http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?707803-Too-much-GM-transparency
The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.
Honestly, it sounds a little dull. As a player I don't want to know the mechanical "guts" of the game or when the GM is fudging or whatever. Seeing the oppositions character sheets feels like cheating. I want to learn about the world in character, not read it.
Eh, sometimes the DM has to say "guys, I didn't prepare an adventure in the woods for tonight, I just set up the tower you were planning to assault".
Also, inexperienced players genrally get an OOC warning about random encounters and other such things.
In my experience a lot of GMs seem to like to spill the beans about their carefully constructed plans... particularly when they don't quite come on stage as hoped.
Our Earthdawn GM really can't seem to resist that urge... though when he starts in I'll often cover my ears and scream 'lalala I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!
Usually it's AFTER we went through some situation... he'll spill the bits of lore we failed to uncover. I'd rather he didn't even do that... but a few weeks ago he casually dropped the news that the person at the center of my PC's core quest... that has been going on for a couple years now... is dead.
WTF!!! DO NOT TELL ME THAT STUFF!
Otherwise he's a great GM... but he'll drop spoilers about movies, books, TV shows without warning... and I've yet to shout him off doing that.
On the other hand... I think it was perfectly fine and good to warn the new player in our Pathfinder game about the deadly nature of The Tomb Of Horrors module beforehand... so the inevitable TPK wouldn't be too much of a shock.
Quote from: Simlasa;706203In my experience a lot of GMs seem to like to spill the beans about their carefully constructed plans... particularly when they don't quite come on stage as hoped.
Our Earthdawn GM really can't seem to resist that urge... though when he starts in I'll often cover my ears and scream 'lalala I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!
Usually it's AFTER we went through some situation... he'll spill the bits of lore we failed to uncover. I'd rather he didn't even do that... but a few weeks ago he casually dropped the news that the person at the center of my PC's core quest... that has been going on for a couple years now... is dead.
WTF!!! DO NOT TELL ME THAT STUFF!
Otherwise he's a great GM... but he'll drop spoilers about movies, books, TV shows without warning... and I've yet to shout him off doing that.
On the other hand... I think it was perfectly fine and good to warn the new player in our Pathfinder game about the deadly nature of The Tomb Of Horrors module beforehand... so the inevitable TPK wouldn't be too much of a shock.
Yeah, I guess its not a strictly black and white issue.
I will very seldom share OOC details. Usually if a Campaign ends prematurely and I am pretty sure we won't revisit it I will ask the players if they want to know any details.
I will offer guesses to why a certain NPC or thing happened. Seldom is it the direct answer but a list of possibilities. Like why did the Mayor lie well could have been his family was held hostage by the bad guys or because he is a coward or because etc...
I usually let the players decide if they want to know and seldom offer the info. I don't want the players to be too frustrated by something eating at them and as long as the info has little impact or the possibility is the Character (not player) could have put 2 and 2 together I might tell them.
Mostly I think it destroys suspension of disbelief in the world/game.
Just my thoughts
I generally don't share additional world details, or campaign details OOC. I leave it up to the players to discover as much or as little as they are interested in about the world, the kingdom, or the campaign setting they are in.
They do this by exploring the world, and talking to, or listening to, the natives of the area they are in, or interested in visiting. Alot of the secondary geographical or social information provided by NPCs is inaccurate, or false, or outdated as well, so the only way the players can truly learn about places in the world is to visit it themselves. Since different player parties visit different locales at different times, their experiences and knowledge may vary significantly.
This adds an additional touch of mystery, adds to the significance of exploration and discovery, and generally keeps the players both inquisitive and alert.
Some players are really fanatical about DM transparency.
So it does not surprise me really.
After a session or campaign I may point out key things the players missed as examples of ways they could have been paying more attention or not being so bloodthirsty.
IE: Not searching the leaders room more after finding the obviously placed treasure chest. They totally missed the +1 dagger on the bed under the pillow.
IE: Killing the NPC who could have shown them a back entrance to the lair that would have bypassed the rather mean trap at the start. One PC down shortly thereafter.
Rare but it happens.
Quote from: Nexus;706199http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?707803-Too-much-GM-transparency
The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.
Honestly, it sounds a little dull. As a player I don't want to know the mechanical "guts" of the game or when the GM is fudging or whatever. Seeing the oppositions character sheets feels like cheating. I want to learn about the world in character, not read it.
The survey doesn't distinguish between in the game or outside of it, so...useless
Quote from: TristramEvans;706294The survey doesn't distinguish between in the game or outside of it, so...useless
Seems to be both. But the OP seems to lean to the during side rather than the after.
At the end of a one-shot, I answer any questions from the players. I don't do that during conventions, but will afterward if there was any unsolved mystery.
However, I do talk about house rules beforehand. I do mop ups at the end of fights without dice. If the end of the fight is clearly that the PCs are going to slay everything, then I just do a narrative to save time.
If I am doing a demo however, I do have lots of OOC talk about the various rules on the player or GM side during our demo session. AKA, if I am teaching OD&D, I will tell them that every "ten minutes" in the dungeon I will roll a D6 to see if wandering monsters show up to say hi.
That too. I will answer questions after a session or campaign if the players ask. Like what was going on behind the scenes that they didnt know about, but impacted them or the adventure.
Quote from: Nexus;706199The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.
