than I liked honestly (It allowed her a chance to remember she had seen him before as a youth, and did) but then brought a group of rowdy drunks between them to let him escape.

This one seems more problematic to me. It seems like the GM has an issue finding the line between setting up an interesting situation to play, and then where to actually put things into play. And it's a pretty easy kind of situation to get tripped up by. It's a good example though of how forcing stories and outcomes undermines the game by bending reality.

This kind of situation is one that has got me to let go of control and favor playing things out and letting results be what they are, especially when the players have unexpected success. Very often my players have been smarter or more effective than I expected, and even when I was first GM'ing, this always signaled to me that my expectations and setup had been problematic. Forcing it not to happen only made it obvious and much much worse. When players are allowed to do something unexpected, or just try something that shouldn't probably work but roll incredibly and succeed at something unexpected, it can be very fun and interesting for them... and for the GM, if they can let go of their expectations. To me, it's also what makes the game "a real game" and not a tedious story to endure until we get to combat or whatever the "real" part of the game is, where there is real freedom to choose anything to do and cause whatever outcome arises from that. When instead "a bunch of rowdy drunks" materializes from nowhere to all-too-conveniently prevent me from seeing who some teasing mystery man is, that's the opposite.

QuoteThis is very typical of the FUDGING we have been discussing in my game. A strict interpretation of the rules or perhaps the actual use of a game mechanic is neglected in favor of a result that rewards the players efforts, provides for a bit of drama/humor/horror/atmosphere and extends the storyline in YES WHAT I BELIEVE is a favorable direction.

Except in that last case. Unless it's a Twilight Zone game or an Illuminati game where the crowd of drunks is actually a bunch of agents guarding the mystery man. (That last thing actually happens in the serious semi-historical action film Munich, IIRC. But there at least it is an actual in-world secret agent conspiracy thing, not a GM invoking god powers to prevent players from being able to have unexpected investigation success.) I suspect you're not even correct in that case that it might not be even more interesting for everyone (including you) to see what would happen if unexpectedly they did make a new contact that reveals all sorts of things earlier than you thought. It would certainly tend to give the players positive feedback that they can actually engage the situation and make real discoveries that have a huge effect on play. If your situation is so delicate that it really can't have them meet that guy, then 1) maybe the situation is contrived or weird and 2) maybe don't have that guy shadow them like that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913517Why would you think I cant handle criticism? Because I don't mutely praise those providing it? Does the fact that I defend my play style (Not elevate it to any degree) mean Im seeking praise? I am and have been asking for opinions and some, most, even you were happy to give them and I responded in turn with my own opinions on what you provided. Its called D E B A T E, something you might have heard of. (ok that was snarky, I apologize, you had it coming though, reread your nasty post!)

Im tempted to say F..K IT and just log off but hate to blow a lid for something so silly.

How can I say it any other way? I play one way, you play another, there is room for both, its really interesting to compare the differences, don't have a f...g cow...

As I have said all along. And as I have said before, yes, there is room for both. And you don't get credit for insulting someone and then apologizing in the next sentence. There's a backspace key. I'll simply say I prefer a game where player autonomy is real and PCs are free to act as they see fit. I'm done. I've said what I wanted to. Enjoy your "debate." Ah forget it. I see too many contradictions to ignore. :)

Quote from: Harlock;913525As I have said all along. And as I have said before, yes, there is room for both. And you don't get credit for insulting someone and then apologizing in the next sentence. There's a backspace key. I'll simply say I prefer a game where player autonomy is real and PCs are free to act as they see fit. I'm done. I've said what I wanted to. Enjoy your "debate."

Wait..your right about the backspace key..point taken. But the insult felt really really good, that should count right?

And I figured you were leading up to inviting me down to San Angelo to host a game. Right?

Quote from: rgrove0172;913522Just noticed, you and many refer to the story as MY STORYLINE - as if I have it scripted and written down word for word. The players have a tremendous amount of influence on how the story develops. The fact that I step in temporarily and nudge it in a direction that typically it was already moving, doesn't make it entirely mine. Its very much OUR story.

Quote from: deflecting rational criticismmost are hot because of the perceived superego of the GM

Quote from: Intellectually DishonestIt was my creative energy that went into his background, circumstances and his plans. Im the one that figured out how he would fit into the storyline (emphasis added)

And it was you who ignored the opportunity for a player to make it even more HER story. No one said it was a super ego. Egocentric and arrogant? Absolutely.

I have to throw this in. Several have mentioned that they have in the past or occasionally still do ,... fudge... when things go a weird/negative/unfortunate way in their game. Not always, not even sometimes, maybe not even occasionally but once in a while. Im willing to bet it happens more regularly than most would admit.

Ignoring a really lucky roll by a no-name grunt. Moving an encounter that no longer really makes any sense because of a decision the players made. Modifying what you planned earlier to account for a new development in the plot. Adding a bit of color and spice to an otherwise dreary situation to liven up a game that seems to be dragging for some reason.

Dishonest? Perhaps but I believe forgivable in the grand scheme of GMing. I completely understand those that disagree and respect their opinions. I have read a few responses that have given me pause and might well influence my style a bit in the future but not to a great degree. I will continue to use the approach that has given me and my players countless hours of fun for many many years. The hobby may have moved on without us, if Im reading the trend toward less GM intervention right, but Im still pretty content in the way we do things. Point taken on new players though, something Ill have to consider.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913483...

Anyway, what I meant was that in the system we were using, as in most games honestly, if a character gets hit with a sword for example and takes 5 hit points of damage... they don't get shoved back, stumble, drop their shield, lose a piece of armor or any other unfortunate occurrence as a result of the hit. Not particularly realistic but that's gaming - oh well. I like to throw some of this sort of thing into the mix, typically just in the narrative, for color and effect.

"You smash through the guy's guard, driving him back as you rain sword blows upon his shield then connect across his armored chest plate."

In this case a couple of NPCs who where hit but not killed - I sent them falling to their deaths from the blow. There are rules for the fall obviously but none to indicate they were made to fall from being hit in combat - unless I put some in place on that narrow edge, which I did and introduced them to the characters by letting a couple NPCs take a plunge.

"The walkway sways precariously under your feet, lurching with the flow of bodies upon it. Suddenly one of the enemy swings too wide and loses his balance, careening over the edge - quickly followed by the one you smashed with your mace, the impact sending him stumbling back and over to his doom."

Ah, different system context. I mostly play TFT & GURPS, both of which have explicit rules for those things (determining whether you are moved back, fall down, or have other soft effects from attacks, and what you have to roll to avoid a fall into any nearby pits in adjacent hexes, tripping on nearby bodies, etc), which I've also developed more detailed house rules for. Since I started with having such rules as a baseline decades ago when I was 11 years old, I have a mightily-reinforced bias that it's lame not to have rules for the chances of whether you can avoid falling to your doom when hit, and of course to actually roll the odds unless you just can't help yourself and really want to roleplay the "AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaagh!" scream. ;) (...and/or to roll a large handful of damage dice, and/or to make a splat sound-effect.)

Quote from: Harlock;913528And it was you who ignored the opportunity for a player to make it even more HER story. No one said it was a super ego. Egocentric and arrogant? Absolutely.

Who would you claim has the right to control NPCs? The NPC in this case was her brother, not seen since she was a kid, believed dead. At a later point in the plot, if everything went anywhere near where it should, the PC would discover the truth of her brother's disappearance - before she runs into him. If she had caught him in the saloon an entire block of the the plot would have been invalidated. Seriously, you wouldn't have been tempted to just fudge a roll and let him get away? If not, kudos to you! Really, you do indeed instil a great deal of integrity in your GMing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913529I have to throw this in. Several have mentioned that they have in the past or occasionally still do ,... fudge... when things go a weird/negative/unfortunate way in their game. Not always, not even sometimes, maybe not even occasionally but once in a while. Im willing to bet it happens more regularly than most would admit.

Ignoring a really lucky roll by a no-name grunt. Moving an encounter that no longer really makes any sense because of a decision the players made. Modifying what you planned earlier to account for a new development in the plot. Adding a bit of color and spice to an otherwise dreary situation to liven up a game that seems to be dragging for some reason.

Dishonest? Perhaps but I believe forgivable in the grand scheme of GMing. I completely understand those that disagree and respect their opinions. I have read a few responses that have given me pause and might well influence my style a bit in the future but not to a great degree. I will continue to use the approach that has given me and my players countless hours of fun for many many years. The hobby may have moved on without us, if Im reading the trend toward less GM intervention right, but Im still pretty content in the way we do things. Point taken on new players though, something Ill have to consider.

Even most of these I can agree with. Because most of them are relatively impartial. Changing a lucky roll? Not so much. And again, don't move the goalpost by excusing yourself:

Quote from: rgrove0172The hobby may have moved on without us

It didn't. People have always played where the GM was an impartial referee who did not choose sides to alter the outcome. And, people have always played the way you do, where the GM's story can usurp player agency.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913512I agree, for the most part needless bookkeeping, especially when you can get the same effect through a little creative narrative.

As long as describing the armour denting, rending, losing rings/plates/etc does not impede the PCs AC without an actual check. About the only time I check for item breakage is on a critical roll. Keeps things to a general rarity as it should be. I prefer after battle descriptions like "Well you won out this time. Your armour is a little more dented but intact. Same cant be said for the cheap chain mail the orc you cleaved was wearing."

Quote from: rgrove0172;913531Who would you claim has the right to control NPCs? The NPC in this case was her brother, not seen since she was a kid, believed dead. At a later point in the plot, if everything went anywhere near where it should, the PC would discover the truth of her brother's disappearance - before she runs into him. If she had caught him in the saloon an entire block of the the plot would have been invalidated. Seriously, you wouldn't have been tempted to just fudge a roll and let him get away? If not, kudos to you! Really, you do indeed instil a great deal of integrity in your GMing.

Who controls NPCs is usually indicated in the game rules. Obviously, Rule 0 can impartially change that. Who would I claim had the right? How does your group play it in the system you play? So instead of allowing the player character, through the impartial die roll, to discover her brother was alive, and roleplaying that shock, joy, awe, and even him revealing that back plot you have created and the new opportunities that can obviously present in a campaign; you chose your plot. Yes. I'd definitely allow that PC to keep her roll. Why fudge? Adapting to the zigs and zags is one of the great joys of DMing. My story, plot, whatever you want to call it, is secondary to the player's ability to influence it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9134601. PC is trying to convince a spooky old negro voodoo swamp woman to help her with a problem. The initial reaction roll for the old woman man sucks and she orders her to leave. The PC attempts to win her over and succeeds but only mildly. The woman doesn't throw her out but is hesitant to help this well-dressed, well-spoken, southern belle so soon after emancipation. The PC tries to use the plight of the young girl she is trying to save as leverage. I consider rolling to see if the old woman has ever had children, grandchildren etc or perhaps lost one - which might make her more prone to help and offer a positive modifier to the diplomacy roll - BUT instead I decide to just make it so. The idea that the old woman lost her only child years ago in the war and had carried the bitterness and sadness all these years makes for a good STORY - so I go with it, decide to really up the modifier and almost ensure the PC is successful, which with a nice fat +3 modifier, was.

In my case, I will have done the prep work for this NPC, so I know her personality, I know what makes her tick, I know her emotions and her motivations.  I'll also know how likely she is to react to a Southern Belle.  I always roleplay the NPCs.   I think that's the job of the GM, not to tell a story, but to Play the World.  So if the Belle convinces me (as the Mambo) then she in convinced.  If the outcome is in doubt, then we go to the dice, that's what dice are for - when you don't know the outcome.  Once the dice fall, they fall.  The Southern Belle has to come up with some other way.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9134602. The PC is trying to catch a train but runs into a randomly generated political demonstration near the station. The crowd prohibits her from making much headway. She uses a Contacts ability with the folk of New Orleans and manages to locate someone she knows. By random roll its a big burly dock worker who she has had acquaintance with. He is demonstrating alongside some of the workers there and notices her. She asks for help getting through and he obliges. Rather than actually have him roll to buffet his way through I just narrated the big guy back handing, knocking heads and pushing his way through the crowd and allowed her to get to the train. She rolled well enough finding the guy I just allowed him to be successful.

The history of the PC and NPC has already been established, the NPC in question is a big, burly dockworker helping a female, my dockworker is probably going to do the exact same thing, as fitting his personality and helping a woman in 1800's get through a crowd of his fellow roughnecks.  Does it make for an engaging Hollywood Scene?  Who gives a shit.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9134603. The PC and a NPC preacher are accosted by masked (KKK types) men while returning to the city on a dark road. They are threatening the preacher for his part in building a mission for negroes. They mean to beat him soundly, perhaps worse and order the PC to just go. She refuses and decides again, using her Contacts in the city, to 'name drop' a few prominent business men she knows that are rumored to support the masked men's organization. She rolls well and comes up with a couple good ones, highly respected men. She tells them they wouldn't  appreciate hearing that she was treated this way, regardless of who she chooses to have in her company and means to tell them immediately. "Play your little games boys but do so when a lady isn't present please!"   I roll for their reaction and it isn't overwhelming, they hesitate only but by the rule should continue. However, her brazen and brave response was so well roleplayed and actually surprising that I just let it work. They look at each other uneasily and finally one of them tips a hat apologizing then warns the preacher he wont have a skirt to protect him next time. They ride off.

I wouldn't even roll in this case.  Southern Belle who knows well-placed Southern Gentlemen in the 1870's facing Klansmen...and she plays especially smart by not denying them their violence (so as not to portray herself as a "nigger-lover", that could end up going especially bad for her) simply saying it wouldn't be appropriate to beat this man in front of her...of course they are going to let them go.  The player couldn't have done anything better in that instance, she thought of everything and handled it perfectly.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9134604. A mysterious man has been following the PC. She has spotted him once or twice but never gotten a close look. I know who the man is of course and have plans for him to become more of a factor in the game at a later time. His entrance now would complicate a running plotline however so I would rather he remain the mystery he is, his appearances serving only to foreshadow his eventual introduction. He appears across a crowded saloon floor and the PC notices him. She makes her way to try and catch him and he slips off. I roll for him and he makes a terrible roll which may well allow her to catch up. Her roll in turn is pretty good. If I don't intervene he is caught. Instead I give her a good look at him, more than I liked honestly (It allowed her a chance to remember she had seen him before as a youth, and did) but then brought a group of rowdy drunks between them to let him escape.

This is about as bad as it gets.  This is same player, the player who played so well, in fact in once case brilliantly up above?  This is the player that rolled really well, but only got a partial success?  You think this player didn't see your hand steering the result from a hundred miles away?  Of course she did.  Bren nailed it, it's "kids not telling Mom and Dad they don't believe in Santa anymore because they are smart enough to know their parents are really into it and so they go along for that reason."

Quote from: rgrove0172;913460This is very typical of the FUDGING we have been discussing in my game. A strict interpretation of the rules or perhaps the actual use of a game mechanic is neglected in favor of a result that rewards the players efforts, provides for a bit of drama/humor/horror/atmosphere and extends the storyline in YES WHAT I BELIEVE is a favorable direction.

The thing is, it's only because you thought the story was enhanced by this Southern Belle's success that you allowed her success to stand.

If you thought it would make a better story for her not to get to the train, then it would not have mattered what she rolled, or what her relationship with the dockworker was, or how strong he was.  You thought it made for a good story, so it happened.

If you thought it would make for a better story for the Voodoo woman to capture her and sell her to runaway swamp negroes in payment for the death of the mambo's son at the hands of whites, you would have done so, no matter what she rolled.

If you thought it would make for a better story to have the Klansmen kill the priest right in front of her and take her hostage threatening her to keep quiet or else, you would have done so, no matter what she rolled.

We know for a fact that it didn't matter what she rolled to catch that NPC.  That example is, literally, the textbook example of a railroad GM.  Player input does not matter, at all.

You have a smart player there, a player who by now is probably doing what TheGamingDen always talks about.  She's not playing the game, she's playing YOU.  She knows what you are like as a GM and so she plays smart, but also plays towards coming up with stuff you need to find plausible and engaging, because if she doesn't, it will be denied, no matter what she rolls.

The funny thing is, you don't know it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913486At the risk of sounding really old I will have to interject a comment here.

For years, decades really, almost every RPG you picked up included a section on "What is a Roleplaying Game".

Typically what followed was a definition of Game Master and Player, explanation of their roles etc. In everyone I can remember the GM was described as something along the lines of "Author", "Director", "Referee" etc. with the express responsibility of creating the gaming world, playing the part of the NPCs, refereeing the action and GUIDING THE PLAYERS THROUGH THE PLOTLINE OR STORY. Phrases like "Deciding which rules apply" and "determining the outcome of actions taken" were in every book.

Those sections seemed to favor the kind of approach I, and my friends, developed - and served us well for years. What I am reading here in this thread and through some reading across the net, is that the fundamentals of Roleplaying have changed. We, in our insulated little corner of the universe, didn't get the memo. If any of my players did, they failed to pass it on. I wont go into a long winded description of what I think changed but obviously the power of the GM has been curtailed to a great degree. The transgressions I am being found guilty of were far more commonplace years ago - of that I will testify as I played a wide range of games and with many different groups back in the late 70s, early 80s.

Perhaps that's what is so glaring here in this thread, my age, my gaming background, and a change in the hobby of which I wasn't aware. That being said, I don't plan to change anytime soon. Im too old and my players are too few and too accustomed and too content for me to even try.

No, it's that...
You failed to understand it then.
You still don't understand it now.

That's the problem with the whole "Roleplaying is creating a story" idea, it creates misunderstanding like the one you possess.

Real life contains people doing extraordinary things.  When this happens, people remember and tells stories about these people and their deeds for years, decades, centuries, and even millenia.

Roleplaying games give you the opportunity to be a person like that in a world unlike our own, or perhaps very much like our own.  The PCs do extraordinary things.  When this happens PCs and others in that setting remember and tell stories about these characters and their deeds for years, decades, centuries and even millenia.  The players of those PCs also remember and tell the stories in our world for years, even decades later, look at the Chirine thread.

The thing is, the stories they are telling are the type of story told by the veteran of Iwo Jima, or the goalie of the US 1980 Hockey Team.  They are stories created after the fact by people who were there or others passing the tale along.  The soldiers on D-Day or the 1980 US Hockey Team were not creating STORY, they were creating HISTORY, by living their lives.

The biggest mistake you have made is assuming that the purpose of a roleplaying game is to create a story, now, live, at the table.  Because you follow this incorrect assumption, then you see anything happening at the table for the purposes of creating a story to be a good thing.

In that, you are not alone, there are a great many people who consider themselves "roleplaying" who also spend at least as much time OOC concerned with the story as they do IC playing their PCs.

No, where you go wrong, and why you are taking so many elbows here is because everything you do points to you thinking that only YOUR story is the one that means anything.  A player can't have anything that you did not give.  They earn nothing and they risk nothing, that was not granted by you.  

Smart play vs. dumb play - it matters not, your whims determine the outcome.
Good rolls vs. bad rolls - it matters not, your whims determine the outcome.
Player's accomplishments vs. player's failures - it matters not, your whims determine the outcome.

You are literally the poster child of the Bad GM for The Gaming Den crowd, the StoryGames crowd and the OSR and traditional roleplayers.  GMs like you are the reason the New School creates rules to handcuff and hamstring GMs, to prevent the exact sort of GMing style you are describing.  Your #4 example of letting the NPC get away anyway has been used in lots of adventures and modules, "letting the Bad Guy get away" is the most hackneyed cliche of railroading that exists.  Seriously.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913483Anyway, what I meant was that in the system we were using, as in most games honestly, if a character gets hit with a sword for example and takes 5 hit points of damage... they don't get shoved back, stumble, drop their shield, lose a piece of armor or any other unfortunate occurrence as a result of the hit.

Depends on the game system. The vast majority of the games I play (e.g. some versions or variants of D&D, Runequest/BRP, Pendragon, WEG D6, Honor+Intrigue) do have rules for pushback, knockdown, or bashing. Those sorts of rules are (a) more realistic and (b) more interesting – both tactically and dramatically. The interesting part being well illustrated from situations like the one in your example.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913485There wouldn't have been anymore drama, they would have hung him. You can only make so many negotiation rolls afterall. I thought her attempt was cool enough and close enough to success to deserve a fudge.

Au contraire, a lynching is damn dramatic. Witnessing one while begin able to stop it is dramatic, extremely unpleasant, and quite possibly traumatic for the PC involved. I certainly understand why anyone might not want to go there or would be upset if things went in that direction. From my perspective, it's better not to even play the KKK lynch card if you really don't want to go there when the dice roll badly.

QuoteThe unfortunate premature discovery would have made, IN MY OPINION, for some negative outcomes. Yeah, I guess it is kind of selfish, egotistical or what have you - Ill accept that. I don't go in for the GM/Player coop thing where story is concerned unless the game is originally set up that way.

Don't allow a roll if you don't want the outcome.

As I said previously, in real life noticing the same person more than once isn't all that unusual. Actively doing something about it is. Not allowing the player to roll until the guy has shown up or hung around for a while longer to the point that it reasonably makes a southern belle suspicious – rather than just assuming lots of people will look at or follow her briefly because she is so belle-icious.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913486At the risk of sounding really old I will have to interject a comment here.

I'm probably older. But I tend to pay little attention to sections entitled, "What is a Roleplaying Game". Mostly I find that section useful only to give me sense of how the designer plays games or expects someone to play their game.

For me, plotline, is the initial situation along with whatever the NPCs have planned. Story is what we remember, retell, or that I write up after the session(s).

QuoteThose sections seemed to favor the kind of approach I, and my friends, developed - and served us well for years.

Yeah, lots of people play that way. A number of published scenarios or adventure paths were even written that way. WEG's Star Wars D6 game even talks about things in cinematic terms – not too surprising given that game is intended to replicate some of the sorts of things one sees in the chronologically first 3 films and some of the extended universe material.

QuoteWhat I am reading here in this thread and through some reading across the net, is that the fundamentals of Roleplaying have changed.

It's not a change. Some people have always played that way. It's just a way of playing that you don't seem to be familiar with.

QuoteI wont go into a long winded description of what I think changed but obviously the power of the GM has been curtailed to a great degree. The transgressions I am being found guilty of were far more commonplace years ago - of that I will testify as I played a wide range of games and with many different groups back in the late 70s, early 80s.

I've been playing and running RPGs since 1974. Different people have different styles of play and enjoy and dislike different things. That is not really new. Limitations on the DM/GM fudging have always been part and parcel of the GM as referee. A referee is supposed to create the setting, run the world, and fairly (no fudging) adjudicate the rules and determine outcomes. When the GM becomes an author, director, or other sort of auteur the temptation to fudge things to keep the train on the tracks or to prevent the players from diverging too far from the script occurs. Some of us really are OK with letting our players tear up the script, write their own dialog, and drive the train right off the tracks. Whether the train, once it goes off the tracks, then smashes through the curtain wall around the bad guy's citadel allowing them to rescue the princess (or prince) or goes crashing into a ravine and explodes is what we play to find out.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913486Im too old and my players are too few and too accustomed and too content for me to even try.

Still doubting you are older than me or Chirine...and hardly anyone who is alive today is older than old Gronan.

Personally I like trying new things when I GM.

• Soundtracks with music and sound effects
• Special or realistic scene lighting e.g. playing by candle or lantern light, giving the players tiny flashlights, etc.
• Strict genre games – including a scenario where the PCs were characters in a silent movie and the players had to act out or jot down their dialog on notecards
• Troupe style play where each player has half a dozen or more PCs
• Shared universes with rotating GMs
• Heavy in character (IC) perspective using secret notes, individual PC handouts, putting players into separate rooms, and using private chat to limit the out of character (OOC) information
• Moderate OOC perspective including cutaways the PCs can't see and flashbacks
• Pictures for every NPC and PC
• Strict player mapping a la Dungeon crawls circa mid 1970s
• Maps given to the players with tons of detail or no maps at all
• Miniatures with or without grids and theatre of the mind with no minis at all

Sometimes something new works better or provides a new, fun experience. Sometimes it doesn't. On the other hand, some people embrace the motto of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." As always, YMMV.

Quote from: daniel_ream;913505Just don't let them add anything to the world you didn't already decide was there, because then you're a filthy hippie storygamer.

Man, I'm really enjoying the collective shit-losing in this thread.

Hey, rgrove172, mention Vincent Baker.  Let's see if we can get someone to have an aneurysm.

Oh please.  Your gloating Schadenfreude aside, you're aware, as a filthy hippy StoryGamer yourself, that your crowd would have this guy's head on a pike just as fast as the OSR dudes, if not faster, if he pulled a "Bad Guy gets away" no matter what the outcome of Task or Conflict Resolution was. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;913535In my case, I will have done the prep work for this NPC, so I know her personality, I know what makes her tick, I know her emotions and her motivations.  I'll also know how likely she is to react to a Southern Belle.  I always roleplay the NPCs.   I think that's the job of the GM, not to tell a story, but to Play the World.  So if the Belle convinces me (as the Mambo) then she in convinced.  If the outcome is in doubt, then we go to the dice, that's what dice are for - when you don't know the outcome.  Once the dice fall, they fall.  The Southern Belle has to come up with some other way.

The history of the PC and NPC has already been established, the NPC in question is a big, burly dockworker helping a female, my dockworker is probably going to do the exact same thing, as fitting his personality and helping a woman in 1800's get through a crowd of his fellow roughnecks.  Does it make for an engaging Hollywood Scene?  Who gives a shit.

I wouldn't even roll in this case.  Southern Belle who knows well-placed Southern Gentlemen in the 1870's facing Klansmen...and she plays especially smart by not denying them their violence (so as not to portray herself as a "nigger-lover", that could end up going especially bad for her) simply saying it wouldn't be appropriate to beat this man in front of her...of course they are going to let them go.  The player couldn't have done anything better in that instance, she thought of everything and handled it perfectly.

This is about as bad as it gets.  This is same player, the player who played so well, in fact in once case brilliantly up above?  This is the player that rolled really well, but only got a partial success?  You think this player didn't see your hand steering the result from a hundred miles away?  Of course she did.  Bren nailed it, it's "kids not telling Mom and Dad they don't believe in Santa anymore because they are smart enough to know their parents are really into it and so they go along for that reason."

The thing is, it's only because you thought the story was enhanced by this Southern Belle's success that you allowed her success to stand.

If you thought it would make a better story for her not to get to the train, then it would not have mattered what she rolled, or what her relationship with the dockworker was, or how strong he was.  You thought it made for a good story, so it happened.

If you thought it would make for a better story for the Voodoo woman to capture her and sell her to runaway swamp negroes in payment for the death of the mambo's son at the hands of whites, you would have done so, no matter what she rolled.

If you thought it would make for a better story to have the Klansmen kill the priest right in front of her and take her hostage threatening her to keep quiet or else, you would have done so, no matter what she rolled.

We know for a fact that it didn't matter what she rolled to catch that NPC.  That example is, literally, the textbook example of a railroad GM.  Player input does not matter, at all.

You have a smart player there, a player who by now is probably doing what TheGamingDen always talks about.  She's not playing the game, she's playing YOU.  She knows what you are like as a GM and so she plays smart, but also plays towards coming up with stuff you need to find plausible and engaging, because if she doesn't, it will be denied, no matter what she rolls.

The funny thing is, you don't know it.

Respect. You get it. It's never one result, and it's never truly in the hands of the players.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913535In my case, I will have done the prep work for this NPC, so I know her personality, I know what makes her tick, I know her emotions and her motivations.  I'll also know how likely she is to react to a Southern Belle.  I always roleplay the NPCs.   I think that's the job of the GM, not to tell a story, but to Play the World.  So if the Belle convinces me (as the Mambo) then she in convinced.  If the outcome is in doubt, then we go to the dice, that's what dice are for - when you don't know the outcome.  Once the dice fall, they fall.  The Southern Belle has to come up with some other way.

The history of the PC and NPC has already been established, the NPC in question is a big, burly dockworker helping a female, my dockworker is probably going to do the exact same thing, as fitting his personality and helping a woman in 1800's get through a crowd of his fellow roughnecks.  Does it make for an engaging Hollywood Scene?  Who gives a shit.

I wouldn't even roll in this case.  Southern Belle who knows well-placed Southern Gentlemen in the 1870's facing Klansmen...and she plays especially smart by not denying them their violence (so as not to portray herself as a "nigger-lover", that could end up going especially bad for her) simply saying it wouldn't be appropriate to beat this man in front of her...of course they are going to let them go.  The player couldn't have done anything better in that instance, she thought of everything and handled it perfectly.

This is about as bad as it gets.  This is same player, the player who played so well, in fact in once case brilliantly up above?  This is the player that rolled really well, but only got a partial success?  You think this player didn't see your hand steering the result from a hundred miles away?  Of course she did.  Bren nailed it, it's "kids not telling Mom and Dad they don't believe in Santa anymore because they are smart enough to know their parents are really into it and so they go along for that reason."

The thing is, it's only because you thought the story was enhanced by this Southern Belle's success that you allowed her success to stand.

If you thought it would make a better story for her not to get to the train, then it would not have mattered what she rolled, or what her relationship with the dockworker was, or how strong he was.  You thought it made for a good story, so it happened.

If you thought it would make for a better story for the Voodoo woman to capture her and sell her to runaway swamp negroes in payment for the death of the mambo's son at the hands of whites, you would have done so, no matter what she rolled.

If you thought it would make for a better story to have the Klansmen kill the priest right in front of her and take her hostage threatening her to keep quiet or else, you would have done so, no matter what she rolled.

We know for a fact that it didn't matter what she rolled to catch that NPC.  That example is, literally, the textbook example of a railroad GM.  Player input does not matter, at all.

You have a smart player there, a player who by now is probably doing what TheGamingDen always talks about.  She's not playing the game, she's playing YOU.  She knows what you are like as a GM and so she plays smart, but also plays towards coming up with stuff you need to find plausible and engaging, because if she doesn't, it will be denied, no matter what she rolls.

The funny thing is, you don't know it.

I call bullshit on the whole post. I wouldn't have done any of those things and you don't kniw squat about the player. Funny thing is...well honestly its pathetically not funny.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913537No, it's that...
You failed to understand it then.
You still don't understand it now.

That's the problem with the whole "Roleplaying is creating a story" idea, it creates misunderstanding like the one you possess.

Real life contains people doing extraordinary things.  When this happens, people remember and tells stories about these people and their deeds for years, decades, centuries, and even millenia.

Roleplaying games give you the opportunity to be a person like that in a world unlike our own, or perhaps very much like our own.  The PCs do extraordinary things.  When this happens PCs and others in that setting remember and tell stories about these characters and their deeds for years, decades, centuries and even millenia.  The players of those PCs also remember and tell the stories in our world for years, even decades later, look at the Chirine thread.

The thing is, the stories they are telling are the type of story told by the veteran of Iwo Jima, or the goalie of the US 1980 Hockey Team.  They are stories created after the fact by people who were there or others passing the tale along.  The soldiers on D-Day or the 1980 US Hockey Team were not creating STORY, they were creating HISTORY, by living their lives.

The biggest mistake you have made is assuming that the purpose of a roleplaying game is to create a story, now, live, at the table.  Because you follow this incorrect assumption, then you see anything happening at the table for the purposes of creating a story to be a good thing.

In that, you are not alone, there are a great many people who consider themselves "roleplaying" who also spend at least as much time OOC concerned with the story as they do IC playing their PCs.

No, where you go wrong, and why you are taking so many elbows here is because everything you do points to you thinking that only YOUR story is the one that means anything.  A player can't have anything that you did not give.  They earn nothing and they risk nothing, that was not granted by you.  

Smart play vs. dumb play - it matters not, your whims determine the outcome.
Good rolls vs. bad rolls - it matters not, your whims determine the outcome.
Player's accomplishments vs. player's failures - it matters not, your whims determine the outcome.

You are literally the poster child of the Bad GM for The Gaming Den crowd, the StoryGames crowd and the OSR and traditional roleplayers.  GMs like you are the reason the New School creates rules to handcuff and hamstring GMs, to prevent the exact sort of GMing style you are describing.  Your #4 example of letting the NPC get away anyway has been used in lots of adventures and modules, "letting the Bad Guy get away" is the most hackneyed cliche of railroading that exists.  Seriously.

Do you guys not read the whole thread before posting? Seriously your off base on so many aspects I don't know where to begin. I hear what your saying yhough, ok..points,taken..I guess.

You wouldn't have done any of those?  You DID one of those, you denied the player the ability to catch the NPC despite what she rolled.  This entire thread has been about how the players are playing in YOUR game, and YOUR job is to move things along in a way that YOU find dramatically interesting.  You've pointed out again and again with your own examples that YOUR notion of a good story overrules the player's notion of a good story, or the outcome of the dice.  For 24 pages now, you've defended your absolute power to use the invisible hand to steer things to what you think makes a better story.

We're supposed to think that in these cases you wouldn't, because the outcomes I chose to pick were somewhat ugly?  I suppose you only use your powers for good, like Spiderman?  Oh wait, but you don't, and we know that already, don't we?

Quote from: rgrove0172;913546Do you guys not read the whole thread before posting? Seriously your off base on so many aspects I don't know where to begin. I hear what your saying yhough, ok..points,taken..I guess.

I've read the whole thread. And I've asserted nearly all the same things as the person you wrote this response to. And the more examples you've given, the more convinced I have become of those assertions. We're off on so many bases? Based on what you've posted regarding your stylistic choices, and a great many people responding this same way, if we truly are off base, then it stands to reason that you're not communicating your end of the debate very well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913539Oh please.  Your gloating Schadenfreude aside, you're aware, as a filthy hippy StoryGamer yourself, that your crowd would have this guy's head on a pike just as fast as the OSR dudes, if not faster, if he pulled a "Bad Guy gets away" no matter what the outcome of Task or Conflict Resolution was. :D

Why is everyone referring to this NPC as a bad guy?  He was a minor npc that would eventually bring info into the game, that's all.

Quote from: Harlock;913549I've read the whole thread. And I've asserted nearly all the same things as the person you wrote this response to. And the more examples you've given, the more convinced I have become of those assertions. We're off on so many bases? Based on what you've posted regarding your stylistic choices, and a great many people responding this same way, if we truly are off base, then it stands to reason that you're not communicating your end of the debate very well.

That could well be. I'm very close to crying uncle and getting back to my game.

Fun group.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913550Why is everyone referring to this NPC as a bad guy?  He was a minor npc that would eventually bring info into the game, that's all.

I think it's more like an idiom.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913497Both are valid aproaches to RPGing. For me the issue comes when the GM presents as taking one approach but is really taking the other.  For me when the dice are rolled that result is final. I use dice to resolve uncertainty. If I am certain of the outcome there is no need for a dice roll, I can just narrate what happens and the game continues. If a character wishes to climb a tree to get a view of the surrounding countryside I don't see a need to roll if it is an ordinary tree. If that same character attempts to climb an old dead tree in a howling rainstorm, then I will require a roll because it is far from certain that the climb will be a success.

Pretty much this.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913502The only way to truly be unbiased is not to decide at all but just flip a coin.

That word, "unbiased"? It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913520Recommendation to not roll noted and appreciated. I don't think that would help me out here though. There are some that are only balking at the 'fake die rolling' but most are hot because of the perceived superego of the GM who just pushes his way around the game. Your suggestion would only make that worse.

