Quote from: Sacrosanct;670311You said he flip flopped and was guiding players.  He hadn't done any such thing.  You also said that you know his kind, where the world is more important than the players when nothing he had said implies that.

I think you like making up reasons that don't exist to justify your incorrect assumptions.

Unless he has somehow mastered human interaction or uses some uncommon method of communication,  he probably is guiding his players.  Intentionally or otherwise.

Have you ever seen those horses that can count?

Quote from: Sommerjon;670296I've played with a number of Gms like you in my time.  Your setting matters more than anything the players do.

Oddly, the actual players in my campaigns don't think so, but then they selected my campaign because they liked the style of play it supports. If they wanted some other style of play, they would not be playing in my campaign. The fact that you, or someone else not a regular in my campaign, does not like it and/or thinks the setting is more important that the players is of zero concern to me.

QuoteYou say the players can take weeks running through the whole town catching all of the rumors?

In a large city like the City-State of the Invincible Overlord, it could easily take weeks of rumor-hunting to hear all the rumors available. Just like in real life, there isn't a rumor central building in a large town or city where you can go and find a copy of every rumor current in the city.

QuoteWTF are the townsfolk doing during that time?  Standing in a specific spot waiting for the players to come to them?  Gossip doesn't stay in one area.  People talk then go someplace else and talk then go someplace else and talk.

Sure, you can find a lot of the "main current gossip" fairly easily, but there is a lot of other interesting gossip that only people in a given business, industry, part of town, profession, etc. are likely to overhear.  All the stuff that isn't of general interest is going to be much harder to come across than rumors that are of general interest. Just like I'm more likely to hear rumors about celebrities, sports stars, and politicians on a walk through Waco than I am rumors about who is about to be fired at SpaceX or rumors about the sex habits of the guy who owns hole-in-the-wall business X on Forgotten Street.

Randall, how do you determine what the players hear?  (The words and tone coming from you)

Quote from: mcbobbo;670355Randall, how do you determine what the players hear?  (The words and tone coming from you)

That word you are searching for. It's called "role playing."

Also, die roll.

Quote from: mcbobbo;670268No offense, but I am pretty much ready to lump the really, really old school approach (e.g. you start over at level 1) in with the other nonstandard games like Cthulu and Paranoia.  Because they are pretty different than what I currently see as mainstream.

Fair enough, but I could care less whether what I do is mainstream. I do not have to please the mainstream, only myself and those who choose to play in my games.

However, even not starting over at level one when a character is lost would keep the party at the same level in my games. Most of my players have multiple characters and switch off which they play from time to time. For example, one of my current players has a ranger and a thief character. He mainly plays the ranger, but when the group is in the City-State (the thief's home), he usually leaves the ranger (who hates urban areas) camped outside the city and plays his thief. This mean the thief gets about 10% of the platy the ranger does, so the thief is a much lower level character.

Having characters at wildly different levels has never been a problem for my campaigns in over 35 years of gaming, so I see no reason to worry about it, let alone change it (especially just because this way of playing is no longer mainstream). The only advantage to having all the characters at one level I can see is that it is nice if you are trying to design a level appropriate adventure for the week, something I have no interest in doing (neither the level appropriate nor the adventure of the week that I expect the players to go through).

Quote from: mcbobbo;670355Randall, how do you determine what the players hear?  (The words and tone coming from you)

General rumors are randomly determined and can be heard almost anywhere in village/town/city. Other rumors can only be found if one is in a specific place or around specific npc(s).  The rumors are normally presented via roleplaying in the style I believe the npc would use. I have a random personality table for unimportant npcs and use it to keep from falling into a npc personality rut when a one-off npc come into play.  (Major npcs have a predefined personality, of course).

I will give out some of the general rumors without one-on-one roleplaying if the players simply say "we are wondering through town listening for rumors and interesting info," but otherwise it is roleplayed out.

Quote from: mcbobbo;670355Randall, how do you determine what the players hear?  (The words and tone coming from you)

I do not run old school sandboxes, so my answer can't really speak for Randall. I do run a lot of mysteries and this is one of the trickiest aspects to be honest, because I do try hard not to lead the players or guide them in a particular direction (at least with my usual group, some groups want more guidance in that respect and i am happy to accomodate).

I use a couple of different approaches. One way is to get the players to narrow down where, how and who they are seeking rumors from. If I know what is going on the area, it can be pretty easy to decide what rumors will be in what places and how distorted they may be. I usually prefer to play out these interactions because i find it helpful.

The other is to use some kind of skill check and/or a random rumor roll (these have been in modules for ages and i occassionally find them handy). Depening on the system, there are different ways to do this.