I'll often pull back the curtain and crack the hood for a post mortem. It can be useful to compare notes about what the players thought they were seeing and what I was trying to show them: It lets you know what works and what doesn't; it can also help the players figure out what they did right (and what they did wrong).
But you generally don't show how the magic trick works while you're still performing the trick. My experience with that in the past has been almost universally negative.
A go to example I use is when I was running a group of PCs through the sewers beneath a city. They were having an absolute blast... right up until I made the mistake of telling them it was all being randomly generated. Their suspension of disbelief instantly vanished and what had previously been interesting and exciting became a complete slog. I eventually had to ditch the entire adventure structure and redesign it.
I don't share squat about such issues. Ever. There's no good reason in the world why I should discuss, OOC and ex cathedra, why certain guards have certain stats, why a party may or may not have had an easy time in that combat, or why a NPC has the motivations she does.
What I limit myself to discussing are elements that the PCs would know as a matter of course. Someone with Current Affairs-15 may well know that the Royal Guard are all mediocre warriors because several of them tried to off the King last year. A PC who's a sincere worshiper of the goddess Ratri would understand why there's murmuring about that priestess, because she's known to be a virgin, and priestesses of Ratri are expected to be mothers. And, sure, a player unfamiliar with GURPS needs to know that four PCs against twenty guardsmen of mixed sword-and-board, polearms and crossbows constitute bad odds, and any experienced warrior would know that.
Most GMs I play with don't do it. One sometimes will make comments about how we did the wrong thing, and I usually bite back a comment that would be something like "nobody would ever think of that, climb out of your hermit hole and join the rest of us humans".
Still trying to locate a definition for "transperany".
No luck so far.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706360Still trying to locate a definition for "transperany".
No luck so far.
Spelling flames rule
Quote from: Exploderwizard;706360Still trying to locate a definition for "transperany".
No luck so far.
Transperany = The tyranny of transparency demanding players. :cool:
IE: "I am oppressed under your mad transperany! I must be free!"
Quote from: Omega;706373Transperany = The tyranny of transparency demanding players. :cool:
IE: "I am oppressed under your mad transperany! I must be free!"
Thanks! With a working definition this will be much easier to discuss.
Players engaging in ruthless transperany simply have no trust in their GM, either because the GM hasn't earned their trust or they have played in shitty games and now no longer trust anyone not to be a dick.
This is purely a people problem and likely because there is no honest out of game discussion going on between the participants.
I will generally discuss the whys and hows of campaign events
after the campaign is over should anyone be interested. While the game is ongoing, such things are for the players to discover during actual play.
Quote from: Nexus;706199The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.
Honestly, it sounds a little dull. As a player I don't want to know the mechanical "guts" of the game or when the GM is fudging or whatever. Seeing the oppositions character sheets feels like cheating. I want to learn about the world in character, not read it.
Its a typical badly thought out poll with no real way of determining what it is you voting for.
I tend to have information such as monster stats, spell rules et al out in the open if players want to look at them. I typically do not fudge so that's not an issue. Its worth noting that most printed stats are averages, players knowing the stats of an average goblin I find acceptable, the stats of 'Kol Valad, Goblin Chef Extraordinaire' they don't get to know (although I tend to be pretty liberal about throwing out things like AC to speed up the game).
NPC motivations on the other hand I might share after the campaign is finished, but never actually during the game itself.
Although on occasions I have had players take over running NPCs if the party is split or something similar - which obviously changes the information given.
There is a fine line, as a Player I find really tedious GMs who act like your character has been in some sort of coma before the games starts and refuse to even tell you what the city you grew up in was like. On the other-hand, I would not want to suddenly find I had the ability to mind read every NPC I met, that would remove any sense of reality. At the end of the day it comes down to immersion, realism, speed, playability and trust.
Quote from: Nexus;706199The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.
I basically shut down meta gaming at my table. The players only know what they need to in order to run their PC. For instance, if an Elf PC walks past a secret door (and isn't actively looking) I make a SILENT roll to determine if it was noticed. The players aren't given the meta data.
Why would a player want to be burdened with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with running their character?
I'll answer questions the players ask me during the game, sure. I'll try to keep it short and only answer what their characters would know, either individually or collectively.
Likewise, I'll talk about stuff outside of the game if I am asked, absolutely. Whether some possibilities exist in the campaign, if there's an explanation for what happened last game session, even to reveal some stuff that would have no bearing whatsoever into the future events of the game, I could do that, yes.
I might provide some meta advice between games too, especially if the players are noobs, and they don't know what iron spikes are for, as an example. I will try to convey this type of information via role playing and via the game world itself whenever possible, however. Like rumours talking about how the depths are more and more dangerous the deeper you venture within the dungeon and all that.
Fundamentally, I welcome all discussion about the campaign. No problem. But if you ask me a question and I tell you "sorry, there is an explanation, yes, but I can't tell you what it is at this point", you've got to trust me there actually IS a valid reason for me to tell you that.
Quote from: Lord Hobie;706366Spelling flames rule
Eh, some people have allot of free time
I can definitely see sharing details after the game or campaign is over. It would similar to watching the extras and director commentary. What really surprised me was that so many games appeared to involve completely open notes and other details during the game.
I suppose it wouldn't be such a big deal if the players and gm were holding a more authorial, cooperative story telling stance more than immersion or competitive game play.
I sense a multi-legged shaggy beast arriving in our future... :cool:
Quote from: Opaopajr;706479I sense a multi-legged shaggy beast arriving in our future... :cool:
You lost me...