Glad you liked the recommendation.

As for the rest, nothing you do or say is going to make people who dislike the style you like to like the style you like. You aren't going to get to GM the way you want and also satisfy everyone else, many of whom want a different style of play.

If you feel like making some changes to your style, then make a few. See what happens. Maybe you and your players find a change refreshing. Maybe you don't. Big deal. It's neither brain science nor rocket surgery. It's just a hobby.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913535I wouldn't even roll in this case.  Southern Belle who knows well-placed Southern Gentlemen in the 1870's facing Klansmen...and she plays especially smart by not denying them their violence (so as not to portray herself as a "nigger-lover", that could end up going especially bad for her) simply saying it wouldn't be appropriate to beat this man in front of her...of course they are going to let them go.  The player couldn't have done anything better in that instance, she thought of everything and handled it perfectly.

Originally I was thinking of three options:
   (1) Minister is lynched
(2) Minister is beaten
(3) Minister is allowed to leave unharmed…for now
Given that a die roll was made and it wasn’t all that great, but the approach was a really good one, I was thinking (2) moderate success i.e. no lynching today but he would still be beaten. But you make a really good point that the southern belle playing into the cultural and gender stereotypes in a clever fashion probably obviates the need for another roll to determine success.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913529Ignoring a really lucky roll by a no-name grunt.

I often feel sorry for the no-name grunts. Even the ones who do have names. Let the poor grunt have his 6 seconds in the sunshine. In another 6 seconds he may fumble and fall off a ledge or some other PC will be along to shank him.

QuoteMoving an encounter that no longer really makes any sense because of a decision the players made.

I don’t bother moving the encounter. There are lots of reasons, terms for doing this, debates, etc. But honestly, coming up with another encounter is trivial (that’s one reason why I have fifty bajillion random encounter tables) so why sweat missing this one encounter?

QuoteModifying what you planned earlier to account for a new development in the plot.

That's the part of a table top RPG that most requires a GM. So of course we all do this. Though we may not all mean the exact same thing by "Modifying what you planned...."

QuoteAdding a bit of color and spice to an otherwise dreary situation to liven up a game that seems to be dragging for some reason.

I suspect that I worry less about this than do you. There are several reasons I don't worry too much about this.

• My players (your players, everybody's players) only hear and retain a fraction of any color or spice that the GM recites. And at the same time or even before I am talking they may add in color and spice of their own to the scene they see inside their own heads...and as long as their scene doesn't conflict too much with mine or the other players, everyone is probably happiest if they get to keep their own scene.

• Rather than add spice to a mundane scene, I'm more likely to just move on to the next scene which may be more colorful all on its own.

• The way I as the GM see the scene and feel about the scene is always going to be different than any given PC. One thing I notice is that the level of threat often is felt differently by the players than it is observed by me (who knows more about the threat). Often they have felt sufficiently threatened or challenged by a threat that to me, with my greater knowledge, seems rather paltry. Rather than spice it up, I find it better to let them have the easy (from my exalted perspective) win. And then remind myself that it probably didn't seem as easy to them as it really was.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913550Why is everyone referring to this NPC as a bad guy?  He was a minor npc that would eventually bring info into the game, that's all.

The following her made him seem like creepy stalker guy or obsessed villain rather than a loving family member separated by unkind fate and circumstances who, after all this time, is uncertain of his reception and is now diffidently waiting for just the right moment to introduce himself.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913486At the risk of sounding really old I will have to interject a comment here.

For years, decades really, almost every RPG you picked up included a section on "What is a Roleplaying Game".

Typically what followed was a definition of Game Master and Player, explanation of their roles etc. In everyone I can remember the GM was described as something along the lines of "Author", "Director", "Referee" etc. with the express responsibility of creating the gaming world, playing the part of the NPCs, refereeing the action and GUIDING THE PLAYERS THROUGH THE PLOTLINE OR STORY. Phrases like "Deciding which rules apply" and "determining the outcome of actions taken" were in every book.

Those sections seemed to favor the kind of approach I, and my friends, developed - and served us well for years. What I am reading here in this thread and through some reading across the net, is that the fundamentals of Roleplaying have changed. We, in our insulated little corner of the universe, didn't get the memo. If any of my players did, they failed to pass it on. I wont go into a long winded description of what I think changed but obviously the power of the GM has been curtailed to a great degree. The transgressions I am being found guilty of were far more commonplace years ago - of that I will testify as I played a wide range of games and with many different groups back in the late 70s, early 80s.

Perhaps that's what is so glaring here in this thread, my age, my gaming background, and a change in the hobby of which I wasn't aware. That being said, I don't plan to change anytime soon. Im too old and my players are too few and too accustomed and too content for me to even try.

Mmm, I don't think so. This forum is pretty full of venerable RPG players. I started about 1979, and I and many here are more often than not annoyed by "memo" attempts to claim there is a new & improved RPG style we ought to like. You just developed a certain style, and your original post has attracted a bunch of people who like to use dice & stick to results, and who would like to express & explain what they do and why.

As for the impression of a gruff reception, people here tend to be ones who like to do a bit of uncensored venting, having built up some annoyance at the various censorious overly-politically-correct forums out there.

Quote from: Skarg;913558As for the impression of a gruff reception, people here tend to be ones who like to do a bit of uncensored venting, having built up some annoyance at the various censorious overly-politically-correct forums out there.

And some of us are just naturally argumentative, cantankerous, and/or obnoxious. It's definitely a site feature.

Seriously rgrove0172, I'm not flaming in this post, just being honest.

The way you are describing GMing, is, from nearly every movement of roleplaying or storygaming considered a type of Abusive GMing.  Fudging to give players the victory because you think it makes a good story might be less egregious than fudging to give players a defeat or only partial victory, but the end result is the same: Whatever the outcome of the player's actions was, it was not determined by the rules of the game, even when the rules of the game gave a clear result, but by you.

You talked about newer games restricting the role of the GM - that is why.  That's why games that care about story force OOC decisions in resolution, to give that storytelling power, but to give it fairly.

When you play an Xworld game, you know what the results are going to be.  Success, Success with complication, Failure.
When you play a 2d20 game, you know that you can choose to sacrifice OOC points to give your character a great chance of success, but that also give the GM permission to use those points back against you.

In other words, everyone gets to Fudge to move the story, but the fudging is done via a secondary rules mechanic so it is fair and all know the rules.

Traditional roleplaying games have done what they always have done, simply given the rules for resolving actions, the PC control their characters, the GM controls everything else, with the idea that the GM is a far and impartial arbiter and doesn't place his thumb on the scale, doesn't use that invisible hand.

Whether or not to use that Invisible Hand, to steer or not to steer, is one of the topics that has been keeping the internet warm since the early days of Usenet and it still goes on.

However, having a player roll to catch an NPC, and an NPC's lousy rolls and a PC's great rolls indicating success, but the GM denying that verdict is, and I am being 100% serious here, a cliche of bad GMing.  As in textbook definition.  When people define railroading, that's a classic example they use.  It's literally a "Thou Shalt Not" kind of thing.

But, it really doesn't matter if the entire world does something different if it works for you and yours, and any skepticism people here might have about how well it really works if other options presented themselves to your players is immaterial.

But, just understand that most people find that type of GMing, either from the Roleplaying side or the StoryTelling side, anathema.  It's not that this type of GMing was ever the standard, it was not.  It's not that we all do this, we don't.  In fact, when people used to regale against GMs on various forums for doing exactly what you were doing, I thought they were exaggerating or just telling internet "third party stories that never happened to them", because it was so far beyond my experience as a player and GM that it was kind of hard to believe.

With a couple exceptions, you'll find that flames and blood from one thread don't usually carry over on a different topic.  So if there's anything else you want to talk about, and you can grok the idea that what you do isn't actually what everyone else does, then you'll find you might not need body armor for every post.

CrKrueger - D.O.N.G. Blackbelt.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913560The way you are describing GMing, is, from nearly every movement of roleplaying or storygaming considered a type of Abusive GMing.  Fudging to give players the victory because you think it makes a good story might be less egregious than fudging to give players a defeat or only partial victory, but the end result is the same: Whatever the outcome of the player's actions was, it was not determined by the rules of the game, even when the rules of the game gave a clear result, but by you.

Setting aside the question of the value or lack thereof of RPG movements in general or any particular movements in...well particular, the style of GMing that rgrove0172 describes is not uncommon. When the players in the game enjoy it, it's an example of the railroad train to awesome-town, variant of play. It's not my preference. It's not your preference. But I've had players for whom it was their preference. Which is fine for them though a little awkward for me if they sit down at my table.

QuoteWhether or not to use that Invisible Hand, to steer or not to steer, is one of the topics that has been keeping the internet warm since the early days of Usenet and it still goes on.

And discussion of the topic itself predates Usenet.

QuoteBut, just understand that most people find that type of GMing, either from the Roleplaying side or the StoryTelling side, anathema.  It's not that this type of GMing was ever the standard, it was not.

Most people on this site? Yes. But I don't pretend to know which styles are most more popular out in the wild either now or in the past. It's not something anyone has good data on.

As to whether it was a standard style, I have read published scenarios that advocated that (well told outright actually) the GM should force certain outcomes at certain stages in the scenario. I specifically recall one written back in the 1980s for Stormbringer that mandated the PCs getting captured by some bandits then stripped of their equipment. Rather than starting out with that situation which the GM would have to justify or sell the players on, the designer foolishly set up a bandit ambush that was supposed to result in the capture. I can only assume that the designer was on some serious medication when writing the scenario, didn't playtest it with live humans, or had never, ever closely observed more than one or two live RPG sessions in his life. Fortunately our GM at the time, despite being a fairly novice GM, was experienced enough as a player and wise enough as a person to ignore the scenario advice and just the bandits try their ambush and let our PCs hammer the bandits until the bandits failed a morale check. But I'm certain many GMs just followed the designer's advice as written and later internalized that style of play. I'd say that it was a not uncommon and recognized style of play that some people liked or tolerated and some other people really hated.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913529I have to throw this in. Several have mentioned that they have in the past or occasionally still do ,... fudge... when things go a weird/negative/unfortunate way in their game. Not always, not even sometimes, maybe not even occasionally but once in a while. Im willing to bet it happens more regularly than most would admit.

Ignoring a really lucky roll by a no-name grunt.
Moving an encounter that no longer really makes any sense because of a decision the players made.
Modifying what you planned earlier to account for a new development in the plot.
Adding a bit of color and spice to an otherwise dreary situation to liven up a game that seems to be dragging for some reason.

1: You may have bet wrong due to #2 below. The times I've nudged a roll are vanishingly small now. I did it more often early on and then realized it was a bad habit. At this point the only time I reserve the right to nudge a roll is when I realize I've screwed something up and need a quick patch. Rather than stopping the session and rewinding - which I have done.

2: Some of these things are not fudging. Some are.
a: This is and its just as frowned on as nudging a poor roll by the big villain, or turning a hit into a miss so low level PCs live, or giving your pet villain a few more HP so they can dramatically escape unstead of getting exterminated.
b: This is what some refer to as illusionism and is generally a bad thing as it means the players choice to go left instead of right was meaningless because no matter which direction the guards ARE there and not over elsewhere. The times its ok is when it makes sense that the NPCs would logically move to a new locale because of something the PCs did or didnt do. Or timing as the NPCs do their thing. Not moving the whole cults lair and building to 32ns street when it was going to be on 24th street just because the players went left instead of right.
c: This is not fudging. This is the DM reacting to the players action and keeping the world in motion. BX D&D even explains this in the rules continuation part of Keep on the Borderlands. Monsters if given a chance, if capable of, will learn, adapt, react.
d: This is also not fudging and is bog standard DMing.

Quote from: tenbones;913563CrKrueger - D.O.N.G. Blackbelt.

I think both of your dongs belong in the solo play thread. Probably starring in a YouTube video produced by Shawn Driscoll. :D

I think the point that many are making here is that is if you are arbitrarily deciding the course of the game based on your own internal narrative (or story) then rolling dice for anything is rendered meaningless.

The realization should be that the "game" is what emerges from letting the players play. Not from giving them a semi/overt narrative where you're deciding the metarules of the in-game universe and when/where they apply/don't apply as you see fit. That's essentially a form of "storytime".

You're removing their agency in lieu of your desire to create an outcome based on your preference. Or that's what it sounds like when I read it. I actually have a newb GMing my group right now that is doing this exact thing. He sets up a scenario and despite *any* roll we make at his behest, he turns it into a shitshow.

The point everyone is asking him - "Why make us roll at all then?" I would submit the same to you, if the outcome is already moving towards a direction of your deciding? That's a rookie GM mistake.

Quote from: Skarg;913558Mmm, I don't think so. This forum is pretty full of venerable RPG players. I started about 1979, and I and many here are more often than not annoyed by "memo" attempts to claim there is a new & improved RPG style we ought to like. You just developed a certain style, and your original post has attracted a bunch of people who like to use dice & stick to results, and who would like to express & explain what they do and why.

As for the impression of a gruff reception, people here tend to be ones who like to do a bit of uncensored venting, having built up some annoyance at the various censorious overly-politically-correct forums out there.

Guess Im in the right place then.

Quote from: Bren;913566I think both of your dongs belong in the solo play thread. Probably starring in a YouTube video produced by Shawn Driscoll. :D

Do I get a roll? Or will we just storytime it? Tell us what happens next! :)

Quote from: rgrove0172;913568Guess Im in the right place then.

Some disagreement is good for the site. The everybody singing the same songfests are boring and most of the people here either don't know the words to Kumbaya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA) or they couldn't carry a tune if you gave them a bucket to put it in.

Quote from: tenbones;913569Do I get a roll? Or will we just storytime it? Tell us what happens next! :)

You get a roll when I tell you that you can get a roll, Maggot! And not an instant sooner. Now drop and give me fifty!

Quote from: Bren;913570Some disagreement is good for the site. The everybody singing the same songfests are boring and most of the people here either don't know the words to Kumbaya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA) or they couldn't carry a tune if you gave them a bucket to put it in.

I posit that some disagreement is good for all of us. I know we've already decided that the median age here is rather on the, uh, downhill side of things (myself included), but I don't consider myself too old to learn a few new tricks. Also, you said dong. ;P

Quote from: rgrove0172;913543I call bullshit on the whole post. I wouldn't have done any of those things and you don't kniw squat about the player. Funny thing is...well honestly its pathetically not funny.

Maybe. Instead of stopping there, though, maybe this is a clue about part of what's going on in this thread. We haven't played in your games. But we have played with others and had some experiences your posts remind us of. What CRKrueger wrote about playing the GM resonates with me too in the context of GM's I've played with, even ones I usually mostly like playing with, when they've seemed to have a fixed result in mind and to be forcing things. The drunken crowd making the PC fail to find someone, or the convenient assassins & thief scene, seem like the kinds of things that I've experienced, where I start to read what the GM seems to like and respond well to, and anticipate what he/she intends, and see that the most effective strategy seems to be to use that read of the GM to then figure out what to say and how to say it so that they use their omnipotent cosmic forcing powers in my favor. Some of that may be unavoidable, but when it gets too thick, it really can turn the game into some social influence meta-game I'm usually not really wanting to play.

You're right that some level of pure invention, fiat and fudging is probably present in almost every game. But there are wide ranges in where we choose to set the dials on those, and how straight we are with our players and with ourselves about where we set those, and when we make exceptions to those settings.

You've changed the settings on your questions in this thread quite a bit, too. At first you were talking about skipping many of the combat rolls for NPCs, just colorfully narrating entire ambush attack results without rolling, declaring that an NPC was killed, and so on. More recently, you're quibbling about reaction rolls and whether some NPC had ever had a kid or not to influence the DRM for a reaction roll.

I think the point of being aware of what the settings are and which settings to choose is an interesting one. I think it's about what you find interesting and what you want to have be the focus of play, as opposed to the peripheral play, and as opposed to the game world setting, and the rules.

Ok, my last real comment on the original subject will be to remind everyone of the minimalist nature of my fudging. In my examples above only one of the situations was truly critical, many GMs wouldn't even include the rush to the train for example and others would simply have made up the old Mambo's mind for her. My games flow very much as most of yours do I am sure with the players choices and actions being foremost in determining where the story leads. When I yield to temptation and step in, its not often and typically doesn't change the game in dramatic ways. Now that's my opinion, you can form your own from my examples if you care to.

I completely understand where all of you, the loud and abrasive ones and the more thoughtful ones together, are coming from and you have given me a lot to think about. Our next session is Friday night - I may try to lean out of the God role a bit and see how things come out.

Now having said that, and at the risk of performing Forum Hari Kari, let me explain briefly perhaps why I have come off so adverse to your advise and so reactionary to your criticism.

In the summer of 1976 a group of friends and gamers (Avalon Hill Panzerblitz, D-Day etc.) discovered Chainmail and soon after D&D. We traded time as DMs but it soon was decided that I would lead in that role. Where my friends provided smudged graph paper dungeons and a handful of notes I showed up with a world. I haven't played as a player more than a half dozen times in all the years after. I am not bragging or trying to impress anyone but rather stating a fact when I relate that over the years my attention to detail, my descriptive narratives and the richness of the settings I presented brought me much local acclaim. "Wait till you play in this guy's game" was a comment often made to would be new players who happened along and more than one, those with previous experience, have commented they had never played in a game of my depth before. Detailed histories and backgrounds, illustrations, character voices, setting descriptions and dramatic combat narratives set my game apart it seems and I wont lie, I probably got a big head from all the attention.

It never occurred to me that despite all the work and recognized quality of my presentation that some element of my game might be off. Nobody ever complained, no one ever said anything, it just didn't come up. I have done many things in my life, finishing off by retiring as a FireChief after 22 years in the service and EMS. If someone had asked me a week ago what I was most proud of... somewhere very close to the top would have been my abilities as a GM. Its been that much a positive part of my life.

To come here, amid my gaming peers, and discover that what I was so proud of is viewed very differently and negatively by the overwhelming majority of my gaming brothers is a blow. Where my players 'children allowing their parents to continue the Santa farce' as some here have suggested. Did they resent my playing style but go along because it was the only game available? (Most of my life Ive been in gaming deserts with few options)

These are questions Im asking myself and will probably put before my players on Friday. Im a little nervous about the answer Ill get.

Thanks guys.

Quote from: Skarg;913558As for the impression of a gruff reception, people here tend to be ones who like to do a bit of uncensored venting, having built up some annoyance at the various censorious overly-politically-correct forums out there.

Seems a distressing number now. Some that didnt start that way. RPG.net, BGG, StackExchange, and on and on.

Another reason for the terse welcome is weved been over this or similar threads like three or four times just since I got here. Its akin to the designer forum over on BGG where we have to again and again explain to someone that their grand new idea isnt new or while it looks good on paper. Isnt playable in any sane way, or would be a bitch to produce. Or would cost more to produce than you can sell it for... and then get to watch the umpteenth implosion as the new guy goes ballistic.

At least here some of us are explaining the whys of this or that reasoning as to how some element of the OPs comments comes across as a little or alot off kilter. Or examples of simmilar play, agreements, and everything else. But it keeps rolling back to arguments and denials and more arguments.

Quote from: Skarg;913575Maybe. Instead of stopping there, though, maybe this is a clue about part of what's going on in this thread. We haven't played in your games. But we have played with others and had some experiences your posts remind us of.

So y'all are dogpiling the newbie because of your own unresolved gaming PTSD?

Have you considered going outside?  Maybe getting some fresh air?

Quote from: rgrove0172;913579These are questions Im asking myself and will probably put before my players on Friday. Im a little nervous about the answer Ill get.

Somewhere around 1998, while fiddling around with the Core Rules 2.0 CD-ROM, I discovered that Dragon Magazine back issues were available in .txt format. I had a pretty cushy job at the time with a very generous boss who did not mind me printing off reams of information on campaign building, world building, using props, soundtracks, character voices, etc. Somewhere, in all of that wisdom, there were articles suggesting a DM ought to poll his players once in a while; both as a group, and individually. Don't be afraid of the answers you might get. Be afraid of being too proud, too stubborn, or just too set in your ways to not respond to your players. As I watch the Olympics I cannot help but think that these individuals, even those setting world records, all think they can and want to do even better. My point is, even the best GM can be better, and who better to illuminate how than his players?

Quote from: rgrove0172;913579Thanks guys.

Don't thank us yet. Not everyone has responded and someone might still want to vent his spleen!

Quote from: rgrove0172;913579To come here, amid my gaming peers, and discover that what I was so proud of is viewed very differently and negatively by the overwhelming majority of my gaming brothers is a blow. Where my players 'children allowing their parents to continue the Santa farce' as some here have suggested. Did they resent my playing style but go along because it was the only game available? (Most of my life Ive been in gaming deserts with few options)

These are questions Im asking myself and will probably put before my players on Friday. Im a little nervous about the answer Ill get.

Thanks guys.

As a few of us have mentioned. If the players are coming back for more then you are doing something right. Something that they like. It may be because they too grew up with that style. They might hate say Krueger's style for example. Or it might be a factor of presentation. They like your performance. They might love my style and despise Tenbones.

I am still in the process of weaning a group off all the bad perceptions they had about DMs from a previous DM who did much like you do. Thich isnt the problem point. The problem was added textbook killer DM tricks. "Its not a good session unless at least one PC is bloodied or preferrably dead." argh! To them a very planned and structured adventure is the norm. To a point theyd likely be very comfortable with your style.

Quote from: Harlock;913587Don't thank us yet. Not everyone has responded!

Im waiting for Gronan to chime in. Should be special. :cool:

Quote from: Bren;913570Some disagreement is good for the site. The everybody singing the same songfests are boring and most of the people here either don't know the words to Kumbaya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA) or they couldn't carry a tune if you gave them a bucket to put it in.

I think the free speech approach to this site is what makes it work.  Sure we get perhaps more than our share of assholes, idiots, and trolls, but for the most part, people with a brains, experience, a sense of humor, an understanding of argument, and thick skin carry the day and push the idiots to the fringes.  The discussions aren't always pretty, but the end result is as honest as I have found, for the hobby, on the internet.  

QuoteOriginally posted by rgrove0172
It never occurred to me that despite all the work and recognized quality of my presentation that some element of my game might be off.

Kudos, rgrove, for sticking in there and perhaps learning something.  Your primary antagonists here aren't assholes (well...), idiots, or trolls.  You asked a question, and they shared their knowledge and experience.

...and forgive me if this comes off as condescending or pedantic.  It's the beginning of the friggin semester.

Quote from: rgrove0172;9134604. A mysterious man has been following the PC. She has spotted him once or twice but never gotten a close look. I know who the man is of course and have plans for him to become more of a factor in the game at a later time. His entrance now would complicate a running plotline however so I would rather he remain the mystery he is, his appearances serving only to foreshadow his eventual introduction. He appears across a crowded saloon floor and the PC notices him. She makes her way to try and catch him and he slips off. I roll for him and he makes a terrible roll which may well allow her to catch up. Her roll in turn is pretty good. If I don't intervene he is caught. Instead I give her a good look at him, more than I liked honestly (It allowed her a chance to remember she had seen him before as a youth, and did) but then brought a group of rowdy drunks between them to let him escape.

I think that this is the example that is most interesting and best encapsulates the difference between your approach and mine, even though we are both going into the game with the conscious intent of having a good story emerge from the gameplay.

In your version, events already seem to be laid out in your head. You speak of entire running plotlines that you have in place that you need to protect from the players. The PC can't confront her long lost brother now because that would ruin the big reveal/twist or whatever that you have planned for maximum dramatic effect. The NPC may not have been a villain, but we have all run into similar cases in which the GM does protect one of his villains via GM fiat in very similar manner.

In my version, I may use that same long lost brother NPC. He may have the same agenda as he does in your version. The difference is that I do not have a preordained plotline and I do not know how events will turn out. I would find it extremely boring as a GM to have the plot structure preordained and have to strike down via fiat any player action that threatened this structure.

Do you remember earlier giving us an example of how you had an amazing scene in mind where your bad-ass NPC would save the PCs asses? And then you hypothesized about how silly it would be if he showed up and found out that they didn't actually need saving? And as you gave an example of what the NPC's response to that situation might be, you admitted something to the effect of, "Well, I guess that wouldn't actually be that bad."

It's the same thing here. If the PC had, through use of her skills and choices, fairly confronted her brother as the dice told you she should have? It would have played out differently than you had planned, yes. But it would not have been that bad. There would have still been a ton of potential for drama and roleplaying and character building scenes and all that juicy stuff; it just would not have been exactly how you had envisioned it beforehand. And that's ok. That possible slight diminishment in potential from what you had in mind is far more than compensated for by actually letting the players have agency. It's my opinion that there is no drama without agency. There is no suspense when everything is preordained and the game is rigged.

This is what I mean when I suggest that you stop trying to manufacture the drama and start focusing on finding it where it naturally appears instead.

Now, this takes some improvisational skill, but I feel like you have that, or could develop it if you would relinquish your visions for preordained plot lines that must unfold in a certain way.

And again, your players may be entirely happy with how you do things now. I think pretty much all of us acknowledge that, even if we would be very put off by your style ourselves.

So there is very likely not a problem.

But you wanted discussion and that is what you are getting, right?

On the other hand if what you really want is not discussion but validation than you have probably come to the wrong place. Our opinions about your game are unimportant in comparison to the opinions of you and your players. It's your game after all.

Quote from: daniel_ream;913584So y'all are dogpiling the newbie because of your own unresolved gaming PTSD?

Have you considered going outside?  Maybe getting some fresh air?

Or you can't put the gloating Schadenfreude aside and have to wave the Team Story flag even though you'd hate being his player probably more than I would.

Seriously, Mr. Railroad here isn't exactly a kindred spirit, is he?

Quote from: rgrove0172;9134604. A mysterious man has been following the PC. She has spotted him once or twice but never gotten a close look. I know who the man is of course and have plans for him to become more of a factor in the game at a later time. His entrance now would complicate a running plotline however so I would rather he remain the mystery he is, his appearances serving only to foreshadow his eventual introduction. He appears across a crowded saloon floor and the PC notices him. She makes her way to try and catch him and he slips off. I roll for him and he makes a terrible roll which may well allow her to catch up. Her roll in turn is pretty good. If I don't intervene he is caught. Instead I give her a good look at him, more than I liked honestly (It allowed her a chance to remember she had seen him before as a youth, and did) but then brought a group of rowdy drunks between them to let him escape.

This is very typical of the FUDGING we have been discussing in my game. A strict interpretation of the rules or perhaps the actual use of a game mechanic is neglected in favor of a result that rewards the players efforts, provides for a bit of drama/humor/horror/atmosphere and extends the storyline in YES WHAT I BELIEVE is a favorable direction.

The mysterious man turns out to be the long lost brother of the PC, which reveal the GM has planned for later.

The thing is no one except the GM knows any of this. The player does not know the NPC is the long lost brother, or that these glimpses are foreshadowing, or that this is all part of a "running plot line" that will be compliczted if they meet now. From the Player's point of view there is no reason the big reveal should happen now. Or she could confront him, realize that he looks like someone she once knew, but have him say it is all a case of mistaken identity and brush her off leaving her still wondering. The GM probably overplayed his hand a bit with how intersting this skulking figure is. Certainly if you wish to preserve the Plot don't allow dice rolls that might go completely against it, unless you are willing to accept that result.

I still wonder why the dice were rolled if the results were already a foregone conclusion. Why not just narrate her making her way across the crowded saloon but him slipping away in the crowd?

Suppose for a moment that the player had been like mine and decided to draw her pistol and plug this creeper. If she had made an outstanding "to hit" roll would you still have had her miss to preserve the plot? Would you have allowed the hit but then fudged the damage to keep him alive and let him stagger off wounded? How far would you go to preserve the predestined plot in this case?

I would allow the player to shoot, roll the damage accordingly and if the brother is killed so be it. Maybe the player will discover his identity when she examines the body. The story takes an unexpected twist.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913620Or you can't put the gloating Schadenfreude aside and have to wave the Team Story flag even though you'd hate being his player probably more than I would.

Seriously, Mr. Railroad here isn't exactly a kindred spirit, is he?

Mr. Railroad...nice.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913641The mysterious man turns out to be the long lost brother of the PC, which reveal the GM has planned for later.

The thing is no one except the GM knows any of this. The player does not know the NPC is the long lost brother, or that these glimpses are foreshadowing, or that this is all part of a "running plot line" that will be compliczted if they meet now. From the Player's point of view there is no reason the big reveal should happen now. Or she could confront him, realize that he looks like someone she once knew, but have him say it is all a case of mistaken identity and brush her off leaving her still wondering. The GM probably overplayed his hand a bit with how intersting this skulking figure is. Certainly if you wish to preserve the Plot don't allow dice rolls that might go completely against it, unless you are willing to accept that result.

I still wonder why the dice were rolled if the results were already a foregone conclusion. Why not just narrate her making her way across the crowded saloon but him slipping away in the crowd?

Suppose for a moment that the player had been like mine and decided to draw her pistol and plug this creeper. If she had made an outstanding "to hit" roll would you still have had her miss to preserve the plot? Would you have allowed the hit but then fudged the damage to keep him alive and let him stagger off wounded? How far would you go to preserve the predestined plot in this case?

I would allow the player to shoot, roll the damage accordingly and if the brother is killed so be it. Maybe the player will discover his identity when she examines the body. The story takes an unexpected twist.

I'd have let her plug him. Like I said, I don't typically intervene for major points of conflict. I don't feel I railroad rather nudge them back on the road the chose but have started to move onto the shoulder a bit. Just my perspective though.

Not being facetious here, but why would you let her shoot him, but not merely confront him?

Personally, if she had went to shoot some guy she thought might be shadowing her, I wouldn't have stopped her, but I'd certainly raise my eyebrows at the notion, and make sure she realized the potential consequences of such an act.

You mentioned earlier that you decided the orcs were there.  Agreed you as GM are the universe.  That's your job.  You put the orcs there you decide if they are hungry.  It's a rail road when you don't let the players turn around and walk back.  

Now to senerios.  1, the voodoo woman.  Don't put the plot behind a skill chech gate.  

2. Two if she finds a guy who is big enough to get through the crowd, just let her get through the crowd.

3. Good role playing.  Decide it works.  No role needed.  You seam concerned that if you don't roll the players will know it's all just your whim.  In that instance you are respecting player agency.  They did something and it affected the out come.   (Unless of course it didn't, if the lynch mob was never going to hang the preacher no matter what the players did).

4. This one is difficult.  You have some points.  You think they are "I know best" I think they are more along the lines of "I am not prepared" so there are good reasons for you to not allow the contact.  But on the other hand this is clearly railroading.  The players can't have an adventure you won't let them.

Quote from: Headless;9136494. This one is difficult.  You have some points.  You think they are "I know best" I think they are more along the lines of "I am not prepared" so there are good reasons for you to not allow the contact.  But on the other hand this is clearly railroading.  The players can't have an adventure you won't let them.

I think the roll was for the wrong thing. The roll should have been "to get close enough to see and recognize at a later date". Some might consider that railroading, but my characters willingly embrace the plot presented to them.

Quote from: Omega;913589Im waiting for Gronan to chime in. Should be special. :cool:

"I gamed with Gary. You guys are overthinking things. Tongue my pee hole."

Quote from: Manzanaro;913644Not being facetious here, but why would you let her shoot him, but not merely confront him?

Personally, if she had went to shoot some guy she thought might be shadowing her, I wouldn't have stopped her, but I'd certainly raise my eyebrows at the notion, and make sure she realized the potential consequences of such an act.

Shooting him wouldn't have revealed his identity. That's what I was trying to avoid. Sure, could have her confront him and let him successfully keep his secret despite her being face to face but that's not less 'railroady' in my book than letting him escape. This is all conjecture, doesn't really matter. Unless someone is intimately familiar with the game up to that point and the plot going on behind the scenes, they cant comment effectively anyway. I get you guys are trying, and I appreciate it. Point taken, should have let her catch him in most of your opinions because the dice said so.

Quote from: Headless;913649You mentioned earlier that you decided the orcs were there.  Agreed you as GM are the universe.  That's your job.  You put the orcs there you decide if they are hungry.  It's a rail road when you don't let the players turn around and walk back.  

Now to senerios.  1, the voodoo woman.  Don't put the plot behind a skill chech gate.  

2. Two if she finds a guy who is big enough to get through the crowd, just let her get through the crowd.

3. Good role playing.  Decide it works.  No role needed.  You seam concerned that if you don't roll the players will know it's all just your whim.  In that instance you are respecting player agency.  They did something and it affected the out come.   (Unless of course it didn't, if the lynch mob was never going to hang the preacher no matter what the players did).

4. This one is difficult.  You have some points.  You think they are "I know best" I think they are more along the lines of "I am not prepared" so there are good reasons for you to not allow the contact.  But on the other hand this is clearly railroading.  The players can't have an adventure you won't let them.

The old Mambo wasn't a major plot point, a random NPC actually... PC asked if there was someone with Voodoo knowledge she could consult. I made up the old woman on the spot. I knew no more about her than the PC to begin with. Rolling seemed appropriate.

With the guy and the crowd, that's exactly what I did. I just narrated him bulling his way through. I thought I made that clear.

As to the Preacher, good roleplaying is great but most GMs and players I know wouldn't allow it to replace a standard mechanic in the game. If I roleplay a really cool attack can I forego the roll and just kill the guy? That's extreme but you get my point. Negotiation is a skill in this system and the PC is pretty good at it. Her good roleplaying lent itself to a positive modifier. I thought that was the right way to go.

On the mysterious figure one, yeah - I cant deny I yanked that away from the player the same way I would a razor blade from my 2 year old grandchild. That's actually a pretty good analogy... not that the player is a child (someone was abound to accuse me of suggesting that.) rather that in my opinion what they have discovered isn't good for them so in this case, I snatch it away.

Quote from: daniel_ream;913584So y'all are dogpiling the newbie because of your own unresolved gaming PTSD?

No. We're responding from our own contexts, only having text to rely on to fill in the information that isn't in the text. The sorts of misunderstandings and escalations that have happened in this thread often occur when people do that.

Quote from: Skarg;913665No. We're responding from our own contexts, only having text to rely on to fill in the information that isn't in the text. The sorts of misunderstandings and escalations that have happened in this thread often occur when people do that.

Damn aint that the truth. Ive got back an read one of my own posts after someone assaulted me after only to realize I unintentionally came across like a total prick.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913662On the mysterious figure one, yeah - I cant deny I yanked that away from the player the same way I would a razor blade from my 2 year old grandchild. That's actually a pretty good analogy... not that the player is a child (someone was abound to accuse me of suggesting that.) rather that in my opinion what they have discovered isn't good for them so in this case, I snatch it away.

Out of curiosity, is it only not "good for them" because of your requirement for the shadowy figure to be a factor later in the campaign? Like, the figure needs to make an impact in session 17 of the campaign, and 'allowing' him to be approached in session 11 would cause all of the carefully laid plot lines to unravel?

I think this method of awkward foreshadowing can cause more problems than it's worth. For one, there is the removal of what some term "player agency". The players have opportunities 'snatched', again, at an impartial whim - even if they'd have the ability, the successful die rolls, and the perseverance to find/track/chase the figure. Secondly, it can require the GM to do all kinds of social gymnastics to keep the 'prize' away from the player(s). The crafted plot must not be disturbed so any action that could potentially unravel it must be squelched.

