Hello!  This is ThatOneGM, the author of the linked-to Troll in the Corner column and the originator of the "the GM's job is to be defeated in the most entertaining way for everyone involved" quote.  I want to start by saying that I am glad to see such passionate GMs posting here.  I love GMing, and I'm always happy to meet/talk to others who do, too, even (or especially) if we have very different styles.

Given the contentiousness of the topic, I am actually planning to write an entire article on it at Troll in the Corner, and I encourage you all to read and comment there as well.  Not sure if it will be the next column or the one after it; it depends on how much free time I have in the next few days.

There are a lot of really good points here, and while I don't have time to respond to all of them, I'll do my best to respond to one in enough detail to hopefully explain my idea a little more fully.

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"

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.

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.

I really like the scenario here of having 1st level players hear about an ancient red dragon living on a nearby mountaintop.  I have played with groups who, had I described such a scene, would have immediately set about making their way up that mountain (Chris and Jesse, you know who you are).

My idea of "being defeated in the most entertaining way" does not mean that I would allow level one characters to simply dispatch with a high-level encounter just because I want them to win.  My solution to this would be to make sure both the characters and the players grasp the danger of approaching and/or challenging such a beast.  If they do and they still want to advance, then I'm neither going to stop them nor NERF the entire encounter.  There are several reasonable plans for "being defeated in the most entertaining way possible" here.

My preferred solution would be to make the red dragon as powerful-seeming and intimidating as possible, not to scare the players off (I've already given them that chance) but to drive the point home when the dragon demands something of them.  Given the powers at the command of such a monster, the players will find it difficult to even attack unless the dragon allows it; and why would it waste effort slaughtering such pawns when it could use them in the grand scheme it's been plotting for years (but which I now have to invent).  In this scene, the players have "defeated" the encounter by surviving and learning something about the dragon's plans, even if they are roped into helping it.

Another solution would be allow the players to have the snot beaten out of them, but not to simply kill them outright.  In this example, it is likely that the dragon keeps guardians or traps that prevent its time from being wasted by lowly specks.  The players realize that if they can barely survive/escape from the dragon's minions, they have little chance against the dragon itself.  At least, not unless they first track down the legendary MacGuffin that the local priest mentioned as he was nursing the characters back to health.  Here, as above, my "defeat" comes from the players' escape and discovery of a chance to slay the dragon in the future.

Finally, for a group of players who really want to see whether their level one characters can take on a red dragon, I would play the encounter out as many GMs here claim they would; the dragon would fight intelligently and would almost certainly defeat the players in only a few moments.  We could then create a whole new set of characters who (if they started in the same region) would know better than to follow in the footsteps of the group of "durned fools what got 'emselves ate up a coupla weeks ago".  In this case, I can say the above quote does not seem to apply.  The players themselves were soundly defeated, and the best way to ensure entertainment for everyone seems to be let the players fail.  Perhaps they gain a sense of "victory" for having had the nerve to challenge such a beast, even if they did lose, or perhaps not.

Obviously the phrase cannot apply to every GM, every session, or every encounter ever played, but I stand by the spirit of my statement and I hope that this comment and my upcoming article have given/will give everyone something to discuss and take home to their own games.

Quote from: ThatOneGM;667776Hello!  This is ThatOneGM, the author of the linked-to Troll in the Corner column and the originator of the "the GM's job is to be defeated in the most entertaining way for everyone involved" quote.  I want to start by saying that I am glad to see such passionate GMs posting here.  I love GMing, and I'm always happy to meet/talk to others who do,
too, even (or especially) if we have very different styles.
<...snip...>
.

welcome to the pit of dispair and suffering that is the RPGsite.

There is plenty of passion here of that you can be quite certain

Quote from: Zachary The First;667456I don't think so. If you're setting up your players for a 99% chance of victory, rather than set up scenarios where failure is a more plausible option, there's absolutely no suspense.

ITT people pretend they've never seen a movie or read a book or watched a television show.