I'll share after something unchangeable happens or at the end of a chapter.
E.g. "Don't feel too bad about losing that fight. You were way outclassed. I expected you to run, honestly."
I do this because the "we couldn't run because..." feedback is invaluable.
Feedback afterwards can be very usefull for figuring out what you might be doing wrong as a DM or a player.
Quote from: Omega;706519Feedback afterwards can be very usefull for figuring out what you might be doing wrong as a DM or a player.
Agreed. And not necessarily wrong-wrong, but wrong for this particular group or set of players, or this particular game setup. I always ask how the players liked the game after the session, and as a player, I always (try to) give some feedback.
I'll share rules stuff like monster and NPC stats, skill DCs etc, if it equates to something the PCs would know. That extends to things like knowing I'm rolling encounter checks, and the chances of a random encounter - the PCs may reasonably know that the area is dangerous, and roughly *how* dangerous. Likewise I try to give a sense of PC competency so players have an idea where their characters stand. In some games it's obvious; for 4e I did this chart for the players - http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/pc-level-in-terms-of-in-world-power.html
Sharing purely metagame stuff around encounter design or campaign structure tends to destroy player enjoyment, as in JA's experience with the random sewers, and I'll avoid doing that. Very occasionally a player will get the wrong end of the stick and mistakenly complain about eg railroading or PC powerlessness because they've made incorrect assumptions about what's going on behind the (non-existent) screen. If it's egregious I may be tempted to correct them and explain what really happened. This may hurt the game for everyone else though so it's probably not a good idea, but if a player has really annoyed me I may need to do it for my own peace of mind. I don't think I have had a serious case of that in ten years, though.
Quote from: Opaopajr;706479I sense a multi-legged shaggy beast arriving in our future... :cool:
Nah. The cute little guy only comes running when he is called with a single L.
This poor allot is just hanging out feeling lonely waiting for his ment. :p
Transparency as far as rules implementations are a must for me - I don't want my stuff functioning and malfunctioning at GM whim. If the rules implementations stick to the RAW, or whatever house rules we agree to, I'm fine. This also assumes that the GM has the right to make spot rulings on the spot which we will discuss later if they become problematic.
Things should be opaque as far as setting. It's the GMs world and part of the contact is trusting him/her.
I don't mind monster stats and even names being kept from me, so long as the rules/stat block is revealed as we need them and engage with those elements. For example - if I whack at the monster, I should be told the AC. If I get poisoned, I get to know the save DC and how the poison works, etc.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707455For example - if I whack at the monster, I should be told the AC. If I get poisoned, I get to know the save DC and how the poison works, etc.
For convenience, yes. But, you as a player have no "right" to purely meta information (which is what you just said). You can tell by your hits & misses roughly (or precisely) how good the monsters armour is.
I agree that the player has no "right" to the information, but I prefer to have it, as well.
I know that some people get a kick out of the "guess the number" mini-game, but after finding out that I preferred other activities during the game session, I grew tired of it (only because it was tedious and inefficient).
Alas, some DMs still find it to be an entertaining mini-game. If it added value, I wouldn't mind it as much.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707455I don't mind monster stats and even names being kept from me, so long as the rules/stat block is revealed as we need them and engage with those elements. For example - if I whack at the monster, I should be told the AC. If I get poisoned, I get to know the save DC and how the poison works, etc.
You would make a sad face at my games. I don't always give you the monster's AC. I don't always give you the DC or probability to every single check you make. Sometimes you don't even know if you're supposed to roll high or low. And I make some rolls for you sometimes so you don't know something your character wouldn't.
I actually prefer to wait a few rounds before just announcing AC and +hit of an opponent, it creates a bit of uncertainty that means maybe the fighter keeps his shield up and doesn't 2h power attack everything until he gets an idea of how dangerous an opponent is. Once that has been established, usually by round 3 or so, then make it all open to speed things up.
Quote from: Benoist;707492You wouldn't like my games. I don't always give you the monster's AC, and I don't give you the DC or probability to every single check you make. And I make some rolls for you sometimes so you don't now something your character wouldn't.
While the first two would be negatives for me, I do see the value added for you last point.
Quote from: FickleGM;707489I agree that the player has no "right" to the information, but I prefer to have it, as well.
I know that some people get a kick out of the "guess the number" mini-game, but after finding out that I preferred other activities during the game session, I grew tired of it (only because it was tedious and inefficient).
Alas, some DMs still find it to be an entertaining mini-game. If it added value, I wouldn't mind it as much.
Irrelevant. There is no "guess the number" game unless the GM is so piss poor that the players aren't intensely involved in the game. (which is what you have experienced). In that case there is also, "play the video game on the smart phone "game". And countless other things to do during a poorly run game.
Quote from: Arduin;707496Irrelevant. There is no "guess the number" game unless the GM is so piss poor that the players aren't intensely involved in the game. (which is what you have experienced). In that case there is also, "play the video game on the smart phone "game". And countless other things to do during a poorly run game.
I wasn't referring to loss of interest, because I agree with that. What I was referring to was value added to the game. And yes, the mini-game exists (even if just in each player's head), even more so when players are engaged. Players slip from "I hit a 5 AC, did I hit?" to "I hit" as they win the mini-game in their heads. Some even go so far as to *gasp* table-talk and meta-inform their fellow players.