What if the character did not stop his pursuit after the rowdy drunks interfered? What if they had some ability in urban tracking, or asked the proprietor or a customer nearby where the figure was, "which way did (shadowy figure) go?" Would you continue arbitrarily throwing up barriers to maintain plot purity? Would you eventually have to shut the player down with something, like, "he cannot be caught. end of encounter. move along".

I've definitely seen published adventures over the decades where GM's have been advised to make sure this NPC is not caught or killed by the characters at this stage. And it's an awkward and sloppy approach, IMO, that can cause GM-headaches and unsatisfying game sessions. I feel the same way about tightly created plots where there is no wiggle room for change nor influence from the characters' actions. It's a straight-jacket for the players and a gymnastics routine for the GM, who has to twist himself into knots to preserve his plots.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913662On the mysterious figure one, yeah - I cant deny I yanked that away from the player the same way I would a razor blade from my 2 year old grandchild. That's actually a pretty good analogy... not that the player is a child (someone was abound to accuse me of suggesting that.) rather that in my opinion what they have discovered isn't good for them so in this case, I snatch it away.

Ok, at this point, I'm starting to think this was nothing more than an elaborate troll account from the beginning.  

You say your statement isn't actually calling the player a literal child...that's true.
Your statement is calling the player a figurative child, one who cannot be trusted or expected to have their own motivations or experiences therefore Daddy has to intervene on their behalf.

In case that was a serious post and not an intentional troll, let's just break this down for a little bit...

This NPC is the PC's lost-lost brother.  

How is it that you came to the determination that YOU were the best one to determine whether the PC found out now or later would be good for HER.

I mean you don't actually think you really know that, do you?  Seriously?

You do know that what you really meant all along was that what they discovered wasn't good for "the specific preplotted series of events that you laid out in your own mind", therefore you had to intervene on behalf of YOUR story, not anything having to do with what was best for the PC or the player...don't you?

Come on man, at least have the stones to say something like "It's my campaign, it's my story, I'm going to run it exactly the way I want and my players show up every week, so go fuck yourself."

This whole fooling yourself into believing that you actually are the only person who can choose what's best for your players, man that's getting into a weird area, like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or maybe some kind of OCD control freak shit.

In any case, the only one you are fooling with it, is yourself.

Quote from: Bren;913571You get a roll when I tell you that you can get a roll, Maggot! And not an instant sooner. Now drop and give me fifty!

A GM after my own heart.

@rgrove0172 - don't sweat it man. As has been posted upthread, even the most experienced GM/ has something to learn. That should be the mantra for all endeavors. You should always worry when you think you've got it all down.

I think there's a LOT of unspoken things here that others have alluded to about personal experience etc. It could be that you've been playing with the same group for a long time, you and they just have evolved into that pattern. Or perhaps you're a confident GM and you have less-experienced players that don't know better? A mix of the two? A big thing for me was going to gaming conventions throughout the 80's and 90's and playing with *really* good GM's (Skip Williams in particular /namedrop). I'd been GMing for almost twenty-years and thought I was good. I pulled up as a player to Skip's table (and I didn't even know it was him) and he proceeded to give me a clinic. It was pure gaming joy, but I digress.

The idea is that *I* believe there is this baseline ground that many of us here have arrived at - we'll differ on some mechanical leanings, but there's a lot of us here that have come to understand that at a high-altitude, letting the players play is where the game actually is. Being a GM, great GM, is about making the setting, and the world be your character that interacts with the PC's - but the GAME is what emerges from those interactions.

Adopting that perspective will change how you GM. Try it.

Quote from: K Peterson;913678Out of curiosity, is it only not "good for them" because of your requirement for the shadowy figure to be a factor later in the campaign? Like, the figure needs to make an impact in session 17 of the campaign, and 'allowing' him to be approached in session 11 would cause all of the carefully laid plot lines to unravel?

I think this method of awkward foreshadowing can cause more problems than it's worth. For one, there is the removal of what some term "player agency". The players have opportunities 'snatched', again, at an impartial whim - even if they'd have the ability, the successful die rolls, and the perseverance to find/track/chase the figure. Secondly, it can require the GM to do all kinds of social gymnastics to keep the 'prize' away from the player(s). The crafted plot must not be disturbed so any action that could potentially unravel it must be squelched.

What if the character did not stop his pursuit after the rowdy drunks interfered? What if they had some ability in urban tracking, or asked the proprietor or a customer nearby where the figure was, "which way did (shadowy figure) go?" Would you continue arbitrarily throwing up barriers to maintain plot purity? Would you eventually have to shut the player down with something, like, "he cannot be caught. end of encounter. move along".

I've definitely seen published adventures over the decades where GM's have been advised to make sure this NPC is not caught or killed by the characters at this stage. And it's an awkward and sloppy approach, IMO, that can cause GM-headaches and unsatisfying game sessions. I feel the same way about tightly created plots where there is no wiggle room for change nor influence from the characters' actions. It's a straight-jacket for the players and a gymnastics routine for the GM, who has to twist himself into knots to preserve his plots.

It is a sloppy and awkward approach if you plan it that way. I allowed the mysterious figure to be glimpsed a few times with no intension of allowing a meeting. It was just a bit of interesting color, like describing a particularly impressive sunrise over the distant mountains or a particularly thick fog or something when the players are just traveling. My mistake perhaps, the mention got too much attention and invited a reaction from the player I didn't expect. Easy enough to avoid, or so thought I. I can see how you guys think I cheated the PC.

Its one of those moments when you plan a NPC for a certain role, perhaps as a patron for several missions or something and then by a slip of the way you present them in dialogue or something the players hate them, kill them or whatever. Not something you relish as a GM and sometimes are tempted to 'make right' or avoid altogether if you can.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913682Ok, at this point, I'm starting to think this was nothing more than an elaborate troll account from the beginning.  

You say your statement isn't actually calling the player a literal child...that's true.
Your statement is calling the player a figurative child, one who cannot be trusted or expected to have their own motivations or experiences therefore Daddy has to intervene on their behalf.

In case that was a serious post and not an intentional troll, let's just break this down for a little bit...

This NPC is the PC's lost-lost brother.  

How is it that you came to the determination that YOU were the best one to determine whether the PC found out now or later would be good for HER.

I mean you don't actually think you really know that, do you?  Seriously?

You do know that what you really meant all along was that what they discovered wasn't good for "the specific preplotted series of events that you laid out in your own mind", therefore you had to intervene on behalf of YOUR story, not anything having to do with what was best for the PC or the player...don't you?

Come on man, at least have the stones to say something like "It's my campaign, it's my story, I'm going to run it exactly the way I want and my players show up every week, so go fuck yourself."

This whole fooling yourself into believing that you actually are the only person who can choose what's best for your players, man that's getting into a weird area, like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or maybe some kind of OCD control freak shit.

In any case, the only one you are fooling with it, is yourself.

Err...ok, I guess. I did sort of admit to what you are referring to, several times. The difference being in the degree and frequency of it. The character's brother was a non factor in the current adventure but was to be the center figure in a possible future one. I liked the idea of once that future adventure manifested, if indeed it did, the Player would remember seeing her brother poking around months before. It was a story element only, not anything what was intended to affect what was going on currently. If she had caught him it wouldn't have been a disaster but would have lessoned some of the cool factor in that future adventure. Yeah, yeah, yeah, MY COOL FACTOR - ok.. whatever, like no GM every plans an adventure with some cool, Hollywood type moments for a little Wow moment. So sue me. As it was she only got a glimpse of the guy and he runs off to be met again later one. Terrible tragedy and absolutely ruined the game for her.

Quote from: tenbones;913684A GM after my own heart.

@rgrove0172 - don't sweat it man. As has been posted upthread, even the most experienced GM/ has something to learn. That should be the mantra for all endeavors. You should always worry when you think you've got it all down.

I think there's a LOT of unspoken things here that others have alluded to about personal experience etc. It could be that you've been playing with the same group for a long time, you and they just have evolved into that pattern. Or perhaps you're a confident GM and you have less-experienced players that don't know better? A mix of the two? A big thing for me was going to gaming conventions throughout the 80's and 90's and playing with *really* good GM's (Skip Williams in particular /namedrop). I'd been GMing for almost twenty-years and thought I was good. I pulled up as a player to Skip's table (and I didn't even know it was him) and he proceeded to give me a clinic. It was pure gaming joy, but I digress.

The idea is that *I* believe there is this baseline ground that many of us here have arrived at - we'll differ on some mechanical leanings, but there's a lot of us here that have come to understand that at a high-altitude, letting the players play is where the game actually is. Being a GM, great GM, is about making the setting, and the world be your character that interacts with the PC's - but the GAME is what emerges from those interactions.

Adopting that perspective will change how you GM. Try it.

I will. I watched a video last night by a gamer named Runeslinger on his Google+ page. He was having a discussion with another gamer regarding a specific game that actually encouraged players writing a sort of future plans document that was instrumental in their character's development. I wasn't too interested in that particularly but part of their discussion surrounded the presence of STORY in a game. Some play the game and then consider their recalling what happened as a story. Some play the game with the very intent of making a STORY. This is a profound difference and I believe paramount in the clash Ive witnessed here. To a group that doesn't have STORY as an objective and priority, my actions are criminal. Im being terribly unbiased, unfair and stealing the players free will. To a group that at its core desires to create a STORY through play, where the story is more or less the priority, my actions are not only tolerable but expected, in order to keep the current plot on track.

Big difference in approach and therefore perception of a GM taking liberties.

Whose story are you telling?

The way I see it that is the question.   The tenique doesn't really matter.   No dice all dice and tables, dice that I ignore sometimes, doesn't matter.  

Whose story are you telling?   In every answer you seam to be saying "I am telling my story, of course."

Ok, I will go along for the ride but after a couple of sessions I will get board of your story and want to tell my own.  Or the ideal of course is to be an equal part of telling our story together.

If your players can do that great, I don't care about the mechanical or literary tools you use.

If not I as a player would end up very frustrated playing in that game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913690Err...ok, I guess. I did sort of admit to what you are referring to, several times. The difference being in the degree and frequency of it. The character's brother was a non factor in the current adventure but was to be the center figure in a possible future one. I liked the idea of once that future adventure manifested, if indeed it did, the Player would remember seeing her brother poking around months before. It was a story element only, not anything what was intended to affect what was going on currently. If she had caught him it wouldn't have been a disaster but would have lessoned some of the cool factor in that future adventure. Yeah, yeah, yeah, MY COOL FACTOR - ok.. whatever, like no GM every plans an adventure with some cool, Hollywood type moments for a little Wow moment. So sue me. As it was she only got a glimpse of the guy and he runs off to be met again later one. Terrible tragedy and absolutely ruined the game for her.

You still don't get the point.  Maybe it wasn't a terrible tragedy, maybe it didn't ruin the game, maybe everything will turn out as you have foreseen.  The idea is you decided what would be best for your player and threw out her success because you know best.  Just because things turned out for the best doesn't mean you didn't cheat the player.

You're also not getting the point that just because something ends up diverging from your plot, even in a major way, doesn't mean something bad has happened.  It just means the PCs are creating their own history in your world by living their lives, like we all do.

I mentioned earlier that making sure the NPC gets away is a well-known cliche, well it's also an old canard that "no Plot survives contact with the PCs".  That saying is meant to illustrate that GMing a lot of times is simplying playing the game and seeing what happens.

You've put so much work into the prep for your campaign and are so personally invested in the story you want to tell, that you're afraid to let the PCs be PCs, you see them going off script as being a monkey in the wrench instead of participating in the story or in fact, creating their own.

You enjoy the story-telling aspect so much, that you solo-RP in order to exercise that part of your brain.  Next time you GM with players, why don't you try letting go, letting the PC make their own way in the world.  There's lots of articles on this approach but this is a good one (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots).  Take a look at it.

You might find there's a whole other hobby out there that might be fun, although different then GM As Storyteller.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913642Mr. Railroad...nice.

I think it is a fitting moniker, actually, given the information you have provided, but I don't think you should take too much offense at it.

In fact, I sometimes think "railroad" is a big blanket term that is laden with more negative connotation than it deserves.

I have some players who prefer railroads if they can get them.  They like story.  They don't want to create the story (so they're not story gamers), but they don't want the story to go "wrong" either.  They just want to participate, or spectate, almost like they're watching a movie.  Gronan, in another thread, has dubbed these types of players "Disney Princesses," and I think that moniker fits as well.  While I don't really care for this style of play, I find it hard to criticize a player for enjoying what they enjoy.  It is harder to criticize a passive player who just want's to hang out with friends and enjoy the ride then it is to criticize an active GM who is doing most of the work in creating the experience.  

I also think that some of the "best published RPG adventures ever written" have some strong railroading elements.  I'm not talking about Dragonlance here, but The Enemy Within, The Red Hand of Doom, and The Great Pendragon Campaign - all of these mix sandboxing and railroading in various degrees.

All GMs do some "railroading" when they invent settings, scenarios, encounters, details, NPC plots and motives, etc. Creating a world and everything in it is an act of limiting PC choice and creating a very complex set of options.  However, PC action and dice rolls should be unpredictable variables that change the chemistry and structure of that constructed complexity.

The problem with railroading, when it goes too far, is that the "game" part of an RPG is (or should be) largely about PC choices, and consequences (good and bad) for those choices. Its why we have rules and dice. I am a big advocate of GM authority, but if you over-extend your reach eliminating choice, consequence, cause, effect and uncertainty, then you are robbing yourself and your players of active participation in a living, breathing world.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913692I will. I watched a video last night by a gamer named Runeslinger on his Google+ page. He was having a discussion with another gamer regarding a specific game that actually encouraged players writing a sort of future plans document that was instrumental in their character's development. I wasn't too interested in that particularly but part of their discussion surrounded the presence of STORY in a game. Some play the game and then consider their recalling what happened as a story. Some play the game with the very intent of making a STORY. This is a profound difference and I believe paramount in the clash Ive witnessed here. To a group that doesn't have STORY as an objective and priority, my actions are criminal. Im being terribly unbiased, unfair and stealing the players free will. To a group that at its core desires to create a STORY through play, where the story is more or less the priority, my actions are not only tolerable but expected, in order to keep the current plot on track.

Big difference in approach and therefore perception of a GM taking liberties.

Actually, no.  In most groups who gather to play a "roleplaying game" with the goal of using it to create a Story, the StoryTelling is collaborative and there are elaborate rules in place to specifically prevent your type of GMing.  Your style of GMing is "we're all here to play in the GM's Story".  The only reason your players are even there really is to fulfill their roles in your story.  They are there to entertain you, in the way that you specify and require, and you will bend or break the rules as need be to get them to play their roles.  You're more of a musical conductor than a GM.  You can't do it without them, but they must follow your lead.  The powers of the GM make sure that you can ensure they do.  Really, your GMing is simply a more advanced version of your solo play.

To a group that wants to create Story through play, your method is every bit as anathema to them as it is to those who aren't playing to create a story at all.  You don't believe me, start a thread like this talking about your methods with specific examples on StoryGames.com.  You won't need body armor, but you'll find little acceptance.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913687It is a sloppy and awkward approach if you plan it that way. I allowed the mysterious figure to be glimpsed a few times with no intension of allowing a meeting. It was just a bit of interesting color, like describing a particularly impressive sunrise over the distant mountains or a particularly thick fog or something when the players are just traveling. My mistake perhaps, the mention got too much attention and invited a reaction from the player I didn't expect. Easy enough to avoid, or so thought I. I can see how you guys think I cheated the PC.

Unfortunately, a mysterious figure stands out to most players I know far more than the terrain or the weather. Most would be compelled to investigate this figure, either by shadowing them or confronting them. And if a 'barrier' (natural or by GM-whim) impeded them, it would only strengthen their determination. IMO, snatching away opportunities only stokes the fire of determination more.

An impressive sunrise is not a potential assassin, stalking a character for the most opportune time to strike. Or a long-lost relative, or a potential patron, or a thief, or an enemy. These suspicions will, likely, be raised in the players' minds, and I'd expect that most would want reveal the mystery before it turns out that it could be a risk to their characters' lives.

QuoteIts one of those moments when you plan a NPC for a certain role, perhaps as a patron for several missions or something and then by a slip of the way you present them in dialogue or something the players hate them, kill them or whatever. Not something you relish as a GM and sometimes are tempted to 'make right' or avoid altogether if you can.

Well, it happens. Players are unpredictable and will take actions that either make no sense, or have serious repercussions. And, IMO, that's something that a GM should let play out. For one, because the unexpected results can lead to drama/story/events that do benefit the play experience, or 'story'. Sometimes it can be funny as hell.

I think that loosening up as a GM and letting events go where they may really makes a GM's life easier. 'Storylines' might end, and NPCs might not end up with the role that was originally intended. Or NPCs might get killed off - hopefully no one's brother. The unexpected is going to happen, and that surprise is usually to the benefit of an Rpg campaign.

Wow, I'm impressed.  All this when the answer is:  Are you and your players having fun?  If the answer is Yes, then all the pontificating about how many gaming  angels can dance on the face of a die, how various people's supersenses let them KNOW when you are doing it wrong,  and why are you still abusing your players is rubbish.  Could you be having more fun?  Maybe.  It's telling that you do want to do better, but the answer is to talk to your players about what they want, not troll the people who think their way is the one true way (it becomes trolling once you realize their style doesn't work for you and you continue.  That said, good job with it, it's been fun to read).  I'm closer in style to them than you appear to be, but that's just what works for me and my various players and I've had players it doesn't work for.  Nearly every time I've had a problem in a game the solution was to talk to my players and communicate both what I want and what they want out of the experience.  Vice versa when I'm the player, I talk to the GM.  I'm more than happy to run or play in a 98% (or GODS FORBID a 75%) great game without losing my mind that it's not perfect, if others aren't, that is their problem, not mine.

I mentioned earlier that your players are playing YOU and not the game.  You apparently don't think your players know that you fudge like Nestle and that they're playing in your story...they do.  So what do you think is going to happen when you toss them a mysterious figure?  You basically put a sign over the guy's head that said "Your StoryTeller designates this NPC as Dramatically Relevant".

That's what happens when you prep a Plot so that "Brother is going to visible to sister HERE, he will disappear, so that when he reappears HERE, the idea that he was following her for a while will be revealed.

If you instead prepped a Situation "The PCs long-lost brother is following her." then that information could have come up organically at any time the PC stated she was looking around to see if she was being followed, or any time she made a good perception check, etc...  If she detected it, then maybe she chases him, maybe not.  If she doesn't detect him, no big.  

At this point though, your players have been trained to play in Your Story.  So if you put a mysterious figure there, it's not just a mysterious figure because 1870's New Orleans at night might be full of mysterious figures, it's there As Part of the Plot, and so must be engaged with.  There's only so much subtlety with which the Matador can wave the red flag.

Quote from: Headless;913695Whose story are you telling?

The way I see it that is the question.   The tenique doesn't really matter.   No dice all dice and tables, dice that I ignore sometimes, doesn't matter.  

Whose story are you telling?   In every answer you seam to be saying "I am telling my story, of course."

Ok, I will go along for the ride but after a couple of sessions I will get board of your story and want to tell my own.  Or the ideal of course is to be an equal part of telling our story together.

If your players can do that great, I don't care about the mechanical or literary tools you use.

If not I as a player would end up very frustrated playing in that game.

I guess my answer woukd be our story of course. I set the overall plot, the players determine the how's and whys.

The story is a group of heroes facing the dreaded liche at his lair in the swamp. How the go about it is their choice but they kinda need to go after the liche. Otherwise we have to come up with another game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913705I guess my answer woukd be our story of course. I set the overall plot, the players determine the how's and whys.

The story is a group of heroes facing the dreaded liche at his lair in the swamp. How the go about it is their choice but they kinda need to go after the liche. Otherwise we have to come up with another game.

With nearly every example, you've demonstrated the exact opposite of this.  Unless there's a hundred examples of you doing something completely different you for some reason chose not to use, you know exactly the steps by which the PCs will unravel the mystery and engage the Lich and you ignore any die roll or invalidate any PC action that diverts from this path.

Quote from: Brander;913703Wow, I'm impressed.  All this when the answer is:  Are you and your players having fun?  If the answer is Yes, then all the pontificating about how many gaming  angels can dance on the face of a die, how various people's supersenses let them KNOW when you are doing it wrong,  and why are you still abusing your players is rubbish.  Could you be having more fun?  Maybe.  It's telling that you do want to do better, but the answer is to talk to your players about what they want, not troll the people who think their way is the one true way (it becomes trolling once you realize their style doesn't work for you and you continue.  That said, good job with it, it's been fun to read).  I'm closer in style to them than you appear to be, but that's just what works for me and my various players and I've had players it doesn't work for.  Nearly every time I've had a problem in a game the solution was to talk to my players and communicate both what I want and what they want out of the experience.  Vice versa when I'm the player, I talk to the GM.  I'm more than happy to run or play in a 98% (or GODS FORBID a 75%) great game without losing my mind that it's not perfect, if others aren't, that is their problem, not mine.

Shh, the adults are talking.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913687It is a sloppy and awkward approach if you plan it that way. I allowed the mysterious figure to be glimpsed a few times with no intension of allowing a meeting. It was just a bit of interesting color, like describing a particularly impressive sunrise over the distant mountains or a particularly thick fog or something when the players are just traveling. My mistake perhaps, the mention got too much attention and invited a reaction from the player I didn't expect. Easy enough to avoid, or so thought I. I can see how you guys think I cheated the PC.

Its one of those moments when you plan a NPC for a certain role, perhaps as a patron for several missions or something and then by a slip of the way you present them in dialogue or something the players hate them, kill them or whatever. Not something you relish as a GM and sometimes are tempted to 'make right' or avoid altogether if you can.

1: First rule of DMing. NEVER describe something as "interesting" unusual" "odd" etc if you are not prepared to have at least one player, possibly all of them, lock on that and hie off into the sunset to investigate why the sun looked impressive over that particular mountain range. Or to suddenly hault travel or actually reverse and vacate the vicinity of oddly thick fog. 40+ years of DMing have taught us this. Gronan has related at least one tale of Gary describing this or that little detail on something and the whole adventure grinding to a hault as they focused on it. And then theres the first TPK accomplished by none other than the first bag of holding.

2: Having encounters not go as planned is par for the course in RPing. Which is why I have contingencies, backups, or better yet. Dont plan ahead much at all. In fact I set up NPCs with the expectation that the party is going to either totally miss them, or possibly the encounter going in weird directions. The players cant go off the rails because there never were any. They are though aware that in my sessions that the world is in motion and if they do, or dont do X then that very likely can and will effect what happens later. It might be as simple as not investigating the enemy camp more thoroughly due to caution and thus the NPC that they might have saved and gotten into the group is now a cloak. The group was miffed that they lost the NPC. But they appreciated that things had moved without them and that their actions had a real impact good or bad on the adventure.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913692I will. I watched a video last night by a gamer named Runeslinger on his Google+ page. He was having a discussion with another gamer regarding a specific game that actually encouraged players writing a sort of future plans document that was instrumental in their character's development. I wasn't too interested in that particularly but part of their discussion surrounded the presence of STORY in a game. Some play the game and then consider their recalling what happened as a story. Some play the game with the very intent of making a STORY. This is a profound difference and I believe paramount in the clash Ive witnessed here. To a group that doesn't have STORY as an objective and priority, my actions are criminal. Im being terribly unbiased, unfair and stealing the players free will. To a group that at its core desires to create a STORY through play, where the story is more or less the priority, my actions are not only tolerable but expected, in order to keep the current plot on track.

Big difference in approach and therefore perception of a GM taking liberties.

This is what I mean when I say theres a huge variety of styles. Even amongst the more storytelling circles theres division on the when. where, and particularly how of it. Theres also endless variants, hybrids, overlaps, omissions, and whatnod between all. And one groups good is another groups bad.

Krueger wasnt joking or exaggerating when he mentioned a whole industry and style of RPG was created specifically to combat your style of play. And theres another to meant to combat my style of freeform on the fly play. And another to combat module play, and so on ad nausium because these loons CAN show you on the doll where the bad DM touched them and now they have to save us all from the bad DMs because all DMs are obviously bad and why cant you too see the truth of the bad DM? Why Ron whyyyyyyyy cant they seeeeeeee?

ahem.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913706With nearly every example, you've demonstrated the exact opposite of this.  Unless there's a hundred examples of you doing something completely different you for some reason chose not to use, you know exactly the steps by which the PCs will unravel the mystery and engage the Lich and you ignore any die roll or invalidate any PC action that diverts from this path.

BINGO! Give the man a cigar. In hundreds of hours of playing the necessity of stepping in and altering some resolution occurs .01% of the time. Its not as if we sit back while I narrate a tale for several hours on Friday nights. The players weave the tale in the general direction I have indicated. I react, improvise, adjust and follow along like every other GM Ive ever heard of. Once in a while something pops up that goes counter to where, as a group, we have kind of accepted the story is going. (ie. the Liche Lair) I nudge it back if necessary and if the alternative is too far off base.. most of the time even deviations are welcome, but theres a limit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913707Shh, the adults are talking.

Typical, lean ever so slightly in my favor and get trashed.

Quote from: Madprofessor;913697In fact, I sometimes think "railroad" is a big blanket term that is laden with more negative connotation than it deserves.

Its more that, like with every damn thing in gaming and even outside gaming. Some mental reject HAS to take it to the Nth degree and so Realroad means... Yep, you guessed it... Everything on earth. And the same has been done to the term "sandbox". "Keep on the borderlands is a railroad! The Dragonlance modules are a sandbox!

end rant.

Quote from: Omega;913715This is what I mean when I say theres a huge variety of styles. Even amongst the more storytelling circles theres division on the when. where, and particularly how of it. Theres also endless variants, hybrids, overlaps, omissions, and whatnod between all. And one groups good is another groups bad.

Krueger wasnt joking or exaggerating when he mentioned a whole industry and style of RPG was created specifically to combat your style of play. And theres another to meant to combat my style of freeform on the fly play. And another to combat module play, and so on ad nausium because these loons CAN show you on the doll where the bad DM touched them and now they have to save us all from the bad DMs because all DMs are obviously bad and why cant you too see the truth of the bad DM? Why Ron whyyyyyyyy cant they seeeeeeee?

ahem.

Awesome analogy, love it. But I will admit, Ive had my own experiences, (with players rather than GMs.) that have helped form neurosis and quirks Ill never get rid of. If someone where to start a thread defending those, Id lose my shit too.

Yesterday

Quote from: rgrove0172Im going to throw in a few more examples for comment.

Today

Quote from: rgrove0172;913659Unless someone is intimately familiar with the game up to that point and the plot going on behind the scenes, they cant comment effectively anyway.

So why keep responding, why keep posting, and why keep inviting commentary? Do you see what those two statements above look like? It looks like sour grapes.

Quote from: K Peterson;913678Would you eventually have to shut the player down with something, like, "he cannot be caught. end of encounter. move along".

If I was firmly wedded to the notion of X definitely not happening now I would. I've had a GM do that in our old Star Trek campaign. Frankly, it worked better than continuing to create obstacles while trying to pretend no one was playing a game of keep away. And to be fair, typically this was something where the GM had some initial situation she was trying to set up and she was concerned that the players (mostly me) would keep trying to outwit the obstacles rather than allowing the initial situation to provide the set up. Our shorthand for that was for the GM to say, "play along." Or even more bluntly, "The point here is for the away team to get captured and once that happens, the adventure is about how you figure out, fix, escape, or otherwise play things out from there. So play along and get captured."

QuoteI've definitely seen published adventures over the decades where GM's have been advised to make sure this NPC is not caught or killed by the characters at this stage.

The existence of published adventures like that is why I said that this was not an unusual play style.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913720Typical, lean ever so slightly in my favor and get trashed.

But at least you were put in the "adults" category. :)

Quote from: tenbones;913733But at least you were put in the "adults" category. :)

I like it here in the kids section, playing fairy tale games, having fun :)

But I've always liked this quote:
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

--  C.S. Lewis

Quote from: rgrove0172;913690Yeah, yeah, yeah, MY COOL FACTOR - ok.. whatever, like no GM every plans an adventure with some cool, Hollywood type moments for a little Wow moment. So sue me. As it was she only got a glimpse of the guy and he runs off to be met again later one. Terrible tragedy and absolutely ruined the game for her.

No one here is saying that you are the only GM in the history of roleplaying who manipulated the game because you thought your manipulation would make the session cooler, smoother, better, spicier, hunkier, dunkier, or whatever adjective you want to use.

Quote from: Harlock;913726Yesterday



Today


So why keep responding, why keep posting, and why keep inviting commentary? Do you see what those two statements above look like? It looks like sour grapes.

They were responding to different aspects of the discussion. (snip nasty remark) Its hard to remain concise across so many lines of text. Probably my bad.

Quote from: Bren;913728If I was firmly wedded to the notion of X definitely not happening now I would. I've had a GM do that in our old Star Trek campaign. Frankly, it worked better than continuing to create obstacles while trying to pretend no one was playing a game of keep away. And to be fair, typically this was something where the GM had some initial situation she was trying to set up and she was concerned that the players (mostly me) would keep trying to outwit the obstacles rather than allowing the initial situation to provide the set up. Our shorthand for that was for the GM to say, "play along." Or even more bluntly, "The point here is for the away team to get captured and once that happens, the adventure is about how you figure out, fix, escape, or otherwise play things out from there. So play along and get captured."

The existence of published adventures like that is why I said that this was not an unusual play style.

Exactly and while nauseating and despicable to some, its been and still is very common across the industry. I recently had a brief introduction to FFG Star Wars. The first published adventure I browsed included not one but two of these "Cant do this till this" moments.

Quote from: tenbones;913733But at least you were put in the "adults" category. :)

True dat tenbones - and thanks

Quote from: Bren;913741No one here is saying that you are the only GM in the history of roleplaying who manipulated the game because you thought your manipulation would make the session cooler, smoother, better, spicier, hunkier, dunkier, or whatever adjective you want to use.

Only that if they do they are scum. At least that's how Ive interpreted it. Hold on......(elevator music)

Yep, I just reread the whole laborious, hopefully dying thread. I had it right. Some have done it but got smarter and better and put it behind them. A few have agreed that its an individual thing and really dependent on the expectations of the players. Where my fault lies is in defending rather than conceding.

If its my posts keeping this thing alive, let me know... Ill bolt!~

Quote from: rgrove0172;913744Exactly and while nauseating and despicable to some, its been and still is very common across the industry. I recently had a brief introduction to FFG Star Wars. The first published adventure I browsed included not one but two of these "Cant do this till this" moments.

Just because someone uses that method in a book or module in absolutely no way means it is a good method.

If a module tells the DM "dont let the PCs capture the villain now no matter what they do." then thats either sloppy module design or a module thats more like a stage play. It can be alot of fun. Or it can feel like you are just there for the ride.

Conversely. A wide open sandbox module can feel lacking if it for example lacks any sorts of adventure seeds or hooks at all. Or if the area feels too disorganized and random. This too can be alot of fun. But some players prefer more solid adventure hooks and clues, or a more focused adventure and dont like just blundering about.

Quote from: Bren;913728If I was firmly wedded to the notion of X definitely not happening now I would. I've had a GM do that in our old Star Trek campaign. Frankly, it worked better than continuing to create obstacles while trying to pretend no one was playing a game of keep away. And to be fair, typically this was something where the GM had some initial situation she was trying to set up and she was concerned that the players (mostly me) would keep trying to outwit the obstacles rather than allowing the initial situation to provide the set up. Our shorthand for that was for the GM to say, "play along." Or even more bluntly, "The point here is for the away team to get captured and once that happens, the adventure is about how you figure out, fix, escape, or otherwise play things out from there. So play along and get captured."

Sure, I can understand that in those kinds of circumstances, where you want to start from that initial situation. But, I'd rather skip all the "playing along" and get to the situation immediately, rather than give a false impression that the situation is avoidable. Gloss over the capture, and the events that immediately preceded it, because really they're not that important - especially if the actions of the players don't have much impact.

Star Trek would be the perfect example, especially if you're trying to mimic the presentation of an 'episode'. Start things in media res, or narrate how the capture occurred and then get right into things. Otherwise, to me, playing along just feels like wasting time.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913692Some play the game and then consider their recalling what happened as a story. Some play the game with the very intent of making a STORY. This is a profound difference and I believe paramount in the clash Ive witnessed here. To a group that doesn't have STORY as an objective and priority, my actions are criminal. Im being terribly unbiased, unfair and stealing the players free will. To a group that at its core desires to create a STORY through play, where the story is more or less the priority, my actions are not only tolerable but expected, in order to keep the current plot on track.

Big difference in approach and therefore perception of a GM taking liberties.

So let's keep this on track and not project "feelings" about this "GM style" vs. "GM style". Caveat #1) Fun is what matters. If you guys wanna storygame until everyone shits rainbows and you all hug it out - that's fucking awesome. Keep it rolling. Caveat #2) I'm offering my opinion - which like/unlike some others here, I find it fun to weigh-and-measure different methods of doing things. What I want in any thread is consistency of thought, first and foremost. If you wanna change your mind - sure, go for it. But always keep in mind you or I *could* be wrong. OR more importantly - it might not even be about being "right" or "wrong".

So while you've pointed out various examples of how you operate with your group, then qualify these examples by saying it's only .01% of the time that you do your railroad-trick, then further quality our ability to comment on your provided examples by saying we can't understand the personal interactions of your group - sure. That's a given. But as has been pointed out - we only know what you tell us. So on that - your ideas can be weighed and measured. If that makes you "sensitive"... well then maybe that's a sign there's some fire where there is smoke?

And of course - IS IT SMOKE?

Your categorization of who plays for what reason seems... simplistic to me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913692Some play the game and then consider their recalling what happened as a story.

This is accurate. It's a story. Just like it's a story when I got up and made coffee, showered, and had an adventure before going to work. That too is a story, when reflected upon. But there's a *whole* lot missing in terms of the quality of that story as to whether it was awesome or shitty or something in-between. That's what we're talking about. You may very well have a lot of talents and skills that are useful as a GREAT GM, but that not mean you actually ARE a great GM using the techniques you use that many of us have identified as being techniques that generally produce bad results. It certainly not like I didn't come here and suddenly LEARN railroading is some great evil and I needed a forum of virtual strangers to tell me this. I learned like a lot of us learned - trial and error. And yep - it's an error at worst, it's sub-optimal at best.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913692Some play the game with the very intent of making a STORY.

This needs more context. Because *no one* enters my game without context to their character WITHIN the context of my setting. So if I'm to take your idea straight up - it's meaningless without my input as the GM. As a player, you can *INTEND* whatever the fuck you want for your character - making a "story" (which opens up more questions for context), being the best gunslinger in the territory, having the most kills under your belt and being nominated for a Presidential citation - if my campaign is about a space-station full of nuns that worship a Fertility Goddess farming Pikachu's for sale to space-orphans (as a silly example) then whatever those intents you're suggesting as an axiom are rendered moot. This is precisely where a GM exercises their footprint on the game.

