From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM’s job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
Disagree. It's not a competition. Something that seems to be lost in the past decade or so more than ever.
There's a reason why the DM was originally called the "referee", and not some term that implied he or she was at odds with the players.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM’s job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
To some extent this is true, but only in regards to combat challenges.
My reasoning is that if the players lose more often than they win, in combat, the game is essentially over early.
But if a game is more roleplay than combat, 'defeat' does not really apply.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
Mostly disagree, but there are some really fun games that you can have with an adversarial DM in a "Tomb of Horrors" type scenario.
No, it's not my job to be "defeated". This is starting from an assumption that the game wouldn't be fun if you lost, which is bullshit. The possibility of failure should be there, and if you fail, it doesn't necessarily mean you had a horrible time, or really, if that is systematically the case, you need to play another game that strokes your ego better than O/AD&D.
My job is to run the environment fairly. That means there is a milieu that exists outside the influence of the PCs, that the PCs come in contact with it by exploring the unknown, investigating stuff, going "out there," impact it, and the environment answers in kind. I'll do my best to play the undead mindless, the orcs as dumb, the evil magic user as a smart guy. And if they want to kill you, they're going to try their best (whatever that means as far as they're concerned) to do just that. It's up to you to survive.
Agree, for some sufficiently broad definitions of "defeat" that don't involve the GM actually playing to win at any point.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
He didn't really elaborate very much, so I don't know precisely what direction he was heading with this (I could see him starting here but explaining it in a way that fits my approach more than the statement at first suggests). But I don't really agree with it. I think it is one approach, it may work for some people, but I would not use it for myself as a guideline and I wouldn't want my GM to. I think an important part of play for me is the very real possibility that we don't overcome the challenge. That is one of the things that makes it so much more exciting than your typical movie or book (you really don't know if everything will turn out okay in the end). So for me, I don't want the GM to see it as his job to be defeated by the players. I want him to present the players with interesting situations, a fleshed out setting and exciting challenges (and to run those things as fairly as possible). But do not let me win. I don't like when the GM snags victory away from the part for no reason, nor do I like it when he hands us victory where we should have suffered defeat.
Again this is preference. There is nothing wrong with a GM taking the approach he advocates. I just don't see it as a good universal rule or guideline for all styles of play.
The GM's job is to put up ducks for the players to knock down. Whether they can or not is where the game comes in.
The gm sets the difficulty of any challenge. Therefore, the gm decides if the pc's will win, barring swings of chance.
No challenge is equal to the pc's capabilities, and even then, they would lose half the time.
In my experience, pc win more than half the time.
The gm lets them win.
With regard to victory and defeat, it is the GMs job to referee fairly. That is the nature of the activity as a GAME. The GM can never "lose" because the adventure consists of the players vs the environment rather than the GM.
Everyone at the table can "win" if the adventure was enjoyable regardless of the fate of the characters involved. As a player I view an adventure as a win or loss based on its entertainment value instead of the survival of any characters involved.
Anyone playing a game that absolutely cannot bear to lose shouldn't be playing a game at all. To make a game interesting there must be the possibility of either victory or defeat. For this reason I will usually stop watching a football game if it looks like a complete stomping by one side or the other. Foregone conclusions are not very interesting to watch or play out.
So no, being defeated by the players in an entertaining manner is not why I run games.
Quote from: vytzka;667277Agree, for some sufficiently broad definitions of "defeat" that don't involve the GM actually playing to win at any point.
This, exactly. The GMs characters are like that team who plays against the Globetrotters. They're not supposed to win. They exist to make the players look awesome. In many games, anyway. Occasionally they exist to make the characters look pathetic and their job is to eat them one by one. But that's just the inverse idea, so it's basically the same concept.
There are no winners or losers in an rpg
Quote from: TristramEvans;667306There are no winners or losers in an rpg
If only that were true.
If you leave the game and wish desparately that you had those hours of your life back then it was a loss.
If you leave the game and can't wait until the next session so you can play again then it was a win.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
I always see me playing with them, not against them.
Hmm yeah I'd amend that to ' there are no winners or losers if you're playing it right'. There are bad GMs and bad players , but if you can avoid those the only victory condition is having fun
Quote from: One Horse Town;667281The GM's job is to put up ducks for the players to knock down. Whether they can or not is where the game comes in.
Savage, terrorist ducks, with laser-guided munitions.
-clash
Seeing as how the DM is the all powerful, there is no way to "defeat" the DM unless he or she wants it. Not exactly a competitive game there, and thus horrible choice of words by the OP.
Like many above, I disagree. As Game Master, if all I am doing is setting up my players to win, each and every time, then there's no drama whatsoever. Without the very real threat of ultimate failure, they might as well just congratulate each other on being awesome and go home.
Disagree. It's the player's/PC's job to overcome the challenges that are placed before them. Usually in the most entertaining way for everyone involved. :)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
I'd largely agree with this.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;667319Seeing as how the DM is the all powerful, there is no way to "defeat" the DM unless he or she wants it. Not exactly a competitive game there, and thus horrible choice of words by the OP.
This is mostly why I agree with it. If the GM's job was to 'win', he could create unbeatable challenges. The GM has hordes of millions of orcs; cults summoning elder gods, demonic incursions from other planes of existence - and more - at his fingertips. Describing how 'Fred the Dirt Farmer' gets annihilated by a demonic incursion on his way to the dungeon isn't any less likely in a 'true sandbox' at 1st level than it is at 10th level or that it is at 20th level.
Despite some protestations to the contrary, every DM worth his salt is modifying the environment in ways that make it a worthy (but not unbeatable challenge) to the players.
The GM isn't guaranteed to lose - not by any stretch of the imagination. But his goal should always be setting up situations where the players can 'win' - or if they can't, they can at least escape in memorable fashion.
Part of 'losing in the most entertaining way possible' is not trying to look like you're trying to lose. And once the challenge is set, a 'let the dice fall where they may' mentality is entirely appropriate. But the actual act of setting up the challenges fits this description pretty well.
I've never felt the need to modify the environment for the players. But I also don't create environments where combat is the only option
It's a GM's job to supply appropriate challenges for the players not to be expressly combative or be a loser. More just be a referee and adjudicate whatever results of the player's actions.
He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?
Be like Crom.
Quote from: TristramEvans;667335I've never felt the need to modify the environment for the players. But I also don't create environments where combat is the only option
Sorry - 'creating' the environment.
Quote from: Bill;667290The gm sets the difficulty of any challenge. Therefore, the gm decides if the pc's will win, barring swings of chance.
No challenge is equal to the pc's capabilities, and even then, they would lose half the time.
In my experience, pc win more than half the time.
The gm lets them win.
It is true the GM decides what challenges are on the table, and this has an enormous impact on how easy it is to survive. But I still think a GM can provide very different experiences depending on why he chooses to present given encounters and what procedures he uses to deploy them. If a GM wants to he can clearly kill the party. Just keep stacking the odds against them. But choosing not to do that, doesnt mean he is letting them win. He could just be striving to present a reasonable challenge, and from there let the dice fall where they may, or he could just be trying to maintain a beliavable setting with varied threats. I think if the gm is coming at it from either of those, then his purpose is not to be defeated by the players, but to run the combats as fairly as he can and to engineer the challeneges appropriately. This is one of the reasons I am fond of random encounters.