I just don't see the value added. It also isn't a game breaker or anything close to that. Tedious, but only slightly. Then again, I just prefer to know the target when I roll the dice, rather than put it through the DM translator and wait for the answer. Once again, this is barely an annoyance, just a preference.
Quote from: Arduin;707463For convenience, yes. But, you as a player have no "right" to purely meta information (which is what you just said). You can tell by your hits & misses roughly (or precisely) how good the monsters armour is.
And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player. GMs had best learn to work with their players, and I expect combat and powers transparency. Games have rules, and I expect GMs to uphold their end of the agreed upon contract. "Mother may I" is not gaming, because I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times.)
I have an absolute right to read all rulesbooks, and I *demand* that the rules be
enforced. Fuedalism collapsed in the real world, and I don't tolerate variants of this at my gaming tables. I as a GM abide by this. That kind of narrativism is poison for trad style gaming.
Also, Mr GM, don't be an ass. Tell me what the damned monster's AC is, OK?
Now we see what this being a "major annoyance" looks like. A bit of an overreaction in my opinion, but worth it for the entertainment value, alone.
Basically, Kai is one logical step away from claiming that reading Monster Manual and using that knowledge beforehand to plan your strategy in game isn't metagaming, and I've had that discussion before, thank you very much.
And yeah, GM hasn't a "right" to you as a player, neither you have an inborn "right" to be a player. And personally, if any player ever demands from me knowledge of mechanics in regard to the encounter, I'll execute my right as a person to tell him to take a hike.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player. GMs had best learn to work with their players, and I expect combat and powers transparency. Games have rules, and I expect GMs to uphold their end of the agreed upon contract. "Mother may I" is not gaming, because I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times.)
I have an absolute right to read all rulesbooks, and I *demand* that the rules be enforced. Fuedalism collapsed in the real world, and I don't tolerate variants of this at my gaming tables. I as a GM abide by this. That kind of narrativism is poison for trad style gaming.
Also, Mr GM, don't be an ass. Tell me what the damned monster's AC is, OK?
Have you considered that a gm might follow the rules perfectly, and still not reveal all the numbers to you?
For example, if you were battling a demon in a shapechanged form and with an illusion on it to appear like a different creature....Why would you want to know its stats?
I don't see how the gm hiding numbers has to be linked with gm shenanigans.
I happen to almost always tell players the AC of things they are battling, but If there is a good reason not to tell, like an illusion, it makes sense not to reveal that right away.
I agree that rules should be enforced as far as is practical. But rules eventually fail to cover unexpected situations.
I also insist the gm be the final authority, not the rules.
Crap, perfect example of value added. I am switching sides now!
It's been far too long since illusion or quality misdirection has been used in one of my groups. I should have considered that.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player.
Yes? So what? Players are a dime a dozen in the D&D realm. I couldn't run enough games to to satisfy the demand...
Quote from: FickleGM;707503I wasn't referring to loss of interest,
If you are sitting around trying to figure out meta info to the point of making a game of it, you are talking about playing under a piss poor GM that can't hold your attention. That is de facto..
I thought this was worth a seperate response.
"I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times)"
So isn't that just a bad gm? Wouldn't that same bad gm still be an asshat even if he followed the rules?
I really don't see how a gm using raw rules makes him a gm you would want to play with.
Why not just leave the games of bad gms?
Quote from: Arduin;707539If you are sitting around trying to figure out meta info to point of making a game of it, you are talking about playing under a piss poor GM that can't hold your attention. That is de facto..
Okay, I agree with your point, as my mini-game comment was meant as snark more than to paint a picture of players arduously consulting their abacus to determine the AC of an opponent.
Quote from: Rincewind1;707527Basically, Kai is one logical step away from claiming that reading Monster Manual and using that knowledge beforehand to plan your strategy in game isn't metagaming, and I've had that discussion before, thank you very much.
And yeah, GM hasn't a "right" to you as a player, neither you have an inborn "right" to be a player. And personally, if any player ever demands from me knowledge of mechanics in regard to the encounter, I'll execute my right as a person to tell him to take a hike.
Ayup.
Quite often the statistics of things will not be found in a monster manual. Just because a monster's stats are created by the DM doesn't mean they were created on the spot just to fuck over a player.
If a player demands to know
where the stats for a particular critter comes from I will be happy to honestly report the location as being straight from my ass. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bill;707541I thought this was worth a seperate response.
"I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times)"
So isn't that just a bad gm? Wouldn't that same bad gm still be an asshat even if he followed the rules?
I really don't see how a gm using raw rules makes him a gm you would want to play with.
Why not just leave the games of bad gms?
I'd actually ask a much bigger question, what is exactly "cheating by changing monster stats", as I've encountered a player who started calling bullshit on me because I gave a Bloodletter of Khorne wings, and everyone knows Daemons of Chaos are produced by Chinese factory workers, who make every single one the same as in the game's manual.
If a red dragon starts breathing acid, and your character knows jack & all about dragons, tough titties. Shouldn't been snooping around Monster Manual anyway. Again, this is trying to claim that OOC knowledge of mechanics in regard to encountered dangers is IC knowledge. There is IC knowledge of monsters, which can often be also expressed by mechanical language (and some GM do that, I don't, as I personally prefer that less mechanics talked, the more immersive the game feels), but OOC mechanical language isn't all expressed by IC language.