A GM is the World. By all means create set-pieces, make NPC's with great motivations that are tied to the backgrounds of the characters, places of relevance, flesh out all the world-building details, environment, governments, factions, etc. - your job is to make the things that go on engaging to the PC's. To the degree that you can do that without resorting to "railroading" your PC's or relying on heavy-handed tactics is the degree to which you're a "good GM" vs. a "not-so-good GM". I'm not saying for you not to have your themepark-rides in your setting. By all means - plop your reskinned Barrier Peaks spaceship in the middle of your homebrewed world if that interests you. But how you get your PC's to go there and do "stuff that interests them" is where your GMing is measured.

The *moment* you start choosing sides on who wins because the PC's won't engage, or render their attempts (rolls) at doing things meaningless - well it's a downhill slide, and no, it's not good GMing. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you suck as a GM. It means in your example - for many of us here - it's not "best practices". See for me - I take "liberties" as a GM only when a player is a disruption to the other players. And even then it requires ZERO effort for me to enforce the realities of my setting upon a player. This is why I don't have problems that rookie-GM's have. I don't need leashes on my players - I don't play with Alignment, I don't need to wag my finger at people meta-gaming, I don't bemoan players trying to be Murder-hobos, I let things unfold DESPITE all that. A good GM will let reality set in and it will work itself out. It *rarely* needs me interfering with things.

When you do interfere it's bad GMing simply because: as a PC - I want to be able to *DO* things I want to *DO* as I see fit within the context of the game. If I can't do that with the appropriate risk/reward by my own hand - because of the GM's insistence of sticking to his "narrative" - it ceases to be the story of my PC and the other PC's. It's now really storytime and you're telling it to us with some interaction that loses more meaning the more you do it.

So yeah - I don't know how much you do it. I just figure since we're talking about I'd mention the degree to which you do this is what should be your litmus test to your skills as a GM. Take it for what you want.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913704At this point though, your players have been trained to play in Your Story.  So if you put a mysterious figure there, it's not just a mysterious figure because 1870's New Orleans at night might be full of mysterious figures, it's there As Part of the Plot, and so must be engaged with.  There's only so much subtlety with which the Matador can wave the red flag.

Something though to keep in mind which makes grove's comments make more sense is that in the other thread its apparent that he has something of a hard time GMing on the fly and that when faced with the unexpected he sometimes locks up. This is probably fairly common for GMs who cant improv on the fly the unexpected very well and having a more structured or plotted adventure is their safety net for those times they are caught off guard.

Its more likely that the players in his game just like that style else they would have dropped out by now. They likely do occasionally roll their eyes at some plot nudge. But they are on board for the ride because they enjoy whatever aspects in it that appeal to them. And sounds like the players GM in simmilar ways to his. So probably the whole gaming group is comfortable with that style.

Quote from: K Peterson;913755Sure, I can understand that in those kinds of circumstances, where you want to start from that initial situation. But, I'd rather skip all the "playing along" and get to the situation immediately, rather than give a false impression that the situation is avoidable.

That is an understandable response.

QuoteGloss over the capture, and the events that immediately preceded it, because really they're not that important - especially if the actions of the players don't have much impact.

How they got captured may impact what resources are available to them, whether anyone is injured, etc. And some people prefer some kind of lead in rather than in media res. But trust me, I see your point.

QuoteOtherwise, to me, playing along just feels like wasting time.

I can totally see your point. But I've also had players who felt that listening to elaborate or detailed descriptions, mapping, talking to most NPCs, listening to other players do stuff, tracking fungible goods like money, bullets, arrows, even armor and weapons was wasting time. And I've even had players who felt like combat (in certain situations) was also a waste of time. Which is a long way of saying that some tolerance for "wasting" time on something someone else in the group enjoys that you do not is part of the give and take of a social situation. And too much "wasting" time means something needs to change.

Quote from: Brander;913737I like it here in the kids section, playing fairy tale games, having fun :)

What? This is serious business!!! You keep that frolicking shit to yourself.

Quote from: Brander;913737But I've always liked this quote:
"Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

--  C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis... pfft. That dude made the worst music. Horrible person. And you're horrible for quoting him. You probably suck at gaming too. WOO I WIN!!!

(someone around here insinuated I was puerile - don't hold it against me)

Theres a lot to reply to there but I don't have much time at the moment... I will say this.

When I said that some INTEND to create a story, that's exactly what I mean. My primary player, the one I started the current campaign for before inviting others began with just that announcement.

"Hey, you know those old gothic horror stories, the Victorian age stuff with lanterns and carriages and big spooky plantations? Id like to participate in something like that, be the heroin. You know? Can you come up with something like that?"

What followed was a discussion on how I run games and her desires in the experience.

This players wasn't interested in building a character, taking part in a combat oriented game, accomplishing great goals or any of that. She wanted to live the roll of a heroine in a gothic horror.

Now Im not saying I haven't used similar tactics in other more conventional games, only that I believe there is a place of them, sometimes. In the current game more than most.

Quote from: Omega;913761Something though to keep in mind which makes grove's comments make more sense is that in the other thread its apparent that he has something of a hard time GMing on the fly and that when faced with the unexpected he sometimes locks up. This is probably fairly common for GMs who cant improv on the fly the unexpected very well and having a more structured or plotted adventure is their safety net for those times they are caught off guard.

Its more likely that the players in his game just like that style else they would have dropped out by now. They likely do occasionally roll their eyes at some plot nudge. But they are on board for the ride because they enjoy whatever aspects in it that appeal to them. And sounds like the players GM in simmilar ways to his. So probably the whole gaming group is comfortable with that style.

Err...thanks, I think.  Laugh... I feel like somebody hugged me to death.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913764"Hey, you know those old gothic horror stories, the Victorian age stuff with lanterns and carriages and big spooky plantations? Id like to participate in something like that, be the heroin. You know? Can you come up with something like that?"

I've heard that some people really like being the heroin and find that to be rather addictive.

Quote from: Omega;913761Something though to keep in mind which makes grove's comments make more sense is that in the other thread its apparent that he has something of a hard time GMing on the fly and that when faced with the unexpected he sometimes locks up. This is probably fairly common for GMs who cant improv on the fly the unexpected very well and having a more structured or plotted adventure is their safety net for those times they are caught off guard.

Its more likely that the players in his game just like that style else they would have dropped out by now. They likely do occasionally roll their eyes at some plot nudge. But they are on board for the ride because they enjoy whatever aspects in it that appeal to them. And sounds like the players GM in simmilar ways to his. So probably the whole gaming group is comfortable with that style.

I totally get this. I know a LOT of GM's that don't do the improvisational-side of GMing very well and do *exactly this*. I'm good at it. Dunno why. Maybe someone here that's done some improv-acting could explain whether it can be taught? I have no idea - but I've seen this many times in GM's.

It actually brings up another point - anyone consider that the creation of narrativist mechanics might have stemmed from designers with this actual "problem" as means to bypass this issue? Interesting thought.

Quote from: Bren;913762That is an understandable response.

How they got captured may impact what resources are available to them, whether anyone is injured, etc. And some people prefer some kind of lead in rather than in media res. But trust me, I see your point.

I can totally see your point. But I've also had players who felt that listening to elaborate or detailed descriptions, mapping, talking to most NPCs, listening to other players do stuff, tracking fungible goods like money, bullets, arrows, even armor and weapons was wasting time. And I've even had players who felt like combat (in certain situations) was also a waste of time. Which is a long way of saying that some tolerance for "wasting" time on something someone else in the group enjoys that you do not is part of the give and take of a social situation. And too much "wasting" time means something needs to change.

A very very good point. In retrospect, Im not sure the more welcome response to my initial question would have been;

"Hmm, not the way we do it but I guess it works for your group."

That wouldn't have been nearly as fun though.

Quote from: tenbones;913767I totally get this. I know a LOT of GM's that don't do the improvisational-side of GMing very well and do *exactly this*. I'm good at it. Dunno why. Maybe someone here that's done some improv-acting could explain whether it can be taught? I have no idea - but I've seen this many times in GM's.

It actually brings up another point - anyone consider that the creation of narrativist mechanics might have stemmed from designers with this actual "problem" as means to bypass this issue? Interesting thought.

Before you guys start handing out awards for improv, review that other thread and consider I run historical settings most of the time. They are a very different animal when it comes to GMing. You and I both can pull all kinds of cool make believe stuff out of our shorts when there is no way for it to be "wrong", such is not the case with a historical game. Ive run very loosey goosey, improvisation, zero prep games in the past when it was appropriate and they are a lot of fun. When presenting a Vietnam War scenario or American Indian based adventure or my current 1800s game... its takes some planning, if only to get the setting details right.

If you came to my table and started running something that was supposed to be historically accurate, or at least marginally so, and weren't prepared.. our group would call you on it pretty quickly and lose all interest. That's kind of the point of a historical game, to experience the history.

Quote from: Bren;913766I've heard that some people really like being the heroin and find that to be rather addictive.

Only if they are pansies.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913764Theres a lot to reply to there but I don't have much time at the moment... I will say this.

When I said that some INTEND to create a story, that's exactly what I mean. My primary player, the one I started the current campaign for before inviting others began with just that announcement.

"Hey, you know those old gothic horror stories, the Victorian age stuff with lanterns and carriages and big spooky plantations? Id like to participate in something like that, be the heroin. You know? Can you come up with something like that?"

What followed was a discussion on how I run games and her desires in the experience.

This players wasn't interested in building a character, taking part in a combat oriented game, accomplishing great goals or any of that. She wanted to live the roll of a heroine in a gothic horror.

Now Im not saying I haven't used similar tactics in other more conventional games, only that I believe there is a place of them, sometimes. In the current game more than most.

oo Ooo OOO! So here's the thing: Nothing I've said or advocated in terms of GMing negates *anything* you've said here. When I read this, what I hear to ME is -

"Okay Tenbones, she wants "The Ol' Gothic Mystery Spooky Campaign" - let's square her characters away, a little quid-pro-quo figure out what kinda character she wants to play, then I'll decide on the setting that's appropriate for what she wants that I have some ideas that I'd like to surround her character. So then once I have a system and setting we'll do some lose Char-Gen, I'll spend time building up the infra-structure of the starting region and area, and then whip up a bunch of interesting mysteries that involve the NPC's of the area. Tie them into her background where important, include any other PC's in the exact same process. Figure out where they're all interconnected and reveal to them where appropriate what they know about one another, if anything. Then I'll come up with a primer so they all get a nice feel for the setting and where they'll be starting. I'll inform them about anything that they need to know socially (are any of them part of some faction or organization) - relevant NPC's. Then I'll decide what/where the opening scene starts.... and LET'ER RIP!!!!! (or Jack the Rip!)

There is no railroad. I deliver the content in-play so they can react and act. It builds on itself. If you know the content, you as the GM can be/make/ARE anything of relevance. The trick to being a GREAT GM is how to deliver that relevancy in the right amount. (see Bag of Holding TPK Legend)

Quote from: rgrove0172;913769If you came to my table and started running something that was supposed to be historically accurate, or at least marginally so, and weren't prepared.. our group would call you on it pretty quickly and lose all interest. That's kind of the point of a historical game, to experience the history.

So I can't play a Mandalorian in your Civil War game? I brought my own Wookie slaves.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913720Typical, lean ever so slightly in my favor and get trashed.

He wasn't really supporting you, in fact he claimed he leaned more towards the other side.  No, the reason he's a jackass is because on the what, 25th page of a thread, he chimes in, after reading the whole thing, to say how pointless the whole thing is.  He thought it was "entertaining" enough to read the whole thing, ironically of course, yet not worth really posting in because it's beneath him, so he's out...yeah that whole "I'm too cool for this thread" thing was old by the third time someone did it, which was on a BBS sometime in 1986.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913522Just noticed, you and many refer to the story as MY STORYLINE - as if I have it scripted and written down word for word. The players have a tremendous amount of influence on how the story develops. The fact that I step in temporarily and nudge it in a direction that typically it was already moving, doesn't make it entirely mine. Its very much OUR story.

See, here's the first of the two issues you have in this thread...
The more you describe your style, the less people here believe that last sentence.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913667Damn aint that the truth. Ive got back an read one of my own posts after someone assaulted me after only to realize I unintentionally came across like a total prick.

And your other problem is that said post wasn't the only one, I assure you!

Quote from: tenbones;913773So I can't play a Mandalorian in your Civil War game? I brought my own Wookie slaves.

Sigh

Quote from: rgrove0172;913769Before you guys start handing out awards for improv, review that other thread and consider I run historical settings most of the time. They are a very different animal when it comes to GMing. You and I both can pull all kinds of cool make believe stuff out of our shorts when there is no way for it to be "wrong", such is not the case with a historical game. Ive run very loosey goosey, improvisation, zero prep games in the past when it was appropriate and they are a lot of fun. When presenting a Vietnam War scenario or American Indian based adventure or my current 1800s game... its takes some planning, if only to get the setting details right.

If you came to my table and started running something that was supposed to be historically accurate, or at least marginally so, and weren't prepared.. our group would call you on it pretty quickly and lose all interest. That's kind of the point of a historical game, to experience the history.

Minor Point - Plot has very little to do with historical detail, unless your Plot is one that absolutely can not happen in that historical context.  Improvisation of how the world reacts to PC action can happen within strict and detailed historical context, or it can happen within the detail level of "Fantasy Vikings Riding Giant Eagles".

People who see GMing as "Playing the World" as opposed to "Telling a Story" roleplay the world proactively and reactively in response to the PCs actions while keeping everything within setting context in highly prepped worlds all the time with Zero Plot.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913769Before you guys start handing out awards for improv, review that other thread and consider I run historical settings most of the time. They are a very different animal when it comes to GMing.

You and I both can pull all kinds of cool make believe stuff out of our shorts when there is no way for it to be "wrong", such is not the case with a historical game. Ive run very loosey goosey, improvisation, zero prep games in the past when it was appropriate and they are a lot of fun. When presenting a Vietnam War scenario or American Indian based adventure or my current 1800s game... its takes some planning, if only to get the setting details right.

If you came to my table and started running something that was supposed to be historically accurate, or at least marginally so, and weren't prepared.. our group would call you on it pretty quickly and lose all interest. That's kind of the point of a historical game, to experience the history.

1: No. What we were saying is that more structured and plotted adventures have their merits and strengths. Kinda like I was pointing out in the other thread. It perfectly suites some styles of play and enough players like them that the style hasnt died out.

2: Not necessarily. Depends on the DM and what knowledge they can or cant call upon. It also depends on what details are even needed. YMMV of course. But if for example I had an adventure set in 2016 at my grandparents home. It would be visually indistinguishable from one set the 1800s as the place is straight out of a Lovecraft story. Remote, no electricity other than however the crank phone worked, lamps for lighting and overlooking a sheer cliff and creepy caves underneath. Other times you need more. But unless your players are fanatical history buffs then its a non issue if you get something wrong or off.

3: If I ran something historically accurate with no prep then Im running something I know the history of. Or where it doesnt matter as much. What matters is the overall feel of the time or location. Otherise no one would be playing Call of Cthulhu.

Quote from: Omega;9137971: No. What we were saying is that more structured and plotted adventures have their merits and strengths. Kinda like I was pointing out in the other thread. It perfectly suites some styles of play and enough players like them that the style hasnt died out.

2: Not necessarily. Depends on the DM and what knowledge they can or cant call upon. It also depends on what details are even needed. YMMV of course. But if for example I had an adventure set in 2016 at my grandparents home. It would be visually indistinguishable from one set the 1800s as the place is straight out of a Lovecraft story. Remote, no electricity other than however the crank phone worked, lamps for lighting and overlooking a sheer cliff and creepy caves underneath. Other times you need more. But unless your players are fanatical history buffs then its a non issue if you get something wrong or off.

3: If I ran something historically accurate with no prep then Im running something I know the history of. Or where it doesnt matter as much. What matters is the overall feel of the time or location. Otherise no one would be playing Call of Cthulhu.

You need to throw some parties at your Grandparent's place.

Quote from: Omega;9137971: No. What we were saying is that more structured and plotted adventures have their merits and strengths. Kinda like I was pointing out in the other thread. It perfectly suites some styles of play and enough players like them that the style hasnt died out.

2: Not necessarily. Depends on the DM and what knowledge they can or cant call upon. It also depends on what details are even needed. YMMV of course. But if for example I had an adventure set in 2016 at my grandparents home. It would be visually indistinguishable from one set the 1800s as the place is straight out of a Lovecraft story. Remote, no electricity other than however the crank phone worked, lamps for lighting and overlooking a sheer cliff and creepy caves underneath. Other times you need more. But unless your players are fanatical history buffs then its a non issue if you get something wrong or off.

3: If I ran something historically accurate with no prep then Im running something I know the history of. Or where it doesnt matter as much. What matters is the overall feel of the time or location. Otherise no one would be playing Call of Cthulhu.

Weve played CoC, gaslight version and pay a lot of time and attention getting the period right. Its part of the fun, for GM and players alike. I assigned little homework assignments based on the campaigns needs with each player bringing back a synopsis of some element of the period be it technology, customs, language etc.This way we shared in the work and the attempt to get the tone and details right was a team effort.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913805Weve played CoC, gaslight version and pay a lot of time and attention getting the period right. Its part of the fun, for GM and players alike. I assigned little homework assignments based on the campaigns needs with each player bringing back a synopsis of some element of the period be it technology, customs, language etc.This way we shared in the work and the attempt to get the tone and details right was a team effort.

A team effort - after teacher gave out homework assignments.  You know you just came across like one of those self-important liberal arts professors at a tiny college who gets WAY too friendly with his students/sycophants.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913801You need to throw some parties at your Grandparent's place.

I wish. Unfortunately. In true Lovecraft style. My uncle who lived there went insane and the place was bought out by relatives who last I heard had gotten rid of the house to make more pasture for cattle. I fully expect to visit some day and see the cattle are now all twisted and mutated. :eek:

Quote from: CRKrueger;913807A team effort - after teacher gave out homework assignments.  You know you just came across like one of those self-important liberal arts professors at a tiny college who gets WAY too friendly with his students/sycophants.

Yeah well Im learning if I handed out fresh baked cookies delivered by runway model strippers and free beer somebody in this group would bitch.

You will note that despite the warm reception I have decided to stay on a while, hence the inclusion of an avatar.

I kind of like the abuse - its refreshingly ... well , honest and that's always a good thing. Ill feel better about opening up myself in somebody else's thread.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913805Weve played CoC, gaslight version and pay a lot of time and attention getting the period right. Its part of the fun, for GM and players alike. I assigned little homework assignments based on the campaigns needs with each player bringing back a synopsis of some element of the period be it technology, customs, language etc.This way we shared in the work and the attempt to get the tone and details right was a team effort.

You are truly blessed to have players who will engage this much with a game.

My current player group pretty much begins and ends their engagement with the setting with "I punch it in the face". I tried running a Call of Cthulhu scenario for them, at their request, it was horrible. I had to point every clue, ask many leading questions on every aspect of the game. "Don't you think maybe you should talk to someone at the hospital...?"

I need not just a railroad, but a railroad with big flashing neon signs reading "Plot Point Here!"

Quote from: Omega;913808I wish. Unfortunately. In true Lovecraft style. My uncle who lived there went insane and the place was bought out by relatives who last I heard had gotten rid of the house to make more pasture for cattle. I fully expect to visit some day and see the cattle are now all twisted and mutated. :eek:

Ooo, but the caves are still there...

Quote from: rgrove0172;913809Yeah well Im learning if I handed out fresh baked cookies delivered by runway model strippers and free beer somebody in this group would bitch.

Only the SJWs and most people have them on ignore.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913810You will note that despite the warm reception I have decided to stay on a while, hence the inclusion of an avatar.

I kind of like the abuse - its refreshingly ... well , honest and that's always a good thing. Ill feel better about opening up myself in somebody else's thread.

This stuff is getting old already. The "poor, put upon Mr. Grove," routine in this and other threads screams of attention-seeking, which is often a symptom of... you can guess, I bet.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913809Yeah well Im learning if I handed out fresh baked cookies delivered by runway model strippers and free beer somebody in this group would bitch.

Now you are beginning to fully understand the internet. You have taken your first step into a larger world.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913810You will note that despite the warm reception I have decided to stay on a while, hence the inclusion of an avatar.

I kind of like the abuse - its refreshingly ... well , honest and that's always a good thing. Ill feel better about opening up myself in somebody else's thread.

See, despite (and maybe because of) the abuse, there is a sort of refreshing honesty here.

QuoteYeah well Im learning if I handed out fresh baked cookies delivered by runway model strippers and free beer somebody in this group would bitch.

OOh, can I play? I promise I won't complain about railroading... and skip the cookies.

QuoteBefore you guys start handing out awards for improv, review that other thread and consider I run historical settings most of the time. They are a very different animal when it comes to GMing.

Psha, I've been running historical games since - what some might consider history - the setting makes not one iota of difference in GMing style, whether you improv, railroad, sandbox, storygame or whatever. You might have do a little more homework if you want setting accuracy in a historical game, but that's about it.  The historical setting doesn't force you to GM in a certain style and you can't use it as an excuse (well you can,and you did, but I won't buy it).

This thread reminds me of a d6 Star Wars game I ran many years ago.  Imperial intelligence (Ubiqtorate?) wanted intel on rumors of a Jedi (one of the PCs) and to keep him on planet, but for reasons I know longer recall did not want other imperialist to know the intelligence agency was involved.  I created the NPC agent.

So for the game session (one of those weekend long affairs), I was running the game with the PCs doing their thing gaining contacts with some underground sorts while simultaneously playing what amounted to a solo game with the I.imperial agent making Bureacracy, Persuasion, Computer, or whatever checks as he secretly spied on the PCs and tried to slow up/delay whatever they were doing.  I adjudicated his offscreen rolls and actions just like I would have a PC.  He eventually flubbed and the PCs caught him.  The game played out very organically and was quite successful.

It was also incredibly taxing to GM.  I abstract most such things nowadays.  In general, I prefer an abstract roll to GM fiat on such things, but am not a one-true-wayist.  I can go either way.

Now I have never seen the need to flub a roll.  Improbable results is a big part of the reason for rolling dice in the first place, so if a kobold takes down a 5th level Palladian then so be it.  PC death or setback has never hindered any game that I've played, nor has easy victory.

Quote from: Harlock;913814This stuff is getting old already. The "poor, put upon Mr. Grove," routine in this and other threads screams of attention-seeking, which is often a symptom of... you can guess, I bet.

Quote from: Madprofessor;913818Psha, I've been running historical games since - what some might consider history - the setting makes not one iota of difference in GMing style, whether you improv, railroad, sandbox, storygame or whatever. You might have do a little more homework if you want setting accuracy in a historical game, but that's about it.  The historical setting doesn't force you to GM in a certain style and you can't use it as an excuse (well you can,and you did, but I won't buy it).

Yeah, that's the thing.

Being Old doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Extreme historical detail doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Massive amounts of prep doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Playing to create Story doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Any possible combination of any of those doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.

People do all those things and don't GM that way.

What's left? Grove leads to Grove GMing that way. Period.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913811You are truly blessed to have players who will engage this much with a game.

My current player group pretty much begins and ends their engagement with the setting with "I punch it in the face". I tried running a Call of Cthulhu scenario for them, at their request, it was horrible. I had to point every clue, ask many leading questions on every aspect of the game. "Don't you think maybe you should talk to someone at the hospital...?"

I need not just a railroad, but a railroad with big flashing neon signs reading "Plot Point Here!"

I hear you. I will admit being pretty picky about potential players and who actually gets invited to the group. The result has been a high quality group of gamers but very low in quantity over the years and at times...none. Its a compromise Ive been willing to make. I wouldn't last 5 minutes with the type of players many GMs contend with, I could tell some stories. Maybe another thread.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913771Only if they are pansies.

It's poppies. Seriously dude, how can you possibly hope to run an historically accurate Victorian era game if you get the source for your laudanum and opium wrong?

Quote from: CRKrueger;913807A team effort - after teacher gave out homework assignments.  You know you just came across like one of those self-important liberal arts professors at a tiny college who gets WAY too friendly with his students/sycophants.

In the words of Dr. Jones: "Now you're getting nasty."

Quote from: rgrove0172;913809Yeah well Im learning if I handed out fresh baked cookies delivered by runway model strippers and free beer somebody in this group would bitch.

I don't like chocolate chip. Most runway models are too skinny. And I'm really tired of microbrew, added alcohol beer. Also, patriarchy.

Quote from: Harlock;913814This stuff is getting old already. The "poor, put upon Mr. Grove," routine in this and other threads screams of attention-seeking, which is often a symptom of... you can guess, I bet.

Whats your problem? Living up to your signature there Harlock? I mean, geeze - give it a break I haven't jacked with you Mr. Bipolar Mormon.

Oops, the previous spelling of Mormon was a typo. I apologize if anyone saw it before I edited. Its easy to drop a letter when foaming at the mouth!

Quote from: Harlock;913814This stuff is getting old already. The "poor, put upon Mr. Grove," routine in this and other threads screams of attention-seeking, which is often a symptom of... you can guess, I bet.

At least he isn't constantly bitching about the Big Purple.

I would rather game with a Good Railroad GM than a Shitty Sandbox GM.

If the story, storyteller and the players are engaging enough, then I'd ride the choo choo too!

Quote from: CRKrueger;913537You are literally the poster child of the Bad GM for The Gaming Den crowd, the StoryGames crowd and the OSR and traditional roleplayers.

Damn Rgrove, you just won Bad GM Bingo!

Quote from: rgrove0172;913579It never occurred to me that despite all the work and recognized quality of my presentation that some element of my game might be off. Nobody ever complained, no one ever said anything, it just didn't come up. I have done many things in my life, finishing off by retiring as a FireChief after 22 years in the service and EMS. If someone had asked me a week ago what I was most proud of... somewhere very close to the top would have been my abilities as a GM. Its been that much a positive part of my life.

Damnit CRKreuger, you broke the puppy!! :)

Quote from: rgrove0172;913579To come here, amid my gaming peers, and discover that what I was so proud of is viewed very differently and negatively by the overwhelming majority of my gaming brothers is a blow.

Don't sweat it.

If your players are having fun (while suffering through your Bad GMing!!), then you win.

If you made any mistake, its the most common one - you assumed your experience was universal. That's human nature regardless of the topic.

BTW, being a great Railroad GM isn't a bad thing. The entire Living Campaign concept (Living Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Pathfinder Society) are all 4 hour railroads where the end result of sitting at the table is the PC's win and get magic goodies. And tens of thousands of D&D players absolutely LOVE to play this way - never being challenged, always being coddled, and always winning.

I won't call them "Disney Princesses" because Cinderella's got more testosterone.
 
And there are many thousands of more gamers who only play RPGs via published adventures and those are 90% railroads too. Almost all adventures published are also designed to be "level appropriate" which mostly translates into "players win for showing up".

Quote from: rgrove0172;913764"Hey, you know those old gothic horror stories, the Victorian age stuff with lanterns and carriages and big spooky plantations? Id like to participate in something like that, be the heroin. You know? Can you come up with something like that?"

Masque of Red Death did a good job with this setting idea. It was a 90s Living Campaign from TSR for 2e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masque_of_the_Red_Death_(Ravenloft)

You can hunt down the PDFs online.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913809Yeah well Im learning if I handed out fresh baked cookies delivered by runway model strippers and free beer somebody in this group would bitch.

Let's test that theory!

Quote from: rgrove0172;913810You will note that despite the warm reception I have decided to stay on a while, hence the inclusion of an avatar.

Good!!

You are a welcome addition to the mosh pit.

Quote from: DavetheLost;913811You are truly blessed to have players who will engage this much with a game.

My current player group pretty much begins and ends their engagement with the setting with "I punch it in the face". I tried running a Call of Cthulhu scenario for them, at their request, it was horrible. I had to point every clue, ask many leading questions on every aspect of the game. "Don't you think maybe you should talk to someone at the hospital...?"

I need not just a railroad, but a railroad with big flashing neon signs reading "Plot Point Here!"

DavetheLost isn't kidding. I've heard this lament many, many times.

Engaged players are an awesome blessing.

My players are great about engaging with the game during the game, but I've learned that 1-2 pages of campaign prep is all they are going to read and more than half won't ever buy the core book for whatever we're playing. But I do appreciate their at-table, in-game engagement.

Question for Dave...what makes your group of dolts worth keeping? What's their redeeming quality?

Quote from: Madprofessor;913818See, despite (and maybe because of) the abuse, there is a sort of refreshing honesty here.



OOh, can I play? I promise I won't complain about railroading... and skip the cookies.



Psha, I've been running historical games since - what some might consider history - the setting makes not one iota of difference in GMing style, whether you improv, railroad, sandbox, storygame or whatever. You might have do a little more homework if you want setting accuracy in a historical game, but that's about it.  The historical setting doesn't force you to GM in a certain style and you can't use it as an excuse (well you can,and you did, but I won't buy it).

You are right, I was replying to someone implying I couldn't run an improve game. I don't typically run improve games but can certainly do so, and have. The historical setting just means, as you say, a lot of prep and closer attention to detail during play. Admittedly it makes improve during play more difficult and it perhaps true that for that reason I 'railroad' or whatever. No denials here. I typically don't have to and aren't tempted in lighter games.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913844Whats your problem? Living up to your signature there Harlock? I mean, geeze - give it a break I haven't jacked with you Mr. Bipolar Moron.

Actually, you did. And just did again. It was just some friendly advice, really. And I've been very careful not to throw out extra derogatory terms. Believe me when I say, I am playing nice here. It's like I said yesterday, you don't get credit for apologizing after typing something mean because there is a backspace key. In this case, if you like it well enough to stay here that shows maturity and even chutzpah, two great qualities admired by many, but you demean yourself of those qualities when you go about complaining about the mean folks daring to disagree, however vehemently, with you not only here, but in other, unrelated threads. I'm trying really hard here to like you. Let me. Finally, you have to do way better than insulting my faith if you want to get under my skin.

I'm merely pointing out truthfully, how some of the things you have said and done appear. I am blunt. I can apologize for that, but I wouldn't mean it. Mincing words is a waste of my time and yours.

Quote from: Harlock;913852Actually, you did. And just did again. It was just some friendly advice, really. And I've been very careful not to throw out extra derogatory terms. Believe me when I say, I am playing nice here. It's like I said yesterday, you don't get credit for apologizing after typing something mean because there is a backspace key. In this case, if you like it well enough to stay here that shows maturity and even chutzpah, two great qualities admired by many, but you demean yourself of those qualities when you go about complaining about the mean folks daring to disagree, however vehemently, with you not only here, but in other, unrelated threads. I'm trying really hard here to like you. Let me. Finally, you have to do way better than insulting my faith if you want to get under my skin.

First off no insult meant toward your faith, only your bipolarity. You have been cordial and helpful and then periodically...

This stuff is getting old already. The "poor, put upon Mr. Grove," routine in this and other threads screams of attention-seeking, which is often a symptom of... you can guess, I bet.

comes out of nowhere. If you don't find that line insulting fine, but I certainly did, as with a few of your other posts. You cant just take a wild swing at someone now then then believe they will ignore it.

Im trying hard as well, to believe that the insults are simply misinterpretations through the really crappy medium of text. When they are repeated and repeated it makes it hard.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913854First off no insult meant toward your faith, only your bipolarity. You have been cordial and helpful and then periodically...

This stuff is getting old already. The "poor, put upon Mr. Grove," routine in this and other threads screams of attention-seeking, which is often a symptom of... you can guess, I bet.

comes out of nowhere. If you don't find that line insulting fine, but I certainly did, as with a few of your other posts. You cant just take a wild swing at someone now then then believe they will ignore it.

Im trying hard as well, to believe that the insults are simply misinterpretations through the really crappy medium of text. When they are repeated and repeated it makes it hard.

If no insult was meant, that was a funny way to show it. And, nice; insulting someone over a mental illness. Again, since I added it late, I'll paste it here: I'm merely pointing out truthfully, how some of the things you have said and done appear. I am blunt. I can apologize for that, but I wouldn't mean it. Mincing words is a waste of my time and yours.

So, when I say things you say and do seem egocentric and you double down with posts in this thread and others belaboring the poor reception to your ideas in one thread, it looks bad. Like I said, it demeans the cool factor of, "I took a beating in this thread and I haven't even been on this site long, but dang it, I'm going to stick around." I'm giving you my perception and just trying to help. If posts seem insulting, perhaps you are taking things too hard. Some clearly are The one's where people curse, call you infantile and baseless names. But sometimes when we don't want to hear something about ourselves, or at least how others see us, we find that insulting. "The wicked take the truth to be hard," sort of thing, I suppose. That you find my plain speaking insulting, I will keep in mind and try to tone it down in your case.

Quote from: Harlock;913860If no insult was meant, that was a funny way to show it. And, nice; insulting someone over a mental illness. Again, since I added it late, I'll paste it here: I'm merely pointing out truthfully, how some of the things you have said and done appear. I am blunt. I can apologize for that, but I wouldn't mean it. Mincing words is a waste of my time and yours.

So, when I say things you say and do seem egocentric and you double down with posts in this thread and others belaboring the poor reception to your ideas in one thread, it looks bad. Like I said, it demeans the cool factor of, "I took a beating in this thread and I haven't even been on this site long, but dang it, I'm going to stick around." I'm giving you my perception and just trying to help. If posts seem insulting, perhaps you are taking things too hard. Some clearly are The one's where people curse, call you infantile and baseless names. But sometimes when we don't want to hear something about ourselves, or at least how others see us, we find that insulting. "The wicked take the truth to be hard," sort of thing, I suppose. That you find my plain speaking insulting, I will keep in mind and try to tone it down in your case.

Ok, ok, truce! I mean it, really. I want picking on your illness either, only drawing a correlation between your listing it and your occasional outbursts.

I call uncle. For reals... I didn't come here to make enemies.

You two need to get a copy of Alpha Blue and a room!

Quote from: Spinachcat;913846I would rather game with a Good Railroad GM than a Shitty Sandbox GM.

If the story, storyteller and the players are engaging enough, then I'd ride the choo choo too!


DavetheLost isn't kidding. I've heard this lament many, many times.

Engaged players are an awesome blessing.

My players are great about engaging with the game during the game, but I've learned that 1-2 pages of campaign prep is all they are going to read and more than half won't ever buy the core book for whatever we're playing. But I do appreciate their at-table, in-game engagement.

Question for Dave...what makes your group of dolts worth keeping? What's their redeeming quality?

Buy me a ticket on that train too. I don't mind a scripted railroad as long as it is an entertaining scripted railroad.

As for my players, they are what is available to me, and they can be fun to watch. I see glimmers of trainability to be better role players in some of them. Also they get me free space to play in at the public library.  They suffer from too much D&D and video games syndrome, but they're still kind of fun to hang out with.

Quote from: Spinachcat;913865You two need to get a copy of Alpha Blue and a room!

Mormon! Mormon! Alpha Blue is the devil for me! Ahhhhh. But seriously, no. I don't even cuss.

Quote from: Harlock;913871Mormon! Mormon! Alpha Blue is the devil for me! Ahhhhh. But seriously, no. I don't even cuss.

I don't see not swearing as a big fucking problem. Some of my best friends hardly ever swear. But the whole, no wine, beer, coca cola, or caffeinated tea thing is just not enough problem for me.


Hopefully that is read in the making fun of everyone spirit that I intended it.  And if not, right about now rgrove probably needs someone to provide a distraction.

Hey guys, I'll drive home the stake. Thread done. Nuff said.

So that means no Black Tokyo, ToR style, "Two men enter..." fight?

