Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667511Lots of people prefer a more Globetrotter style of play and that is totally fine, but it isnt just a choice between that and a fifty-fifty NBA style contest. In a game like D&D the players do tend to have an advantage over the monsters. What is fun and exciting will vary from one group to the next, but I know I want to face challenges where failure and death are possible. If the dice start going against me, I do not want the GM to step in to save my character. Over time, this lessens the excitment because I know i am not really under any threat. If I have to roll up a new character every so often, I am totally fine with that.

It is entertainment, but it is also a game, and I really enjoy that aspect of play where you dont honestly know how things will end up.

Yes, and in a well made and detailed campaign, the players will often know when they are leaving a safer part of the game/setting and when they are taking their lives in their hands.

Quote from: Bill;667494I agree and try to do this when I gm.

However, I like to challenge the idea that a gm playing the setting does not ever let the players win.

Fair (whatever that is) setting ajudication is not a magic wand that prevents 'letting players win', or prevents the gm from 'killing the pcs'

Agreed the scenario must be "winable".

Oneof the problems with a sandbox as we have discussed before is that in a real sandbox the magical apex predators the ones that can teleport, fly turn invisible all that might just as likely to turn up in the HUman city as in the desolate wastelands of Krith. If they do then the party might meet them at 1st level and all die hideously. So we have a 'procedure' generally the further you get from civilisation the more dangerous they get.

Quote from: mcbobbo;667509Like I said above about the Globetrotters and the Washington Generals, the point is the illusion of challenge.   Yes, the Generals did occasionally force the Globetrotters to knuckle down and play actual basketball from time to time, but it was never a fair and honest contest.  It was always entertainment.

Maybe your table is more like the NBA.

True, but there's also no suspense that the Globetrotters will come out on top. The crowd is there for feats of athleticism and comedy, not to witness an impartial contest or game where experience, skill, and performance determine the outcome. I would liken the example of the ever-victorious players as knowing the results of a game were fixed in a major professional sporting league, such as the NFL or MLB. Yeah, you might get to watch some home runs or a great kick return, but ultimately the drama is lessened, because you know the Yankees have been mandated to score 6 runs in the bottom of the 9th for another come-from-behind victory.

(I'm not sure I like the analogy overall, but let's work with it for the moment).

I suppose there are some tables enjoy that, but I think you can still have entertainment and awesomeness without making it so the players necessarily ultimately win.  To me, I can't think of anything more dull than knowing that even if my character just goes through the motions or has a few off sessions, he's still going to come out on top. To be fair, though, that's just me and my table. YMMV, and all that fun business.

Ultimately, the great thing is, folks can find an enjoyment from a wide range of game mastery philosophies. I've been in groups where players really, really had a hard time coping with even minor failure, and there have been other groups that felt like a complete meat grinder and the players loved it (I think my groups usually fall more in the middle). I'm sure it's the same with this, though I feel pretty strongly that I have a GMing philosophy that rewards participation, attention, and ingenuity (with room for luck, too), while keeping everyone (including myself) in suspense as to the final outcome.

The specific percentage seems to be the objection.  

I can't imagine PCs dying more than 1% of the game time.  Ie, if we play 25 hours with 4 PCs, it's unlikely that more than 1 hour will involve the death of a PC.  Not that there weren't challenges or risk or that the PCs couldn't die - they just didn't.  They played smart and avoided death during those sessions.  Or they just got lucky.

In our regular Sunday game my character was swallowed whole.  I had managed to cut a hole that I could try to escape through, but I fell unconscious before I had the chance.  If the other party member didn't have an ability that let him take an extra move action, I would have dissolved in acid.  I totally EXPECTED to die.  The GM didn't pull any shenanigans to save my character (which wouldn't have made sense), but I came through alive.  

Someone's keeping track of how many sessions we've played.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 with this campaign, I'd wager, and we're all still alive (though we've had some narrow scrapes).  So, yes, we 'survive' more than 99% of the time.  So far, it's been 100%.  That doesn't mean we haven't had setbacks and it doesn't mean there hasn't been drama.  Sometimes the way we 'overcome a challenge' introduces new responses from the setting.  

In general, though, while the GM has done a great job of allowing the setting to respond to our actions (like any good sandbox), the challenges we've faced have been set up so that overcoming them is usually possible.  

In the case where I was swallowed whole, we had to retreat, regroup, recover missing party members and take another stab at it.  This time it went much more decidedly in our favor (but then, we were better prepared).

Well, to be clear, I consider the death of a single PC to be a setback.  I feel TPKs are a last resort, but individual death can and does happen. (Outside of an unspoken safety zone for brand new, low level  characters.)

But that's like my analogy above.  A setback just means the Generals are up at the half.  A TPK is when they're ahead at the last buzzer.   It's an 'oops' moment at my table.

Quote from: jibbajibba;667515Agreed the scenario must be "winable".

Sometimes the definition of "winnable" is to avoid completely, at least for a while.

The party may hear rumors of a red dragon lair high up in the mountains at 1st level. At this point winnable means that if they don't head up there looking for it then it probably won't be hunting them down.