I'm not entirely sure if everyone here implying that they TPK their players in every single session are just pretending that's true or if they actually do it. But I suspect it's the former.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;667499Sauron DID lose big time when the ring was destroyed. The part you seem to be missing is that the GM wasn't Sauron.

I didn't miss it. That is, in fact, the exact sort of moronic pedantry I was talking about.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;667499In my campaigns, if the default is ride along and accept whatever, then loss is the usual outcome.

The only way your statement actually contradicts anything I've said is if you've got a lot of players who "ride along and accept whatever", lose as a result, and then just keep doing that over and over and over again.

If that is, in fact, what's happening at your table then I'm sorry to hear it. I'd recommend that you stop playing with complete morons.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;667848ITT people pretend they've never seen a movie or read a book or watched a television show.

I'm not entirely sure if everyone here implying that they TPK their players in every single session are just pretending that's true or if they actually do it. But I suspect it's the former.

I watch movies, read books, and watch (some) TV. I also recognize that tabletop gaming is distinct from that, and trying to recreate the plots from any of those things by assigning success to an endeavor ahead of time is not (IME) a formula for success.

What is described is a sort of gaming Calvinism, a predestination ideology that lessens the impact and drama of choice and character free will.  

Re: TPK, I would recommend going back and rereading what folks have wrote in regards to the dissenting viewpoint. I don't believe it says anything about averaging a TPK every session; rather, that the ultimate outcome of the campaign or game (succeed or fail) is in doubt, and completely reliant upon player/character decision-making (and some luck). To me, that's a huge draw of gaming--none of us, including the GM, know how it will all end up.

Thanks to ThatOneGM for coming aboard and sharing his thoughts on this. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect that he's willing to courteously and coherently make his argument.

Quote from: jibbajibba;667772I 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

My point is that part of being a GM includes being final arbiter of the rules. You cannot have meaningful competition if only one team gets final say on rules interpretation.

In the case you stated above, the GM would have to effectively turn those duties over to the rulebooks and more or less " just run the bad guys" according to RAW.

Doing so means giving up a large portion of GM responsibility and thus it is not really GM vs players its one player vs the group with the ruleset serving as GM.

Quote from: ThatOneGM;667776Hello!  This is ThatOneGM, the author of the linked-to Troll in the Corner column and the originator of the "the GM's job is to be defeated in the most entertaining way for everyone involved" quote.  I want to start by saying that I am glad to see such passionate GMs posting here.  I love GMing, and I'm always happy to meet/talk to others who do, too, even (or especially) if we have very different styles.

Given the contentiousness of the topic, I am actually planning to write an entire article on it at Troll in the Corner, and I encourage you all to read and comment there as well.  Not sure if it will be the next column or the one after it; it depends on how much free time I have in the next few days.

There are a lot of really good points here, and while I don't have time to respond to all of them, I'll do my best to respond to one in enough detail to hopefully explain my idea a little more fully.



I really like the scenario here of having 1st level players hear about an ancient red dragon living on a nearby mountaintop.  I have played with groups who, had I described such a scene, would have immediately set about making their way up that mountain (Chris and Jesse, you know who you are).

My idea of "being defeated in the most entertaining way" does not mean that I would allow level one characters to simply dispatch with a high-level encounter just because I want them to win.  My solution to this would be to make sure both the characters and the players grasp the danger of approaching and/or challenging such a beast.  If they do and they still want to advance, then I'm neither going to stop them nor NERF the entire encounter.  There are several reasonable plans for "being defeated in the most entertaining way possible" here.

My preferred solution would be to make the red dragon as powerful-seeming and intimidating as possible, not to scare the players off (I've already given them that chance) but to drive the point home when the dragon demands something of them.  Given the powers at the command of such a monster, the players will find it difficult to even attack unless the dragon allows it; and why would it waste effort slaughtering such pawns when it could use them in the grand scheme it's been plotting for years (but which I now have to invent).  In this scene, the players have "defeated" the encounter by surviving and learning something about the dragon's plans, even if they are roped into helping it.