Quote from: FickleGM;707545Okay, I agree with your point, as my mini-game comment was meant as snark more than to paint a picture of players arduously consulting their abacus to determine the AC of an opponent.
Sure. I mean if your 10th level fighter just hit it on 7. Are you REALLY trying to figure it out? Unless the PC wouldn't have a good idea I tell it to the players for MY sake. Less work for me. But, there ARE times when it isn't appropriate for the players to know. I sandbox so what you see is what you get. I never change something behind the scenes to save or, screw the party...
The players can purchase all the rope they want on their own. ;)
Quote from: Rincewind1;707547I'd actually ask a much bigger question, what is exactly "cheating by changing monster stats", as I've encountered a player who started calling bullshit on me because I gave a Bloodletter of Khorne wings, and everyone knows Daemons of Chaos are produced by Chinese factory workers, who make every single one the same as in the game's manual.
If a red dragon starts breathing acid, and your character knows jack & all about dragons, tough titties. Shouldn't been snooping around Monster Manual anyway. Again, this is trying to claim that OOC knowledge of mechanics in regard to encountered dangers is IC knowledge. There is IC knowledge of monsters, which can often be also expressed by mechanical language (and some GM do that, I don't, as I personally prefer that less mechanics talked, the more immersive the game feels), but OOC mechanical language isn't all expressed by IC language.
Years ago with 1E dnd I would sometimes have a dragon use its piddly level low level spells to....
White Dragon! Quick! fireball it! *fails*
See...the dragon cast shange self to fool enemies. Its really a red dragon.
Don't see the need to reveal the stats to the players in that situation.
Quote from: Benoist;707492You would make a sad face at my games. I don't always give you the monster's AC. I don't always give you the DC or probability to every single check you make. Sometimes you don't even know if you're supposed to roll high or low. And I make some rolls for you sometimes so you don't know something your character wouldn't.
This is the way I like it.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player. GMs had best learn to work with their players, and I expect combat and powers transparency. Games have rules, and I expect GMs to uphold their end of the agreed upon contract. "Mother may I" is not gaming, because I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times.)
I have an absolute right to read all rulesbooks, and I *demand* that the rules be enforced. Fuedalism collapsed in the real world, and I don't tolerate variants of this at my gaming tables. I as a GM abide by this. That kind of narrativism is poison for trad style gaming.
Also, Mr GM, don't be an ass. Tell me what the damned monster's AC is, OK?
Having a different playstyle isn't "being an ass". IF everyone else is enjoying themselves and you're not be a grown up and find another game more to your liking.
Quote from: Nexus;707713Having a different playstyle isn't "being an ass". IF everyone else is enjoying themselves and you're not be a grown up and find another game more to your liking.
Gaming as a right, not a privilege!
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/3bRV4bv.png)
Quote from: Rincewind1;707547I'd actually ask a much bigger question, what is exactly "cheating by changing monster stats", as I've encountered a player who started calling bullshit on me because I gave a Bloodletter of Khorne wings, and everyone knows Daemons of Chaos are produced by Chinese factory workers, who make every single one the same as in the game's manual.
Well, we all know about the notoriously staid consistency about
Chaos. You obviously must be some deprotagonizing ass of a GM.
:p
Quote from: Exploderwizard;707546Ayup.
Quite often the statistics of things will not be found in a monster manual. Just because a monster's stats are created by the DM doesn't mean they were created on the spot just to fuck over a player.
If a player demands to know where the stats for a particular critter comes from I will be happy to honestly report the location as being straight from my ass. :rolleyes:
Agreed I very very rarely use a monster from any manual. I usually make em up on the fly.
I might have a PC skill of 'monsterology' or similar that will give them details about ecology habitat, combat style even but it won't give then HD, AC, Damage per attack.
Usually about 2 or 3 rounds into combat I tell the PCs the AC of the target provided they have hit it. I might well never tell them the AC is they never hit it and I might well tell them stuff as though true that is really an illusion or whatever.
Quote from: Rincewind1;707547I'd actually ask a much bigger question, what is exactly "cheating by changing monster stats", as I've encountered a player who started calling bullshit on me because I gave a Bloodletter of Khorne wings, and everyone knows Daemons of Chaos are produced by Chinese factory workers, who make every single one the same as in the game's manual.
If a red dragon starts breathing acid, and your character knows jack & all about dragons, tough titties. Shouldn't been snooping around Monster Manual anyway. Again, this is trying to claim that OOC knowledge of mechanics in regard to encountered dangers is IC knowledge. There is IC knowledge of monsters, which can often be also expressed by mechanical language (and some GM do that, I don't, as I personally prefer that less mechanics talked, the more immersive the game feels), but OOC mechanical language isn't all expressed by IC language.
The books (depending on the edition) even give you guidelines for making the monsters more unique and unpredictable. Dragon had at least one article on it, possibly more.
Quote from: Benoist;707492You would make a sad face at my games. I don't always give you the monster's AC. I don't always give you the DC or probability to every single check you make. Sometimes you don't even know if you're supposed to roll high or low. And I make some rolls for you sometimes so you don't know something your character wouldn't.
Yeah, no kidding, and at mine too. While I play GURPS, I don't tell you
squat that's outside the range of your own senses and experience. You can tell whether your shots are penetrating the enemy's armor if he's groaning with pain, looks incapacitated or spurts blood. (Or not, if he has High Pain Threshold or is otherwise unusually stoic and tough.) You want to metagame, do it at some other patsy's table.