Now, i am nt completely removed from this process. I do try to produce the outcome that seems most logical, rather than what I may want. And the more i do this, the more o find i am less invested in outcome and more open to surprises. But investigations and mysteries are very contained. That enables me to really prep out the investigation map and even decide before hand, where various rumors and clues can most likely be found. So it is somewhat different and smaler scale than the sort of thing Randall is talking about.

Quote from: Benoist;670356That word you are searching for. It's called "role playing."

Also, die roll.

Well that's all well and good, but there's more than one way to do both of those, yeah?

Again, have you ever watched a professional poker tournament?  Notice the hats, sunglasses, restricted movement, etc.

Now imagine those players have to assume entire personalities, and cannot just say "check" in a clipped tone.

Honestly I think it's a tad disingenuous that I am being forced to explain this concept.  But I can do illustrations/examples if need be.

The point is, the delivery of rumors itself can provide context clues.

Quote from: RandallS;670359Fair enough, but I could care less whether what I do is mainstream. I do not have to please the mainstream, only myself and those who choose to play in my games.
...
Having characters at wildly different levels has never been a problem for my campaigns in over 35 years of gaming, so I see no reason to worry about it, let alone change it (especially just because this way of playing is no longer mainstream).

You have seven years or so on me, but that doesn't mean your point of view should dictate generic GMing advice, does it?

You really shouldn't care what others think about how you play.  You're clearly successful.   But you probably also shouldn't try to represent what is and isn't GMing in general when you're an outlier.

And that is the topic at hand, the 'play to lose' advice, and not necessarily your particular style.

To that end I believe I can illustrate similarities between what you do and what the mainstream does.

Make sense?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;669975Pardon my assumption of fudging. I was merely going by the math of a 99% default victory rate for the PCs you were claiming. Obviously the players are just that badass.

Fair enough.

Remember that I was specifically talking about the ultimate outcome after setbacks. For simplicity, let's just focus on combat encounters: If a group runs into a bunch of goblins, is forced to retreat, and then comes back and kills the goblins... that's a win. That's explicitly part of the 99%.

The people replying to this position by claiming that their players only see a 75% success rate are claiming that 1 out of every 4 combat encounters their players face will prove to be an insurmountable challenge that they will never overcome.

There are special exceptions where that might be true. (Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, Tomb of Horrors.) But the overwhelming majority of games I've played in; the GMing advice I've seen; the published adventures I've read; the Actual Play threads I've surfed; the podcasts I've listened to... All of it suggests that the average D&D group is not fleeing from every dungeon after four or five encounters with their tails tucked between their legs never to return.

(And here's why the distinction is important: If you're designing the dungeons in your campaign under the assumption that the players will experience 4-5 encounters there and then run away never to return... well, that's a bad assumption. And your dungeon design is going to suck. Whether you're customizing the dungeon to the PCs or simply designing an environment that's being placed in an open-ended hexcrawl, the reality is that you should be designing that dungeon around the assumption that the PCs are going to figure out a way to ultimately overcome the first four or five things they encounter and then continue exploring.)

Maybe this thread is actually filled with a bunch of special snowflakes who are routinely experiencing radically different game play than the rest of the world. But I doubt it. I'm pretty comfortable sticking with my conclusion of rampant pedantry.

Quote from: mcbobbo;670374You have seven years or so on me, but that doesn't mean your point of view should dictate generic GMing advice, does it?

To be honest, most of what I see listed as "generic GMing advice" is not really generic, its advice for GMing in a particular style of play (or in a group of related styles of play). The "play to lose" advice is no more generic than my "level appropriate encounters aren't necessary" is. Both are only good GMing advice for certain styles of play.  IMHO, this is true of almost all "good GMing advice" beyond vague generalities like "don't try to run a game if you've never read the rules". Most "good GMing advice" isn't generic and those who try to push it as "good for everyone" either aren't familiar with the wide variety of often very different from each other styles of play in use or they are trying to push an agenda.

QuoteBut you probably also shouldn't try to represent what is and isn't GMing in general when you're an outlier.

Perhaps, but I see no reason not to present my GMing advice when others are also doing so. I think people need to know that there are other ways of doing things, other styles of play that they might enjoy if they do not like the mainstream style. Note that I do this in the old school community as well. For example, I've carefully explained that Matt Finch's famous guide to old school D&D play is only the style that D&D started with in the mid-1970s and many other styles of play quickly developed over the next couple of years that are just as old school as the style of play in Matt's guide. There is no one true way.

QuoteTo that end I believe I can illustrate similarities between what you do and what the mainstream does.