To me, the GM letting the party win, is either only throwing challenges at the group he knows they can survive and overcome, or pulling his punches when combat gets too deadly. Personally, I prefer when the GM throw a variety of challenges, not so overwhelming that characters die left and right, but not so predictable that I know my character will survive or win a given encounter. But what I also expect is the GM will be as fair as he can about running such combats. There is an art to that because it is not something easily quantified by challenge ratings since the GM, as you point out, ultimately decides so much about the world.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
This isn't really a good description of the GM's job; it sounds as if the GM is supposed to "lose" to the players. If that were always the case, nobody would ever want to GM. Losing isn't fun. Being an awesome GM for an awesome group of players most definitely IS fun, though.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
Agree? Disagree?
If the party dies ... they die.
My job is to present a semi-plausible milieu that doesn't have any "why the fuck would that happen" moments, allow the PC's actions to determine the course of the session, provide sufficient foreshadowing such that the players can make reasonable plans as to where to go/what to do, and keep the action and pace of the game moving along.
Mostly disagree. For my response, take your pick of these two:
"It's the GM's job to make stuff happen."
*or*
"It's the GM's job to give the players enough rope to hang themselves."
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667265From Troll in the Corner (http://trollitc.com/2013/07/gamemastering-211-advanced-gming-for-majors-introduction/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29): "To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
There are exceptions, but as a general rule: Yes. 99% of the time, the PCs should ultimately succeed at their objects. There will be setbacks and complications along the way, but ultimately they're going to solve the mystery; beat the bad guy; yada yada yada.
GMs who don't approach the game with the expectation that the PCs are going to generally accomplish their goals are going to be fairly atrocious GMs. They're going to create bad scenarios and they're going to run them poorly.
I'm seeing lots of people quibble by claiming that it's not
really the GM who is being overcome here or that Sauron didn't lose when Frodo destroyed the One Ring; but this is pure pedantry.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;667414There are exceptions, but as a general rule: Yes. 99% of the time, the PCs should ultimately succeed at their objects. There will be setbacks and complications along the way, but ultimately they're going to solve the mystery; beat the bad guy; yada yada yada.
GMs who don't approach the game with the expectation that the PCs are going to generally accomplish their goals are going to be fairly atrocious GMs. They're going to create bad scenarios and they're going to run them poorly.
I'm seeing lots of people quibble by claiming that it's not really the GM who is being overcome here or that Sauron didn't lose when Frodo destroyed the One Ring; but this is pure pedantry.
Pffftttt....
A damn fun game can be had where Han and Chewie's players realize the mission is hopeless and fly off to greener pastures while Luke gets toasted on his impossible mission, the Empire destroys the fledgling Rebellion, and Luke's player rolls up a new character to join the Falcon's future adventures.
Quote from: Old One Eye;667416Pffftttt....
A damn fun game can be had where Han and Chewie's players realize the mission is hopeless and fly off to greener pastures while Luke gets toasted on his impossible mission, the Empire destroys the fledgling Rebellion, and Luke's player rolls up a new character to join the Falcon's future adventures.
Definition of the word "exception". (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exception)
Quote from: Old One Eye;667416Pffftttt....
A damn fun game can be had where Han and Chewie's players realize the mission is hopeless and fly off to greener pastures while Luke gets toasted on his impossible mission, the Empire destroys the fledgling Rebellion, and Luke's player rolls up a new character to join the Falcon's future adventures.
but 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.
I think the OP quote is really saying -
The DM's job is to set up a scenario that the players are capable of beating and to play it as well as they can so that its a real challenge but for the players through skill, knowledge and luck to just prevail.
Don't get tied up with semantics the idea of competition where is more about the PCs prevailing again the scenario with the DM trying their best to beat them, but doing so in the constraints of the setting that has been created. If there are 12 goblins then there are 12 goblins the DM doesn't add 8 more nor does he remove 4 of them when the PCs struggle. But the 12 goblins the DM has are going to do their damnest to kill the PCs and survive.
In my game on Sunday the PCs had in theory 1000 zombies and one skilled terrorist to beat.
The Zombies were easy as Zombies ought to be. The players faultered at first as they weren't shooting their heads until my 8 year old daughter who was observing and eating all the snacks pointed out that they should shoot them in the head as then they might stop getting back up... then they got into their stride. The Terrorist almost pursuaded them to kill themselves but I gave the Precog a roll to see their doom. this was DM intervention to keep the PCs alive but had he failed the roll or interpretted it wrongly it would have been a straight up TPK (escape pods all rigged to self desctuct)
As it was in the fight with the terrorist 1 PC was down to 3hp one lost all HP and took 5 wounds (out of 7) so was at -5 on all actions and effectively incapacited, the 2 NPCs were killed and the last PC just managed to escape being sucked out into space. And the Terrorist got away.
I played the Zombies like Zombies but I played the terrorist in the most tactical smartest most well prepped way I could. The party were saved by their own prep and their own use of skills and a bit by having the NPCs there to absorb hits but that was their doing too as they hooked them into the game. And a lot by luck. There was a spot with a Autotargetting mini gun chucking out 6 shots per round that nearly managed to wipe out all of them but they quite simply got lucky and then eliminated the threat.
So I kind of agree with the sentiment of the quote if not its language.
Create 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
Quote from: Justin Alexander;667414There are exceptions, but as a general rule: Yes. 99% of the time, the PCs should ultimately succeed at their objects. There will be setbacks and complications along the way, but ultimately they're going to solve the mystery; beat the bad guy; yada yada yada.
GMs who don't approach the game with the expectation that the PCs are going to generally accomplish their goals are going to be fairly atrocious GMs. They're going to create bad scenarios and they're going to run them poorly.
I'm seeing lots of people quibble by claiming that it's not really the GM who is being overcome here or that Sauron didn't lose when Frodo destroyed the One Ring; but this is pure pedantry.
I 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. You've just provided window dressing that doesn't really provide any doubt whether or not they will ultimately be successful. If I have a 99% chance of ultimately succeeding, where's the drama? Why do I care if I haggle successfully with this guy, or succeed in grabbing the sword from the stone if I know most generally we'll come through just fine somehow?
I have no expectations that my players will specifically achieve or fail at their goals. I know they will have a properly-run proving ground in order to make meaningful decisions, while frequently in mortal danger --meaning they will live or die, succeed or fail based on their choices and actions, and not the GM making nicey-nicey just so there's a happy ending. That doesn't mean crucifying the entire party every time they fail a perception check, but it does mean keep the risk of ultimate failure very real and present.
I disagree only insofar as I think its a woefully inadequate description of the role a GM plays and also assumes the success of the characters is not based on the players but an inevitable conclusion.
As a counter to dissuade those competative 'killer gms' certain gamers seem to wallow in perpetual fear of, its an adequete enough witicism, though like most witicisms its cleveness only survives up to the point its exposed to critical examination.
Quote from: TristramEvans;667458I disagree only insofar as I think its a woefully inadequate description of the role a GM plays and also assumes the success of the characters is not based on the players but an inevitable conclusion.
As a counter to dissuade those competative 'killer gms' certain gamers seem to wallow in perpetual fear of, its an adequete enough witicism, though like most witicisms its cleveness only survives up to the point its exposed to critical examination.