Another solution would be allow the players to have the snot beaten out of them, but not to simply kill them outright.  In this example, it is likely that the dragon keeps guardians or traps that prevent its time from being wasted by lowly specks.  The players realize that if they can barely survive/escape from the dragon's minions, they have little chance against the dragon itself.  At least, not unless they first track down the legendary MacGuffin that the local priest mentioned as he was nursing the characters back to health.  Here, as above, my "defeat" comes from the players' escape and discovery of a chance to slay the dragon in the future.

Finally, for a group of players who really want to see whether their level one characters can take on a red dragon, I would play the encounter out as many GMs here claim they would; the dragon would fight intelligently and would almost certainly defeat the players in only a few moments.  We could then create a whole new set of characters who (if they started in the same region) would know better than to follow in the footsteps of the group of "durned fools what got 'emselves ate up a coupla weeks ago".  In this case, I can say the above quote does not seem to apply.  The players themselves were soundly defeated, and the best way to ensure entertainment for everyone seems to be let the players fail.  Perhaps they gain a sense of "victory" for having had the nerve to challenge such a beast, even if they did lose, or perhaps not.

Obviously the phrase cannot apply to every GM, every session, or every encounter ever played, but I stand by the spirit of my statement and I hope that this comment and my upcoming article have given/will give everyone something to discuss and take home to their own games.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. You sound very reasonable to me, and I think some of the contention is born of people not defining things the same way.

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.

Silly gamer.  You just need a lady cleric then.

Smart players know how to deal with even seemingly unwinnable encounters, and a fair DM that isn't resorting to violating the permanence of the game world or to railroady/narrative tactics will have no choice but to let them.

The GM's job is to simulate life.  Whether the players win or lose at life is up to them.

Quote from: J Arcane;667877Silly gamer.  You just need a lady cleric then.

Smart players know how to deal with even seemingly unwinnable encounters, and a fair DM that isn't resorting to violating the permanence of the game world or to railroady/narrative tactics will have no choice but to let them.

The GM's job is to simulate life.  Whether the players win or lose at life is up to them.

Agreed. The point was to refute the idea that an actual adversarial GM would provide much of a game.

Either the rules are running the game (instead of a GM) or its a very one sided affair quickly resolved.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;667881Agreed. The point was to refute the idea that an actual adversarial GM would provide much of a game.

Either the rules are running the game (instead of a GM) or its a very one sided affair quickly resolved.

It's not about the rules, it's about the attitude.

Yes, the DM controls the world, but a good DM is controlling a 'real' world, one that is internally consistent and maintains verisimilitude for the players.

A DM who forgets this will lose his players, adversarial or not.  But it is personally possible to wage some open competition between DM and players provided the DM presents a fair and consistent world and keeps his actions with that in mind.  

I think this is ultimately what led to dissatisfaction with the 90s 'storyteller' approach, and why old-hat gamers find story-games grating. They don't assume the world is a real place, just a bit of fluff and backdrop that can thus be folded, spindled, and mutilated at the DM's whim, and the only thing the SG games do in response is add the players to the list of people who can commit such mutilation.

As a DM in a game of H&H though, I do treat it as much as possible as a real world that makes internal sense, and when the players act, I try to make those reactions respond accordingly. I can present a challenge to the players, because I know the players are clever little bastards and will think of things I wouldn't have been able to prepare for, and then I decide the reaction to those things based on what makes sense in the world, having no other goal than to emulate the world and provide a challenge for the players (and the latter task is generally set before the game during prep, with ingame being mostly about my control of the monster behaviors).  

In this framework, a sense of friendly competition is perfectly possible and relevant, not because the rules limit me, but because I am limited by the realities of the game world in terms of how it will react believably.

Quote from: J Arcane;667886It's not about the rules, it's about the attitude.

Yes, the DM controls the world, but a good DM is controlling a 'real' world, one that is internally consistent and maintains verisimilitude for the players.

A DM who forgets this will lose his players, adversarial or not.  But it is personally possible to wage some open competition between DM and players provided the DM presents a fair and consistent world and keeps his actions with that in mind.  

A DM who presents a fair consistent world and runs it accordingly isn't really being competitive though.

