That was almost a classic enworld thread.  I mean, that was fit nearly right to the template of what an enworld thread is:

OP says something controversial to some percentage of the population.

OP then engages in 2-3 pages of "nuh-uh!" and "I never meant it like that!" faux-butthurt posts.

Following posters rail.

Two to four posters spend the next eight to twelve pages doing a damn good impression of "Argument Clinic" that slowly decays from anything meaningful into a semiotics debate.

The only thing it was missing was a mod defending the OP's post which, let's face it, is from the MOOOOOOOOOOON and shouldn't have been allowed to stand.  It's a meta edition wars post: I promise you if someone posted "AD&D is the right way to play, superior to all others" assuming the thread wasn't just deleted outright it'd be locked, they'd get a Stern Warning(TM) from the mods, etc. etc.

Yes the OP's post is wrong, but the whole thread is kind of ridiculous.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;343277Two to four posters spend the next eight to twelve pages doing a damn good impression of "Argument Clinic" that slowly decays from anything meaningful into a semiotics debate.

haha nice.

In reply to the OP.

I can kind of see where his reaction is coming from.

I've got two-three gaming groups depending on how you slice it, and I'm generally the most popular GM. One of the main reasons for it I nailed down a long time ago.

As a player, I became absolutely sick to fucking death of playing in games where the GM humored himself by turning the players actions into a comedy of errors.

Most GMs I've met constantly run indecipherable mysteries or describe PC actions as if they were being performed by sub par real people. NPCs are always more powerful, no matter how powerful you get. There is always some gloating, invulnerable menace. No body with a name can get killed. Every time you roll a natural one in combat you trip over your own sword, fall out of a vehicle, or get hit by a friend.

So when I run, I make certain to depict the player characters as awesome. For example, I like having a consequence for rolling a one in combat. Usually, I'll say something like, "your bow string breaks. You need to take a move equivalent to fix it" or, "you slightly overstep when you take your strike, giving your enemy an attack of opportunity." My way of describing it is much more enjoyable to my friends than, "you break your sword" or "you fall off your horse and get stepped on."

It also has to do with how the world perceives the characters. In my games, a 1st level wizard is respected by the community because magic missile is otherwise known as "slay average person." First level fighters can fight and kill 3-4 orcs or level 1 warriors, so they get respect as well. Not to mention, the simple fact that player characters have above average stats means people will treat them with respect.

This doesn't mean my games aren't hard. I probably kill more player characters than any other game master I know, but my players respect it because while they were alive, they were badasses.

Quote from: Cranewings;343287This doesn't mean my games aren't hard. I probably kill more player characters than any other game master I know, but my players respect it because while they were alive, they were badasses.

That's the same approach I take. I've got no interest in making the PCs look like mooks or fools, or be outshined or rendered inconsequential by NPCs. The PCs are awesome heroes (or anti-heroes, as the case may be). But they're also going to face challenges as tough as I can make them and are going to be called on to prove their awesomeness or die (or retire into non-awesomeness, I suppose). Yeah I want the players to succeed, but I want them to do so by being smart, not because I gave it away (or because the challenges were set up so that success was pretty much inevitable barring a major screw-up).

Quote from: Aos;343191If you could kill a muppet, which one would it be, and how would you go about it?

Miss Piggy.....death by bacon sandwich.

Quote from: Shazbot79;343228Bullshit.

If you want to create a work of narrative excellence...then forgo the rulebooks and dice and just write a damn book.

If you want to create a work of compelling theater...then try out for a stage play.

Both offer potentially more tangible rewards than an RPG...last I checked, they don't give out Pulitzers or Tonys for "best roleplaying game."

We play games for one purpose above all else...to have fun. Some people find the more thespy/talky aspects of the game more fun than the hack n' slash which is perfectly fine...but for the OP to claim that beer n' pretzel gamers are "missing out" because they don't share his/her playstyle is nothing more than pretentious, self-important ass-hattery of the worst order.

"It's not ROLL-playing it's ROLE-playing!"