Well, I think in general, Killer GMs who penalize gamers for everything aren't optimal for most groups, and Monty Haul, Cupcake GMs more often than not end up being a snore for any groups but those who feel a need to validate their existence through their character's victories, or are simply poor sports if they lose.
That's why I think establishing a firm proving grounds for characters to live or die based on their own actions is such an essential part of good gamemastery. I don't want to assign the assumed expectations of failure OR success; show me what your character comes up with, and let's see what happens from that.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667353It is true the GM decides what challenges are on the table, and this has an enormous impact on how easy it is to survive. But I still think a GM can provide very different experiences depending on why he chooses to present given encounters and what procedures he uses to deploy them. If a GM wants to he can clearly kill the party. Just keep stacking the odds against them. But choosing not to do that, doesnt mean he is letting them win. He could just be striving to present a reasonable challenge, and from there let the dice fall where they may, or he could just be trying to maintain a beliavable setting with varied threats. I think if the gm is coming at it from either of those, then his purpose is not to be defeated by the players, but to run the combats as fairly as he can and to engineer the challeneges appropriately. This is one of the reasons I am fond of random encounters.
To me, the GM letting the party win, is either only throwing challenges at the group he knows they can survive and overcome, or pulling his punches when combat gets too deadly. Personally, I prefer when the GM throw a variety of challenges, not so overwhelming that characters die left and right, but not so predictable that I know my character will survive or win a given encounter. But what I also expect is the GM will be as fair as he can about running such combats. There is an art to that because it is not something easily quantified by challenge ratings since the GM, as you point out, ultimately decides so much about the world.
I wish they would remove challenge ratings from rpgs :)
What I am suggesting is that pulling a punch at the last minute to save the party, and pulling the punch before the danger arrives are both 'saving the pcs'
There are many ways to 'let the characters win' and good luck defining what was a fair challenge.
One gm will have 1d6 orcs arrive each round. Another will have no reinforcements. One gm will determine a creature can't be reasoned with, another will allow it to be cajoled until it is a pet.
The gm makes countless decisions that may be self percieved as fair and unbiased and true to the setting.
The reality is that a gm helps and screws over characters all the time.
If I wave my magic gm wand and a Lich lord rises up to convert the land from living to dead in a bruatal hoarde of death, am I being 'fair' ?
Its not like there is a fair percentage chance a Lich lord will arise.
Its all on the gm.
Quote from: Bill;667473I wish they would remove challenge ratings from rpgs :)
What I am suggesting is that pulling a punch at the last minute to save the party, and pulling the punch before the danger arrives are both 'saving the pcs'
There are many ways to 'let the characters win' and good luck defining what was a fair challenge.
One gm will have 1d6 orcs arrive each round. Another will have no reinforcements. One gm will determine a creature can't be reasoned with, another will allow it to be cajoled until it is a pet.
The gm makes countless decisions that may be self percieved as fair and unbiased and true to the setting.
The reality is that a gm helps and screws over characters all the time.
If I wave my magic gm wand and a Lich lord rises up to convert the land from living to dead in a bruatal hoarde of death, am I being 'fair' ?
Its not like there is a fair percentage chance a Lich lord will arise.
Its all on the gm.
I think there is a difference though between a gm who allows his party to win all the time, either by setting up challenges that are deliberately too easy or by fudging midway through an encounter, versus one who tries ot present an acceptible threat of character death to the game. Between the extremes of the GM who is trying to actively kill the party, and the GM who goes easy on the party, i think there is a happy medium where the risk of dying and not succeeding is present (which doesn't have to mean it happens fifty percent of the time, or even twenty percent).
I am not saying it is wrong for the gm to let the pcs win, this is a perfectly acceptable playstyle and one may prefer. But my preference is that characters not be saved (either throu encounter design or fudging) by the Gm. Doesnt mean I want the to send wave after wave of celestial hordes at us, just that I want there to be some reasonable level of risk in the game.
What constitutes fair is somewhat subject. Which is why I said there is an art to it. For me, fairness with encounter selection and event creation has more to do with the GMs reasons for doing things and what kinds of procedures he might follow. If a gm says his aim is to create a world that feels real, so he is going to throw threats with a broad range of challenge at the party, and he consistenlty does so, and everyone going in understands this fron the beginning, i'd call that fair, even if it results in the occassional tpk or character death. If the gm decides he is going to strive for encounters that hit the right level of challenge for the party and makes an honest attempt to do so, I would also regard that as fair (provided his sense of what is an appropriate challenge is not wildly different from mine).
I think whenever you are dealing with the idea of fairness and any kind of referee, you understand there is a human judgment involved and no one is going to be perfect all the time. But that absence of perfection doesn't mean fairness goes out the window. I have gamed with lots of GMs and some I definitely consider more fair than others in their judgment and application of the rules.
Quote from: Bill;667473The gm makes countless decisions that may be self percieved as fair and unbiased and true to the setting.
.
Yes. The way I have always perceived my job is that I am another player, with the PCs. They play their characters. Who do I play?
I am playing the setting.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667487I think there is a difference though between a gm who allows his party to win all the time, either by setting up challenges that are deliberately too easy or by fudging midway through an encounter, versus one who tries ot present an acceptible threat of character death to the game. Between the extremes of the GM who is trying to actively kill the party, and the GM who goes easy on the party, i think there is a happy medium where the risk of dying and not succeeding is present (which doesn't have to mean it happens fifty percent of the time, or even twenty percent).
I am not saying it is wrong for the gm to let the pcs win, this is a perfectly acceptable playstyle and one may prefer. But my preference is that characters not be saved (either throu encounter design or fudging) by the Gm. Doesnt mean I want the to send wave after wave of celestial hordes at us, just that I want there to be some reasonable level of risk in the game.
What constitutes fair is somewhat subject. Which is why I said there is an art to it. For me, fairness with encounter selection and event creation has more to do with the GMs reasons for doing things and what kinds of procedures he might follow. If a gm says his aim is to create a world that feels real, so he is going to throw threats with a broad range of challenge at the party, and he consistenlty does so, and everyone going in understands this fron the beginning, i'd call that fair, even if it results in the occassional tpk or character death. If the gm decides he is going to strive for encounters that hit the right level of challenge for the party and makes an honest attempt to do so, I would also regard that as fair (provided his sense of what is an appropriate challenge is not wildly different from mine).
I think whenever you are dealing with the idea of fairness and any kind of referee, you understand there is a human judgment involved and no one is going to be perfect all the time. But that absence of perfection doesn't mean fairness goes out the window. I have gamed with lots of GMs and some I definitely consider more fair than others in their judgment and application of the rules.
Agreed. I just felt the need to challenge the idea that a gm does not ever let players win just because the gm is setting challenges he feels fit the setting.
Quote from: LordVreeg;667491Yes. The way I have always perceived my job is that I am another player, with the PCs. They play their characters. Who do I play?
I am playing the setting.
I 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'
Quote from: Justin Alexander;667414There are exceptions, but as a general rule: Yes. 99% of the time, the PCs should ultimately succeed at their objects. There will be setbacks and complications along the way, but ultimately they're going to solve the mystery; beat the bad guy; yada yada yada.
GMs who don't approach the game with the expectation that the PCs are going to generally accomplish their goals are going to be fairly atrocious GMs. They're going to create bad scenarios and they're going to run them poorly.