Quote from: Opaopajr;707829Well, we all know about the notoriously staid consistency about Chaos. :p
That's the best part, ain't it? You'd think the clue is in the name, but noooooo...
Quote from: Rincewind1;707937That's the best part, ain't it? You'd think the clue is in the name, but noooooo...
You should know better than to present chaos in so disorderly a fashion.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player. GMs had best learn to work with their players, and I expect combat and powers transparency. Games have rules, and I expect GMs to uphold their end of the agreed upon contract. "Mother may I" is not gaming, because I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times.)
OK, so you pretty much admit it's a case of "bad DMs touching you". I'm sorry you had sucky games, man. I don't have to do things any differently because you played with those assholes, though. I'm not an asshole, and I'm not an illusionist. You either trust me as DM, or you don't. If you don't, then we might as well not play. It's cool. I have no problem with that.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506I have an absolute right to read all rulesbooks, and I *demand* that the rules be enforced.
Sounds like you're compensating in response to your experiences playing with dick GMs by being a dick player yourself. Don't be a dick, man.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506Fuedalism collapsed in the real world, and I don't tolerate variants of this at my gaming tables. I as a GM abide by this. That kind of narrativism is poison for trad style gaming.
Feudalism? WTF? Really?
Dude, weren't you the guy who was like making comparisons to the effect of Old School being right wing and New School being left wing, in the political sense? And now that "feudalism" comparison? You need to let go of the crack pipe man. It's hurting your brain.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506Also, Mr GM, don't be an ass. Tell me what the damned monster's AC is, OK?
Not if your character woudn't be able to guess, no.
I can't believe I missed out the feudalism bit.
Game Master And Commander: Far Edge of the World. It's a shame I can't draw to save my life, or I'd draw a Leviathan's Sovereign made out of dice.
Quote from: Rincewind1;707961I can't believe I missed out the feudalism bit.
Oh man! It was great. Game night in The Tower. Watching the sludge in the Thames... When a player's character died the player was carted off for a quick go at the Rack.
Quote from: Arduin;707964Oh man! It was great. Game night in The Tower. Watching the sludge in the Thames... When a player's character died the player was carted off for a quick go at the Rack.
Remember when the GMs could just whip their players if they disrespected them? #goodolddays.
Quote from: Benoist;707944Not if your character wouldn't be able to guess, no.
One reason why I don't like to freely give out game attributes aside from asethetic preference is that most of the game I play have skills, abilities, powers, whatever that are specifically created so that character can learn these details accurately (though not necessarily game terms). By just passing them out I'm screwing the players that invested in those abilities.
Quote from: Rincewind1;707968Remember when the GMs could just whip their players if they disrespected them? #goodolddays.
What? I remember my last session just fine. What of it?
Quote from: Rincewind1;707968Remember when the GMs could just whip their players if they disrespected them? #goodolddays.
Those days are alive and well at My Game Table. :cheerleader:
I don't whip players, because some of them would kick my ass. But I have learned its ok to say No.
Quote from: Bill;708273I don't whip players, because some of them would kick my ass.
Ah. You missed the 1st step to successful GMing. Cowing the players.
Quote from: Arduin;708280Cowing the players.
Fetchez la vache!
http://www.cardinalfang.net/misc/lego_grail.html
Quote from: Arduin;708280Ah. You missed the 1st step to successful GMing. Cowing the players.
You don't really need to pay that much attention to the players if you just tell them what their characters are doing.
Quote from: Bill;708351You don't really need to pay that much attention to the players if you just tell them what their characters are doing.
True. Forgot that one.
I don't generally want transparency at all. Usually, I would only want to do so in those rare cases where some player feels that I "just made up" something, that I'm being arbitrary and there was "no reason" why some event happened to them, or why some NPC reacted how they did. Then I'll open up the hood and explain to them exactly what happened and why they're acting like spoiled assholes right then.
Quote from: RPGPundit;708836I don't generally want transparency at all. Usually, I would only want to do so in those rare cases where some player feels that I "just made up" something, that I'm being arbitrary and there was "no reason" why some event happened to them, or why some NPC reacted how they did. Then I'll open up the hood and explain to them exactly what happened and why they're acting like spoiled assholes right then.
I have had a few players over the years that got suspicious about something I did as a gm. I usually just explain to them the details after the fact.
The cause was the player not knowing all the info the gm has.
Such as, the player did not know a wizard had scryed on him, so it might have appeared the wizard knew something he should not have known.
Or, the player did not grasp that an npc was lying about something and the player was assuming something that was not accurate.
As a GM I'm a bit of a transparency fundamentalist, I'll do wandering monster checks and NPC Reaction Rolls out in the open, and often explain the results. Often this adds to amusement at the table, eg in my dragonsfoot online campaigns one player's PC seems guaranteed to always get the best possible Reaction rolls from attractive female NPCs - 00 on d100 in 1e AD&D, double 6 on 2d6 in BX, and it's fun to joke about it. I'll also do the kriegspiel thing of declaring probalities then roll, eg "3 in 6 your reinforcements arrive in time..."
As a player I don't demand that level of openness, but the more the better. And I certainly want stuff like to-hit and damage rolls out in the open.
I do combat rolls out in the open, but reactions, and wandering monster checks and such stay behind the screen. I will also just toss dice when there are NO wandering monster chances just to keep players guessing.