Quote from: Bren;913872I don't see not swearing as a big fucking problem. Some of my best friends hardly ever swear. But the whole, no wine, beer, coca cola, or caffeinated tea thing is just not enough problem for me.


Hopefully that is read in the making fun of everyone spirit that I intended it.  And if not, right about now rgrove probably needs someone to provide a distraction.

Nagh, I was laughing. I'm a Mormon, not a stiff. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;913876So that means no Black Tokyo, ToR style, "Two men enter..." fight?

Nagh. Mr. Grove and I are like the opening of a bad joke told at a first responder or medical conference: A retired fire chief and nurse practitioner walk into the Thunderdome...

Suddenly your style makes sense.  Back on page 34? Before the stripers and personal Mormon bashing you said you player came to you and said "I want to play this kind of game"

BAM!  Explicit agreement.  I don't even know if it's still 'the social contract' since it is spoken out loud.   You agreed what kind of game you wanted to play up front as equal partners.  Since you have an explicit agreement then yes I would say it was your job to uses the various techniques you describe to get play back on the mutually agreed track.

That said I would not be part of that agreement.  Kruger doesn't even want to be in the same building as that agreement.

This thread can't be closed until a runway model brings me a big plate of oatmeal raisin cookies.

What do you people have against cookies?

Quote from: DavetheLost;913887This thread can't be closed until a runway model brings me a big plate of oatmeal raisin cookies.

What do you people have against cookies?

Oatmeal raisin is not cookie. You're not role-playing. And as the Church Lady said, this year's election is between a Godless, Liberal Democrat and Hillary Clinton!

Quote from: Harlock;913880Nagh. Mr. Grove and I are like the opening of a bad joke told at a first responder or medical conference: A retired fire chief and nurse practitioner walk into the Thunderdome...

Oh God, that explains so much. We'd are genetically predisposed to argue with one another.

Quote from: Headless;913885Suddenly your style makes sense.  Back on page 34? Before the stripers and personal Mormon bashing you said you player came to you and said "I want to play this kind of game"

BAM!  Explicit agreement.  I don't even know if it's still 'the social contract' since it is spoken out loud.   You agreed what kind of game you wanted to play up front as equal partners.  Since you have an explicit agreement then yes I would say it was your job to uses the various techniques you describe to get play back on the mutually agreed track.

That said I would not be part of that agreement.  Kruger doesn't even want to be in the same building as that agreement.

Afraid he might get some on him? It might be contagious.

Quote from: Harlock;913892Oatmeal raisin is not cookie. You're not role-playing. And as the Church Lady said, this year's election is between a Godless, Liberal Democrat and Hillary Clinton!

Lmao

Quote from: CRKrueger;913779He wasn't really supporting you, in fact he claimed he leaned more towards the other side.  No, the reason he's a jackass is because on the what, 25th page of a thread, he chimes in, after reading the whole thing, to say how pointless the whole thing is.  He thought it was "entertaining" enough to read the whole thing, ironically of course, yet not worth really posting in because it's beneath him, so he's out...yeah that whole "I'm too cool for this thread" thing was old by the third time someone did it, which was on a BBS sometime in 1986.

Isn't that cute, CRK again condescendingly pointing out not only how we all should think but also how we all do think.  You often have good advice, but you cover it in a lot of unnecessary shit.  Maybe I was only posting on the 25th page of the thread because I don't have as much time at the moment to tell everyone how they are having hurting wrong fun a hundred times a day.  It's nice that you think I'm too good for this thread, but it's just you giving your one-true-way nonsense a bit too much credit.  I've read the whole thing, I enjoy the battle, but if I only have time to call bullshit once in a while, it's doesn't magically mean I'm not thinking it's bullshit the whole time.

Hey guys, I mentioned back there somewhere that I had a game coming up and would put the ideas related here to test. The game was last night and I did. The results were... interesting. I was tempted but promised myself I would let the game resolve itself without any intervention from me, no matter what to see what I might be missing. This wasn't a wholesale sellout, and my intention is to proceed however I deem is best for our game, definitely not the way I played last night but perhaps with a looser reign than is customary for me.

The adventure, in as brief a description as I can manage, is essentially a mystery crime solving affair at the moment. The players are trying to determine who is responsible for a bit of nastiness, where they are and who they might be working for. In the way of prep I have a dozen or more major clues laid out around various locations and NPCs. Each piece of information is pretty subtle but together they begin to make a picture and eventually point in a given direction. From there its A,B,C and then the confrontation with the bad guy, or so I had planned.

Up till now Ive had to nudge a bit to keep the investigation on track, allowing a little deviation and even some deadends but making sure they don't completely lose track of where they are headed. Groans and Howls from the audience, I know!

Last night all bets were off and I let it run. In the end we had a good time, the game is still very much 'afoot' but without my nudges things are pretty much a mess. Several important sources of information were completely ignored, their critical info lost leaving big holes in the player's understanding of what is going on. A bad negotiation roll resulted in not only a key contact not helping but lying, sending them on what will be a long and fruitless goosechase. A misunderstanding caused one of the players to quit their job with the false idea that their employer is in on it somehow. Her employment was a key feature in a part of the plot that will now have to be completely retooled. Lastly some randomness and rash decisions by one of the players provided an informant of the bad guy their identities and exactly what they were up to, so instead of an ignorant, aloof, and unaware bad guy they now face an informed and pissed off one.

All this is great I suppose from one stand point, its certainly dramatic. It however is such a monster change from the general plotline as to require lots of reworking. We were going to play a follow up session tonight but no way that's happening. I need a couple days at least to figure out where the hell this is all going. The big reveal with the bad guy wasn't likely to happen for several sessions but now it could happen at any time dependent on how aggressive he is in detaining these people on his trail. The players are still stumbling around in the dark when I was fairly certain they would have a good sense of direction by now. They will continue to flounder, grasping at new clues (many of which I will have to generate from scratch) while the clock (the one they aren't even aware of) is counting down.

Its a very very different tale than the one we were all expecting.

The only comment from my players, who I warned were completely on their own before we started, was that in an investigation game they would expect a little direction (help in other words) as its hard to translate clue finding and interviewing adequately to give them a real sense of what is going on. I know what they mean but I was pretty determined to give it a go. They were excited but frustrated by the weird change of events and admitted the game was 'dirtier' if you get the meaning, than is my norm.

The vote was 2 to 1 to pull this new approach back a bit and offer a bit more in the way of GM assistance to make sure the plot follows a more or less even route rather than risk it plummeting into chaos due to an misunderstanding or uniformed decision.

Im still on the fence on how I will proceed.

Drama? Sure, there was plenty of that. Was it more fun for me as a powerless voyeur watching shit go to hell? Cant say it was. Mildly entertaining but sort of like watching your kid fall in the mud. Challenging? Oh yeah, trying to wrangle the behind the scenes activity and actions of a dozen or more key NPCs plus present the vast number of different locales and personalities was certainly a chore. Fun, but difficult. Responding to the sometimes completely unexpected direction of the group was also difficult, again - kind of cool but distracted me from where my energies are usually focused, on presenting the setting and people in a theatrically entertaining manner.

Ultimately I think the presentation of the game lost a few points while perhaps the drama level and stresses on the players increased..if that's a good thing. A trade off, sort of what I expected I guess.

Comments welcome.

Cool!  It's amazing to hear someone on the internet listen to what other people have to say.

That said I don't think I would have tried it with a mystery.  Also don't try it with a certain kind of Rom Com or a bodice ripper.  You know the ones that would be over in 20 minuets if the the female lead would just call and talk to the male lead.


That said you are now into the second act of a Bond film.  Your hydrostatic have ham fistedly barged into the vilians dastardly plan, and pissed him off.  All that's left is for him to capture them, tell them his evil plan and then let them escape and foil it.

Yes, I was going to say as well that I would not have tried this approach for a mystery if I wasn't very familiar with it (not that it isn't feasible, as you have shown).

One of the advantages to this style is that you can create a quite complex system with even a limited number of variables, assuming that you truly do allow them to function as variables until defined through gameplay. If you are used to narrative presentations in which there are 30 elements which seem to be variables, while actually being predefined factors, then suddenly turning them all into real variables can be overwhelming just in terms of raw information tracking, let alone the complex interaction between the elements that can result.

That being said, I'm glad it worked out reasonably well for you.

Murder mysteries and Call of Cthulhu are two types of RP that a totally freeform style can be a detriment if the players arent willing to do the footwork, or are too triggerhappy.

Keep in mind that your players are used to playing with a sort of safety net supplied by you. Were they aware that said net had been removed and they needed to be more attentive?

Also remember that you the DM are the players connection to the characters senses. The player might not pick up on something. But personally I try to stay aware of character traits that might apply passively and remind the player that they saw X or noticed Y. This isnt fudging. Its being a good DM and giving the players the data the characters are getting.

Quote from: Omega;914392Were they aware that said net had been removed and they needed to be more attentive?

Quote from: rgroveThe only comment from my players, who I warned were completely on their own before we started...

I'd say more than one session is needed without the safety net myself. Once players realize they have to be more responsible it might take time to develop those skills they were simply relying on GM fiat for before. Kudos for trying it at all, though.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355The adventure, in as brief a description as I can manage, is essentially a mystery crime solving affair at the moment.

Mysteries bring their own set of challenges.

Probably the biggest challenge is that clues that seem obvious to the GM are often confusing as hell to the players. The three clue rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) is more or less required reading. I'd say it's the best and most useful gaming article Justin Alexander has written. Go read it.[1]

Another thing I do as a GM is review what clues the players have gathered  and any avenues they are aware of but haven't chosen to explore yet. My intent is not to solve the mystery for them, but to ensure that they haven't forgotten or overlooked something that there character knows or should know. It also helps keep the players from feeling stuck without sending them down any specific path.

QuoteLast night all bets were off and I let it run. In the end we had a good time, the game is still very much 'afoot' but without my nudges things are pretty much a mess.

I'm impressed that you tried a new approach and glad that you all still had a good time. :cool: That mess you see is what many of us have learned to expect...and enjoy from games. That said, I agree with others that a mystery is one of the harder scenarios to run open ended. There are techniques that help, but they aren't always obvious.

QuoteSee you don't need an elaborate villain plot with planned out scenes. The players will usually cause enough confusion and trouble all on their own to keep everyone busy. :D

QuoteIt however is such a monster change from the general plotline as to require lots of reworking. We were going to play a follow up session tonight but no way that's happening. I need a couple days at least to figure out where the hell this is all going.

Of course you need time to figure out what to do next. This is all a new way of GMing for you. You shouldn't expect to be facile and quick right away.  If you keep practicing this style you'll get better at it and adapting to the crazy changes the PCs cause will get easier.

QuoteThe big reveal with the bad guy wasn't likely to happen for several sessions but now it could happen at any time...

Now that is what I consider dramatic. Even you don't know how things will turn out. :D

QuoteThe players are still stumbling around in the dark when I was fairly certain they would have a good sense of direction by now. They will continue to flounder, grasping at new clues (many of which I will have to generate from scratch) while the clock (the one they aren't even aware of) is counting down.

Read about the three clue rule. You want to provide different clues that they can find that will reinforce each other and help the players to eventually come up with a solution that is consistent with multiple clues.

Also review the clues they have found with them. I often start a session by doing that. It helps my players to figure out what they do already know. Which is often more than they think, but less than they need to solve the mystery.

QuoteIts a very very different tale than the one we were all expecting.

Which, in one sense, makes the outcome of that tale a real mystery for everyone.

QuoteThe only comment from my players, who I warned were completely on their own before we started, was that in an investigation game they would expect a little direction (help in other words) as its hard to translate clue finding and interviewing adequately to give them a real sense of what is going on. I know what they mean but I was pretty determined to give it a go. They were excited but frustrated by the weird change of events and admitted the game was 'dirtier' if you get the meaning, than is my norm.

That's impressive that they were willing to try something new and to stick with it even thought it obviously is, in one sense, more difficult than what they were used to and expecting.

QuoteThe vote was 2 to 1 to pull this new approach back a bit and offer a bit more in the way of GM assistance to make sure the plot follows a more or less even route rather than risk it plummeting into chaos due to an misunderstanding or uniformed decision.

Im still on the fence on how I will proceed.

1 out of 3 in favor is actually really good. 90% of people dislike change. Instead of 10% in favor you got 33%. Good job. You don't want a rebellion of unhappy players, but it will need more time for you and for them to get the hang of a new style of play. Try reviewing what they accomplished with them. Remind them what they found out. Maybe ask them to tell you what they think is going on and why they think that. Use both as an opportunity to correct any factual errors that the players may have but that their characters would know. I find players often remember some stuff which causes them to fail to solve the mystery. Without giving them the answer, I try to make sure that they know what their characters know.

QuoteDrama? Sure, there was plenty of that. Was it more fun for me as a powerless voyeur watching shit go to hell?

The GM is not at all powerless. You are just easing up on the reins a lot and letting the players have the freedom to run with stuff. That will necessarily result in a more chaotic situation.



[1] There's another problem which is the player who makes a huge intuitive leap that is correct, but let's leave that since it isn't the issue on the table for today.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355Hey guys, I mentioned back there somewhere that I had a game coming up and would put the ideas related here to test. The game was last night and I did. The results were... interesting. I was tempted but promised myself I would let the game resolve itself without any intervention from me, no matter what to see what I might be missing. This wasn't a wholesale sellout, and my intention is to proceed however I deem is best for our game, definitely not the way I played last night but perhaps with a looser reign than is customary for me.

Good on you for trying something new and, it sounds like, finding a few things you want to put into regular practice from it, even though you may not have liked everything about it!

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355The adventure, in as brief a description as I can manage, is essentially a mystery crime solving affair at the moment.

As others have said, mysteries are one of the hardest things to do well in a hands-off style, because they're essentially puzzles to be solved, which requires the person presenting the puzzle to have a pretty solid grasp of it.  I'd encourage you to give hands-off refereeing another try the next time you're running something that's not puzzle-based.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355Each piece of information is pretty subtle

That's another thing which makes mysteries tough.  Even clues which are blindingly obvious to you when you're setting the game up can easily be missed completely by players.  If you're not going to intervene to call players' attention to them, subtle clues generally don't work well (if at all).

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355Last night all bets were off and I let it run. In the end we had a good time, the game is still very much 'afoot' but without my nudges things are pretty much a mess. Several important sources of information were completely ignored, their critical info lost leaving big holes in the player's understanding of what is going on. A bad negotiation roll resulted in not only a key contact not helping but lying, sending them on what will be a long and fruitless goosechase. A misunderstanding caused one of the players to quit their job with the false idea that their employer is in on it somehow. Her employment was a key feature in a part of the plot that will now have to be completely retooled. Lastly some randomness and rash decisions by one of the players provided an informant of the bad guy their identities and exactly what they were up to, so instead of an ignorant, aloof, and unaware bad guy they now face an informed and pissed off one.

That all sounds about right.  :D

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355It however is such a monster change from the general plotline as to require lots of reworking. We were going to play a follow up session tonight but no way that's happening. I need a couple days at least to figure out where the hell this is all going.

The key to hands-off refereeing on an ongoing basis is to just ride it out and not worry about where the hell it's all going.  I realize that you don't intend to go hands-off on a regular basis, but I mention this to point out that, by switching back and forth, you're making extra work for yourself because now you need to reconcile last night's events to your normal style.  If you give hands-off another try in the future, it will be easier for you if you go hands-off for a few sessions in a row than if you switch back and forth repeatedly.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355The vote was 2 to 1 to pull this new approach back a bit

If you don't mind digging a little, and they're willing to share, I would be very curious to hear what your players did and didn't like about your experiment.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355Oh yeah, trying to wrangle the behind the scenes activity and actions of a dozen or more key NPCs plus present the vast number of different locales and personalities was certainly a chore. Fun, but difficult. Responding to the sometimes completely unexpected direction of the group was also difficult, again

Yes, there's definitely a bit of skill involved there.  If you're not used to it, it can take some time to build those "muscles" up.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355All this is great I suppose from one stand point, its certainly dramatic.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355Drama? Sure, there was plenty of that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914355Ultimately I think the presentation of the game lost a few points while perhaps the drama level and stresses on the players increased

Personally, I find these to be the most interesting comments in your report.  Throughout the discussions here, you've tended to put "drama" forward as the primary motivation for your interventionist GMing style.  Now you say that, in your experiment, the hands-off style made things more dramatic, but you still didn't particularly like it and don't plan to continue with it.  Maybe it's time to reconsider what it is that you enjoy and want to pursue in GMing?  Perhaps drama is actually less important to you than you've previously thought.

Quote from: Omega;914392Also remember that you the DM are the players connection to the characters senses. The player might not pick up on something. But personally I try to stay aware of character traits that might apply passively and remind the player that they saw X or noticed Y. This isnt fudging. Its being a good DM and giving the players the data the characters are getting.

QFT

Oh I'm not throwing in the towel, only may ease back a bit where clues an such are concerned. Making a few of the critical ones more or less definite no matter what the do or where they go.

As a couple people pointed out reviewing the clues really helps.  Make sure they say them out loud.  I remember playing concept, I could it read all the clues they just didn't make sense.  I'm mean what the fuck is a 'spiral tool for happy red liquid?'  As soon as I asked that out loud every one knew it was a cork screw.  But they were all just as stumped as me until I said it out loud.

As others said, it's great to see you trying this out. Not that you weren't great at your usual approach. But I love seeing what arises naturally from play with a GM that allows things to happen as they do, rather than planning out everything in advance and steering things down pre-determined paths. To me, the events you describe, while chaotic and confusing, are very interesting and entertaining.

You're getting good advice about mystery games and clues. They are more challenging to do in this style, especially if your measure of success involves having the story be a lot like a controlled mystery plot. Mystery plots tend to force people to drag out discoveries and then eventually lead to a reveal, with sidetracks being unavoidable but finite. In sandbox mode, anything is possible, including getting confused, deciding to do something else, having the bad guy get away, or murder the PCs, or frame the PCs, or having the PCs figure it out right away shortcutting all the clues, or figure out other things you hadn't intended, or suspect each other, or the murderer fails a roll and get caught by someone else, or poisons himself by accident, or whatever.

It's of course entirely ok to play with only having some elements be free to move, and others be fixed,.

Even in a non-mystery game, when I'm not forcing anything, I find that even very smart players have quite a capacity to not see clues or get weird ideas. Or the opposite - to see the truth, or solutions I hadn't thought of, quickly and easily. But mainly not seeing clues or taking them the way I expect. So I've learned to not expect that, and to provide much more information, not to intentionally spell out things, but just to give them more clues and feedback. If you're used to guiding the play, when you take that away, something needs to compensate. A mystery balanced for eventually guiding them in the right directions, if you remove that guidance, probably needs a lot more clues and leads and smart talkative NPCs and so on, for the players to be likely to find stuff.

But ya, it seems far more interesting to me for the players to naturally go way off track and then eventually make adjustments, than to be led down planned wild goose hunts. I like the taste of actual wild game better than eating trained farm-raised geese.

I read the article on "Three Clues" and actually I already am using some of the suggestion in there . (Like doubling up on clues to make sure they find one if they miss another) It is challenging with all the possibilities in place as mentioned above but I can see how this style of gaming can grow on you. The result is pretty different from we are used to though.

Keep in mind that if a style really makes you and/or the players uncomfortable. Then go back to what works and what everyone likes. Experimentation is fine. But knowing when to back off is also important.

You as the DM start experimenting with bog standard RNG gen dungeoncrawling and think its great. But I as the player think its a board game and want to go back to your plotted tales. Or I'm experimenting with a GM-emulator oracle for the group and like it. But everyone else wants me to go back to GMing freeform because they like how I GM.

sigh. Fine. Be that way. I see how it is. :D

Do I ever fudge die rolls?

Only if, in the middle of a big fight, I don't have time to remember the exact modifier I should be adding to some roll and I don't have the precious seconds available it would take me to dig through my notes.  In those instances, I spitball a modifier that feels right.  I know almost to a certainty my faulty memory has directly influenced the outcome of some of the big battles in my campaign so far, but my players know I would never intentionally fudge a die roll to sway results one way or the other.  

When it comes to NPC/NPC interaction, I don't roll unless it's a big deal and the encounter can be resolved with a single roll (e.g a diplomacy check) and it is happening directly in front of the PCs.  Otherwise, I just say what happens based upon what I feel is likely to happen; if the evil minister has a high Diplomacy check, and I want the evil minister to sway the Baron against the PCs, I don't need to roll a whole series of diplo checks to make it "legit" because I know that's totally in that NPC's wheelhouse and something he could well do.  Again the point of this is not to create some narrative I want, it's just to save time.

Quote from: Omega;914392Murder mysteries and Call of Cthulhu are two types of RP that a totally freeform style can be a detriment if the players arent willing to do the footwork, or are too triggerhappy.

Keep in mind that your players are used to playing with a sort of safety net supplied by you. Were they aware that said net had been removed and they needed to be more attentive?

Also remember that you the DM are the players connection to the characters senses. The player might not pick up on something. But personally I try to stay aware of character traits that might apply passively and remind the player that they saw X or noticed Y. This isnt fudging. Its being a good DM and giving the players the data the characters are getting.

I have done some pretty freeform Call of Cthulhu sessions and found they are tremendously difficult. I can sustain the atmosphere or have a good plot, but doing both at once is almost beyond me if I haven't done my prep.

As for mysteries, my ht is off to you if you can write and run them successfully. I can't. Mystery and espionage are two genres that I simply cannot write and run good scenarios for.

There are times I feel like I am overplaying my hand when I mention some piece of background sensory information to the players. It doesn't seem fair to not tell them that the candles have started burning blue, but if I say something the players will immediately give it their full attention. Even worse is asking for that Spot Hidden check and then saying "you didn't notice anything". I make notes of the characters abilities so I can roll some of those checks behind the screen, but players want to roll all their own dice for their character.

It's funny, but to me Call of Cthulhu is basically the poster child for games where the neutral arbiter approach is not only dramatically desirable but intrinsic to the underlying theme of a universe that doesn't give a fuck about humanity.

Though there are certainly some plot railroad scenarios and campaigns available for the game, some of which are quite good, like Tatters of the Yellow King.

Not to revive this exhaustive discussion but I came across a few lines in a recently purchased, newly published, RPG that were a little surprising (and reassuring) given the bent of the thread here.

Symbaroum Core Rulebook - page 169
"Save Them From Trouble - If you as a Game Master have placed the player characters in a tight spot , they you should also be prepared to save them from certain doom. Do not let them die, give them a chance to survive in captivity instead. Or let another group appear and save them at the last possible moment - afterwards demanding their help with something difficult and unpleasant of course."

Symbaroum Adventure Pack 1 - Blight Night, page 22
"The exact number of Goblins is not set in stone. The important thing is that they swarm, and that they appear to be so many that the players realize that they cannot win this battle by meeting them on the open field. "

These are just two examples, there are more, of the publishers obviously supporting and even encouraging the very mechanics I defended. Once I again Im not trying to say that its wrong, or right or better or worse..only that it doesn't appear that I am in such a minority as some have suggested. Its not an outdated and worn out practice either as Symbaroum is a fairly new addition to the hobby.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915677Not to revive this exhaustive discussion but I came across a few lines in a recently purchased, newly published, RPG that were a little surprising (and reassuring) given the bent of the thread here.

Symbaroum Core Rulebook - page 169
"Save Them From Trouble - If you as a Game Master have placed the player characters in a tight spot , they you should also be prepared to save them from certain doom. Do not let them die, give them a chance to survive in captivity instead. Or let another group appear and save them at the last possible moment - afterwards demanding their help with something difficult and unpleasant of course."

Symbaroum Adventure Pack 1 - Blight Night, page 22
"The exact number of Goblins is not set in stone. The important thing is that they swarm, and that they appear to be so many that the players realize that they cannot win this battle by meeting them on the open field. "

These are just two examples, there are more, of the publishers obviously supporting and even encouraging the very mechanics I defended. Once I again Im not trying to say that its wrong, or right or better or worse..only that it doesn't appear that I am in such a minority as some have suggested. Its not an outdated and worn out practice either as Symbaroum is a fairly new addition to the hobby.

Its crap.

The entire premise is flawed. If you are doing your job as a GM properly you are neither placing the PCs into tight spots or rescuing them from them. The players themselves enter situations and it is likewise they who need to find a way out.

As many goblins as needed? In a fairly run game the players, and the opposition have finite resources. Piling on infinite resources from the GM side until the players have no option but run down the maze in the pattern you dictate like trapped rats turns the whole affair into a farce. It then no longer any kind of game.

Now you're just deliberately trying to shake the hornet's nest. ;)

Have others suggested that you're in the minority? (Admittedly, I haven't read every post in this thread). I don't think that's the case. I'd say that you, and other GMs that use these approaches, probably easily make up 50% or greater of the gaming population. You're probably just in the minority on the RpgSite - a collection of mostly very experienced gamers that have gamed a lot and talked a lot about gaming online. In fact, the opposite approach - which I identify with - has probably evolved more from Rpg forum 'culture' and conversations than through published GM advice. It's "published" GM wisdom/advice that's disseminated through a different medium.

Published GM advice, that suggests coddling, has reappeared throughout the past few decades and will continue to be published. (And, as another said in this thread, this approach has probably helped to spawn the storygaming movement - where the reaction is to wrest arbitrary control away from the GM and distribute it among the players). Good and bad advice perpetuates.

I still think it's terrible advice, from my own years of experience and what I've learned in actual play over many, many decades of running sessions. It's one thing to read the advice from a smattering of published Rpg products and try to piece together how to GM an Rpg. It's another thing to see what effect these approaches have in your game sessions. From my own experience, heavy-handed GMing or player-coddling is unsatisfying as hell, and can have adverse effects upon gaming groups - depending on player expectations and game style.

If your players enjoy being treated like this, and you enjoy this style of GMing, then you're doing things right - for your group. You should realize by now, after this long thread, that it doesn't work for everyone. And, if your circumstances change and you end up playing with a different group of players, this same published advice that you hold dear may not work for your new players.

I was just making the point that the practice is,officially recognized. Could be the alternative is the minority. Hard to tell from one forum as you say.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915692I was just making the point that the practice is,officially recognized.

I don't think anyone has disputed that.  But, just in case, I not only acknowledge that Symbaroum endorses the things you quoted, but that several other RPGs have included advice which gets far more railroady and, beyond even that, there are several highly-regarded books of GMing advice which consist primarily of instructions for how to structure your adventure and/or campaign like a play (most often in a three-act structure) and then ensure that your players follow this script.  I believe that it's probably the dominant school of thought put forth in published instructional materials for GMs.

But that doesn't change that a lot of us are put off by it for various reasons, both as players and as GMs.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915692I was just making the point that the practice is,officially recognized. Could be the alternative is the minority. Hard to tell from one forum as you say.

Its not recognized. Its just used by some writers. Much like another RPG writer told players in the rule book that it was ok to reneg on trades of game material and effectively steal from players. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did. Theres another that tells the GM to take over the players characters and make them fight and squabble if they are co-operating too much. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did. Then there are whole RPG lines built on "fixing" this or that element of an RPG that was never broken in the first place. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did.

GM handholding and GM railroading are recognized. As bad forms of GMing. Kreuger is not joking when he mentioned that there was a whole movement of RPG design based on combatting that sort of GM by shackling and depowering them. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did.

Quote from: nDervish;915725I don't think anyone has disputed that.  But, just in case, I not only acknowledge that Symbaroum endorses the things you quoted, but that several other RPGs have included advice which gets far more railroady and, beyond even that, there are several highly-regarded books of GMing advice which consist primarily of instructions for how to structure your adventure and/or campaign like a play (most often in a three-act structure) and then ensure that your players follow this script.  I believe that it's probably the dominant school of thought put forth in published instructional materials for GMs.

But that doesn't change that a lot of us are put off by it for various reasons, both as players and as GMs.

Ok, and I think Im seeing this more clearly and very differently now. As I stated, Ive been pretty sheltered from GM advice, having only players that don't GM to chat with for several years and previously having not real reason to go online. When I began to see the responses here I assumed it was a industry norm, that somehow the roleplaying philosophy had changed while I was tucked away in my sheltered existence. I am seeing now that it REALLY IS just a matter of opinion. There are a dozen or so dedicated GMs on this site that feel very strongly about their opinions but in all likelihood they are vastly outnumbered by those that follow a more conventional approach as I do. The published advise you relate to is sort of proof. They would only write what sells and what sells is what people agree with.

Quote from: Omega;915731Its not recognized. Its just used by some writers. Much like another RPG writer told players in the rule book that it was ok to reneg on trades of game material and effectively steal from players. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did. Theres another that tells the GM to take over the players characters and make them fight and squabble if they are co-operating too much. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did. Then there are whole RPG lines built on "fixing" this or that element of an RPG that was never broken in the first place. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did.

GM handholding and GM railroading are recognized. As bad forms of GMing. Kreuger is not joking when he mentioned that there was a whole movement of RPG design based on combatting that sort of GM by shackling and depowering them. Do you think that is a viable practice to bring to the table? The designer sure did.

Your examples are in the extreme and have little connection at all with a proven and successful GM approach. Ok, lots GMs absolutely hate it. Fair enough. There are lots, maybe more, that don't. When the negative criticisms are interjected with this logic they are both easier to stomach and make a great deal more sense. When someone just assumes that their way is the best and coolest and most awesome and your way sucks balls, its kind of hard to take their suggestions in stride, although I actually did just that. I learned a lot from a couple sessions withdrawing my influence as a GM a bit but some reading has proven I needn't, not even to feel as if I am in league with a majority of modern GMs.

Here's the real deal. GMing is both an art and a craft.

A dozen painters can give you a dozen different approaches. But the idea of there being a recognised "authority" on how to paint is silly. "Oh, it was published in a book of painting advice, so it must be officially the best way to paint!"

Or, on the craft level, somebody can advise you how to build a cabinet. Maybe they are advising you how to build a cabinet that looks nice. Or maybe the emphasis is on structural soundness.

Good advice, for artists or craftsmen, is about achieving particular effects. It's not "Do it my way or you suck!" As long as you UNDERSTAND the advice, the popularity or "officialness" of the advice is irrelevent. 7 out of 10 books telling me to practice railroading doesn't mean crap. I know why they are saying it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915738Ok, and I think Im seeing this more clearly and very differently now. As I stated, Ive been pretty sheltered from GM advice, having only players that don't GM to chat with for several years and previously having not real reason to go online. When I began to see the responses here I assumed it was a industry norm, that somehow the roleplaying philosophy had changed while I was tucked away in my sheltered existence. I am seeing now that it REALLY IS just a matter of opinion. There are a dozen or so dedicated GMs on this site that feel very strongly about their opinions but in all likelihood they are vastly outnumbered by those that follow a more conventional approach as I do. The published advise you relate to is sort of proof. They would only write what sells and what sells is what people agree with.

Here's you getting in trouble again...your need to feel your approach is conventional.  Your approach just isn't.  Neither is mine.  Google up the Logical Fallacy "Appeal to Authority"...then stop doing it.  Yes, claiming that your method Vastly Outnumbers other methods is a type of Appeal to Authority.

Are your players still showing up?  Is everyone liking what you're doing?  That's the only real validation you should be seeking.

However...your way is extremely specific and particular.  As I mentioned earlier...

Quote from: CRKrueger;913823Being Old doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Extreme historical detail doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Massive amounts of prep doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Playing to create Story doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.
Any possible combination of any of those doesn't lead to Grove GMing that way.

People do all those things and don't GM that way.

What's left? Grove leads to Grove GMing that way. Period.

You greatly enjoy super-detailed Solo-Roleplay as a method of Story Creation.
Your approach to Group-Roleplay is the same, another method of Story Creation, which is fine.

Assuming that's the "Vast Majority" of tables out there, isn't just incorrect, it's near delusional.  You can read all the individual blogs validating your GM technique you want to, there's a good chance you've already read 99% of them.  If you really want to test your theory that you are in the Vast Majority, go do some detailed example posting on WotC, Paizo, rpg.net, storygames.com, thegamingden, enworld, giantintheplayground...and see where that gets you.  My guess, you pick up at least two perma-bans.

You've been presented with alternate viewpoints - evaluate them, perhaps even try them and find out for yourself whether they have value for you and yours, or dismiss them out of hand, and waste your time in reading them.   If you're going to just persist in making up truths in order to give yourself validation, why not just host your own forums and Solo-Post?

Quote from: Manzanaro;915752Here's the real deal. GMing is both an art and a craft.

A dozen painters can give you a dozen different approaches. But the idea of there being a recognised "authority" on how to paint is silly. "Oh, it was published in a book of painting advice, so it must be officially the best way to paint!"

Or, on the craft level, somebody can advise you how to build a cabinet. Maybe they are advising you how to build a cabinet that looks nice. Or maybe the emphasis is on structural soundness.

Good advice, for artists or craftsmen, is about achieving particular effects. It's not "Do it my way or you suck!" As long as you UNDERSTAND the advice, the popularity or "officialness" of the advice is irrelevent. 7 out of 10 books telling me to practice railroading doesn't mean crap. I know why they are saying it.

There are recognized authorities on painting. You can choose to follow them or ignore them or follow any of a hundred different techniques at your whim. What their existence does is relate that the particular style they are expressing is an accepted one. That's what Im getting at here. You can hate the meddling GM approach all you like, find it a travesty, a sacrilege or whatever but you cannot deny that it is as acceptable and mainstream a practice as whatever you find yourself doing at your table. Many here were suggesting that what I was describing was completely unacceptable, a dinosaur reserved for unskilled and unenlightened GMs. The 7 out of 10 books condoning such an approach prove that is not the case and their suggestions do indeed 'mean crap' to many gamers.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915753Here's you getting in trouble again...your need to feel your approach is conventional.  Your approach just isn't.  Neither is mine.  Google up the Logical Fallacy "Appeal to Authority"...then stop doing it.  Yes, claiming that your method Vastly Outnumbers other methods is a type of Appeal to Authority.

Are your players still showing up?  Is everyone liking what you're doing?  That's the only real validation you should be seeking.

However...your way is extremely specific and particular.  As I mentioned earlier...


You greatly enjoy super-detailed Solo-Roleplay as a method of Story Creation.
Your approach to Group-Roleplay is the same, another method of Story Creation, which is fine.

Assuming that's the "Vast Majority" of tables out there, isn't just incorrect, it's near delusional.  You can read all the individual blogs validating your GM technique you want to, there's a good chance you've already read 99% of them.  If you really want to test your theory that you are in the Vast Majority, go do some detailed example posting on WotC, Paizo, rpg.net, storygames.com, thegamingden, enworld, giantintheplayground...and see where that gets you.  My guess, you pick up at least two perma-bans.

You've been presented with alternate viewpoints - evaluate them, perhaps even try them and find out for yourself whether they have value for you and yours, or dismiss them out of hand, and waste your time in reading them.   If you're going to just persist in making up truths in order to give yourself validation, why not just host your own forums and Solo-Post?

Umm, I err, did evaluate them and I also tried them (with some success, you might have missed that, admittedly this is a nauseatingly long thread.) Having done so I absolutely see some benefit in what many here have been expressing. I haven't made up any truths in raising this carcass of a thread from the dead. What I did was state a truth, that there is a particular game (and some others I didn't mentions specifically) that directly support my style of GMing. This in itself proves pretty clearly that it is an accepted style, (perhaps in the majority as I have not read the kinds of advice Ive been hearing here in many of the rule books on my shelf, but of course I cant be sure) and not deserved of the poison spewed about it here.