I'm seeing lots of people quibble by claiming that it's not really the GM who is being overcome here or that Sauron didn't lose when Frodo destroyed the One Ring; but this is pure pedantry.
If the GM cannot separate him/her self from elements of the campaign world then you may run into these problems.
Sauron DID lose big time when the ring was destroyed. The part you seem to be missing is that the GM
wasn't Sauron. Sauron is one of the many elements of the game world portrayed by the GM.
If, when all is said and done, victory is 99% assured for the players then there isn't much of a game going on at all. Instead of needing to play with a bit of smarts and brass balls to claim victory, players will simply coast to the finish line unless they actually try to lose.
This IME leads to less engaged players. If players need to pay attention and actually put forth a good effort to win, they will be much more satisfied with thier victory than with one that can be virtually phoned in.
In my campaigns, if the default is ride along and accept whatever, then loss is the usual outcome. If you want to win then play like you want to win. If players don't want to have to think then they don't have to play.
What makes a scenario that is not 99% winnable on autopilot inherently bad? I much prefer scenario difficulty to depend on player action. This means somewhat easy missions can go sideways and the seemingly impossible can sometimes be a piece of cake with a well laid plan. Not knowing how either will turn out from both sides of the screen is why I play and run games.
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'
No, playing the setting means staying somewhat above those considerations. It does not mean ignoring bad play or that you can't reward good play, or ignoring context.
But it does mean always appearing to be playing the setting. It's part of the illusion of preparedness, and it means when the PCs beat whatever setting-scenario you have created, I believe you celebrate with them, the same as you have to commiserate when they have poorly played (or badly rolled) same setting-scenario.
Like 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.
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.
Lots 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.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;667499If, when all is said and done, victory is 99% assured for the players then there isn't much of a game going on at all.
Well, a storygame might be going on.
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.
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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque)
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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque)
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 (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design) 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.
Quote from: LordVreeg;667896Right.
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.
.
Yes, I wouldn't frame it as adversarial. I dont think the GM is there as an opponent, he plays the setting like you say and he supplies the challenges. All I want is for the challenges to be more than foregone conclusions, and for them to be a natural outgrowth of what is going on or true to the feel and nature of the setting.
Quote from: J Arcane;667877The GM's job is to simulate life. Whether the players win or lose at life is up to them.
This is too simplistic to be true. You need a qualifier or three, like 'fictionalized but plausible analog of life'. Simulating life wouldn't be very fun. You'd have to work for a living, for starters. Wounds wouldn't heal completely. Anyone could kill you with a lucky blow at any time.
And that's just applying our reality. A fully realized fantasy world wouldn't be likely to resemble anything from our past, but almost certainly not feudal Europe. That's just the macro level. On the micro level I would expect to see thing grow organically around the 'adventuring' career that's in the genre. For example, there should be shoddy equipment, corpse recovery services, adventurer's insurance, and maybe even specialized bandits that prey on level 1 PCs.
Bill said it best, once you decide 'how many ninjas' you have compromised your impartiality. Consciously or subconsciously, I cannot see how this statement could be false.
Quote from: mcbobbo;667954This is too simplistic to be true. You need a qualifier or three, like 'fictionalized but plausible analog of life'. Simulating life wouldn't be very fun. You'd have to work for a living, for starters. Wounds wouldn't heal completely. Anyone could kill you with a lucky blow at any time.
And that's just applying our reality. A fully realized fantasy world wouldn't be likely to resemble anything from our past, but almost certainly not feudal Europe. That's just the macro level. On the micro level I would expect to see thing grow organically around the 'adventuring' career that's in the genre. For example, there should be shoddy equipment, corpse recovery services, adventurer's insurance, and maybe even specialized bandits that prey on level 1 PCs.
Bill said it best, once you decide 'how many ninjas' you have compromised your impartiality. Consciously or subconsciously, I cannot see how this statement could be false.
Or, you know, maybe you're engaging in reductio ad absurdum on a simple statement not meant as literally as your nerd reflexes want it to be.
Just because a DM's ability to fully simulate a world is limited doesn't mean the goal has to change. That's 'baby with bathwater' talk.
Quote from: mcbobbo;667954Bill said it best, once you decide 'how many ninjas' you have compromised your impartiality. Consciously or subconsciously, I cannot see how this statement could be false.
Certainly a GM can choose the difficulty level for his game, and that's going to impact the success/failure level of the players. Throwing a 1st-level group at Tomb of Horrors is vastly different then sending them into the Dungeon of Monty Haul, for example. I don't think a Game Master has to be from the Neutral Planet (http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Neutral_Planet) in order to see a game out to a decision-based, uncertain conclusion.
But—and I think this is the contention many of us are making here—within the scenario that the GM has laid out, be it a cupcake dungeon or the grimmest of grimdarkness, allowing player/character decisions to ultimately determine success or failure within that campaign or session is less predictable, and more entertaining for many (not all, of course!). This can also grant a sense of heightened tension and suspense, and will make any eventual victory feel more hard-won and precious, especially if you know you've been through the meatgrinder and have lost worthy allies along the way.
This is in contrast to setting things so that the group almost always expects victory or at least reprieve.
In other words, I think the traditional Game Master is not there to ensure the success of the players. He is there to lay out a scene, and use the game rules and his judgment to adjudicate that experience an outcome that has not been predefined.
Again, I really appreciate those taking time to express their opinion as to the other viewpoints on this.
Quote from: mcbobbo;667954Bill said it best, once you decide 'how many ninjas' you have compromised your impartiality. Consciously or subconsciously, I cannot see how this statement could be false.
Spot on. Once you have arbitrarily decided that the PCs WILL be murdered in thier sleep, it doesn't matter if it was 5 or 50 ninjas that did it.
If,however, you are not a dick DM and need to know how many ninjas
attempt to murder the PCs then refer to your notes on the assassins guild, check thier available resources, evaluate thier level of commitment, come up with a reasonable range based on these factors and roll for it.
Quote from: Old One Eye;667416Pffftttt....
A damn fun game can be had where Han and Chewie's players realize the mission is hopeless and fly off to greener pastures while Luke gets toasted on his impossible mission, the Empire destroys the fledgling Rebellion, and Luke's player rolls up a new character to join the Falcon's future adventures.
Yep. That's why having an overall campaign plot isn't necessarily a good idea. In your scenario, Luke's player is going to have a very different sense of the game world than one where his characters fulfill their destinies as a matter of course.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;667499If players need to pay attention and actually put forth a good effort to win, they will be much more satisfied with thier victory than with one that can be virtually phoned in.
In my campaigns, if the default is ride along and accept whatever, then loss is the usual outcome. If you want to win then play like you want to win. If players don't want to have to think then they don't have to play.
That's the way we roll too. Bad play? 30 per cent chance of success (success being most of the party survives and fulfills its goals). Mediocre play? 60 per cent. And that will catch up with you eventually. You want 90 per cent success? Then bear down and play hard. Plan. Prepare. Know when to cut and run. Use your resources and knowledge optimally.