We see this little rhetorical gem bandied about constantly on gaming forums...but in actuality, neither is correct. It's a roleplaying GAME...and as someone much more eloquent than I has stated:

"Anyone who prioritizes artistic expression over fun in a GAME has their head so far up their own ass, they can tongue their tonsils from behind."

Thank you!  Something about all of these storygaming threads has been bugging me for a while now but I couldn't quite put it into words.  Well said.  If they are having fun playing these games then great for them, but the people/designers posting these threads need to leave off with the pretentiousness and the thinly veiled attempts at looking down on old school gaming.  My players get empowered by overcoming obstacles and outsmarting and outfighting their adversaries and that has been good enough for the 30 years I've been playing.

Quote from: Cranewings;343287In reply to the OP.

I can kind of see where his reaction is coming from.

I've got two-three gaming groups depending on how you slice it, and I'm generally the most popular GM. One of the main reasons for it I nailed down a long time ago.

As a player, I became absolutely sick to fucking death of playing in games where the GM humored himself by turning the players actions into a comedy of errors.

Most GMs I've met constantly run indecipherable mysteries or describe PC actions as if they were being performed by sub par real people. NPCs are always more powerful, no matter how powerful you get. There is always some gloating, invulnerable menace. No body with a name can get killed. Every time you roll a natural one in combat you trip over your own sword, fall out of a vehicle, or get hit by a friend.

So when I run, I make certain to depict the player characters as awesome. For example, I like having a consequence for rolling a one in combat. Usually, I'll say something like, "your bow string breaks. You need to take a move equivalent to fix it" or, "you slightly overstep when you take your strike, giving your enemy an attack of opportunity." My way of describing it is much more enjoyable to my friends than, "you break your sword" or "you fall off your horse and get stepped on."

It also has to do with how the world perceives the characters. In my games, a 1st level wizard is respected by the community because magic missile is otherwise known as "slay average person." First level fighters can fight and kill 3-4 orcs or level 1 warriors, so they get respect as well. Not to mention, the simple fact that player characters have above average stats means people will treat them with respect.

This doesn't mean my games aren't hard. I probably kill more player characters than any other game master I know, but my players respect it because while they were alive, they were badasses.

I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I admit my DM'ing skills are not as good as the DM'ing skills of some others whose games I've been in (particularly at GenCon private games).  But, I am working to get better.

Though DMing is the best way to become a better DM, I do find reading threads, like some of those on this board, helps as well.  Heck, even this thread I think helps with it.

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I'll admit that I got to be DM because I was the only one willing to buy and read all of the books.  Is that close enough?

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I once admitted fucking up and causing my game group to implode.

I was trashed for it online for months afterwards.

Saying, "I was wrong," is such a rare thing online that people have the urge to stick the boot in pretty viciously. So I can't recommend it.

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

Online or offline I think the issue is the really bad GMs don't even realise it. If they did they would either do something about it or quit GMing.

Quote from: Cranewings;343287As a player, I became absolutely sick to fucking death of playing in games where the GM humored himself by turning the players actions into a comedy of errors.

Most GMs I've met constantly run indecipherable mysteries or describe PC actions as if they were being performed by sub par real people. NPCs are always more powerful, no matter how powerful you get. There is always some gloating, invulnerable menace. No body with a name can get killed. Every time you roll a natural one in combat you trip over your own sword, fall out of a vehicle, or get hit by a friend.

Intresting, personally I tend to find that 'invincible NPC' syndrome is associated with 'you will follow my story' syndrome rather than acting against it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;343343Online or offline I think the issue is the really bad GMs don't even realise it. If they did they would either do something about it or quit GMing.

Except when no-one else will GM

There's a bit at the end of the DM of the Rings webcomic where the players trash the GM viciously, and he says, "alright, what are you going to run, then?" and they all go, "oh no you're alright, you'll be okay, you'll get better, we'll help you..."

Bad GMs can get game groups because most gamers are too lazy and disorganised to get a group together and run a campaign. It may not last but...

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I think most nerds that are excited enough about their games to talk about them online will be good at it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;343343Online or offline I think the issue is the really bad GMs don't even realise it. If they did they would either do something about it or quit GMing.

That's true of bad anything. Most people think they are above average. The quality that lets people become experts is the same quality that lets them be self critical.