I find it odd that I am ridiculed for defending my position but in doing so I am no more forceful or opinionated that those condemning it. As to validation, this thread has been thick with those validating their opinion. Is there some rule that states Im not allowed to validate mine?

I can only say this so many ways. I DONT CLAIM THAT MY WAY IS RIGHT OR BETTER!!!! I claim that my way works as a suitable way to run a game and shouldn't be looked down on so brazenly by those that don't appreciate it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915779What I did was state a truth, that there is a particular game (and some others I didn't mentions specifically) that directly support my style of GMing. This in itself proves pretty clearly that it is an accepted style, (perhaps in the majority as I have not read the kinds of advice Ive been hearing here in many of the rule books on my shelf, but of course I cant be sure) and not deserved of the poison spewed about it here.

Which game, btw?  I think you're being a little overly generous to yourself in your stating these games support your style.  I don't remember a whole lot of games that specifically advocate fudging, but a few specific titles or pages, could quickly prove me wrong.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915779I find it odd that I am ridiculed for defending my position but in doing so I am no more forceful or opinionated that those condemning it. As to validation, this thread has been thick with those validating their opinion. Is there some rule that states Im not allowed to validate mine?

Most of us aren't claiming that they're approach to GMing is supported by the Vast Majority.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915779I can only say this so many ways. I DONT CLAIM THAT MY WAY IS RIGHT OR BETTER!!!! I claim that my way works as a suitable way to run a game and shouldn't be looked down on so brazenly by those that don't appreciate it.

You keep saying that...the problem is, you only say it when someone calls you on it when you claim authority for your style in an attempt to frame your style as widely used and supported, which it certainly is not.

You originally claimed your style was supported by the Old School - false.
You then claimed, you discovered through reading that your style was supported by those from the Story movement. - false.
a couple more of these, and now we're to the point where some new reading has led you believe fudging to make things go the way you want for a better story is in the "Vast Majority" - so false that it tires me to even have to be discussing this.

Again titles and quotes showing that GMs fudging results to better entertain the players and tell their own story is an advocated for GM style would clear things right up.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915785Which game, btw?  I think you're being a little overly generous to yourself in your stating these games support your style.  I don't remember a whole lot of games that specifically advocate fudging, but a few specific titles or pages, could quickly prove me wrong.

Most of us aren't claiming that they're approach to GMing is supported by the Vast Majority.

You keep saying that...the problem is, you only say it when someone calls you on it when you claim authority for your style in an attempt to frame your style as widely used and supported, which it certainly is not.

You originally claimed your style was supported by the Old School - false.
You then claimed, you discovered through reading that your style was supported by those from the Story movement. - false.
a couple more of these, and now we're to the point where some new reading has led you believe fudging to make things go the way you want for a better story is in the "Vast Majority" - so false that it tires me to even have to be discussing this.

Again titles and quotes showing that GMs fudging results to better entertain the players and tell their own story is an advocated for GM style would clear things right up.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34987-Behind-the-Curtain-GMing&p=915677&viewfull=1#post915677

This game, in the post that resurrected this thread. I can produce more if it would help. Ill round them up. I cant begin to recite how many GM sections of rulebooks include the disclaimer that "the rules are a guideline, they should not hinder the GM or players in the formation of their desired adventure." Surely Im not the only one that had read that a at least a hundred times.

Every RPG having some form of Rule Zero does not mean that every RPG specifically advocates tossing dice then making up whatever result you want.  That's what I meant by you being very generous to your point of view, when you say RPGs support it.

Heres another - Star Trek TNG RPG Core book - page 157

"Each of the previous principles together form the principle of drama: The Story is King. Don't call for rolls that could slow down or derail the story. Dice add a random element. Don't have the players roll the dice if you want to keep the story on track."

and on the previous page..

"Theres a time and place for the rules, and a time and place to break them in order to maximize everybody's game fun."

and

"Don't let the dice save the players from their own foolishness. If they pull a phaser on a Klingon ambassador, all the successful persuasion roll in the galaxy shouldn't save them from a duel, a serious intersteller incident or being ignominiously stunned by the ambassador's body guards (who should make their Disruptor rolls automatically to enforce this salutary lesson.) Players should never count on the letter of the rules to keep them safe from the universe's punishment for their stupidity"

Quote from: rgrove0172;915809Heres another - Star Trek TNG RPG Core book - page 157

"Each of the previous principles together form the principle of drama: The Story is King. Don't call for rolls that could slow down or derail the story. Dice add a random element. Don't have the players roll the dice if you want to keep the story on track."

This one is basically saying what others were telling you.  If you don't want to go to the dice in the first place, don't.  It's not saying "Go to the dice no matter what and then simply fudge whatever happens."  Whether it's telling you to railroad the players into the Story you have designed, or whether they mean "Story on track" to mean "keep the game moving and don't engage a bunch of mechanics if you don't have to" is hard to tell.  

That's always been the problem with letting the "RPGs create stories" bullshit fly unchallenged.  Some literally mean Story, some do not.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915809"Theres a time and place for the rules, and a time and place to break them in order to maximize everybody's game fun."

Would be nice to get a bit more context, but I'll give you that one, the problem with this advice is, of course, that it means YOU are the arbiter of what others find fun.  Which is why some people roll their eyes at crap like this in books and just ignore it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915809"Don't let the dice save the players from their own foolishness. If they pull a phaser on a Klingon ambassador, all the successful persuasion roll in the galaxy shouldn't save them from a duel, a serious intersteller incident or being ignominiously stunned by the ambassador's body guards (who should make their Disruptor rolls automatically to enforce this salutary lesson.) Players should never count on the letter of the rules to keep them safe from the universe's punishment for their stupidity"

This has two examples...

First one is GMing 101 - Don't give Social Skills the power of magic spells.  Bodyguards aren't going to listen to a guy pulling a gun and pointing it at their principle.  That's just common sense and has absolutely nothing to do with Story or anything about your GMing Style.  
 
Second one contains the worst kind of GMing advice possible.  Having the bodyguards draw their lethal disruptors and fire at the idiotic PCs is good advice.  Fudging to automatically make the PCs die as punishment and an object lesson is terrible, terrible advice.  It completely does the opposite of teaching the proposed lesson.  It teaches the players you throw blue bolts and probably use grudge monsters when it should be teaching them to think about the logical consequences of their actions.

Protip: Knights of the Dinner Table is a satire.

Ok, Ill return this thread to its casket then. Point made... its a viable and time honored method of running a game and works great for many groups. So much so its specifically mentioned in published game materials. Many people hate it however and wont tolerate being involved in it.

I would have expected a lot more "its an option I don't particularly like but to each their own" and less "Its crap, it sucks and if you do it your a booger."

Curtain..

Quote from: rgrove0172;915677Not to revive this exhaustive discussion but I came across a few lines in a recently purchased, newly published, RPG that were a little surprising (and reassuring) given the bent of the thread here.

Symbaroum Core Rulebook - page 169
"Save Them From Trouble - If you as a Game Master have placed the player characters in a tight spot , they you should also be prepared to save them from certain doom. Do not let them die, give them a chance to survive in captivity instead. Or let another group appear and save them at the last possible moment - afterwards demanding their help with something difficult and unpleasant of course."

I read this as "if you used your GM powers to force an unfair situation on the PCs, then the least you could do to try to make that somewhat fair is to provide some way out of it..." - that part seems reasonable, but to me is about compensating for a mistake. The part about "of course" then demanding help with something difficult or unpleasant I take as either a joke or a red flag sign that the writer is of what I think of as the "annoying torture GM" type, who thinks it's the GM's job to provide a reality that constantly gives the players annoying challenges no matter what they do.

Now to be clear, I think this IS A VALID AND POPULAR GM STYLE,  but I also think it is only one style, and that GMs and RPG authors who think it is the only or best style are even more annoying than GMs who over-use that style. It's not a style I like except sometimes when I happen to enjoy the chosen torture and the GM's style. It's not the presence of awful situations, puzzles, dilemmas, challenges, etc., but the forced and unavoidable nature of them, which undermines my ability and will to believe and care about the game situation, because when things are forced they ARE NOT A GAME SITUATION - they're a forced story. It may be ok if the forced parts are just "out of scope" and not falsely treated as if I can interact with them. I don't want to be teased with a fake-interactive interlude - I'd rather fast-forward to the part where I get to interact with an actual game situation that doesn't include a torturing all-powerful god. If my destiny is already written by god, I'd like to just know what it is and not be toyed with as if there's an actual situation I can do something about.

QuoteSymbaroum Adventure Pack 1 - Blight Night, page 22
"The exact number of Goblins is not set in stone. The important thing is that they swarm, and that they appear to be so many that the players realize that they cannot win this battle by meeting them on the open field. "

So the writer sees no point in actually knowing how many goblins there are and letting that be an established detail that can have meaningful effects by itself. I do see the value in knowing those things (as well as the map, and letting the PCs do whatever they can think of). Yes, there are writers who prefer form over substance in this kind of way, and while I think they have a right to do so, it's not the style (or really, the mode of play) I like or am interested in, and I tend to think of what they are doing as "interactive storytelling" more than gaming. Alternatively, I would recommend that they more explicitly and honestly explain that parts of the story are narrative framework where the players have little or no choice and things won't be gamed out.

Because, I would love to play a dwarf in that situation in a detailed tactical simulation game, and find a defensible area and game out exactly how many of them I can kill and in what way. I would like to see if I can block the tunnel with goblin corpses, a possibility the writer probably has not thought of, and does not find interesting. I find that more interesting than the supposedly-dramatic situation that is supposed to make me not have any choice but still treat as real. Even if I'm not that kind of character, I still want all the situations to be "real" game situations, and to always have the options that a person in the situation would have. If the GM only wants to allow one or two real options, I prefer the GM tell me that, and not slowly force me to discover that I artificially have no choice. I have no problem with 20,000 goblins coming, if there is a map with a real game location they came from, a reason they came, and I get appropriate chances to know about it and do something. It's just an entirely different thing to be in an actually impossible situation that is impossible because it really is due to the situation, and to be in an "impossible situation" that is really the GM trying to dramatize something in a forced artificial way, particularly if they aren't honest about the fact that they are forcing the situation and denying me the chances to detect it or do something about it other than the one thing the GM has in mind. I'd rather be told that the session begins after a series of events that already occurred as happened.

QuoteThese are just two examples, there are more, of the publishers obviously supporting and even encouraging the very mechanics I defended. Once I again Im not trying to say that its wrong, or right or better or worse..only that it doesn't appear that I am in such a minority as some have suggested. Its not an outdated and worn out practice either as Symbaroum is a fairly new addition to the hobby.

Yeah, again, it's a valid style, and actually seems more popular with newer gamers than older ones. I think part of the reason for the increased popularity has to do with all the computer adventure & CRPGs, where there is a very established railroad tradition largely due to technical reasons and copying previous games. Also, I started with TFT, which is full of the opposite school of thought.

CRPG makers, players, and RPG players who are into this style often don't seem to get the difference, possibility, and/or value of actual dynamic game systems over forced pre-concocted story-telling. That leads to those of us who do get it, using extra emphasis, argumentative language, and expressing our dislike and annoyance, particularly at the people who seem to not get see the value in having an actual game situation.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915809Heres another - Star Trek TNG RPG Core book - page 157

"Each of the previous principles together form the principle of drama: The Story is King. Don't call for rolls that could slow down or derail the story. Dice add a random element. Don't have the players roll the dice if you want to keep the story on track."

and on the previous page..

"Theres a time and place for the rules, and a time and place to break them in order to maximize everybody's game fun."

and

"Don't let the dice save the players from their own foolishness. If they pull a phaser on a Klingon ambassador, all the successful persuasion roll in the galaxy shouldn't save them from a duel, a serious intersteller incident or being ignominiously stunned by the ambassador's body guards (who should make their Disruptor rolls automatically to enforce this salutary lesson.) Players should never count on the letter of the rules to keep them safe from the universe's punishment for their stupidity"

And there's another writer whose game I don't want to play in, unless he's up-front that large parts of the plot are in railroad storytell mode, and there is an actual gameplay part that I'm interested in. Which I'm probably not. I would much rather play Star Fleet Battles, the detailed tactical starship simulation where you have a tactical map, ships with diagrams and energy allocation, and the story that frames the situation is in the scenario background description.

Now, there might be an in-world reason why my character would never pull a phaser on the Klingon ambassador, say because my PC is a Federation officer and my training and the situation don't call for that. In that case, the answer is that the player's proposed action is out of character and doesn't happen, and the player needs an OOC lesson.

Quote from: Skarg;915871And there's another writer whose game I don't want to play in, unless he's up-front that large parts of the plot are in railroad storytell mode, and there is an actual gameplay part that I'm interested in. Which I'm probably not. I would much rather play Star Fleet Battles, the detailed tactical starship simulation where you have a tactical map, ships with diagrams and energy allocation, and the story that frames the situation is in the scenario background description.

Now, there might be an in-world reason why my character would never pull a phaser on the Klingon ambassador, say because my PC is a Federation officer and my training and the situation don't call for that. In that case, the answer is that the player's proposed action is out of character and doesn't happen, and the player needs an OOC lesson.

As for caring about what most people do, what the current trend is, or what's published...  those are all bad ideas, too, in my opinion. There are published games about rape. Also, popular published trends in RPGs tend to be aimed at new unskilled players. Forcing plots are crutches and trainer wheels that may be needed by most new GMs. Some GMs continue to play that way, and some really get brilliant at the way they do it.

Your brilliance and the acceptance of your players are good reasons to value the play style you've been using. Trends, popularity, and published advice to new players who don't have GM experience, are not good reasons to choose a play style, unless you see some ideas you like or want to try.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915809Heres another - Star Trek TNG RPG Core book - page 157
"Don't let the dice save the players from their own foolishness. If they pull a phaser on a Klingon ambassador, all the successful persuasion roll in the galaxy shouldn't save them from a duel, a serious intersteller incident or being ignominiously stunned by the ambassador's body guards (who should make their Disruptor rolls automatically to enforce this salutary lesson.) Players should never count on the letter of the rules to keep them safe from the universe's punishment for their stupidity"

Having the Klingons automatically hit with their Disruptors to punish the player for pulling a phaser on the ambassador is cheating in my book. No persuasion will not save them from a duel. But the Klingons should still have to roll to hit with their Disruptors, why else have rules for adjudicating combat?

Quote from: CRKrueger;915753Here's you getting in trouble again...your need to feel your approach is conventional.  Your approach just isn't.  Neither is mine.  Google up the Logical Fallacy "Appeal to Authority"...then stop doing it.  Yes, claiming that your method Vastly Outnumbers other methods is a type of Appeal to Authority.

Are your players still showing up?  Is everyone liking what you're doing?  That's the only real validation you should be seeking.

However...your way is extremely specific and particular.  As I mentioned earlier...


You greatly enjoy super-detailed Solo-Roleplay as a method of Story Creation.
Your approach to Group-Roleplay is the same, another method of Story Creation, which is fine.

Assuming that's the "Vast Majority" of tables out there, isn't just incorrect, it's near delusional.  You can read all the individual blogs validating your GM technique you want to, there's a good chance you've already read 99% of them.  If you really want to test your theory that you are in the Vast Majority, go do some detailed example posting on WotC, Paizo, rpg.net, storygames.com, thegamingden, enworld, giantintheplayground...and see where that gets you.  My guess, you pick up at least two perma-bans.

You've been presented with alternate viewpoints - evaluate them, perhaps even try them and find out for yourself whether they have value for you and yours, or dismiss them out of hand, and waste your time in reading them.   If you're going to just persist in making up truths in order to give yourself validation, why not just host your own forums and Solo-Post?

The appeal to authority is where I keep calling out the arrogance of the OP and then being cursed out in subsequent posts. It's really quite funny when you call it what it is and then the OP starts name-calling. Throughout this thread, most everyone has said that the OP's style wasn't uncommon. That it was supported in gaming literature. That it has been a style since gaming began and ever after. But now it's quite clear that all OP wants is an echo chamber to feel superior. Listen, there are published works out there supporting the existence of Bigfoot, racism, violent protest, and killing goblin children. It doesn't make them any more right.

If it works for you and your group, yay! But do not claim to be the majority nor more correct, because neither are true. There's no need to justify yourself to the world at large.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915854Ok, Ill return this thread to its casket then. Point made... its a viable and time honored method of running a game and works great for many groups. So much so its specifically mentioned in published game materials. Many people hate it however and wont tolerate being involved in it.

Curtain..

Viable? Sure.
Abused just as oft as its been used viable? Sure.
Time honored? uh... No.

As we keep noting. There are all sorts of styles to RPing and some that drift away from RPGs into odd territory and some that arent RPGs at all but get called such. For some X works and Y fails, and for others Y works and X fails. And for others a hybrid of X and Y works where alone they fail. And so on.

Asbestos Curtain!

Quote from: Harlock;915896The appeal to authority is where I keep calling out the arrogance of the OP and then being cursed out in subsequent posts. It's really quite funny when you call it what it is and then the OP starts name-calling. Throughout this thread, most everyone has said that the OP's style wasn't uncommon. That it was supported in gaming literature. That it has been a style since gaming began and ever after. But now it's quite clear that all OP wants is an echo chamber to feel superior. Listen, there are published works out there supporting the existence of Bigfoot, racism, violent protest, and killing goblin children. It doesn't make them any more right.

If it works for you and your group, yay! But do not claim to be the majority nor more correct, because neither are true. There's no need to justify yourself to the world at large.

It's also funny when the tea pot calls the kettle black. Insulting someone repeatedly then whining when they hit back is easily as laughable.

Dude!?!  You were out.  You were done.  We agreed that you had a style that was apropratite to your group, and the style of game you were playing.  You do mysteries with players interested in story.  Your style of extra guidance and direction is great, even needed.  

The rest of the thread is full of players and DMs who do sand box and value player agency.  

You can't convince us that your way is a 'good' way to role play.  But we have conceded that is is 'good for' your group.  

As for the idea of 'most gamers'. Their is no 'most gamers' it's a private activity.  There is only specific groups.  

It's like saying 'most lovers'. Try to convince a lover that most people do it differently and that should be relevant to them and see how it goes.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915895Having the Klingons automatically hit with their Disruptors to punish the player for pulling a phaser on the ambassador is cheating in my book. No persuasion will not save them from a duel. But the Klingons should still have to roll to hit with their Disruptors, why else have rules for adjudicating combat?

Yes it is. To me it's a red alert that the GM has control issues and lacks some experience (or something) to not realize that the situation will correct itself without him doing anything, and that the GM has no need to make the stun shots hit, since the natural outcome will likely be even worse in the end if the players phaser the guards.

At that point he might as well tose the adventure.  It's either TKP, or something completely weird and not Star Trek any more.  

I've seen DMs do that.  Just pick up the note book and toose it over their shoulder.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915971It's also funny when the tea pot calls the kettle black. Insulting someone repeatedly then whining when they hit back is easily as laughable.

Again, I've yet to start insulting you. You'll know if I do. So far this thread reads like someone desperately seeking validation, not getting it, seeking other sources, posting them up and saying ah ha, when all along the validation was given, just not approval. Do you need approval that desperately?

Quote from: Skarg;916023Yes it is. To me it's a red alert that the GM has control issues and lacks some experience (or something) to not realize that the situation will correct itself without him doing anything, and that the GM has no need to make the stun shots hit, since the natural outcome will likely be even worse in the end if the players phaser the guards.

Word.

I love this thread.


But I confess I'm addicted to cognitive dissonance.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915895Having the Klingons automatically hit with their Disruptors to punish the player for pulling a phaser on the ambassador is cheating in my book. No persuasion will not save them from a duel. But the Klingons should still have to roll to hit with their Disruptors, why else have rules for adjudicating combat?

This seems an appropriate and fair adjudication. You duel, because that's what the players have chosen with their actions.  How bad a move that is depends on how badass the guards are (I assume, pretty badass).

Quote from: cranebump;918310This seems an appropriate and fair adjudication. You duel, because that's what the players have chosen with their actions.  How bad a move that is depends on how badass the guards are (I assume, pretty badass).

It's a very different type of game if the GM is going to throw out the combat system when the players do something he didn't expect or thinks is dumb. It's needless controlling behavior applied at the wrong level of play, it seems to me. If the perceived problem is that it's so stupid so the PC would not do that and will derail the game so the GM needs to prevent it, it seems to me the solution should be something like the GM denying the action and explaining the PC's mindset in the situation and how the act is silly. And it seems to me that allowing the action but making if fail by magic GM fiat isn't going to help much of anything (except maybe keep that ambassador alive) but is going to spoil the integrity of the game. Making the player fail and get auto-stunned seems like a surreal problem in itself and not a solution.

Is there any imaginably in-game-universe reason why the PC would do that? If no or probably not, explain that as why the PC doesn't do that in the first place. If there actually is an in-character reason to do that, but it's stupid, tell the player it's stupid and why. If they still want their PC do it, just play it out using the rules - if there's no way it ends well, it won't. There are many more Klingons where those guards came from, if the dice don't fairly lead to an immediate shutdown, and the Federation is probably also going to shut down officers who go postal in a diplomatic situation (maybe even moreso than the Klingons, who respect violent choices). Making the universe immediately spank and prevent stupid is surreal and annoying, and breaking the contract to play the game by the rules. (Well, except in this case, where the rules were actually written by an immature GM, but the point is it's wiser and more interesting to not do what the book suggests there.)

Hehe, thread author ist the most honest railroader GM I've seen.

But there is nothing wrong with that if your group appreciate it. In fact, sometimes we see this trend surface here and there (Dragonlance and Cthulhu modules, Shadowrun adventures, Vampire advice, etc) so it's not that aberrant as some people try to make.

Just don't invite me to your table. :D

Quote from: Itachi;918693Hehe, thread author ist the most honest railroader GM I've seen.

But there is nothing wrong with that if your group appreciate it. In fact, sometimes we see this trend surface here and there (Dragonlance and Cthulhu modules, Shadowrun adventures, Vampire advice, etc) so it's not that aberrant as some people try to make.

Just don't invite me to your table. :D

God I hate to post this thread again but.... we can all agree the railroad factor is a reality, its even supported as you say by some publishers etc. Why is it that its looked down upon so harshly? Typically players with a railroading GM know it, they choose to continue to play or not but why the hostility for what amounts just a different approach to RPGing. Did railroading acquire some sort of mysterious cultural bias somewhere like Barry Manilow music or Mullet haircuts?

When we read a typical book, many of us like to be able to forget we're reading a book and imagine we are following real events in a real world. RPGs are the closest we can come to actually DOING this and following events not predetermined by narrative principles or authorial mandate. And to make it even better? The choices we make actually matter.

So basically, railroading kneecaps the advantages RPGs have over any other medium. Still, as agreed upon by most everyone in this thread, some players DO enjoy a good railroad.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919038God I hate to post this thread again but.... we can all agree the railroad factor is a reality, its even supported as you say by some publishers etc. Why is it that its looked down upon so harshly? Typically players with a railroading GM know it, they choose to continue to play or not but why the hostility for what amounts just a different approach to RPGing. Did railroading acquire some sort of mysterious cultural bias somewhere like Barry Manilow music or Mullet haircuts?

You seem to be missing, in general, the *degree* to which it's acceptable to most of those in the thread. I think the "hostility" you're referring to is due to your seemingly general inability to absorb our opinions without incredulity as if we are the ones that are crazy - when in fact, I think many, if not most of have said: if that works for your group- then great.

I also think that most of us that have been doing this for a long time have a shared experience about "railroading" and evolved to a similar understanding about this little hobby of ours via whatever paths that brought us here... and lo and behold, there is some consensus. I don't think this is a coincidence. I don't think this is confirmation bias. Yet despite what you've told us about your GMing history, you haven't come to this conclusion. So I simply take it at face value.

Precisely 100% of my players would *not* tolerate your style of GMing. And I've started out with players that started - as most gamers have started - doing highly railroaded games, doing modules and going from point-a to point-b, GM-fiat's galore etc. And none of them today would go back to that. There's a reason for that. I'm not saying that *I* am some special snowflake of a GM - I'm saying my method (99% Sandbox 1% themepark) works. It allows players to grow and have generally have more fun than me strictly railroading them. It's tried and true. You're erring on the 1% side of what we're talking about. Sure there are purists here that will debate with me too - but I'm reasonably sure that we could all have a wonderful game together.

When I hear you say "What's wrong with railroading as a campaign?" I feel you're trying to convince us that eating a 5-lbs Candy Corn is a great idea for a good meal. It's not that there's something inherently wrong with Candy Corn but from experience I know that there's more to a good meal than a 5-lbs Candy Corn.

And yet... you keep trying. And we (well some of us) keep saying, Candy Corn is fine. In very light light moderation. And you keep coming back...

Maybe you should try running a Sandbox game. And report back? Just let your players do whatever the fuck they want. How about that? Or does that rub you the wrong way?

Quote from: rgrove0172;919038God I hate to post this thread again but.... we can all agree the railroad factor is a reality, its even supported as you say by some publishers etc. Why is it that its looked down upon so harshly? Typically players with a railroading GM know it, they choose to continue to play or not but why the hostility for what amounts just a different approach to RPGing. Did railroading acquire some sort of mysterious cultural bias somewhere like Barry Manilow music or Mullet haircuts?

We agree its a reality. We agree its supported by some publishers.

Its also 75% of the time a bad idea and leads to all manner of troubles that players have repeatedly encountered to the point that some are now rabidly anti-railroading and a few are literally insanely ant-railroading to the point that they see it where none exists. "OMG! This dungeon has only one entrance! RAILROADERRRRRRR!" and no I am not joking nor exaggerating.

Just because a publisher supports it in absolutely no way means the majority agree with it or that it succeeds. The Forge created games meant to shackle and enslave the GM to the players. The other side of the coin. And theres been published games. And guess what. It runs into resistance and failure too.

Yes. You 100% can run a great railroad.

Quote from: tenbones;919070You seem to be missing, in general, the *degree* to which it's acceptable to most of those in the thread. I think the "hostility" you're referring to is due to your seemingly general inability to absorb our opinions without incredulity as if we are the ones that are crazy - when in fact, I think many, if not most of have said: if that works for your group- then great.

I also think that most of us that have been doing this for a long time have a shared experience about "railroading" and evolved to a similar understanding about this little hobby of ours via whatever paths that brought us here... and lo and behold, there is some consensus. I don't think this is a coincidence. I don't think this is confirmation bias. Yet despite what you've told us about your GMing history, you haven't come to this conclusion. So I simply take it at face value.

Precisely 100% of my players would *not* tolerate your style of GMing. And I've started out with players that started - as most gamers have started - doing highly railroaded games, doing modules and going from point-a to point-b, GM-fiat's galore etc. And none of them today would go back to that. There's a reason for that. I'm not saying that *I* am some special snowflake of a GM - I'm saying my method (99% Sandbox 1% themepark) works. It allows players to grow and have generally have more fun than me strictly railroading them. It's tried and true. You're erring on the 1% side of what we're talking about. Sure there are purists here that will debate with me too - but I'm reasonably sure that we could all have a wonderful game together.

When I hear you say "What's wrong with railroading as a campaign?" I feel you're trying to convince us that eating a 5-lbs Candy Corn is a great idea for a good meal. It's not that there's something inherently wrong with Candy Corn but from experience I know that there's more to a good meal than a 5-lbs Candy Corn.

And yet... you keep trying. And we (well some of us) keep saying, Candy Corn is fine. In very light light moderation. And you keep coming back...

Maybe you should try running a Sandbox game. And report back? Just let your players do whatever the fuck they want. How about that? Or does that rub you the wrong way?

Done it, been there and got the T shirt, many many times. Just because I choose to continue to use some of the GMs discretion and power in the way that I do does not in any way mean Im am incapable of using other approaches. In my opinion the typical sandbox game, although fun in a 'group challenge' kind of loses something in the quality of the driven narrative. Random and unexpected can be fun certainly but also can be .. well disappointing and not fun. At least that's been my experience and therefore the reason I usually return to wielding a bit more control. I will remind everyone AGAIN that I don't run a 100% railroad experience, I step in at times, theres a difference.

Quote from: Omega;919077We agree its a reality. We agree its supported by some publishers.

Its also 75% of the time a bad idea and leads to all manner of troubles that players have repeatedly encountered to the point that some are now rabidly anti-railroading and a few are literally insanely ant-railroading to the point that they see it where none exists. "OMG! This dungeon has only one entrance! RAILROADERRRRRRR!" and no I am not joking nor exaggerating.

Just because a publisher supports it in absolutely no way means the majority agree with it or that it succeeds. The Forge created games meant to shackle and enslave the GM to the players. The other side of the coin. And theres been published games. And guess what. It runs into resistance and failure too.

Yes. You 100% can run a great railroad.

I get it but I also smell the distinct taint of a cultural bias in that for whatever reason the LOVE or HATE of something becomes the cool and accepted way to feel and the opposite only for rejects and obvious idiots. The popular opinion of the community right now is that any interference by the GM in the natural flow of the player's choices and random implementation of the game is heresy. That's cool, Ive been on the outside of arguments before. I can take and appreciate everybody's opinions. Its not like Im planning or running a game at a convention or something so what Ive learned here is just good info. We can never stop learning.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919087Done it, been there and got the T shirt, many many times.

... then, clearly, we must be the ones with the issue? Oddly, I'm not having an issue. If I were to assume you are as proficient at this GMing thing as I am, 1=1. Then our results should be the same 1=1 in theory. So to corroborate this I consult with other GM's. They have similar results 1=1 within acceptable parameters. So I re-check results with you and oddly... it's 1=0. I re-check my "issue" buffer. I have none. I check your buffer, you have 43-page thread of ERR0R(s). Issue=Yours.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919087Just because I choose to continue to use some of the GMs discretion and power in the way that I do does not in any way mean Im am incapable of using other approaches. In my opinion the typical sandbox game, although fun in a 'group challenge' kind of loses something in the quality of the driven narrative. Random and unexpected can be fun certainly but also can be .. well disappointing and not fun. At least that's been my experience and therefore the reason I usually return to wielding a bit more control. I will remind everyone AGAIN that I don't run a 100% railroad experience, I step in at times, theres a difference.

See the Issue Debug above. See my previous post about 1) if you're having fun. Have fun. 2) The issue seems to be the incredulity with which you accept our admonitions to #1 and #2 our exception-level of your sample data you've given us to justify your reasoning. I'm not sure what else you need from us? /shrug

Quote from: tenbones;919298... then, clearly, we must be the ones with the issue? Oddly, I'm not having an issue. If I were to assume you are as proficient at this GMing thing as I am, 1=1. Then our results should be the same 1=1 in theory. So to corroborate this I consult with other GM's. They have similar results 1=1 within acceptable parameters. So I re-check results with you and oddly... it's 1=0. I re-check my "issue" buffer. I have none. I check your buffer, you have 43-page thread of ERR0R(s). Issue=Yours.

I never said anyone had an issue, didn't even imply it, I just stated I have done as you recommended. Don't know anything about an issue buffer, sorry but Im new here. Maybe I ran the buffer wrong. I came up 0 on my end too.

See the Issue Debug above. See my previous post about 1) if you're having fun. Have fun. 2) The issue seems to be the incredulity with which you accept our admonitions to #1 and #2 our exception-level of your sample data you've given us to justify your reasoning. I'm not sure what else you need from us? /shrug

Just discussion, that's all Ive ever requested. Some have decided condemnation fits in, I get a little defensive when they do that. Most of us do.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919089I get it but I also smell the distinct taint of a cultural bias in that for whatever reason the LOVE or HATE of something becomes the cool and accepted way to feel and the opposite only for rejects and obvious idiots.

There is always going to be an in-group bias. Accept that. This is why RPGsite is RPGsite, the TBP is the TBP etc. etc. But you'll note there are lots of indicators as to why these communities have the opinions that they do. RPGsite tends to skew older, with some pretty experienced GM's. Many of us have GMed lots and lots of people. Others not so much. But our opinions have been formed from those experiences an happen to be very similar in practice through trial and error not theory.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919089The popular opinion of the community right now is that any interference by the GM in the natural flow of the player's choices and random implementation of the game is heresy. That's cool, Ive been on the outside of arguments before. I can take and appreciate everybody's opinions. Its not like Im planning or running a game at a convention or something so what Ive learned here is just good info. We can never stop learning.

I'll speak for myself - but others have said it many times in this thread, I find it odd you keep ignoring this pertinent part: GM fiat is very much part of the game. *I* am not denying that. We are saying the examples you've given are far more egregious in context with how we use it *because* you fail to see why and continue wanting us to exhaustively explain why to you is what I find bizarre.

It's like right when we collectively shrug and it appears you accept this impasse, you post something else that shows you don't understand. Case in point - your style of heavy-railroading is probably a good idea for running Convention games... yet you don't seem to understand why.

You're right about one thing - we can never stop learning. What you're not acknowledging in our acknowledgement of our experience is that *yes* - we've already learned what you're talking about. We just reject the level of emphasis you give it, not that it exists.

It's like you have a toolbox and you insist on using a sledgehammer for beveling some moulding. And you keep telling us you can do it. And we're saying yes, I suppose you can. But it's not the best method of doing so. And you may very well be the best goddamn sledhammer-beveler in the universe. It doesn't take away from the fact that it's not "best practice" in general.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919301Just discussion, that's all Ive ever requested. Some have decided condemnation fits in, I get a little defensive when they do that. Most of us do.

Well being "a little defensive" gets in the way with "We can never stop learning" at a certain point, doesn't it?

True that...

What I think you are missing, and many others..is that I accept your views, understand your concerns etc. what I react to is the tone. Re read your post.

But it's not the best method of doing so
It doesn't take away from the fact that it's not "best practice" in general

Those are your opinions, other opinions, maybe gazillions of others opinions but they are still only that. You can state them matter of factly but it doesn't make them anything more. When you do so however it comes across arrogant and annoying as hell. Simply adding "IMO" at the end of any one of a hundred sentences in this thread would have changed the entire conversation. Instead of defending and accusing we would be discussing.

You choose chocolate, I choose vanilla. Just because you used to eat vanilla and found the flavor bland and the whole concept of a white icecream as being uninteresting and screaming for some kind of REAL flavor .. etc. etc.... and now proudly are in the chocolate camp, does not now or ever give you or anybody else the right to say "Chocolate is better!" You can say it, but its only better...to you!

Im really not trying to be a prick, Im sure we are all sitting at our computers wondering why in the hell the other guy doesn't get it. Perhaps its the medium. All I have ever said is that the railroading approach (I refuse to believe what I do is HEAVY RR, perhaps moderate at best) is a time honored and acceptable method. Some like it, some don't. IF that's what I am failing to read in your posts then I apologize and we can call it a day. I started this thread looking for opinions. Ive gotten many. Good stuff.

No I get you. But here's the thing I'm underscoring - while everyone has an opinion, every opinion isn't equal.