Some examples from our current D&D Next campaign:
The party breaches the arcane protection of an ancient library vault. Exploring the library, they come across a disheveled and wizened old librarian. He draws back in terror and starts casting a spell. The party blasts him down magic missiles and axe-work. They do have the presence of mind to heal him and interrogate him. But their goal of using the library to discover some major background information important to the plot has now diminished considerably. A potential ally has become an enemy.
Later, the party accepts the commission of the local Lord to hunt down an insurgent faction known to operate in a certain neighborhood. Making no effort to disguise themselves, they're ambushed in the streets. Then they find the front for the organization - a quiet inn - and let one lookout escape, and threaten another into fleeing. Then they find a hatchway into the catacombs beneath and set off, leaving an alerted and hostile force behind.
They encounter and defeat some of the rebels in their underground labyrinth, but eventually they're discovered and an alarm is raised. Furthermore, the rebels above-ground are entering the labyrinth in force from two different directions. In the hub chamber, the party detects hostiles from three directions, with three other passages open.
At this point, they've made their bed. They flee into the first quiet tunnel, and they are fortunate that it leads to a hidden exit under the docks. If they had chosen one of the other tunnels, it lead to a dead-end chamber. And they would have been bottled up facing 26 enemy combatants. Considering the fact they had just finished slaying and looting the leaders of the rebels, there would be no mercy shown, and likely a TPK.
It wasn't my job to find a way for the players to escape that labyrinth. They made several strategic and tactical mistakes. They left enemies in their rear. They did not post a lookout. They did not make a cursory exploration of the several passages leading out of the hub before they set forth to take on the rebels. If we had a TPK, it would have been on them. I set them up with the potential for success, and the rest was up to them.
Quote from: Zachary The First;667863I 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.
Maybe it's because we started playing D&D when were really young (10 years old), but it never occurred to my buddies and I to emulate movies or TV shows in our game. We started playing D&D before we were immersed in that kind of stuff. Furthermore, most of my buddies grew out of being geeks by their teens, so geeking pop culture tropes just weren't part of our thinking. D&D was it's own thing. We don't expect our PCs to accomplish the things Luke Skywalker, or Froddo Baggins accomplished. We expect them to try to accomplish the things Krago of the Mountains and Rundell Estercorn did in our formative D&D years - try to survive, level up, get some cool magic items, and have adventures.
Quote from: mcbobbo;667954Bill said it best, once you decide 'how many ninjas' you have compromised your impartiality. Consciously or subconsciously, I cannot see how this statement could be false.
I think it depends on what reason you use to set the number and the reason for the attack in the first place. These sort of things do matter to a player like myself. If the GM sends a bunch of ninjas, doesnt roll any dice, and clearly does it just to "win" well, that is going to feel a bit unfair to me. But if he does it because one of the pcs royally angered the assassins guild, or got int their way, and he sends a number of ninjas that seem to reflect the guilds size, and rolls just like he'd be rolling for us if we were trying to wipe out the ninja's in their sleep, to me that would still be fair provided we understood from the beginning this is the type of campaign it would be (I think that last bit is very important). Again, what constitutes fair is going to vary somewhat from group to group. For others a fair call may be sending a level appropriate number of ninjas.
That isn't to say that people who want a more secure and heroic victory and path for the pcs are wrong or doing it wrong. Far from it. It is just a different style of play.
I feel like folks are saying you either have to accept the GM is always letting the pcs live or always making them die. There is vast middle ground between those two positions.
The point about fairness is you are striving for it, and you try to be as aware as possible of your own biases. Under a microscope, no one is ever going to be 100% fair and impartial, that doesnt mean it is a bad ideal. I find some GMs much more impartial and fair than others, and it is because they make an effort toward it.
I think even a '50% impartial' mark is hubris.
I am not saying it is wrong to try, just that you may be overlooking the big picture.
Every GM leaves fingerprints on his campaigns.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;667964Spot on. Once you have arbitrarily decided that the PCs WILL be murdered in thier sleep, it doesn't matter if it was 5 or 50 ninjas that did it.
If,however, you are not a dick DM and need to know how many ninjas attempt to murder the PCs then refer to your notes on the assassins guild, check thier available resources, evaluate thier level of commitment, come up with a reasonable range based on these factors and roll for it.
As a gm, I never plan to save or kill pc's. A thought process of 'I will not let pc die' or 'I will make sure pc win' is not something that happens in my head.
I would have the assasins guild act much as you describe above. Very reasonable approach. However, the result will not be based on setting integrity.
Because, unless the assasins guild is made up of untrained, unarmed, resourceless children, they would be easily able to destroy a pc party with a setting appropriate attack.
The assasins would:
Use careful planning and strategy to attack at a time when pc's are isolated, disperesed, otherwise unprepared, critically wounded, weak/etc.
Stealth and subterfuge. Pc's won't even know they are there until it is too late.
Pick them off. The pc's will die when they are not all in a pack glued at the hips. Even Sir Gonad the omnipotent does not bathe wearing plate armor.
I don't see how the pc's have any real chance at all without the gm pulling punches.
What happens in practice, in most games I have ever seen the assasins show up in numbers and under conditions that allow the pc's a 'good' chance of victory regardless of the setting integrity.
Otherwise the pcs would just die about every other time anything clever and dangerous is opposed.
Obviously some playstyles have much less deadly combat than others.
Quote from: mcbobbo;667982I think even a '50% impartial' mark is hubris.
I am not saying it is wrong to try, just that you may be overlooking the big picture.
Every GM leaves fingerprints on his campaigns.
I don't think I would go so low as 50%, though I don't think this is something you can qualitify...but sure, GMs are human, as are referees and judges. That is why impartiality is more about the ideal. It being difficult and somewhat subjective, doesn't mean you have to abandon it though, or say all judgments about or efforts toward impartiality are meaningless. It also doesn't mean an impartial judgment is impossible, or rare. It is just still a judgment at the end of the day, and with that comes some room for dispute and disagreement.
For me it boils down to how I answer the question "was that a fair call?" or "was that a fair thing to do?" after the GM makes a judgment or has something occur. With a lot of GMs I can answer yes, well over 90% of the time. To me that is a fair and impartial GM. Obviously one can quibble, one can point out that he is still an imperfect being and was operating from a limited viewpoint, and didn't necessarily consider A, B, or C. To me that takes the concern way beyond what I require as a player from an impartial GM.
It seems to me that the art of GMing is to present obstacles that seem insurmountable but through clever tactics, good roleplaying, and a little luck the players can still probably overcome them. So that every adventure feels like a narrow, hard-fought victory (or sometimes a narrow, unlucky defeat).
Normally I make up complications and obstacles for the PCs without any clear idea of how they could overcome them. I just put in monsters that are immune to all the group's weaponry, etc, and assume that they will come up with some clever way round it on the night. This to me is one of the joys of GMing, watching the players surprise you with their ingenuity.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667972The point about fairness is you are striving for it, and you try to be as aware as possible of your own biases. Under a microscope, no one is ever going to be 100% fair and impartial, that doesn't mean it is a bad ideal. I find some GMs much more impartial and fair than others, and it is because they make an effort toward it.
Fair and impartial is personal preference.
I have found the biggest achilles heel for most Dm(myself included) is we hold all the cards, we see everything that is going on, how the web is connected, etc. Giving the information needed to the players without giving too much or too little is one of the hardest things to do.