A winnable scenario simply means the PCs are not forced into no-win situations. This doesn't translate into "every potential violent conflict is winnable by force"

Quote from: Exploderwizard;667557Sometimes the definition of "winnable" is to avoid completely, at least for a while.

The party may hear rumors of a red dragon lair high up in the mountains at 1st level. At this point winnable means that if they don't head up there looking for it then it probably won't be hunting them down.

A winnable scenario simply means the PCs are not forced into no-win situations. This doesn't translate into "every potential violent conflict is winnable by force"

Oh I agree totally but the Collorary of that is don;t make he red dragon attack the town the party are in in the first session.

You design the scenario so that it can be beaten, if the PCs choose not to do the scenario and instead jump of a cliff or pick a fight with a red dragon then so be it. But if all their sessions end that way then you as a GM have failed them because you as a GM can give them other options and use in game resources, wiley NPCs or mentally disturbed princes etc to occassionally protect them from a greater foe.

Quote from: jibbajibba;667565Oh I agree totally but the Collorary of that is don;t make he red dragon attack the town the party are in in the first session.

:rotfl:

That says " I'm already tired of this campaign."

There's not right answer IMO -- depends on the group.

I have one group of gamer buddies where it most certainly is ME (the GM) against them. And that's all part of the fun.

I have another group I run with my wife as a player and her friends -- I run it very differently. They don't want to feel I'm out to throw an obstacle in front of all their plans. They want a challenge but they also want to feel like they are heroes and making a difference. I can respect that.

I love both styles but I'd never want to play either way exclusively. Part of the fun of RPGs for me is the freedom to mix things up and play according the mood/group.

Quote from: JollyRB;667647There's not right answer IMO -- depends on the group.

I have one group of gamer buddies where it most certainly is ME (the GM) against them. And that's all part of the fun.

I have another group I run with my wife as a player and her friends -- I run it very differently. They don't want to feel I'm out to throw an obstacle in front of all their plans. They want a challenge but they also want to feel like they are heroes and making a difference. I can respect that.

I love both styles but I'd never want to play either way exclusively. Part of the fun of RPGs for me is the freedom to mix things up and play according the mood/group.

This is a position that too often gets lost in the heat of online debate. I think there is definitely something to be said for being able to adapt to your group and being willing to try a new style of play if it fits them. When I have done this, it usually helps me grow as a GM.

Quote from: JollyRB;667647I have one group of gamer buddies where it most certainly is ME (the GM) against them. And that's all part of the fun.

Game starts. Tarrasque comes. You win.

If they find such shitstomping fun more power to them. Doing anything less isn't really you vs them in open contest. The DM is unlimited in resources and has final say on rulings.

True adversarial play is gloves off contest. The power distribution is too skewed for that to be possible.

Quote from: jibbajibba;667436but is it fun when the whole crew then get killed in a battle with pirates and the players make new PCs who just bought the Falcon at a Pirate pilage sale.

And then 2 weeks later when the party get killed by a failed jump drive repair check.

etc...

If you played that sort of game the players would soon get bored with a lack of continuity in the party and move on to a new thing.

Were such to happen, it would be time to talk with the players about a mismatch between how I run the game and how they play their characters.  However, I've never had such a revolving door of PC death occur, so it is a bit theoretical on my part.

Quote from: jibbajibba;667436

I would not really make a terrorist with zombies as an adventure.  Rather, a terrorist with zombies may exist.  It is up to the players to decide whether they want to even mess with it, how to mess with it, etc.  The adventure follows the characters; the characters do not follow the adventure.

Quote from: jibbajibba;667436Create a scenario the PCs can 'win' (you might need to define win from survive to solve the mystery to find the McGuffin)
Play the NPC and monsters in that scenario to the best of their ability and give no quarter once the game is in play.
The best outcome is for the players to feel that their PCs could have died at any point but that they won through based on their own abilites and skills

Probably a significant difference in our playstyles revealed right here.  I don't play NPCs and monsters to the best of their abilities, but rather, I play them to what makes sense for them.  Goblins that are supposed to be on patrol may go off lolly-gagging.  Knights may give quarter to a wounded foe.   Mearls's ghouls may not have been in position to make their ambush.  

My enemies can and do make mistakes.  PCs that do some homework on their foes may discover such weaknesses to exploit.  Of course, other enemies may not make any mistakes.  

I am particularly not that keen on NPCs/monsters that are willing to fight to the death.  That is one of the main things that makes PCs so special - they are the rare few who are willing to fight to the death at every circumstance.  Especially animals.  Unless cornered with no other option or specifically trained, an animal will almost always flee when it gets hurt.

Quote from: Old One Eye;667735Were such to happen, it would be time to talk with the players about a mismatch between how I run the game and how they play their characters.  However, I've never had such a revolving door of PC death occur, so it is a bit theoretical on my part.

I have played in a game like that where the DMs decisions and placement of stuff was totally logical but it was just too tough for the PCs, and the next PCs and the next PCs.
He should have taken a step back created a plot link then sent a new force of tougher guys to find out what happened to the last lot. He didn't rather he had new 1st level PCs recruited from the hinterlands and after 4 sessions there was zero continuity and the game fizzled.