I base this on exactly what my clearly subjective experience is. My objective capacity to ascertain the effective solutions to my failures in GMing. My objective outcomes in whatever changes I've made pro/con. The subjective opinions of the hundreds of players I've GM'ed. The much narrower subjective opinions of those that enjoy primarily rail-roady-style games, which imo are the default for most RPG's as a starting point for new GM's. Their objective satisfaction which propels them to keep coming weekly. Their objective change in opinions based on my subjective adjustments. Their feedback I've received for the last three-and-half decades. My objectivity in absorbing that feedback. My subjective presentation of my results with other GM's in discussion. Their subjective feedback. Their subjective opinions, likewise based on their objective satisfaction levels that keep their players subjectively happy. My objective absorption of my fellow GM's opinions. My subjective implementation of those opinions as I see fit. The objective observation of those results.

And from that... a concensus, like it or not... seems to emerge.

I don't refuse to believe I'm wrong. I'm open to it. But at the end of the day, it's going to be about what my current group finds fun PLUS what I find fun. You can deny what you're doing is "heavy RR", I can only go from what you've said. By my standards (and apparently I'm not alone) it's heavy RR. So what? If you and your players are happy - so who gives a shit what I think?

I don't think heavy-RR is a time-honored tradition, I think it's an inevitable pre-biotic slime that all GM's emerge out of. I did it. Everyone else here did it. The DNA to do it is in all of us by necessity. But the key here is "necessity". It's no more a time-honored tradition than taking an uncomfortable shit is a time-honored tradition. It's something we've all done. It doesn't mean you can't adjust ones diet to make it less necessary.

Also... Chocolate *is* better than vanilla.

Anyone that says otherwise is being railroaded by their GM

rgrove0172, I think you don't quite see how your own forms of expression are baiting replies that directly hit some of our favorite rant targets. You too have been over-stating your assertions, and even framing them as questions after 43 pages. So when you ask,

QuoteWhy is it that [railroading is] looked down upon so harshly?

After volumes of examples and explanations, it strikes me as an invitation to rant. Oh boy! :D So, thanks, and here are two reasons that come to mind this morning:

* I want to play a game, where players supposedly get to be characters in a world that supposedly makes some sort of sense, and their choices matter. But the parts where the GM just makes up what happens, or especially when the players don't really have much choice, or where there are rules for resolving combat but the GM thinks it's better to just say what happens to the characters because of dramatic notions, are what I would call "not a game", "storytelling", or GM'ing a style I can't stand. And, when an experienced, loved and talented GM like yourself seems to be unnecessarily railroading and doesn't get it and keeps asking for explanation, it's 1000x more inviting to want to say things to explain and hopefully get you to grok why these things are crucial to me and the value of using rules and dice and not forcing outcomes.

* Very often in game materials, but even more often in TV and film, I see egregious examples of what strike me as atrociously lazy and/or daft continuity, illogic, improbability, and fake-tastic bullshit, which way too often seems to just be what I would call apathetic, ignorant, insulting, retarded, fucktarded, and/or lazy-as-fuck. The annoyance and disappointment builds up and wants to be released in a rant on some forum where someone defends J.J. Abrams' continuity or something. So it's not even just that the GM or author is forcing an outcome, but that they often are not even bothering to take abundantly available options to force the outcome in ways that make any sense. Sometimes a game or film will seem to make sense for a while, but then a cavalcade of nonsense will show up and ruin my ability to take any interest because the GM or author is so obviously not even trying to present a believable or even sensible situation. For example, an adventure module might insist that the party follow a certain road and get to a certain intersection during a thunderstorm so someone else can have just arrived there at the same time just so they can give the PC's a plot hook or clue in a certain way. It may even give advice about how to force them to do that and not let them take other roads, wait out storms, travel by night, force a combat to have that NPC be "on their last breath" at then end of a combat the GM is supposed to play out and have the NPC be fatally wounded during, etc. All totally needless to force, because the clue information could just be presented as something the players can find out at any time. It could just suggest various ways, and let the players actually be in a game where their choices matter and have logical consequences, but no.

Quote from: Skarg;919315Very often in game materials, but even more often in TV and film, I see egregious examples of what strike me as atrociously lazy and/or daft continuity, illogic, improbability, and fake-tastic bullshit, which way too often seems to just be what I would call apathetic, ignorant, insulting, retarded, fucktarded, and/or lazy-as-fuck.

Totally agree with you. And an RPG tends not to have swelling dramatic score and specifically written leitmotifs to engage audience emotion that way TV and film can do.

QuoteFor example, an adventure module might insist that the party follow a certain road and get to a certain intersection during a thunderstorm so someone else can have just arrived there at the same time just so they can give the PC's a plot hook or clue in a certain way.

First edition WEG Star Wars D6 published adventures included brief (maybe half a page or less) scripts that set up the situation for the adventure. Stuff like your ship crash landing on a water world. Neither I nor my co-GM used those adventures nor did we create introductory scripts. But, if you want to set up something like the guy with a knife in his back and a mysterious note (actually I have used that set up once every decade or so of gaming).

But if you really, really want to set up a scene then don’t give the players illusory choices and try to railroad them down one path, just get the players to agree to the set up. Once they have done that, you and they can script out the details, play things out with an agreed constraint on the outcome, or just handwave the whole process…

   “So after your characters sold the Eye of Amar for more gold than most people could imagine, you celebrated your success. Perhaps you celebrated too hard because instead of waking up in a nice, soft bed you woke up wearing only a loin cloth, hanging from the wall, manacled in between your two friends [the other PCs] in some damp, smelly, dungeon cell.”

Quote from: tenbones;919309No I get you. But here's the thing I'm underscoring - while everyone has an opinion, every opinion isn't equal.

I base this on exactly what my clearly subjective experience is. My objective capacity to ascertain the effective solutions to my failures in GMing. My objective outcomes in whatever changes I've made pro/con. The subjective opinions of the hundreds of players I've GM'ed. The much narrower subjective opinions of those that enjoy primarily rail-roady-style games, which imo are the default for most RPG's as a starting point for new GM's. Their objective satisfaction which propels them to keep coming weekly. Their objective change in opinions based on my subjective adjustments. Their feedback I've received for the last three-and-half decades. My objectivity in absorbing that feedback. My subjective presentation of my results with other GM's in discussion. Their subjective feedback. Their subjective opinions, likewise based on their objective satisfaction levels that keep their players subjectively happy. My objective absorption of my fellow GM's opinions. My subjective implementation of those opinions as I see fit. The objective observation of those results.

And from that... a concensus, like it or not... seems to emerge.

I don't refuse to believe I'm wrong. I'm open to it. But at the end of the day, it's going to be about what my current group finds fun PLUS what I find fun. You can deny what you're doing is "heavy RR", I can only go from what you've said. By my standards (and apparently I'm not alone) it's heavy RR. So what? If you and your players are happy - so who gives a shit what I think?

I don't think heavy-RR is a time-honored tradition, I think it's an inevitable pre-biotic slime that all GM's emerge out of. I did it. Everyone else here did it. The DNA to do it is in all of us by necessity. But the key here is "necessity". It's no more a time-honored tradition than taking an uncomfortable shit is a time-honored tradition. It's something we've all done. It doesn't mean you can't adjust ones diet to make it less necessary.

Ill respond only with this.

You emerged out of the practice..why? Assumedly because there was some element of it that you or your players didn't enjoy. What if that were not the case? What if after three and a half decades of playing there were no complaints, you had no reservations, it was still fun and providing hours of entertainment? Would you still view it as some sort of GM diaper awaiting a potty training? Its the assumption that your view is so absolutely in the right that is disturbing and the reason I keep hanging on I suppose. I don't care how elevated you believe your opinion to be, its still just that. There is no scientific way to test your hypothesis other than through other people's opinions. Commonality doesn't necessarily imply anything other than commonality. In the end, no matter what we say here, I will believe roleplaying benefits from a more controlled and narrative driven approach and you will disagree. That's fine as long as we are 50/50 on the subject.

Quote from: Skarg;919315rgrove0172, I think you don't quite see how your own forms of expression are baiting replies that directly hit some of our favorite rant targets. You too have been over-stating your assertions, and even framing them as questions after 43 pages. So when you ask,



After volumes of examples and explanations, it strikes me as an invitation to rant. Oh boy! :D So, thanks, and here are two reasons that come to mind this morning:

* I want to play a game, where players supposedly get to be characters in a world that supposedly makes some sort of sense, and their choices matter. But the parts where the GM just makes up what happens, or especially when the players don't really have much choice, or where there are rules for resolving combat but the GM thinks it's better to just say what happens to the characters because of dramatic notions, are what I would call "not a game", "storytelling", or GM'ing a style I can't stand. And, when an experienced, loved and talented GM like yourself seems to be unnecessarily railroading and doesn't get it and keeps asking for explanation, it's 1000x more inviting to want to say things to explain and hopefully get you to grok why these things are crucial to me and the value of using rules and dice and not forcing outcomes.

* Very often in game materials, but even more often in TV and film, I see egregious examples of what strike me as atrociously lazy and/or daft continuity, illogic, improbability, and fake-tastic bullshit, which way too often seems to just be what I would call apathetic, ignorant, insulting, retarded, fucktarded, and/or lazy-as-fuck. The annoyance and disappointment builds up and wants to be released in a rant on some forum where someone defends J.J. Abrams' continuity or something. So it's not even just that the GM or author is forcing an outcome, but that they often are not even bothering to take abundantly available options to force the outcome in ways that make any sense. Sometimes a game or film will seem to make sense for a while, but then a cavalcade of nonsense will show up and ruin my ability to take any interest because the GM or author is so obviously not even trying to present a believable or even sensible situation. For example, an adventure module might insist that the party follow a certain road and get to a certain intersection during a thunderstorm so someone else can have just arrived there at the same time just so they can give the PC's a plot hook or clue in a certain way. It may even give advice about how to force them to do that and not let them take other roads, wait out storms, travel by night, force a combat to have that NPC be "on their last breath" at then end of a combat the GM is supposed to play out and have the NPC be fatally wounded during, etc. All totally needless to force, because the clue information could just be presented as something the players can find out at any time. It could just suggest various ways, and let the players actually be in a game where their choices matter and have logical consequences, but no.

I get the temptation to pile on, Ive done it too elsewhere. No harm done and no offense taken.

As to "egregious examples of what strike me as atrociously lazy and/or daft continuity, illogic, improbability, and fake-tastic bullshit" you can find that anywhere and ive seen it aplenty in so called sandbox games where players go off on a useless tangent because of a misunderstanding or unintentional stress placed on an unimportant detail and the GM is forced to pull elements out of his ass at a rapid pace as caffeine stoked players chase rabbits. Its not a pretty sight. I can honestly say Ive never witnessed what you describe in any game Ive run or participated in. Is it obvious when the GM nudges the players in a certain direction? Sometimes but in my experience its not offensive in the least, especially when there is a real world time line in play (We need to finish up this adventure in the next two sessions so we can start New Cool Game etc.) or something pressing to keep things on track.

The way some of you describe railroading I will admit I wouldn't care for it either. I can only say that the way GM discretion appears in my experience it hasn't proved a problem but instead has more or less assured a dramatic, theatrical and overall rewarding experience for everyone.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919325Ill respond only with this.

You emerged out of the practice..why?

Stepping in here, but, as someone who only recently came around to the sandbox way of doing things, I can give you my answer, if you'll indulge. So, why did I "emerge" after being more railroady?  (though I would've called it scenario driven,but anyway...) I changed styles because:

(1) Because I am not the only, nor even the most important person at the table.

(2) Players have imagination, as well -- I can use their imaginations to augment, or even supersede my own.

(3) It's a lot less work when several folks create the campaign--I've gotten more out of the game world and the game by following the players' noses than I ever got out of just following my own.

In short, I decided that I should be enabling them to star in their story, rather than having them guest star in mine.

To be fair, rgrove, some of the examples you gave earlier in the thread were not mere 'gentle nudges' to keep the players out of the wild undefined yonder, but such things as narrating combat outcomes and ignoring dice rolls.

Seems kind of like you are pulling a bit of a bait and switch here.

What is it you want exactly at this point? Approval? For everyone to admit you are right and they are wrong? Or what?

Go back and read the very first thread. I made it clear I was looking for opinions and observations. Those that Ive gotten have been very much appreciated.

Sure. And then you keep coming back and saying stuff like, "People who don't like my style must have some weird cultural bias that I didn't even know existed!" Which is probably not the case, and just makes it seem like you think the actual reasoning people have given you is just a load of malarky.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919089I get it but I also smell the distinct taint of a cultural bias in that for whatever reason the LOVE or HATE of something becomes the cool and accepted way to feel and the opposite only for rejects and obvious idiots.

The popular opinion of the community right now is that any interference by the GM in the natural flow of the player's choices and random implementation of the game is heresy. That's cool, Ive been on the outside of arguments before. I can take and appreciate everybody's opinions. Its not like Im planning or running a game at a convention or something so what Ive learned here is just good info. We can never stop learning.

1: Thats because some here have had first hand bad experiences. And the group I picked up all had bad experiences from all accounts. Some just go overboard in their rejection and end up exactly as bad as the worst of the Forge, GNS and Swine. And some here hate railroading because of Forge style players railroading rather than the GM.

2: Not quite. Some of us are just taking issue with the how of your presentations. We agree with the gist. But we can and will call out some points as false. Which is where you keep meeting resistance. Example: your pronouncement that since a few games tell the GM to railroad then that makes railroading fine and valid. Sorry. No. It does not.

On the other hand some RPGs do present it as one of several styles that can be applied. Or more often that it is a style to apply at key points. I've seen a few published modules that tell the GM that no matter what the players do its ok to have the villain escape to chapter 3 for the big showdown. Which to some smacks of stealing away the players accomplishments. It can also feel like cheating. But used correctly it can move things along or maintain a certain focus.

Now lets flip to the other side of the coin. There are players that despise improv GMing. For whatever reason they had a bad experience. Though increasingly you see people who just hate it because someone told them to. (Which also plagues the anti-railroading crew. ) So you end up with someone screeching "Mother May I!", "Magic Tea Party!". Of which you'll sooner or later see posts here too.

These are all just tools. And any tool can be used badly. To kill. Or to make works of great art.

So we'll continue to agree with what you say. And then punt you when you go overboard. :o

See this?

Quote from: rgrove0172;919325You emerged out of the practice..why? Assumedly because there was some element of it that you or your players didn't enjoy.

It flies in the face of this:

Quote from: rgrove0172;919325What if that were not the case? What if after three and a half decades of playing there were no complaints, you had no reservations, it was still fun and providing hours of entertainment?

Because clearly if A is true. Then for B to be true I'd have to make A a lot less-true. When after over 3.5 decades of tried and true observable results - Heavy RR does not provide me, nor my players hours of entertainment. Simply put - B has not happened for me in literally *decades* and well into hundreds of players. Remember the criteria is enjoyment. What I enjoy with my players. I'll pit my GMing against anyone that does "heavy RR" any day of any week with the same players. I'm more than reasonably certain those players will prefer my kind of game. I'm not saying all players, I'm saying most players.

Now I fully get that there are players that want casual board-gamey kinda games, and want to be led through the game and have Storytime with Tenbones. Those players tend to not last with me, most of the time, they realize their own agency in the game because that's what I feed and they tend to love it. I'm not a static-GM that sits there and says "What do you guys wanna do next?" I present the world-in-motion to them. There's always something to do. Somewhere to go. Some agenda that's baked into their very characters that they get to decide how to approach. I don't *need* to tell them what to do in the major conceits of my sandbox games.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919325Would you still view it as some sort of GM diaper awaiting a potty training? Its the assumption that your view is so absolutely in the right that is disturbing and the reason I keep hanging on I suppose.

Although I am Sith, I do not believe in "absolute" anything - here's where I tell you "99% Sandbox/1% Themepark", like I and others have been telling you from the beginning. If you want to dismiss that 1% nod in your direction - it's because you're not privy to the scale of my games or you underestimate the quality of my 1%. I wouldn't include it, if it didn't matter. GM's that push that 1% to be more than the rest- yes, that's potty-training time. I mean, I confess, you could be GMing primarily children for all I know, in which case then I'd understand. But I'm *assuming* you're GMing adults that want to play RPG's with a little depth. To the degree that this is true is unknowable to me since I didn't ask.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919325I don't care how elevated you believe your opinion to be, its still just that. There is no scientific way to test your hypothesis other than through other people's opinions. Commonality doesn't necessarily imply anything other than commonality. In the end, no matter what we say here, I will believe roleplaying benefits from a more controlled and narrative driven approach and you will disagree. That's fine as long as we are 50/50 on the subject.

My opinion isn't elevated by anyone... since I frankly don't really care about people's opinions without some reasoning behind them. If you wanna "elevate" my opinion for me in order to "attack" it - feel free! So let's apply some thought to what you're actually saying...

"Commonality doesn't necessarily imply anything other than commonality" - That would be technically true. If we were talking about things that are common. Being a good GM isn't common. If it were - the landscape of the hobby would be far different than it is today. What you seem to be tacitly ignoring is the evolution (if you will) that is a commonality among good GM's. 1) they start usually doing very heavy railroading 2) they end up doing more expansive sandboxy-themepark elemented affairs. I didn't make this up. It just happens. My evidence is the people on this thread. Good GM's that I know. Good game-designers that I've worked with that are also good GM's. blah blah blah.

You could chalk this up to confirmation-bias, sure. But that would be a bias on your part because you are the one with the apparent issue. Not me (or anyone else in this thread). I'm the first one to cop to themeparking in my sandboxes. I've re-skinned whole entire modules into my campaigns and made them unrecognizable but I never had to tell the players where to go and what to do because it's not my place to do that. I'm not even saying this because I'm implying I'm the best GM ever - I'm certainly not. But I am saying my methods of GMing share an inordinate amount of commonalities with those I consider good GM's that *you* are outright dismissing in this egoic need to get some kind of approval stamp for your method of GMing.

The context of your very wording implies there's no quality to your terminology. You're trying to say all opinions are equal. No, they're not. If that were the case, flat-earthers, creationists, Bigfoot hunters would be given equal footing in discussions relevant to their opinions. What we have here is simple: your examples.

I have read them. Weighed in on them. Gave you my opinion. Gave you reasons for my opinion. Stated that the tool of GM nudging is just that a: tool. But your examples are heavy handed and, frankly, the act of something I'd attribute to a new GM. You wanted opinions, there you go.

That you claim you're not a new GM, or that you're a good GM and your players love the hell out of you - is not my problem. I'm just speaking to your claim that your penchant for heavy railroading is somehow a "time honored tradition".

If it is - so are all the horrible things in "Who you threw out of your gaming group" thread. /shiver.

Quote from: Omega;9193461: Thats because some here have had first hand bad experiences. And the group I picked up all had bad experiences from all accounts. Some just go overboard in their rejection and end up exactly as bad as the worst of the Forge, GNS and Swine. And some here hate railroading because of Forge style players railroading rather than the GM.

2: Not quite. Some of us are just taking issue with the how of your presentations. We agree with the gist. But we can and will call out some points as false. Which is where you keep meeting resistance. Example: your pronouncement that since a few games tell the GM to railroad then that makes railroading fine and valid. Sorry. No. It does not.

On the other hand some RPGs do present it as one of several styles that can be applied. Or more often that it is a style to apply at key points. I've seen a few published modules that tell the GM that no matter what the players do its ok to have the villain escape to chapter 3 for the big showdown. Which to some smacks of stealing away the players accomplishments. It can also feel like cheating. But used correctly it can move things along or maintain a certain focus.

Now lets flip to the other side of the coin. There are players that despise improv GMing. For whatever reason they had a bad experience. Though increasingly you see people who just hate it because someone told them to. (Which also plagues the anti-railroading crew. ) So you end up with someone screeching "Mother May I!", "Magic Tea Party!". Of which you'll sooner or later see posts here too.

These are all just tools. And any tool can be used badly. To kill. Or to make works of great art.

So we'll continue to agree with what you say. And then punt you when you go overboard. :o

And I take no issue with any of that at all.

"Though increasingly you see people who just hate it because someone told them to" - That's what I meant by cultural bias. People who take a position for other than having actually come to it themselves by experience.

A sandbox GM may generate nonsense or silliness, sure, but I was answering your question about why I look down on railroading, explaining the common pattern of needless illogic generated by many (especially in TV/films) who force events and don't seem to try/care about logic, risk or proportion. It seems to me that a writer who ignores/devalues logic, risk and proportion is parallel to a GM who railroads and/or ignores rules and dice, both of them doing it in favor of forcing some plot results they think are clever enough to dictate whatever they want to happen.

I wasn't arguing that there can't be a sandbox with silliness, too.

Some of the most fun I've had in RPG's have been when a  player decides to go for some action that to the GM seems really unlikely to work, and/or hasn't though of before, and the GM lets it get played out, and they actually pull it off, or fail but made a go of it. To me, that creates an interesting "realness" to the situation, which I would tend to say "makes the game actually about the situation it says it is about", as opposed to pretending the situation is one way, but really it's a narrative structure or a future plot the GM has in mind. And even if the GM has a plot in mind, I'd like them to create a game situation that logically leads to it, rather than resorting to warping reality when it doesn't go the way they expect. When that seems to be happening, I start to question why I'm playing instead of just reading a story, or at least just having the GM tell me what happens between the parts where our input actually makes a difference. In fact, I'd prefer the GM just narrate the railroad parts and then let me know when the part starts where I get to actually affect anything. Otherwise as a player, I'm going to try to actually engage the world with logic as if I have real choices, and I'd rather just be told up front if that's wasted effort.

Quote from: tenbones;919309The much narrower subjective opinions of those that enjoy primarily rail-roady-style games, which imo are the default for most RPG's as a starting point for new GM's.

My experience is different than yours. I saw railroad style games become common only after published adventures became popular. Prior to that, I don’t recall seeing much if any railroading by GMs.

QuoteI don't think heavy-RR is a time-honored tradition, I think it's an inevitable pre-biotic slime that all GM's emerge out of. I did it. Everyone else here did it.

With respect, I disagree. That’s not my experience. I saw it as a later development as the hobby changed from everything had to be DIY (because that was the ethos and because there was little if anything packaged to buy) to an increasing availability of published adventures, which often had some pretty railroad introductions and/or middles to the scenarios. Honestly, if you start out running a simple dungeon crawl it’s pretty hard to railroad the players. The point of the game is exploration and there isn't a script or plot. Which is not to say everyone should run a dungeon, only that starting with exploration makes it a lot easier to be open about player choices and a lot less likely the GM will have a compelling reason to want to railroad their players than if one starts out with an adventure that has a suggested beginning, middle, and end.

Quote from: tenbones;919353What you seem to be tacitly ignoring is the evolution (if you will) that is a commonality among good GM's. 1) they start usually doing very heavy railroading 2) they end up doing more expansive sandboxy-themepark elemented affairs. I didn't make this up. It just happens. My evidence is the people on this thread. Good GM's that I know. Good game-designers that I've worked with that are also good GM's. blah blah blah.

I think this path or evolution in style of play is seen most in GMs below a certain age and/or people who began GMing either with published  linear path adventures or after having mostly experienced published linear path adventures before becoming a GM. I will happily concede the latter category is probably the majority of the people who have ever participated in the hobby.

Quote from: Bren;919362With respect, I disagree. That’s not my experience. I saw it as a later development as the hobby changed from everything had to be DIY (because that was the ethos and because there was little if anything packaged to buy) to an increasing availability of published adventures, which often had some pretty railroad introductions and/or middles to the scenarios.

Several of those modules started out as convention events. 90% of the convention events I've seen had at least some manner of hammered down intro. Compare any goven tournament module to a non-tournament one and theres oft a notable difference.

Quote from: Omega;919376Several of those modules started out as convention events. 90% of the convention events I've seen had at least some manner of hammered down intro. Compare any goven tournament module to a non-tournament one and theres oft a notable difference.

Given the limited time frame and random assortment of players less freedom of choice kind of makes sense for a convention, even more so if it is some sort of tournament event. But I don't find the convention driven structure useful for the less time limited situation and the more selective assortment of players that I see in home campaigns. Convention restrictions seem like a necessary evil driven by the constraints of the event and not something to be emulated if you don't have the same event constraints.

Quote from: Bren;919362My experience is different than yours. I saw railroad style games become common only after published adventures became popular. Prior to that, I don't recall seeing much if any railroading by GMs.

With respect, I disagree. That's not my experience. I saw it as a later development as the hobby changed from everything had to be DIY (because that was the ethos and because there was little if anything packaged to buy) to an increasing availability of published adventures, which often had some pretty railroad introductions and/or middles to the scenarios. Honestly, if you start out running a simple dungeon crawl it's pretty hard to railroad the players. The point of the game is exploration and there isn't a script or plot. Which is not to say everyone should run a dungeon, only that starting with exploration makes it a lot easier to be open about player choices and a lot less likely the GM will have a compelling reason to want to railroad their players than if one starts out with an adventure that has a suggested beginning, middle, and end.

I think this path or evolution in style of play is seen most in GMs below a certain age and/or people who began GMing either with published  linear path adventures or after having mostly experienced published linear path adventures before becoming a GM. I will happily concede the latter category is probably the majority of the people who have ever participated in the hobby.

I have to throw in that except for a couple very early adventure modules back in 1977, 78  I don't think Ive ever used a published adventure. IVe gotten ideas from them certainly but never followed their plot as printed.

Dungeoncrawling is not "campaigning" right? You could string together dungeoncrawls and call it a campaign if you were clever enough sure. But in the usual parlance of discussion a crawl isn't what we'd normally call a campaign. Would you agree?

If so - then the point at where dungeoncrawls end and a GM is trying to do more than dungeoncrawl with all those nifty tables in their newly nabbed DMG, with their worldbuilding advice from St. Gary etc.... that's where the pre-biotic slime starts to wiggle.

Dungeoncrawling, to me, using my evolution metaphor would be all that RNA milling around trying to self-organize. That's where GM's learn their basic chops on how the system works. The basic nuts and bolts of combat, sneaky PC tricks, etc.

Running a campaign is a much more complex beast. The longer you do it, the more refined you become in terms of giving your players the agency to do what they wanna do within the context of your game. That's rarely something I *ever* see new GM's do simply by dint of lack of experience.

Now it could be it's happened. Stipulated. Anything is possible. But I've never seen it or even heard of it. Hell I don't even RECOMMEND it for completely new GM's without having a good sounding board.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919391I have to throw in that except for a couple very early adventure modules back in 1977, 78  I don't think Ive ever used a published adventure. IVe gotten ideas from them certainly but never followed their plot as printed.

Maybe you're that rare marsupial of the RPG world. The land-bridge to Australia disappeared after you migrated there and you evolved in isolation!

Quote from: tenbones;919394Maybe you're that rare marsupial of the RPG world. The land-bridge to Australia disappeared after you migrated there and you evolved in isolation!

Took you this long to figure that out?

Reading rgroves posts it seemed fairly likely that was the case. Hes been really blessed with one or more groups of players that seem to really dig his particular style. Else it would have all collapsed long ago.

Quote from: Omega;919396Took you this long to figure that out?

Reading rgroves posts it seemed fairly likely that was the case. Hes been really blessed with one or more groups of players that seem to really dig his particular style. Else it would have all collapsed long ago.

Yeah I wanted him to figure that out on his own. So I just said it. Maybe that will break the cycle.

Quote from: tenbones;919392Dungeoncrawling is not "campaigning" right? You could string together dungeoncrawls and call it a campaign if you were clever enough sure. But in the usual parlance of discussion a crawl isn't what we'd normally call a campaign. Would you agree?

No? Yes? Maybe?

To my mind a single session, whether that session is a dungeon crawl or anything else isn't a campaign. So I agree a single dungeon crawl isn't a campaign. What makes a campaign is the continuation and change of characters over a sequence of sessions and that events in one session have repercussions in following sessions or that following sessions build on previous sessions. The original rules clearly intended that sort of sequence of events (the experience table practically mandates multiple sessions with the same character(s)) with the eventual goal (if successful) of wilderness exploration and keep creation (or seizure). I've never seen anyone play RPGs with real, live people and restrict their play to a series of disconnected dungeon crawls. Someone may have. People are weird. But that is much more the structure of the original Melee/Wizard game than the original D&D game.

So while I'd agree that one session isn't a campaign. I don't know what you think a campaign is beyond what the rules described. The clear assumption in the rules was that the DM set up a dungeon and some sort of place outside it where the PCs could buy stuff, rest up, recruit, and resupply. Even if you don't start out with a fully created world, country, or area, player action and some minimal desire by the DM and players for the setting to make at least a little sense and have at least a little coherence is going to require creation of some sort of setting. After all, successful dungeon crawlers get loot. Now the PCs have gold pieces and their players (at least some of them) are going to want to buy stuff with their gold. Buying stuff requires someone to sell stuff and someplace where it gets sold. And in my experience, GM creativity may not even require player action to start creating more and more setting stuff.  

QuoteIf so - then the point at where dungeoncrawls end and a GM is trying to do more than dungeoncrawl with all those nifty tables in their newly nabbed DMG, with their worldbuilding advice from St. Gary etc.... that's where the pre-biotic slime starts to wiggle.

Maybe we are at cross purposes in the discussion. I was referring to original D&D. So there was no DMG, there was Volume 1: Men & Magic, Volume 2: Monsters & Treasure, and Volume 3: Underworld & Wilderness Adventures and all 3 volumes came together in the same little box. There was no DMG, just those three little books and suggestions that one might want to buy Chainmail (which was useful) and Outdoor Survival (which was pretty but mostly a waste of money). To create a dungeon, the DM needed to read and understand parts of all three volumes, as well as to make sense of what the GM was supposed to do and what the players could do.

QuoteDungeoncrawling, to me, using my evolution metaphor would be all that RNA milling around trying to self-organize. That's where GM's learn their basic chops on how the system works. The basic nuts and bolts of combat, sneaky PC tricks, etc.

I agree that dungeon crawling is a restricted and simpler environment than the entire world. Which is what made it pretty easy for people to start out as a DM way back in the day. All they needed to do was create a dungeon (even a single page of graph paper might do the trick) and some kind of neighboring town or village (in concept if not in great detail) where the PCs could buy, supply, and rest up in between trips to the dungeon. Player activity and DM creativity seemed to provide the rest as a very natural and gradual outgrowth of play. At least that's the experience I had with my DMing and that of the 6 or 10 DMs I recall from way back when.

QuoteRunning a campaign is a much more complex beast. The longer you do it, the more refined you become in terms of giving your players the agency to do what they wanna do within the context of your game. That's rarely something I *ever* see new GM's do simply by dint of lack of experience.

I agree it's more complex, though I tend to look at it from the other direction as the dungeon being more simple. But allowing players to do stuff within the context of the game was clearly intended in the original rules. It also seemed like a natural evolution of dungeon crawling as players tended to want to do something with their loot and that required a setting to do stuff in.

Traveller was set up in a similar way in that you could create a sector and expand it based on PC action and GM (what did Traveller call the GM?) interest. You didn't have to come up with the entire galaxy or even one empire before you started play.

QuoteNow it could be it's happened. Stipulated. Anything is possible. But I've never seen it or even heard of it. Hell I don't even RECOMMEND it for completely new GM's without having a good sounding board.

I think there is a big difference in trying to master less than 60 pages* of material back then and trying to master the multi-volume omnibus monstrosities that most game rules became after OD&D, Traveller, and Runequest. All three of those games had pretty short, pretty easy to decipher rules. Chivalry and Sorcery was only a single (but long) volume, but it used the tiniest font ever so it probably was at least the equivalent of all 3 AD&D volumes.

Becoming a DM was a common thing, in my experience. I'd say about 1/3** of the regular players I knew in the first 2-3 years became DMs. About 1/3 had no interest at all in being the DM and never even tried it. And maybe 1/3 faffed about either trying and failing or more commonly half-halfheartedly trying. But being the DM takes more commitment, time, and energy than being a player so I wouldn't expect everyone to want to do it anymore than I would expect everyone who plays a sport to want to coach or referee. Though in my experience back in the day the percentage of players who DMed was quite a bit higher than the percentage of weekend warrior athletes who coach or referee.




* A bit less because nobody started out first level PCs who were heavily involved with aerial combat, ship to ship combat, and castle construction. That stuff could wait weeks or months before the DM really needed to read it, much less understand it.

** Totally made up percentages based on gut feel and wanting a nice and tidy division into three parts.

I will stipulate everything you said as generally true, Bren. I find nothing there that I would waste my time arguing over and I don't find any of it objectionable.

I would put one single emphasis on my perspective in this regard: I'm talking about going from being a new GM, someone that is faced with running a game and learning the general swing of things to being a *good* GM - someone that runs full campaigns that go on and on until everyone is laying in a sweaty satisfied heap (okay hyperbole aside) and what kind of methods are used to achieve this goal.

That's a pretty big gulf, perhaps larger than some here might agree with. But that's what I'm talking about. Most GM's never make it that far for the variety of reasons you cited. And obviously there's more. All the similar stories of GMing that are collectively shared experiences wouldn't exist, otherwise. I'm not saying this to put anyone on a pedestal - it's just an observation about an activity I expect to see in anyone engaging in an activity this long. There are phases. We pass through them. Something else emerges on the other side. I don't see a lot of heavy-railroading as a method of emphasis in GM's that go this distance. It's a precision tool at best for minor nudging. I don't find it used as indicated in the examples of this thread as a "best practice".

Quote from: tenbones;919430I don't see a lot of heavy-railroading as a method of emphasis in GM's that go this distance. It's a precision tool at best for minor nudging. I don't find it used as indicated in the examples of this thread as a "best practice".

I agree with you. I don't see railroading as best practice.

I've always played RPGs with adults or at the very least with teenagers. But even if I played with people younger than that what I am about to say would apply. We all know we are playing a game. With other humans at the table. We all know, in theory at least if not from actual practical experience, that the GM and each one of the players has finite resources, time, energy, and attention. So if for some reason, one might be really, really tempted to engage in heavy railroading a similar result can often be achieved with a brief out of character statement to the players. Something along the lines of...

"It's fine if you don't want to [help the landlord find his missing child/rid the village of the monster that terrorizes them at night/act as guards for the merchant's caravan/or engage with whatever hooks are on offer], but that's what I prepared for tonight. So what would you like your characters to do instead?" Instead of trying to somehow subtly railroad the characters into biting on this weeks plot hook or following your planned adventure.

"Folks, that ordinary looking [farmer/townsman/bystander/tavern patron/etc.] you've been questioning for the past [30 seconds/30 minutes/3 hours] is an ordinary looking [whatever they are]. There's nothing more to see here and I've exhausted my store of meaningless conversation for this particular NPC. How's about moving on to something that might be more fruitful for your PCs or at the very least something more interesting for me?" Instead of allowing the players to continue to spend scarce and precious free time being bored or frustrated.

"Yes I realize that attacking the evil baron's castle in the middle of a thunderstorm does sound like it will make climbing the walls of his tower more difficult, but [you are all big damn heroes so it shouldn't be impossible/you have a stack of benny representing poker chips in front of you that makes it look like you are trying to break the bank at Monte Carlo, why not spend a few?/if climbing seems to dangerous, have you considered that there might be some way other than climbing a rain slick tower in a lightning storm to get inside the tower, like trick a guard, try a disguise, use some magic?]." Instead of trying to force the players to engage with your drama or a situation that you hadn't intended to be automatic death.