When the players come to that no-win situation, you know it won't be won, at this time(or ever), but the players don't. They can only go by what you give them and that has tripped up many a DM
Quote from: soviet;668001It seems to me that the art of GMing is to present obstacles that seem insurmountable but through clever tactics, good roleplaying, and a little luck the players can still probably overcome them. So that every adventure feels like a narrow, hard-fought victory (or sometimes a narrow, unlucky defeat).
Normally I make up complications and obstacles for the PCs without any clear idea of how they could overcome them. I just put in monsters that are immune to all the group's weaponry, etc, and assume that they will come up with some clever way round it on the night. This to me is one of the joys of GMing, watching the players surprise you with their ingenuity.
I think your approach is far better than prescripting 'the way out'.
There may be a risk the players do not come up with a clever solution, but my experience is similar to your own, in that players work miracles.
Quote from: Sommerjon;668003Fair and impartial is personal preference.
I think a key trait of impartial and fair GMs is a willingness to understand things from the played side, and (perhaps most importantly) the ability to recognize when they have not been fair or when they were wrong.
In the situation you describe I think there are two things going on: one is what the group might consider a fair situation or scenario to be (can a no-win or nearly non-winnable emerge in the game, and if so under what circumstances is it regarded as fair). The other is how many clues the players expect fromt he GM. Is there an assumption that when truly dire situations arise, the players will have sufficient warning within the setting. Or is there an assumption that the players are limited by their character's point of view and could wander into such situations unknowingly. A lot of this is preference and I think any assessment of your GMs fairness and impartiality starts with what the groups preferences are.
Quote from: Zachary The First;667863I 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.
Here's the thing: Absolutely nobody said anything about "assigning success to an endeavor ahead of time".
I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume miscommunication was the problem... until multiple people specifically clarified that point and people kept claiming that's what had been said. At that point we're dealing with either illiteracy or mendacity and I don't have a lot of patience for it.
What we're describing is actual behavior at the table:
99% of the time, the forces controlled by the GM will lose and the PCs will win.And thus, yes, if you were drafting up a list of things that describe a GM's job it would be 100% completely correct to include a bullet point that read: "To be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
And if you're pedantic enough that you need to insert a proviso that this is not the entirety of the GM's job and the words "have the forces he controls" inserted after the word "to", more power to you. It doesn't change the fundamental truth of the statement.
As for those in this thread claiming that 20% or 50% or even 70% of their combat encounters end in a TPK? Garbage. Even if we're just talking about encounters that result in a temporary setback before the PCs return for the inevitable, victorious comeback those numbers still look ludicrously high.
And if we're talking about scenario-level outcomes? Please. If you're running a campaign centered around mysteries and 50% of the time the mystery remains completely unsolved... something is seriously wrong at your table.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668026As for those in this thread claiming that 20% or 50% or even 70% of their combat encounters end in a TPK? Garbage. Even if we're just talking about encounters that result in a temporary setback before the PCs return for the inevitable, victorious comeback those numbers still look ludicrously high.
A lot of our scenarios end in failure for the PCs. They don't inevitably mount a victorious comeback. In the session I described above, the party killed the leaders of a the rebellious faction, but they came very, very close to a TPK because of bad tactics. And now they have avenues closed to them (I had originally thought the party would side with the rebels against the lord protector, but now they are firmly in the lord protector's camp). The party made an enemy out of a librarian who was key to uncovering important character goals. They've hitched their wagon to a cunning and ambitious NPC who cannot be trusted. Now their character goals will be far harder to achieve. They may have to come up with new ones.
Even in a simple dungeon adventure, my players often miss the big treasure haul. They didn't look in the right places, or they avoided a particularly tough monster, or took their sweet time getting to the bad guy and he was alerted and fled with the loot.
In my campaigns, there is a wide variability in success rate (in terms of achieving goals, getting loot, and surviving), because there's a wide variability in the amount of skill and intelligence brought to bear by the players in any given session. That's where the 'game' part of RPG lies - the sense of accomplishment in meeting goals when those goals can only be met with shrewd and resourceful play.
"The GM's job is to be defeated by the players" describes some games.
They're pretty far from the hobby game scene I grew up with in the 1970s-80s, but they're common enough today for a blogger to be able to advocate that view as a conventional wisdom.
In the older style of game, the GM's role is to provide a challenging game.
In early RPG campaigns, the GM fairly often was acting mainly like a wargame-campaign GM: as a referee adjudicating interactions among players. At other times, the players were united against an opposition the GM managed; but the emphasis then was on a sense of fairness, not on ensuring players attained whatever victory conditions they chose.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that GM forces lose 99% of the time when my PCs are engaged in mundane negotiations. How do my NPCs 'lose' when determining trade contracts or collaboration on civic projects? Win-wins somehow generate a win-lose somewhere? This is 90+% of my Birthright game right now.
And since opportunity costs exist for every governing action, there's always a PC loss, too. To build a silo in one spot, but not another, and delay expected power broker meetings all in the same month means that every PC governance action comes with requisite success, loss, and complications. How strictly are we defining the nature of PC wins and losses?
This sounds like a ridiculous contention that RPGs are some sort of zero-sum.
I run a no-holds-barred Call of Cthulhu game. I'd say they end in tpk roughly 50% of the time. My players love it, and have on several occasions specifically requested that I keep it that lethal when Ive expressed remorse over interesting characters getting turned into bugs, have their organs dissolved by ray guns, get eaten from the inside out by parasitical swarms, lose their limbs to carnivorous frogs, or simply get into The Box ( "Into the box! Into the box you go! ). As a GM I want my players to succeed. Im rooting for them. But if running Cthulhu has taught me anything, its that my players appreciate 'letting the dice fall as they may' and the sense that they are always in real danger, so when they do survive it feels like a genuine acccomplishment
As one of my players put it "when I lose in your game it feels like winning".
In other words, there is no 'right' answer to this: like most everything to do with rpgs, its about the specific game one's playing and the specific group of people one plays with. More and more Im convinced that these two factors take presedence over everything else, so much so that anyone claiming the way another person online plays is 'wrong' is very much suffering from a self-absorbed ostrich-syndrome.
Quote from: Bill;667290The gm sets the difficulty of any challenge. Therefore, the gm decides if the pc's will win, barring swings of chance.
No challenge is equal to the pc's capabilities, and even then, they would lose half the time.
In my experience, pc win more than half the time.
The gm lets them win.
This suggests the kind of game in which the GM is deciding either
(a) beforehand that the scenario is to attempt to accomplish goal X by means Y
or
(b) ad hoc that the players will succeed at whatever they choose.
This is a very different proposition than the old style of game in which the GM establishes environmental parameters and lets players choose how to interact with them!
In that kind of game, players are successful most of the time because they choose their goals and deploy their resources carefully enough.
Quote from: Opaopajr;668049Win-wins somehow generate a win-lose somewhere?
Zero-sum games -- especially ones that boil down to tactical combat -- seem to have become the sine qua non of role-play gaming in some quarters.
The GM is Crom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crom_%28fictional_deity%29), caring not if the PCs live or die.
One lead-in to the tendency to think this way is no doubt the tendency toward "monolithic party" games: those in which every single player-character is on the same team.
By contrast, in a Gangbusters game we might have half a dozen interested parties with different outcomes in mind for a shipment of Scotch whisky. One or none might get what they want, or some might compromise to get some of what they want.