QuoteI would not really make a terrorist with zombies as an adventure.  Rather, a terrorist with zombies may exist.  It is up to the players to decide whether they want to even mess with it, how to mess with it, etc.  The adventure follows the characters; the characters do not follow the adventure.

That's an interesting point. I totally decided I wanted to play a "zombies in another context" game. However, I didn't quite put the PCs into it directly. I decided on a course of action for the bad guys. Infect the core world with a zombie plague. And I decided that the plan would be initiated on a space ship heading toward that world.
The PCs didn't need to get on that space ship and I directly gave them a bunch of options not to. However, they were constrained because that system only has transport ships going out of the system from the one core world. So if they hadn't take the ship they would have had to fight a zombie plague on the coreworld which would be much harder, but the terrorists' overall objective would have been achieved and that plot hook moment would have passed.
Over the cource of their campaign, whcih is episodic by nature as I am trying to replicate the comic format, they have passed on half a dozen major plot hooks. I simply come up with half a dozen more. Whilst in background I spin the hook into an outcome thgat might lead to a future adventure.

The sandbox approach is fine, my campaign largely works that way but sometimes its good to give the PCs an adventure with a begining a middle and a few dangling plot hooks at the end. Certainly works for the episodic approach I am trying to achieve.

QuoteProbably a significant difference in our playstyles revealed right here.  I don't play NPCs and monsters to the best of their abilities, but rather, I play them to what makes sense for them.  Goblins that are supposed to be on patrol may go off lolly-gagging.  Knights may give quarter to a wounded foe.   Mearls's ghouls may not have been in position to make their ambush.  

My enemies can and do make mistakes.  PCs that do some homework on their foes may discover such weaknesses to exploit.  Of course, other enemies may not make any mistakes.  

I am particularly not that keen on NPCs/monsters that are willing to fight to the death.  That is one of the main things that makes PCs so special - they are the rare few who are willing to fight to the death at every circumstance.  Especially animals.  Unless cornered with no other option or specifically trained, an animal will almost always flee when it gets hurt.

No my Monsters and NPCs are exactly the same. To me that is being limited by their abilities and in character knowledge.

In my space zombie Strontium Dog example the big bad terrorist fled the scene of battle after his toys had been destroyed. He had an intention to head to the section of the ship where all the zombies had been corralled and release them. However the PC that was running hacker interference on the ships computers had closed all the doors so he got trapped in a cul de sac and had to rethink his plans. Eventually he decided to run away.
This is fine as he was playing to the best of his ability and knowledge.

My players get a very clear sense of who they are fighting from the attitude and tactics of those foes. They have already drawn a parallel between the guy on the ship and the guy they eliminated in the previous session because they use common tactics (show not tell).
Where as they know the punks they picked up 3 sesisons ago are unrelated as they were just punks with no plan.

So of course monsters and NPCs are roleplayed that is after all the GMs job. But within that frame of reference they will do their utmost to survive and defeat the PCs.

I will give you some examples where DMs don't do this.
Liches that don't prepare spells in advance or have an escape route planned
Demons with huge magical powers and tricks that choose to engage in hand to hand combat (often because the DM doesn't understand the monster and can't be bothered to read it).
A band of orcs who have a handful of magic weapons they never use - you know you beat the orc chief and it turns out he has a +3 sword in his armoury.
The trained special forces unit that throw men towards your fortified position like confetti and get mown down doing it.
etc etc

So goblins for example. Tricky and cunning but they don't like it up em and will probably run at the first sign of real resistance.
Orcs with their own agendas that will deliberately sacrifice some of their force if it means they get rid of a rival or give them power over their tribe.
Mad psychos who are actually mad and leave bloody great clues everywhere because they think they are the reincarnation of Jack the ripper and so will never be caught.
All of those cases are different from the bad guys being played sub-optimally just to give the PCs a break or because the GM has insufficient knoweldge or imagination to play them how they ought to be played.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;667730Game starts. Tarrasque comes. You win.

If they find such shitstomping fun more power to them. Doing anything less isn't really you vs them in open contest. The DM is unlimited in resources and has final say on rulings.

True adversarial play is gloves off contest. The power distribution is too skewed for that to be possible.

I thing the challenge to taking that stance is that the GM has to play the bad guys within the predefined limits and resource constraints he has outlined for them.

So first design a scenario they can beat.
Then play it competivety.

My goblin gauntlet works just like that. the goblins can do anything goblins with wood, metal, a forge and imagination can do but they can't summon Tarrasques or cast fireballs.

I think its totally valid

Quote from: Exploderwizard;667730Game starts. Tarrasque comes. You win.

If they find such shitstomping fun more power to them. Doing anything less isn't really you vs them in open contest. The DM is unlimited in resources and has final say on rulings.

True adversarial play is gloves off contest. The power distribution is too skewed for that to be possible.

Heh, dude, Jolly wrote Hackmaster and plays with Kenzer.  That group has "let the dice fall" coded into their DNA.  If a group runs into the Tarrasque it's 'cause they rolled it on a Encounter Table with a d10000 and the only shit-stomping will be done by the Tarrasque.