Competetive means actually trying to "win". A DM in the traditional role gets final say on rules and rulings so trying to "win" is pointless wankery. If the DM wants to actually compete, the job of referee passes to the ruleset. The agreed upon rules then dictate what the DM can do to win.

This leads to silly convoluted rule sets (WOTC D&D) full of exploits that lead to an endless parade of patches and nerfs all in the name of making a "fair" game that enables a DM to try and compete with the players in a game form that was never meant to support such nonsense.  No thanks.

Some thoughts here, not intended to attack anyone or offend anyone.

Internal consistancy is important to me as a gm and as a player.

But the gm still decides how many ninjas murder the pc's in their sleep.

Internal consistancy does not make that situation 'fair' or unfair'

The gm flat out decides that.

In fact, I would say most gm's 'go easy on the pc's' even when they don't realize it.

Consider: The assasins guild is secretly hired to kill the pc's.

Are the assasins really going to launch 'level appropriate' attacks?

Or are they going to take out the pc' with an unecpected, intelligent, overwealming, and lethal attack. Probably when they are divided. Or poisned. Or half dead from another unrelated confrontation. Etc...

Internal setting consistancy has little to do with the gm 'saving or murdering' pcs.

They simply live at the gms whim even in the most logical consistant setting ever concieved.

Unless there are no dangers in the setting.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;667888A DM who presents a fair consistent world and runs it accordingly isn't really being competitive though.

Competetive means actually trying to "win". A DM in the traditional role gets final say on rules and rulings so trying to "win" is pointless wankery. If the DM wants to actually compete, the job of referee passes to the ruleset. The agreed upon rules then dictate what the DM can do to win.

This leads to silly convoluted rule sets (WOTC D&D) full of exploits that lead to an endless parade of patches and nerfs all in the name of making a "fair" game that enables a DM to try and compete with the players in a game form that was never meant to support such nonsense.  No thanks.

Right.
I said it earlier.  I am playing with the players, not against them.  They play their characters, I play the setting, we all play together.  

It's called a roleplaying game for a reason, going back to the heart of it.  The goal of the game is for the players to be able to at some level immerse and play their roles and think as the character.  My primary, overriding goal, is to provide a consistent and interesting setting that enables and promotes this.  Everything else is secondary.  That's my first job, to use these tools and the physics engine (the rules) to create an atmosphere that promotes and maximizes the ability for the players to immerse.

Note that internally consistent does not mean that I am not GMing or creating, it's just that players in a good game don't notice or able, by the skill of the GM to create well, that the GM is doing any of them.  It feels right.  

If I can't do this, then the quality of the game slips down to a level where the rules and the players have to do a a lot more work helping create the atmosphere and the role play.  If I have to use the rules, and terms like, 'Level-appropriate', then I've already somewhat failed.

By 'fair' I don't mean 'fair' to the PCs in the 90s 'everyone gets a turn' sense, I mean an impartial interpretation of realistic results to PC actions, as befits the twin role of referee and adversary.  

I find that the 'impossibility' of a rivalry between DM and PC dissolves when we are not assuming the DM can simply invent things to make sure they go his way regardless of whether they make any sense.

No, it's never going to be 100% open and even warfare between the two, but competitiveness is possible and I've personally played in and enjoyed such games, and found the PCs won far more often than folks like EW want to admit so long as the DM remained fair in accepting the results of the PC's actions and plans for dealing with challenges.

Conversely, I have played with adversarial GMs who were intolerable precisely because when the going was against them they would simply invent or change things to try and let them 'win' the FLUXX way, and said GMs tended to lose the players quickly and find their groups dissolving.

There is a difference, and the difference is in the attitude of the DM and how they approach the game.

Quote from: Bill;667891Some thoughts here, not intended to attack anyone or offend anyone.

Internal consistancy is important to me as a gm and as a player.

But the gm still decides how many ninjas murder the pc's in their sleep.

Internal consistancy does not make that situation 'fair' or unfair'

The gm flat out decides that.

In fact, I would say most gm's 'go easy on the pc's' even when they don't realize it.

Consider: The assasins guild is secretly hired to kill the pc's.