In a 5-player board game or card game with one winner, one expects (barring exceptional skill) to lose on average about 4 times as often as one wins. Being able to accept this is part of good sportsmanship.
The job of a GM of a monolithic-party RPG can be like that of a video-game designer: presenting a set of challenges that can escalate perhaps indefinitely ("the game that never ends"), dealing the players many defeats along the way.
It may be more common, though, to see the matter as an unfolding of a saga of assured survival and glory for a given set of PCs, the challenging game element appearing only in the details of how they become world-saving heroes (or whatever).
Quote from: ThatOneGM;667776Obviously 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.
Welcome to theRPGSite! The more the merrier.
I see your interpretation of "defeat" is very loose, but makes sense within your context. Not exactly the way I would phrase things as "defeat" conjures very specific meaning to most people in general. But now that you explain it, I see where you are coming from.
I would probably phrase your ideas as PCs are left with "open opportunities to decide." It explcitly states that its not a predetermined set of events, that player choice matters. That way "success" becomes personal, and thus measurable only in a subjective way.
So, PCs who decide to farm cattle in order to worship and placate the red dragon also "succeed," even while "defeat" was completely absent in their approach to the equation. They want to join the dragon's side, so antagonism is the last thing in their approach. Further, just moving away and or ignoring the problem can become a personal measure of "success." In this "success" and "defeat" are unrelated entirely. Again, the relationship to the encounter or knowledge can be set up in a non-diametrically opposed matter, therefore negating the whole idea of equal number of losers to winners.
It's an interesting idea to posit such a vast interpretation of "defeat," but it's just easier to come the other way and note that PCs create their own terms of success.
GMs can offer hooks within a premise, but it's up to players to accept the premise
and the hooks. One can accept the premise and reject the hooks, or flip the script and accept the hook with a new take on the premise. Or reject both and take the game somewhere completely new, depending on GM permission. Organically, any of the above can arise. This openness is namely the purview of a sandbox and other open styles.
Yet many modules set up an assumed antagonistic stance, so its easy to get lost in that assumed framework. But RPGs are far more flexible in their play ability. So such opened definitions derived from such a narrow play framework tend to lose a lot in translation. In the end there's far more cooperation than competition between GM and players, which leads to such definition confusion.
Quote from: Haffrung;668030A lot of our scenarios end in failure for the PCs. They don't inevitably mount a victorious comeback. In the session I described above, the party killed the leaders of a the rebellious faction, but they came very, very close to a TPK because of bad tactics. And now they have avenues closed to them (I had originally thought the party would side with the rebels against the lord protector, but now they are firmly in the lord protector's camp). The party made an enemy out of a librarian who was key to uncovering important character goals. They've hitched their wagon to a cunning and ambitious NPC who cannot be trusted. Now their character goals will be far harder to achieve. They may have to come up with new ones.
What you've listed there, however, is the characters succeeding at everything the characters set out to accomplish. The stuff they've "failed" at is, ironically, only the stuff that you wanted them to do that they never actually considered a goal for themselves.
Quote from: Opaopajr;668049I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that GM forces lose 99% of the time when my PCs are engaged in mundane negotiations.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the mind-numbing pedantry in this thread.
"Ah, well, ya see the PCs because had to use a couple of healing potions after they killed the goblins. So really it's more of a win-loss type of situation."
That's a dumb question.
Disagree.
Justin, I know you've had a bug up your ass the past few days, but your comment addresses absolutely nothing of what I already game.
Fighting goblins and using potions is similar to governance of civic projects and trade deals, how? The sheer resolution framework is not shared; the win-loss structure is meaningless in comparison.
Quote from: Opaopajr;668079Justin, I know you've had a bug up your ass the past few days, but your comment addresses absolutely nothing of what I already game.
Fighting goblins and using potions is similar to governance of civic projects and trade deals, how? The sheer resolution framework is not shared; the win-loss structure is meaningless in comparison.
Some games are necessarily deadly, some are not. And if anyone is including pc death as the only 'loss' delineator, well, my campaigns average a ' loss every 6 months about. But my groups have been excommunicated, stolen from, lied to and convinced to advance the plots of their enemies, lost a hand, etc
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;668009I think a key trait of impartial and fair GMs is a willingness to understand things from the played side, and (perhaps most importantly) the ability to recognize when they have not been fair or when they were wrong.
In the situation you describe I think there are two things going on: one is what the group might consider a fair situation or scenario to be (can a no-win or nearly non-winnable emerge in the game, and if so under what circumstances is it regarded as fair). The other is how many clues the players expect from the GM. Is there an assumption that when truly dire situations arise, the players will have sufficient warning within the setting. Or is there an assumption that the players are limited by their character's point of view and could wander into such situations unknowingly. A lot of this is preference and I think any assessment of your GMs fairness and impartiality starts with what the groups preferences are.
So you're agreeing that fair and impartial is personal preference?
Quote from: Sommerjon;668273So you're agreeing that fair and impartial is personal preference?
I am agreeing that fair is going to mean slightly different things depending on the groups preferences and expectations. I am also saying that to call a person fair and impartial is a judgment. There will usually be room for debate. A the end of the day, in these situations what matter is whether your players regard your overall behavior as Gm to be fair and impartial. Just like with referees and judges.
So a 3E group accustomed to the challenge rating system and going by the book might regard the GM adhering to the CR system when designing encounters fair and impartial. While an old school group more interested in stuff like setting might regard some of the stuff laid out earlier in the thread as more important (being consistent the setting and events within the setting, etc). I do think there are some common things though across these. I think what is most important is whether a given group find their GM to be impartial and fair, not whether someone posting here on this thread does. If we play in a campaign where the stakes are high, where PC death occurs from time to time, there is a let the dice fall where they may, and tpk is a possibility everyone accepts, what is important is that we find the GMs rulings and choices to be fair.
So you're agreeing the fair and impartial is personal/group preference.
Quote from: Sommerjon;668302So you're agreeing the fair and impartial is personal/group preference.
So, you are agreeing that if you, sommerjon, wear a french maid's outfit and have a pineapple regularly shoved up your ass by Rodney Dangerfield that you are indeed Hitler?
Quote from: Sommerjon;668302So you're agreeing the fair and impartial is personal/group preference.
This was not a point I ever disagreed with. My only point was that it is possible to run a game where there is risk of character death and failure, and be fair about it.
I would add, I think impartiality is much more of an objective thing than fairness. That is much more conisistent across game styles I believe. Regardless of what type of campaign or group I am in, my expectations of impartiality will stay the same, but my expectations of fairness may change.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668026As for those in this thread claiming that 20% or 50% or even 70% of their combat encounters end in a TPK? Garbage. Even if we're just talking about encounters that result in a temporary setback before the PCs return for the inevitable, victorious comeback those numbers still look ludicrously high.
And if we're talking about scenario-level outcomes? Please. If you're running a campaign centered around mysteries and 50% of the time the mystery remains completely unsolved... something is seriously wrong at your table.
This bit just strikes me as weird. For example, if fights are every three or four sessions and have a high fail rate, then that's an entirely different animal from having three or four fights a session and a high fail rate. I have no doubt that in some campaigns, the opposition wins the day more than 1% of the time in combat.