"I'm glad you guys are excited about finding passage on a boat going to the semi-mythical Outer Isles, but I haven't fully detailed the Isles yet, so we can start the journey, but depending on how long it takes in real time, we might have to cut the game a little short if I need to prepare more stuff for you or if you'd rather you can [go back to the nearby dungeon you haven't finished exploring/try and solve the rest of the mystery you've been working on/or otherwise look for adventure somewhere closer to home]. What's your preference?" Instead of having absolutely no boats available for sale or lease in the largest port city of the Empire, a sudden and unexplained wind that blows steadily from the Outer Isles for however long it takes for the players to give up on trying to go there, or ninjas attack.

"OK it seems like you guys are stuck, am I right? Why don't [I/you/we] review what you have figured out so far and see it that gives you some ideas as to what to try next?" Instead of allowing your players to continue to flounder about in frustration for the next 2 hours.

"OK it seems like you guys are frustrated and unsure how to [solve the current problem] you could try [list other alternatives that seem obvious to the GM but are at the moment eluding the players]?" Instead of allowing your players to feel like totally incompetent boobs or that you are a dick GM who doesn't want them to ever have any fun playing.

Players often are not fooled by "subtle" railroading. So why bother trying to do that when there are straightforward ways of addressing the problem that railroading is supposed to solve?

Just to play devil's advocate, some players may find those out of character GM to player conversations more immersion breaking and less desirable than a bit of illusionism or railroading.

Of course, allowing the players a certain degree of 'scene-framing' ability goes a long ways towards alleviating either sort of problem, but some find that to be as controversial as railroading, fudging, and illusionism.

Quote from: Manzanaro;919499Just to play devil's advocate, some players may find those out of character GM to player conversations more immersion breaking and less desirable than a bit of illusionism or railroading.

Sure it could detract from immersion. It is, after all an OOC conversation. And sure, some players might prefer being fooled to having an OOC conversation.

What I was thinking was more like you might just already know your player's preferences without the need for the conversation, not so much that you're fooling them. There's a difference. Especially if you are trying to emulate genre.

Yep. I don't disagree with any of that line of logic.

Quote from: Bren;919483Players often are not fooled by "subtle" railroading. So why bother trying to do that when there are straightforward ways of addressing the problem that railroading is supposed to solve?

This is what I call the "What's in the crate?" problem. I'm good at improv. I can extemporaneously tell a PC what's in a given random container in any given random building in any town. I recognize a lot of GM's aren't good at it (and nor is it mandatory). But because I'm good at it, I rarely have the problem of players going into regions I'm not prepared for, or rather I'm not prepared to improvise on and backfill later. My players generally can't even tell. Which is good, since I really want to keep immersion.

But most GM's I play with are rarely good at it (and I do believe it can be learned to a good degree), but I've seen many GM's choke on that simple phrase of walking into a warehouse and trying to open a crate a few times until the GM just said - "There's nothing in the fucking crates. Move on."

When things start going to places that the PC's need to consider, I definitely try to queue them as much as possible through Int/Wis checks, skill rolls etc to give them some extra expository information to help them get a *real* gauge about the situation. But I generally leave them to do what they want. If the sign says there's "Here be Dragons" - and your PC knows about the the disappearance of the Hamhock Halfling-clan in this region, and their sheep... and you persist to go visit that area... yeah don't be shocked when Smaug Jr. shows up to light your asses up.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919325Would you still view it as some sort of GM diaper awaiting a potty training?

Yes.

If you and yours are having fun getting together every Tuesday and watching Dora the Explorer, more power to you. But that doesn't mean that Dora the Explorer is suddenly using advanced cinematic techniques and fully-developed storytelling.

(Except I wouldn't even go so far as to call it potty training. That would imply that it's actually a valuable step towards achieving your goal. It's more like someone deciding to pee in the potted plants. It's a dead end. You've taken a wrong turn and the only valuable thing to be learned from it is that you shouldn't do it.)

I was going to just bow out of this thread, and maybe all of them until this post caught my eye.

Manzanaro -  "some players may find those out of character GM to player conversations more immersion breaking and less desirable than a bit of illusionism or railroading."

It really got me to thinking that perhaps the reason, in almost every thread Ive started, post Ive made or position Ive taken, that I seem to be in the minority has to do more with my group's approach to gaming rather than my individual approach as a GM.

When I hear statements like " you are fooling the players" or "Its not fair to them" or "your not giving them a real choice" or "your not using the rules consistently" and a number of comments - Im actually a little confused. These elements NEVER come up in our games, haven't for over 30 years. Obviously other types of players, including many of you commenting here, hate it when a GM does some of the things that my group not only seems not to mind but appreciates. Somebody said I must be very lucky to have players that tolerate me. Ill have to agree but what is the difference? Ive even discussed what has been said here with my players and unanimously they found my approach to be more enjoyable and wouldn't consider a change no matter what was said by other gamers.

Something weird is going on here and it is spread across many different topics here, but there is a common thread and I think I know what it is.

Every gamer plays for a different reason, everyone likes some elements and disliked others. It would appear that a majority (If a dozen or so members here that comment regularly can be called a majority and I am accepting that assumption) of gamers play with the aspect of the "Game" being a priority. Adherence to rules, fairness, balance, lack of GM intrusion, complete freedom of action, GM transparency, zero bias, characters as the stars, and so on - are all elements that speak to this when they are weighed as a priority. In that environment I can see readily that many of the choices I make as a GM and the style I demonstrate would definitely clash. Ive been trying to hard to defend it but when I look at it that way its indefensible. No wonder you guys are in a feeding frenzy, Im fresh meat and I get it. It makes complete sense within those parameters...however, what I may not have made clear enough and seems so obvious now is that it is not the environment that we game in, the priorities are all different, the expectations different and therefore the perception of my GM style different as well.

We rarely if ever talk about such things as fairness or adherence to the rules because stories, adventures  and yes even real life and therefore our game are not fair and the rules, frankly, are there to help not hinder the story we are telling through it. Fooling players? To us that's part of the game. The players rarely know what is going on completely and view the world only through the limited perception of their characters so as GM I am constantly 'fooling' them, directing the story around them, manipulating the in game reality for the best (Yes ..best as perceived by me as the creator and director) result. Zero bias, characters as the stars, GM transparency? None of these has any bearing on our game at all. Absolutely I as GM am biased towards the players, the game isn't nearly as fun when they die afterall and is way more fun when they succeed so there is an implied advantage to being a player character over an NPC and I as GM use it. Characters are stars but not always, its perfectly acceptable for them to step back into co-star role or even bit player role at times, in some circumstances the key movers and shakers of the world ARENT the players, especially at lower levels. I hear many gamers balk, or become incredibly offended at this but it happens all the time in our game and nobody minds, the players find their place in the story - perhaps as leader of the hoard one session or just one of the hoard in another.

I hope what Im saying here is making sense. I really want to continue my membership here and take part in the discussions but I cant do so if constantly seen as some sort of GM degenerate that has not yet matured or refuses to mature to the point where all the other enlightened GMs have arrived. I enjoy hearing others styles and learn a great deal but as has been said a few times by others here - my players wouldn't play in your game either! They are looking for a different experience, some have tried it your way at conventions or in other groups and have found a home in mine! All I have asked in this forum is for a little respect, an admission that there is a place in the hobby for responsible"railroading" if you have to call it that. It can be hated, sure - but its a matter of choice and it is a style that has been used successfully for years.

Those that choose to use it or accept it from their GM do so for a reason, they LIKE IT, not because they don't know better or haven't been graced by a REAL Game Master yet. All of those notions are extremely condescending and bring out the very worst in a discussion.

So let me just sum it up. Yes, I will readily admit that a vast number of gamers would resent what I, and other, GMs do (referring to the railroad phenomena) and I can understand (given their expectations of what they want to experience in a roleplaying game) why! However, change those expectations and the effectiveness or even acceptance of a given style of refereeing changes. My players and I enjoy taking part in a detailed, dramatic and well prepared story where the quality of the scenes, attention to detail and theatrical elements are as or more important than any sense of freedom of choice, GM transparency or even fairness. We like it when the elements all line up like they do in a novel, (a storm breaks out just a you reach the mansion, the cavalry arrives just as you run out of ammo, the monster lurches by a few feet away but doesn't find you as you hide etc.) It is these kinds of scenes we play for and as GM I don't risk the possibility that whim, chance, or blind player choice will deprive us of them.

Now, to me - we only stretch those boundries now and then - I would call it Marginal Railroading if I had to give it a designation. To some of you that would already be intolerable. I get that - but understand, in my experience we have played some games (Investigation/mystery for example) where even I would have declared the level of railroading MAJOR and surprise... we had a great time, even when the players knew exactly how much leeway the GM was taking.

Many of you have mentioned letting the Players have more control. In our game the relationship between players and GM could be portrayed as kids going to an amusement park. The players are the kids, and I as GM am the park. Its my job to make sure they have fun, how I do that is my business. I can fool them, trick them, pick on them, cheat them, coddle them or what the hell ever. They know me, trust me and understand that whatever is done will result in a fun time for all.

Boy I hope that clears this up a bit.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919537Yes.

If you and yours are having fun getting together every Tuesday and watching Dora the Explorer, more power to you. But that doesn't mean that Dora the Explorer is suddenly using advanced cinematic techniques and fully-developed storytelling.

(Except I wouldn't even go so far as to call it potty training. That would imply that it's actually a valuable step towards achieving your goal. It's more like someone deciding to pee in the potted plants. It's a dead end. You've taken a wrong turn and the only valuable thing to be learned from it is that you shouldn't do it.)

What the hell ever.. laugh

Im actually wondering if my long post above shouldn't be the start of a new thread. Why do you game? What are your priorities? What do you expect from a roleplaying session? It might make the comments some of us are making make a little more sense. When we argue from totally different viewpoints it almost fruitless and just annoys and aggravates with little benefit.

rgrove, I honestly don't think it's the 'game', particularly notions of fairness, that most people here have been focusing on. It's more the difference between simulation and narrative.

I'm heavy on the simulation end. My players never have to wonder if they won because I jiggered the outcome. This isn't about fairness, but about simulating a world that does not care about protagonist status. The player's victories and defeats are not authorially mandated any more than a real person's are.

You, on the other hand, seem much more about the experience of being a character in a story, and so the authorial hand will always trump the rules of simulation for you, and your players know this. They are not bothered by the occasional glimpses of that hand.

Neither of us is WRONG, and in fact narrative qualities are important to me too. It's just different approaches.

Well it should be understood though that I do allow players to fail or even die. I probably would intervene to prohibit some meaningless death like fumbling a roll as you approach a helicopter or something but my players understand and appreciate that part of the drama we are creating involves risk. They know I may step in and help once in a while for the good of the group but they cant count on it.

Doesn't change my point. For you narrative considerations override the rules of simulation; for me and many other's it's vice versa. Though I personally still strive for good narrative while abiding by the rules of simulation (and believe me that even this has elicited significant anger from other posters here).

Yes, I find the level of antagonism kind of odd. Ive read of lots things gamers claim they do here that I find objectionable but I don't go off on them because they do it. I get defending your point but outright attacking another's just seems peculiar. Its not like anything anyone has done in a roleplaying game, no matter how unwanted or unappreciated has ever really hurt anybody. We do get on each others nerves in forums though, Ive seen it everywhere be it miniatures forums, historical, literary... it doesn't matter. Kind of a shame though.

and queue the music!

https://youtu.be/eR-QC-2hwZQ

Quote from: tenbones;919534This is what I call the "What's in the crate?" problem. I'm good at improv. I can extemporaneously tell a PC what's in a given random container in any given random building in any town.

Yes that is a handy skill. I find improvising is easier to do in a setting that is not overly detailed and one that is not based on something published like an RPG product, a canon fictional setting, or actual history. It's also easier the less detail I've already created for the setting. Because I am very concerned with maintaining consistency lots of details may require me to look at existing notes and such to avoid forgetting stuff or contradicting stuff I've already created or revealed and looking up stuff is slower than just making up something new.

re: What's in the crate? Nowadays I'll often ask what it is they are looking for before answering that question. If they are just idly curious then making up some random shit in crates is no big deal. On the other hand if they have some actual line of inquiry they are trying to follow, I'll be a bit more careful about what sort of random shit I make up so that I don't unthinkingly create a red herring or an inconsistency that will confuse the players. I don't mind intentionally creating red herrings, though i usually find the players are well able to create their own red herrings without any help from me and my creativity is better applied to making things that are consistent and that reinforce what is actually going on behind the scenes while avoiding any additional red herrings that don't need to be there.

QuoteWhich is good, since I really want to keep immersion.

I'm less concerned about immersion. One of my players who is most immersive seems to be able to easily move out of IC to absorb the occasional bit of OC info. And really I don't use an OC method very often. And when I do use it it's at the point where the players are already going OOC to say they don't know what to do next or they seem like they are about to go OOC with something like that.

In addition, I'm happy to admit which stuff I made up ahead of time, which NPCs are based on real people and which are fictional, which floor plans are historical and accurate and which are not, etc.. Some of my players like to know which stuff is from actual history. Some don't seem to care one way or another. If I was concerned about making it difficult to tell whether information was actual, created beforehand, or improvised on the fly (like if say I had a player who seemed off put by OOC communication of any sort) then I'd do things differently. And doing lots of improvisation would be easier in an entirely made up setting where it is easier to just make up some shit with little fear of contradicting something important.

Quote...but I've seen many GM's choke on that simple phrase of walking into a warehouse and trying to open a crate a few times until the GM just said - "There's nothing in the fucking crates. Move on."

While I think the GM is also entitled to want the game to move along if he or she gets bored, if I go out of character it is usually because the players are restless rather than that I am restless.

QuoteIf the sign says there's "Here be Dragons" - and your PC knows about the the disappearance of the Hamhock Halfling-clan in this region, and their sheep... and you persist to go visit that area... yeah don't be shocked when Smaug Jr. shows up to light your asses up.

They get a warning sign? They should be buying you a drink for being so nice. :D

Round and round and round we go.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919555Yes, I find the level of antagonism kind of odd. Ive read of lots things gamers claim they do here that I find objectionable but I don't go off on them because they do it. I get defending your point but outright attacking another's just seems peculiar. Its not like anything anyone has done in a roleplaying game, no matter how unwanted or unappreciated has ever really hurt anybody. We do get on each others nerves in forums though, Ive seen it everywhere be it miniatures forums, historical, literary... it doesn't matter. Kind of a shame though.

You keep mixing up people saying "Thats not what I like at my table" with "What you are doing is WRONG!" after everyone finally sorted out what the heck you were on about because your initial posts were both antagonistic and lacking in key data leading many, even me to initially think that you were doing all this without the players consent. Note that the tone changed dramatically once we sorted that out and shifted to mainly just punting the ball whenever you make a pronouncement that just isnt so.

Quote from: Bren;919568They get a warning sign? They should be buying you a drink for being so nice. :D

HAH! That's probably an embellishment. The only warning sign they'd probably get in this case is claw-marks on their little burned out hovels and random halfling bits that didn't make it down the dragon's gullet. Someone with Survival or something might make the roll and know... Yep... it's a fucking dragon.

Of course what they do next... is on them. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote from: rgrove0172;919541My players and I enjoy taking part in a detailed, dramatic and well prepared story where the quality of the scenes, attention to detail and theatrical elements are...

...completely irrelevant to this discussion because this is a false dilemma.

"The only way to achieve detailed, dramatic, and well-prepared stories is to railroad!" <---- That is not a true statement. End of discussion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919541The players are the kids...

The hilarious thing is that you can post condescending bullshit like that patronizing your own players, but are then baffled by the Dora the Explorer metaphor.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919537(Except I wouldn't even go so far as to call it potty training. That would imply that it's actually a valuable step towards achieving your goal. It's more like someone deciding to pee in the potted plants. It's a dead end. You've taken a wrong turn and the only valuable thing to be learned from it is that you shouldn't do it.)

Because sometimes even if you are having fun, it is bad-wrong-fun. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Manzanaro;919546rgrove, I honestly don't think it's the 'game', particularly notions of fairness, that most people here have been focusing on. It's more the difference between simulation and narrative.

When you are right, you right.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919541It really got me to thinking that perhaps the reason, in almost every thread Ive started, post Ive made or position Ive taken, that I seem to be in the minority has to do more with my group's approach to gaming rather than my individual approach as a GM.

Your GM style and your group's approach to gaming are two sides of the same coin. You are trying to tell a story and to make your game play turn out like the sort of stories that you like. Your players are along for the ride. They play some of the parts or roles in your story. And since you are using a game system that doesn't have any mechanical widgets to help you with your story telling, you sometimes ignore or overrule the rules and the die rolls to try and get the story outcome you want.

And I think virtually everyone is aware that your players like your GM style well enough to keep coming back for more year after year.

QuoteWe rarely if ever talk about such things as fairness or adherence to the rules because stories, adventures  and yes even real life and therefore our game are not fair and the rules, frankly, are there to help not hinder the story we are telling through it.

The unfairness of the real world and the unfairness of stories and adventures aren't at all the same thing though. Some of us eschew the dramatic license of fiction to get a setting that is more like the unfair or uncaring nature of the real world and we accept and even encourage the sorts of unfairness that the real world includes. That's one of the things that not over riding die rolls actually provides is real-world-like unfairness and uncertainty. If you roll the dice, then in the game setting, unlike in fiction, the hero may just get bonked on the head and killed by some nonentity well before any dramatic destiny gets a chance to unfold. Or to put it another way, we don't know who are the heroes and who died in Act I until after play has ended and the story can now be told.

QuoteThe players rarely know what is going on completely and view the world only through the limited perception of their characters

Yes that is what you get when player knowledge is limited to in character knowledge. That is particularly important for people who want to immerse in their character. It can also be important if part of the game aspect is making decisions based only or mostly on IC knowledge. This is like the idea of the fog of war that is included in some wargames, but extended to cover all aspects of knowing and deciding. In general the GM isn't fooling the players so much as the GM is only providing them with limited or partial information that is appropriate to their character's perception. Though in the case of a failed roll to spot a secret door, sense an NPC's motive, or recall some world knowledge the GM may in fact be misleading the player by giving them only the inaccurate knowledge that their PC possesses rather than giving them the correct answer or the fuller, bigger, and more accurate picture that the GM possesses.

Quoteso as GM I am constantly 'fooling' them, directing the story around them, manipulating the in game reality for the best (Yes ..best as perceived by me as the creator and director) result.

But trying to create a particular story is very different than trying to simulate a world. And the way you are doing your story creation uses a very different sort of 'fooling' the players than is necessary for simulating a world and in maintaining an in-character perspective. A lot of us don't want to intentionally create stories while playing. That difference is a key one between your group's approach and the approach that many of us prefer.

QuoteAll I have asked in this forum is for a little respect, an admission that there is a place in the hobby for responsible"railroading" if you have to call it that. It can be hated, sure - but its a matter of choice and it is a style that has been used successfully for years.

I think virtually everyone is aware that your players like your GM style well enough to keep coming back for more year after year. And with one or two exceptions, no one is saying that you are wrong or they are wrong to like what you like or to play the way you like to play.

What a lot of people are saying is that it isn't necessary (for us and for almost everyone we've ever played with) to play the way you play just to have fun or get drama and excitement or to end up with an interesting tale of some kind. And maybe, just maybe, your players might enjoy trying something different. Or, you know, maybe not.

QuoteThose that choose to use it or accept it from their GM do so for a reason, they LIKE IT, not because they don't know better or haven't been graced by a REAL Game Master yet. All of those notions are extremely condescending and bring out the very worst in a discussion.

Yes that is condescending. Of course a number of your comments e.g. how dry, boring, simplistic, unprepared, undramatic, and uncreative other people's styles are is also condescending. Neither bit of condescension excuses the other.

QuoteWe like it when the elements all line up like they do in a novel, (a storm breaks out just a you reach the mansion, the cavalry arrives just as you run out of ammo, the monster lurches by a few feet away but doesn't find you as you hide etc.) It is these kinds of scenes we play for and as GM I don't risk the possibility that whim, chance, or blind player choice will deprive us of them.

I think that pretty early on most of us comprehended that you like a more or less GM directed narrative style of play. However, most of us don't find that a directed narrative is actually dramatic. Especially since the cavalry arriving in the nick of time is an overused fictional outcome that often depends on implausible dramatic coincidence or even an outright appearance of a deus-ex-machina.

QuoteIn our game the relationship between players and GM could be portrayed as kids going to an amusement park. The players are the kids, and I as GM am the park. Its my job to make sure they have fun, how I do that is my business. I can fool them, trick them, pick on them, cheat them, coddle them or what the hell ever. They know me, trust me and understand that whatever is done will result in a fun time for all.
   
Boy I hope that clears this up a bit.

I think virtually everyone is already aware that your players like your GM style well enough to keep coming back for more year after year.

Quote from: Bren;919588I think that pretty early on most of us comprehended that you like a more or less GM directed narrative style of play. However, most of us don’t find that a directed narrative is actually dramatic. Especially since the cavalry arriving in the nick of time is an overused fictional outcome that often depends on implausible dramatic coincidence or even an outright appearance of a deus-ex-machina.

I disagree here. A more directed narrative style of play can have some damn good dramatic impact. Even the arrival of the tried and true cavalry can be a thrill.

But like every style. It can also be a total game killer.  I mean really. There was that thread last year here with all the incessant bitching about how horrible the DM was to just make a decision on the spot.

Quote from: Omega;919589I disagree here. A more directed narrative style of play can have some damn good dramatic impact. Even the arrival of the tried and true cavalry can be a thrill.

OK. Maybe not most of us. Maybe just some of us.

Also I am differentiating a dramatic resolution from a satisfying resolution. The arrival of the cavalry may be quite satisfying even if the players expected it would happen.

QuoteBut like every style. It can also be a total game killer.  I mean really. There was that thread last year here with all the incessant bitching about how horrible the DM was to just make a decision on the spot.

I don't recall that one. Since I'm a bit low on my listening to people bitch quota today, can you link to it or give me a clue so I can search for it?

Quote from: Bren;919588Because sometimes even if you are having fun, it is bad-wrong-fun. :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919611It's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

I used to live on a cul-de-sac. I currently live on a cul-de-sac. I like living on a cul-de-sac. But I take your point.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919611It's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

And this is Gods Honest Truth because, well YOU SAY IT IS of course! You guys amaze me.

If I started a thread claiming that oh.. Savage Worlds sucks, I can prove it by claiming over and over and over again just how much I hate it. You guys would hang me... but that's exactly what some of you are doing. If it wasn't so aggravating it would be funny.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919633And this is Gods Honest Truth because, well YOU SAY IT IS of course! You guys amaze me.

If I started a thread claiming that oh.. Savage Worlds sucks, I can prove it by claiming over and over and over again just how much I hate it. You guys would hang me... but that's exactly what some of you are doing. If it wasn't so aggravating it would be funny.

uh... Savage Worlds DOES suck... just sayin... :cool:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919611It's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

Did grove insist it was anything else? If so, I missed that part.

Quote from: Omega;919651uh... Savage Worlds DOES suck... just sayin... :cool:

LMAO

Quote from: cranebump;919652Did grove insist it was anything else? If so, I missed that part.

You haven't and I didnt.

Quote from: cranebump;919652Did grove insist it was anything else? If so, I missed that part.

Tenbones did. rgrove0172 replied to that with a question. I answered his question. He's apparently really upset because my answer is different than his. This is because he's a crazed, hypocritical egotist.

If you click the little double-arrow icon next to quoted text you can go to the message it was quoted from. It's not difficult to click your way up this conversational branch and see the context.

With that being said...

Quote from: rgrove0172;919633

QuoteIt's not a matter of "bad-wrong-fun". It's that railroading takes you nowhere but more railroading. It's not a stepping stone to player-driven narratives or open-ended scenarios. It's a cul-de-sac. Have all the fun you want in the cul-de-sac, but it's not going to magically transform into a highway.

And this is Gods Honest Truth because, well YOU SAY IT IS of course! You guys amaze me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919658You haven't and I didnt.

If you aren't actually disagreeing with what I said, why are you so upset about me saying it?

In any case: Roleplaying games are, inherently, an interactive medium. Railroading is, inherently, antithetical to interactivity. It is literally defined as negating the interactive input of other players at the table. So, yes, it is fundamentally incapable of taking full advantage of the interactive medium of the roleplaying game because it is fundamentally set up to fight against the medium instead of using the medium. It is, furthermore, not going to teach you anything about using the full interactive scope of the medium because the linear, pre-planned content of the railroad teaches you nothing about how to prep or run interactive material. As I've said: It's a dead end. No reason you can't have fun in that dead end, but it remains a dead end.

Which is all shit I've said to you before, despite your bizarre, bullshit claim that I've never posted a supporting argument for these claims.

Now it's your turn: You've asserted that the only way to achieve detailed, dramatic, and well-prepared stories in a roleplaying game is to railroad. Would you care to actually support that ridiculous assertion? Or do you just want to reveal yourself to be a raging hypocrite again?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919661Tenbones did. rgrove0172 replied to that with a question. I answered his question. He's apparently really upset because my answer is different than his. This is because he's a crazed, hypocritical egotist.

If you click the little double-arrow icon next to quoted text you can go to the message it was quoted from. It's not difficult to click your way up this conversational branch and see the context.

With that being said...





If you aren't actually disagreeing with what I said, why are you so upset about me saying it?

In any case: Roleplaying games are, inherently, an interactive medium. Railroading is, inherently, antithetical to interactivity. It is literally defined as negating the interactive input of other players at the table. So, yes, it is fundamentally incapable of taking full advantage of the interactive medium of the roleplaying game because it is fundamentally set up to fight against the medium instead of using the medium. It is, furthermore, not going to teach you anything about using the full interactive scope of the medium because the linear, pre-planned content of the railroad teaches you nothing about how to prep or run interactive material. As I've said: It's a dead end. No reason you can't have fun in that dead end, but it remains a dead end.

Which is all shit I've said to you before, despite your bizarre, bullshit claim that I've never posted a supporting argument for these claims.

Now it's your turn: You've asserted that the only way to achieve detailed, dramatic, and well-prepared stories in a roleplaying game is to railroad. Would you care to actually support that ridiculous assertion? Or do you just want to reveal yourself to be a raging hypocrite again?

Well first off I never asserted any such thing, only that I choose to achieve those ends using my own approach. You may and probably do manage it differently. In my experience the methods preached by so many here don't achieve the same thing but Im not saying they cant.

As to Roleplaying being an inherently interactive medium I tentatively agree (I play solo a great deal and there is no interactivity there yet it is undoubtedly a roleplaying game which has been discussed in another thread) but in no way is my approach antithetical. My players are absolutely involved to the fullest at every juncture, every turn and in every moment of the game.

I will also have to say that even if one accepts the concept of Railroading as negative, its not an all or nothing phenomena. There are various degrees of GM interference if you will, and GMs that accept these styles fall anywhere along the line... and in most cases deviate from game to game, session to session. That being said it is entirely possible for a heavy railroader to use the style as a safety net or crutch as they become more comfortable with the GM role and slowly lesson its impact over time. I went through something very much like that over 20 years ago before settling on a style that I felt worked for me in the long term. Therefore railroading is Absolutely a good tool for teaching and can easily lead to a better understanding of the interactive medium you are toting. Dead end = not

Quote from: rgrove0172;919550Well it should be understood though that I do allow players to fail or even die. I probably would intervene to prohibit some meaningless death like fumbling a roll as you approach a helicopter or something but my players understand and appreciate that part of the drama we are creating involves risk. They know I may step in and help once in a while for the good of the group but they cant count on it.

Why are you rolling to see if they fall to their deaths or not, if you're just going to veto the dice if they fail?

What you've done is remove the reality of the danger from the situation.

I think you were right at a very broad level in your long post above when you said that our priorities are very different, but not in the details, at least not for me. In this example, the point is I value playing a game that lets me experience an imagined situation as if it were really the case, to see how it plays out, to be faced with actual decisions and risks, to experience the situation we're talking about. If there's a deadly gap to jump to a helicopter, I want to have a real choice about whether to take the risk, based on how strong my character is, how strong and how dextrous a jumper he/she is, how much equipment I chose to carry on my body, including whether I choose to drop any heavy things before jumping, whether it's raining, how fast the copter is drifting, etc etc. I strongly do not want to have that undermined by wondering if the GM is just gonna fudge the dice. It defeats the whole purpose.

Quote from: Skarg;919818Why are you rolling to see if they fall to their deaths or not, if you're just going to veto the dice if they fail?

If you don't want PCs to have a risk of failure in a given situation, don't roll the dice.

If you don't want PCs to have a risk of death in a given situation, don't tell them there's a risk of death if they fail.


If you get in the habit of changing die rolls to whatever you want, why bother with the illusion of rolling? It's just a waste of time at that point.

Yes.

And, if I as the GM (or the NPC helicopter pilot) want to avoid the risk of death, the helicopter can fly nearer the building, or land properly.

And, if I as the player (or an NPC friend of the player) want to reduce the risk of death, I can do one of any number of things besides jump off a building hoping to grab an aircraft. Those choices, and getting actual risks and consequences from them, are what I play for.

If what I want is drama, I can and do jump and risk it. I and my players often do choose such things because the risk is real and therefore entertaining, and if we make such a jump, or fail, the result is much more dramatic because it is a real risk. If there is a fudged jump, to me that undermines the drama/risk/excitement/story-worthiness of the event, because it's a fake risk that wasn't really taken. I know the real story is "I pretended to risk my life" or "I was willing to risk death, but the GM robbed me of the actual glory by faking the roll, so it really wasn't a risk".

If a GM thinks the drama is all in the fake risk of the jump he thought of, that doesn't necessarily even make sense, that's missing out on the chance for other "dramatic" possibilities, such as a tactical/clever defense (and/or negotiation) at the roof entrance in order to let the helicopter land properly. Or any number of other options. The point for me though is that the situation described match the game situation, so I can make rational and meaningful decisions about them, and enjoy having the game be about the situation, and not be about generating a story that meets some dramatic criteria.

One of the most vivid memories from playing in one of my friend's first campaign, by the way, was early on, when we were escaping from a place by making a very long climb while under attack. We got down to two of us left and were about to make it out, when the second-to-last-surviving party member crit failed a climbing roll and fell to her death. Her falling scream was haunting. I experienced that as one of the tensest and dramatic and memorable gaming experiences I've had, and it was just a basic climbing roll where the GM played it by the dice. (It also hammered home the importance of good accurate rules to get the risks right.) If I were playing by a "narrative" GM I'd not have sweated it or remembered it except maybe as an annoying example, because there would be no real risk and no real situation to face except the GM's storytelling judgments.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919633And this is Gods Honest Truth because, well YOU SAY IT IS of course! You guys amaze me.

If I started a thread claiming that oh.. Savage Worlds sucks, I can prove it by claiming over and over and over again just how much I hate it. You guys would hang me... but that's exactly what some of you are doing. If it wasn't so aggravating it would be funny.

Time and pressure turns dinosaurs into birds (and other things). I'm not sure why this is aggravating? Seriously. I do think it's funny, only because you keep saying this stuff as if it even matters? Go play! Frolic in the Garden of Eden. Avoid the snakes and if you choose not to, for Dagon's sake, don't listen to their LIIEEES.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919693Well first off I never asserted any such thing...

/snip

If you look closely - Justin Alexander said exactly that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919693In my experience the methods preached by so many here don't achieve the same thing but Im not saying they cant.

To which my response is simple - the use of any "method" or "system" or "tool" is dependent entirely upon how it is used, and by "who" uses it and whom it is used on. That alone is a large set of variables to work with. The issue one should take a sober look at is the number of people falling into these various categories and what their general success level is and total the sum as a "fun" factor.

So all things being equal -
1) I'm not going to disparage anyone for being a shitty GM without me having played in their games. So I'm going to assume we're *ALL* WTFAWESOME GM's here. So everyone gets a trophy and a pass.

2) That leaves me with how these methods are used. I have ample anecdotal and second-hand evidence of the ins-and-outs of their use. I find railroading to be inferior. Others whose opinions equally subjective have come to similar conclusions. Often after many years of using this and other methods to gauge their results. After literally hundreds if not thousands of discussions on Usenet, face-to-face, during game-design jam-sessions, with literally hundreds of players from many walks of life - I'm reasonably certain within a very narrow margin-for-error that most GM's that have gone through this process with extended numbers of people will come to the same conclusion: Railroading should be as light as possible and be made as invisible as possible or not even exist, for optimum results *in general*.

3) Player experience matters, but players can only get experience by likewise being subjected to different methods. Since my claim is that most new GM's start running campaigns as railroady-affairs of varying degrees the natural implication is that players likewise start playing in these kinds of games and therefore it matters on how a given method is used. Methods condition players to into forms of accepted play like in any game. That is precisely the reason I gravitated towards sandbox-style play because it gives players AND GM's the most freedom. But that freedom of play comes with a price as it demands more skill from the GM to pull it off. That skill only comes from experience. Therefore you have to evolve and learn those skills. That takes time and effort. Hence my observation.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919693As to Roleplaying being an inherently interactive medium I tentatively agree (I play solo a great deal and there is no interactivity there yet it is undoubtedly a roleplaying game which has been discussed in another thread) but in no way is my approach antithetical. My players are absolutely involved to the fullest at every juncture, every turn and in every moment of the game.

Do you think your proclivity to do this has no impact on how you think others *should* by GM fiat play your games? As you say yourself, it is an act of roleplaying with oneself without interactivity, if i take that for face-value is what I call "storytime".

Quote from: rgrove0172;919693That being said it is entirely possible for a heavy railroader to use the style as a safety net or crutch as they become more comfortable with the GM role and slowly lesson its impact over time.

Except you just admitted to the phenomenon which is ultimately my only claim. Show me a GM that *ISN'T* comfortable in the GM role and I'll be willing to bet you that is a GM that isn't what I would consider a *good* GM by my standards. I could be wrong, but I'm sure they're pretty rare. The way you become comfortable in the GM role is how? Go on, say it with me... "By doing it over and over and getting experience at it." just like anything else...

Quote from: rgrove0172;919693I went through something very much like that over 20 years ago before settling on a style that I felt worked for me in the long term. Therefore railroading is Absolutely a good tool for teaching and can easily lead to a better understanding of the interactive medium you are toting. Dead end = not

therefore I Absolutely say: "great! Game onward!" I have no faith you understand what we're talking about... 49-pages later. But it passes the time while I'm running my data-extractions.

Quote from: tenbones;919864Except you just admitted to the phenomenon which is ultimately my only claim. Show me a GM that *ISN'T* comfortable in the GM role and I'll be willing to bet you that is a GM that isn't what I would consider a *good* GM by my standards. I could be wrong, but I'm sure they're pretty rare. The way you become comfortable in the GM role is how? Go on, say it with me... "By doing it over and over and getting experience at it." just like anything else...

Id disagree here. From experience its the DM that questions themselves that tend to be the better DM. The confident ones have an odd tendency to end up revealed to be alot of bluster and not as much skill as they claimed. So to me its the DM that does not question themselves that I find suspicious. But probably a thread for another day.

Meh I think we're splitting hairs on this here. I am extremely comfortable as a GM and I question myself non-stop in terms of what works best.

"Not being comfortable" to me is that moment as a GM when you start not liking what the players are doing and in you inability due to whatever reason - be it lack of skill, understanding of the rules, understanding of whatever, fall back to the Railroad out of sheer habit rather than judicious intent.

Quote from: tenbones;919896Meh I think we're splitting hairs on this here.

This couldn't possibly be true!