I prefer hidden reaction rolls mainly because it would be impossible for an npc to maintain a poker face if the players saw the roll. If the evil merchant who is in league with the villain meets the PCs and gets a very poor reaction roll, he might try to appear friendly and helpful to deflect suspicion. An open roll would be like saying " HE'S BULLSHITTING YOU" with a megaphone.
I think, immersion-wise, there's no reason why any player needs to worry about what numbers I'm rolling or keeping track of my mechanics.
I think many high transparency advocate consider it a hedge against gming cheating and illusionism.
Every time someone mentions transparency I think...
Transparent GM... :rolleyes:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KfTJ8gBHASo/TVQnODyxnWI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/u3gt0KEbAgQ/s1600/50402_the_invisible_man.jpg)
Quote from: Nexus;709344I think many high transparency advocate consider it a hedge against gming cheating and illusionism.
I suppose rolling in the open might help a player with trust issues more comfortable that the gm is not fudging.
So to keep that rat bastard dm from using illusionism I guess you deamand to examine his hex map and notes?
Quote from: Bill;709399I suppose rolling in the open might help a player with trust issues more comfortable that the gm is not fudging.
So to keep that rat bastard dm from using illusionism I guess you deamand to examine his hex map and notes?
And read the modules too. Players better keep track of monster HP while they are at it...
etc ad nausium.
Quote from: Bill;709399I suppose rolling in the open might help a player with trust issues more comfortable that the gm is not fudging.
So to keep that rat bastard dm from using illusionism I guess you demand to examine his hex map and notes?
Evidently yes. In some groups its not even a matter of demand, its SOP that the notes, sheets and other gm items are right open. One guy said he'd never even heard a GM's screen before and thought they were some kind of joke or hyperbole until very recently.
Quote from: Nexus;709471Evidently yes. In some groups its not even a matter of demand, its SOP that the notes, sheets and other gm items are right open. One guy said he'd never even heard a GM's screen before and thought they were some kind of joke or hyperbole until very recently.
Saw that post too.
At that point what is the point in even having the DM? Wasnt there one where someone was going on about how they distrusted GMs so much they didnt even allow them to roll for monsters?
It depends on what's being talked about, and when and how.
Quote from: Phillip;709493It depends on what's being talked about, and when and how.
DMs not being trusted, during a session, not being allowed to roll.
As for the why? If I recall correctly it was essentially self agrandizement or some desire to turn the sessions into storytelling.
Basically if some concept can be taken to extreme, then sure enough someone is going to. Somewhat the opposite reaction to what was mentioned in a separate thread here about a player so paranoid of GMs being arbitrary that they stopped playing RPGs at all. Instead the example above went the other route, take all power away from the GM.
Probably other approaches I just have not heard of yet.
Wouldnt surprise me if there were players who demand veto power over a DMs session notes or maps.
Quote from: Omega;709503Wouldnt surprise me if there were players who demand veto power over a DMs session notes or maps.
:rotfl:
Nope. That island can't be there. I say the island is 30 more miles to the SW. Do I have a second!
I can't see a problem with the players deciding what challenges they face, and what rewards they get....
Quote from: Omega;709503Wouldnt surprise me if there were players who demand veto power over a DMs session notes or maps.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;709511rotfl
Nope. That island can't be there. I say the island is 30 more miles to the SW. Do I have a second!
Might as well dispense with the RPG-style GM then, and have a merely adjudicating GM (or none at all) in a game of players exercising such powers in accordance with a set of rules.
Quote from: Phillip;709525Might as well dispense with the RPG-style GM then, and have a merely adjudicating GM (or none at all) in a game of players exercising such powers in accordance with a set of rules.
Agreed. I don't think there's anything wrong with collective story telling games. I've played and enjoyed a couple*. But if that's what you want, call it that and play it. Don't try to dress it up as a standard RPG.
Edit* ICAC: Fiasco and Capes
Quote from: Nexus;709471Evidently yes. In some groups its not even a matter of demand, its SOP that the notes, sheets and other gm items are right open. One guy said he'd never even heard a GM's screen before and thought they were some kind of joke or hyperbole until very recently.
I don't use a screen, but I still expect the players to avoid reading through my notes!
But I have tons of public info on my campaign web sites. 9/10 players never read that stuff anyway.
Quote from: Nexus;709344I think many high transparency advocate consider it a hedge against gming cheating and illusionism.
Unquestionably.
And the answer to that is still basic: if you're constitutionally paranoid about your gaming, go play console games, solo adventures or MMORPGs, or else be a GM yourself.
My own answer to those rare paranoids who show up at my table is "I'm not the guy who screwed you in the past, any more than the guy who cut you off in traffic yesterday is every driver on the road, or the bank teller who was an ass to you last week is every customer service person."
If they can't wrap their heads around that, they need to find another table at which to game.
I trust my GMs not to cheat, so I actually like GM screens because they give me a pretty picture to look at instead of a pile of scrap papers and some dude's hands.
Quote from: TristramEvans;709671I trust my GMs not to cheat, so I actually like GM screens because they give me a pretty picture to look at instead of a pile of scrap papers and some dude's hands.
I find GM screens create a barrier between the PCs and the NPCs. A PC might have a hand movement they do when they are nervouse or something as I inhabit each PC I want the players to pick up on that stuff. In any social situation the effective distance betweent eh participants is key so I really want to erode that and remove all barriers.