Are the assasins really going to launch 'level appropriate' attacks?

Or are they going to take out the pc' with an unecpected, intelligent, overwealming, and lethal attack. Probably when they are divided. Or poisned. Or half dead from another unrelated confrontation. Etc...

Internal setting consistancy has little to do with the gm 'saving or murdering' pcs.

They simply live at the gms whim even in the most logical consistant setting ever concieved.

Unless there are no dangers in the setting.

I see your point, and i have seen others make it, but i feel there is some middle ground between the extremes here. And I think fairness has somewhat different criteria depending on the type of play.

If you are just talking about whether a given encounter s fairly constructed, i think the fairness comes in when the GM decides: is it 100% survivable, 95% survivable, 80% survivable, 70% survivable. He also has a say in things like wheer the challenge can become less lethal through clever and prudent planning. But in these cases, except in the 100% survivable encounter, the gm is not deciding whether they live or die, he is just setting the challenge of the encounter. The fun comes in for me, being able to take that challenge on with some real risk. I want the gm to give me encounters where risk of death is really there and where my choices, character anilities  and luck of the dice all have an infuence on outcome.

In these cases fairness is a seperate isue fom simulating the world accurately, though i think it can be related. The assassins guild is a tricky situation, because if he plays them to the hilt that can be pretty darn lethal, and in my experience most groups dont want that level of lethality (though i have actually played with people who prefer it and are okay with it). So for most groups, i think the important thing be that an assassins guild attack be a tough and potentially lethal encounter, but it doesn't have to be completely a foregone tpk. Others will be okay with a seriously lethal assassins guild attack, provided the gm give in setting cues so there is some chance to know the threat exists or that they are provoking it. And some others will actually be fine being told the party was murdered in its sleep because that golden monkey skull they stole was property of Elshandar, Lord of Assassins. All those groups will probably take a different stance on the fairness of the assassin encounter example. In the case of the latter, fairness is based on whether the attack sent by the assassins guild was in fact a logical outcome of events and whether they attacked with the aount of resources and powers they would have had. If the assassins send 1000 ninjas after the party, but they are only supposed to have ten in their guild, then it would be deemed unfair. Another consideration would be whether that would be the type of reaction Alshandar would have to his monkey skull being stolen.

So going light on the party and not sending in a 100% nonsurvivable encounter, is not the same as letting the party win. I think if there is still a a good amount of risk and unkowns, it's good. Also a lot of fairness has to do with the gm ruling consistently and making sure people are on the same age in terms of expectations.

But while there are the extremes of GMs who only consider the consistency of the setting, and those who only consider what is level appropiate, i think most try to balance the two things out a bit.

I think what most people are talking about here, is simply not having the GM let the party win, or protect them fom death. The exact level of lethality is going to vary a lot according to preference.

Quote from: Bill;667891Consider: The assasins guild is secretly hired to kill the pc's.

Are the assasins really going to launch 'level appropriate' attacks?

.

In this particular case, I imagine most GMs go light in order to err on the side of fairness. And I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. My personal feeling on this example, what I want as a player, is it really depends on the GM. If I am gaming with a GM who doesn't mess around, and deploys realistic and deadly consequences for taking on too much (for example, in his world you can't just stroll in and try to assassinate the king and expect to win because you are a pc, you get speared by hundreds of soldiers and singed by  a contingent of fireball wizards), I am absolutely fine with a midnight assassins guild attack that is extremely lethal. Provided that is how he always rolls, and he is good at giving these things what feels like the appropriate level of resources and power for what they are in the setting. But I think there are only a handful of GMs i have played with that can do this well, and I wouldn't enjoy this style in the hands of jsut anyone.

Most of the time, what matters to me is the things that occur in the setting feel about right, and the challenges have some amount of genuine risk. I am also pretty flexible as a player. If a group wants to play a game where Pcs dont die, I wont object, and I will happily participate without complaint. I am content to have my prefernces, voice them at the appropriate time, but try other styles outside that and enjoy them. I just find it a more exciting evening of play if the stakes are higher.