Of course there are similarities, but as I believe 4e clearly demonstrated, it's generally the differences that matter when it comes to what "D&D" people like and don't like. Despite the similarities between mainstream styles and my style, chances are the differences would mean I would not enjoy mainstream D&D play all that much and those who really enjoy the mainstream style would not enjoy my style of play all that much.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670311You said he flip flopped and was guiding players.  He hadn't done any such thing.  You also said that you know his kind, where the world is more important than the players when nothing he had said implies that.

I think you like making up reasons that don't exist to justify your incorrect assumptions.

He as in what I actually quoted

Quote from: SacWhat you're saying is that the schedule coordinator is guiding a team when he tells them, "You can choose to play the New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks, or Jacksonville Jaguars this upcoming week." People not familar with football might randomly choose any of the three, while people familiar with football would choose Jacksonville in a heartbeat. The schedule coordinator is not guiding at all, not by any definition of the word. He's simply providing options.

He(read DM) when dealing with 'People not familiar with football'
He(read DM) when dealing with 'People familiar with football'
These two groups have vastly different needs, providing them both the exact same thing word for word is moronic to the core.
Either you over-explain and bore the hell out of the familiar group or you are under-explaining and the not familiar are clueless.
Or perhaps you fire off a couple neurons and tailor the explanation to the group.

Quote from: Sommerjon;670513He as in what I actually quoted

The statements you quoted do not contradict each other.  Therefore, he did not flip flop like you said.

QuoteHe(read DM) when dealing with 'People not familiar with football'
He(read DM) when dealing with 'People familiar with football'
These two groups have vastly different needs, providing them both the exact same thing word for word is moronic to the core.
Either you over-explain and bore the hell out of the familiar group or you are under-explaining and the not familiar are clueless.
Or perhaps you fire off a couple neurons and tailor the explanation to the group.

Regardless of how you personally prefer to DM experienced players vs. new players, none of this proves that he does guide his players.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;670433There are special exceptions where that might be true. (Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, Tomb of Horrors.) But the overwhelming majority of games I've played in; the GMing advice I've seen; the published adventures I've read; the Actual Play threads I've surfed; the podcasts I've listened to... All of it suggests that the average D&D group is not fleeing from every dungeon after four or five encounters with their tails tucked between their legs never to return.

(And here's why the distinction is important: If you're designing the dungeons in your campaign under the assumption that the players will experience 4-5 encounters there and then run away never to return... well, that's a bad assumption. And your dungeon design is going to suck. Whether you're customizing the dungeon to the PCs or simply designing an environment that's being placed in an open-ended hexcrawl, the reality is that you should be designing that dungeon around the assumption that the PCs are going to figure out a way to ultimately overcome the first four or five things they encounter and then continue exploring.)

There is no doubt but that you are far more steeped in the online rpg community that I will ever be.  Is it true that the vast majority of DMs design their dungeons with such assumption as to the PCs, with such assumptions as to what encounters the PCs will have interacting with the dungeon's denizens?

On the occasions when I do scrawl a dungeon out beforehand, I do not take the PCs into account whatsoever.  I think of the Dripping Spear orc tribe.  I think of what resources they would have available, how they would go about defending their lair, how they interact with their surrounding environment, relations with surrounding communities, what activity patterns they have, personalities of the tribal leaders, etc.  

Maybe I am a special snowflake DM comparatively to the greater rpg community with which you interact.  Is it unusual for a DM to craft a dungeon thinking of its place in the world rather than thinking of its place as an adventure?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670525The statements you quoted do not contradict each other.  Therefore, he did not flip flop like you said.

I'm not going to split hairs between RandallS the person and RandallS the worldmaker/gamerunner.
" Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world.

However, if the characters listen to rumors and gather information before heading off they can have some idea of what "fixed location" things are in the area. "

Let's rewrite this:
"When I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world it is by them listening to rumors and gathering information before heading off so they can have some idea of what "fixed location" things are in the area."


Or perhaps we can talk about what the post was actually about

Quote from: Benoist

Quote from: MeGood DMs just let the players do their thing. They're not "throwing" the players anywhere. The world just *is*. You are STILL not getting it.

Players are at the complete mercy of DM description. I would say Good DMs give adequate information to the players.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;670525Regardless of how you personally prefer to DM experienced players vs. new players, none of this proves that he does guide his players.

As a kid I liked watching Godzilla movies.  Those types of movies have a warm fuzzy place in my heart.  I am hoping that Pacific Rim is going to be good, I'll be watching it on Sunday.  Did you hear they are making another remake of Godzilla?  The Broderick one kinda stunk up the joint.