On the other hnad I like the table. I hate playing on a couch or whatever as I need the table to focus the players and frame the game.
I don't like a GM who sits behind his screen rollign dice muttering and looking stuff up all the time anymore than I would like that if I was at a dinner party or whatever.
Most of the players in my regular group basically regard it as part of the GM's job to handle "mechanical" stuff so that they are not burdened with it. They enjoy tossing dice, but their motto is, "Just tell me what I need to roll."
The limited-information aspect of the game is even more widely and highly valued in my neck of the woods. I know there are people out there who consider it the height of the experience (maybe even their definition of RP) to make in-character decisions despite having an omniscient narrator's perspective, but for most people I know this spoils the "game" aspect. It's like "playing Poker" by following a script for a show: Does that really properly constitute playing Poker? In any case, they just don't find it as much fun!
Quote from: Phillip;709694Most of the players in my regular group basically regard it as part of the GM's job to handle "mechanical" stuff so that they are not burdened with it. They enjoy tossing dice, but their motto is, "Just tell me what I need to roll."
The limited-information aspect of the game is even more widely and highly valued in my neck of the woods. I know there are people out there who consider it the height of the experience (maybe even their definition of RP) to make in-character decisions despite having an omniscient narrator's perspective, but for most people I know this spoils the "game" aspect. It's like "playing Poker" by following a script for a show: Does that really properly constitute playing Poker? In any case, they just don't find it as much fun!
Yeah, that's how my groups like to play
Quote from: TristramEvans;709671I trust my GMs not to cheat, so I actually like GM screens because they give me a pretty picture to look at instead of a pile of scrap papers and some dude's hands.
So I cant act out the NPCs with sock puppets??? :cheerleader:
Quote from: Omega;709720So I cant act out the NPCs with sock puppets??? :cheerleader:
How does a GM screen stop your punch & judy show? :p
I'm thinking of running my own in my medieval French food fantasia game. It would be a truly medieval, and comical, touch. I might have to start small with finger puppets... that and I don't know the French name for a punch & judy show.
I'll be the belle of the FLGS, as long as I don't scare away the customers. :cool:
Quote from: TristramEvans;709701Yeah, that's how my groups like to play
Me too. I don't see the alternative as very appealing either.
*player points at the gm's notes and says "No bandits can attack us here because it does not say bandits might attack with a specific percentage in the notes"
wtf!?
Quote from: Opaopajr;709739How does a GM screen stop your punch & judy show? :p
I'm thinking of running my own in my medieval French food fantasia game. It would be a truly medieval, and comical, touch. I might have to start small with finger puppets... that and I don't know the French name for a punch & judy show.
I'll be the belle of the FLGS, as long as I don't scare away the customers. :cool:
The talking hawk hand puppet makes a great stand in mini for a roc. :eek:
I've used shadow puppets too. (Unless I am being transparent. In which case the light shines through me and it doesnt work...) :cool:
My GM screen is my skull, and the secrets I keep inside. I make all my rolls in front of my players, because a truly sim setting has the rules apply equally to NPCs and PCs, when I run sim games. Also, it engenders trust.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;709855My GM screen is my skull, and the secrets I keep inside. I make all my rolls in front of my players, because a truly sim setting has the rules apply equally to NPCs and PCs, when I run sim games. Also, it engenders trust.
I never give meta info when not needed. It spoils the RPG immersion experience.
Quote from: Arduin;709872I never give meta info when not needed. It spoils the RPG immersion experience.
I find that's not the case, as long as it relates to stuff the PCs can know. Eg I might say "if I roll over 7 on 2d6 the goblins fail morale and run..." before rolling. The PCs might well logically have cues to how shaky the goblins are, so the knowledge around the dice roll relates to stuff in-game.
What I would avoid doing is revealing stuff like "You missed the magic sword behind the secret door" - because the PCs could not know that.
Quote from: S'mon;709873I find that's not the case, as long as it relates to stuff the PCs can know.
'Meta'
means what the PC would NOT know...
Quote from: Arduin;709877'Meta' means what the PC would NOT know...
That would be 'secret' or 'cryptic' :D
Meta means 'about itself', eg metadata is data about data - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
Metagame stuff like creature morale scores is not itself knowable by PCs - the PCs cannot in-game know "goblins have morale 7" - but may relate to in-game stuff knowable by PCs - "goblins have shaky morale".
Quote from: S'mon;709884That would be 'secret' or 'cryptic' :D
Meta means 'about itself', eg metadata is data about data - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
Umm, yes. I know what it means. I knew even before "wiki" existed
Hence my original statement. ;)
Quote from: Arduin;709887Umm, yes. I know what it means.
Could have fooled me.
I don't typically have a problem with players separating player knowledge from character knowledge. But when I do, yes, I do constrain them to just what they would be allowed to use.
Quote from: S'mon;709873I find that's not the case, as long as it relates to stuff the PCs can know. Eg I might say "if I roll over 7 on 2d6 the goblins fail morale and run..." before rolling. The PCs might well logically have cues to how shaky the goblins are, so the knowledge around the dice roll relates to stuff in-game.
What I would avoid doing is revealing stuff like "You missed the magic sword behind the secret door" - because the PCs could not know that.
If at all possible I like to have that sort of information put in descriptive terms instead of game mechanics. But I understand that's not always possible.
Quote from: Omega;709720So I cant act out the NPCs with sock puppets??? :cheerleader:
You can if we're playing Puppetland