And scenarios often have multiple objectives. A game with some social, mystery, and combat elements can easily have low success rates in total. Party solves the mystery but the perp evades capture? Party fails to solve the mystery but prevents the crime or disaster? Party solves mystery (or prevents some disaster) in a way that turns the law against them? There's a lot of wiggle room for mixed levels of success with multiple concurrent objectives.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668026Here's the thing: Absolutely nobody said anything about "assigning success to an endeavor ahead of time".
I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume miscommunication was the problem... until multiple people specifically clarified that point and people kept claiming that's what had been said. At that point we're dealing with either illiteracy or mendacity and I don't have a lot of patience for it.
What we're describing is actual behavior at the table: 99% of the time, the forces controlled by the GM will lose and the PCs will win.
And thus, yes, if you were drafting up a list of things that describe a GM's job it would be 100% completely correct to include a bullet point that read: "To be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
And if you're pedantic enough that you need to insert a proviso that this is not the entirety of the GM's job and the words "have the forces he controls" inserted after the word "to", more power to you. It doesn't change the fundamental truth of the statement.
As for those in this thread claiming that 20% or 50% or even 70% of their combat encounters end in a TPK? Garbage. Even if we're just talking about encounters that result in a temporary setback before the PCs return for the inevitable, victorious comeback those numbers still look ludicrously high.
And if we're talking about scenario-level outcomes? Please. If you're running a campaign centered around mysteries and 50% of the time the mystery remains completely unsolved... something is seriously wrong at your table.
You sound a bit upset. Its ok that you fudge your ass off while other s run a fair game. Its a personal preference after all.
You know, setting aside the fact for a moment that PCs may full well fail repeatedly outside of combat (as they certainly do in my games), I went back to my notes from one of our longer-running games of the past few years, a Rolemaster campaign that lasted over a year. I count 14 major combats (there were some minor skirmishes I’ll leave out). Of these, I note the following:
-The group was forced to retreat after attempting to hold a fortress against a rampaging band of kobolds. It was a valiant defense, but still a loss in the campaign’s war.
-The entire party blundered into a trap of the Charming Villain’s Elegant Dinner Party routine, falling prey to a mixture of poison and bludgeoning weapons. They were stripped of all possessions and sent into slavery.
-Attempting to intimidate an army that vastly outnumbered them, the (unarmored) leader of the group tried trash-talking a bloody-minded, fully-armored knight. As a result, the leader ended up with a lance through the head, the party was shot full of arrows, and had to flee into a nearby abandoned town to attempt to somehow recover.
-In the fight with the Big Bad Evil Guy at the end of the campaign, one player sacrificed himself to destroy their foe, after two players had suffered what appeared to be mortal injuries taking him down (one was, the other was healed in time). Additionally, they did not totally destroy their foe’s spirit, meaning in the massive scheme of things, he could still return! That’s a partial victory, sort of an “at what cost?” question, I suppose. I will say we still talk about that combat very fondly—both players who lost their PCs, and those who survived.
That doesn’t mention notes in other combats, where the party was generally successful, but suffered some manner of setback. It also doesn’t note there were three player characters killed in other combat actions or outside of combat proper.
Right there, in major combats, the PCs failed (or at least partially failed) in four of fourteen overall, pivotal combats. That’s over a quarter of their major combats ending in less than total victory. Yet the campaign went wonderfully, despite even the final outcome being somewhat of a gray area.
If I had the philosophy that I was just there to be a success enabler for my players--that I was only there to be defeated, rather than carefully set up a scenario that could go either way, that required skill to succeed--I don't think those successes would have been as meaningful or entertaining to any of us.
If we go back to counting skills and goals outside of combat, I’m sure my players do not normally succeed on 99% of attempts to be diplomatic, to haggle, to bluff, etc. So no, my characters are not going to succeed in 99% of their actions, whether you take that to mean combat, overall conflict, or any other mark you wish to choose. That's just how we game.
100% fair is attainable, within normal human caveats.
100% impartial is not.
They're not the same, and indeed conflict in some ways. For example, swap the word "impartial" with the word "apathetic", and ask "is it fair of me to simply not care about the outcome of this challenge I am designing?"
Because if you care, even a little, then we have to start eroding that high ground.
Quote from: mcbobbo;668499100% fair is attainable, within normal human caveats.
100% impartial is not.
They're not the same, and indeed conflict in some ways. For example, swap the word "impartial" with the word "apathetic", and ask "is it fair of me to simply not care about the outcome of this challenge I am designing?"
Because if you care, even a little, then we have to start eroding that high ground.
What if you care about all possible outcomes equally?
What if this possibility of multiple different outcomes was kind of a "thing" that made you like RPGs in the first place?
Quote from: Benoist;668501What if you care about all possible outcomes equally?
What if this possibility of multiple different outcomes was kind of a "thing" that made you like RPGs in the first place?
Bingo.
I care about outcomes because they affect the whole campaign and game world. I do not care to know the outcome beforehand. If I did then I wouldn't need players.
Quote from: mcbobbo;668499100% fair is attainable, within normal human caveats.
100% impartial is not.
They're not the same, and indeed conflict in some ways. For example, swap the word "impartial" with the word "apathetic", and ask "is it fair of me to simply not care about the outcome of this challenge I am designing?"
Because if you care, even a little, then we have to start eroding that high ground.
I can accept no one is 100% impartial. But to me that doesn't mean its pointless to strive for in the type of game I am describing. If you ever competed in sporting events, you know full impartiality is impossible (refs are human) but ideally the referees are as impartial as they can be and try to hold their bias in check. I like the GM to be someone i regard as impartial and to feel their judgments are fair. I also understand they are human and won't view the occassional odd call as the end of the world. So I find a game run by such a person, with a reasonable amount of risk and deadliness, to be more enjoyable than a campaign where the characters are more protected by the GM. Doesn't make any other style worse or less in the spirit of the game. Just disputing the notion that what I enjoy is not possible. It's impossible only of your standards of impartiality and fairness demand 100% unflawed judgment all the time. GMs are human, just like referees and judges.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668026Here's the thing: Absolutely nobody said anything about "assigning success to an endeavor ahead of time".
I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume miscommunication was the problem... until multiple people specifically clarified that point and people kept claiming that's what had been said. At that point we're dealing with either illiteracy or mendacity and I don't have a lot of patience for it.
What we're describing is actual behavior at the table: 99% of the time, the forces controlled by the GM will lose and the PCs will win.
And thus, yes, if you were drafting up a list of things that describe a GM's job it would be 100% completely correct to include a bullet point that read: "To be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
And if you're pedantic enough that you need to insert a proviso that this is not the entirety of the GM's job and the words "have the forces he controls" inserted after the word "to", more power to you. It doesn't change the fundamental truth of the statement.
As for those in this thread claiming that 20% or 50% or even 70% of their combat encounters end in a TPK? Garbage. Even if we're just talking about encounters that result in a temporary setback before the PCs return for the inevitable, victorious comeback those numbers still look ludicrously high.
And if we're talking about scenario-level outcomes? Please. If you're running a campaign centered around mysteries and 50% of the time the mystery remains completely unsolved... something is seriously wrong at your table.
OK I'm going to do this once. Not because I particularly care about an answer - I know you're going to be dishonest and redefine stuff to shape the likeness of this argument at your own convenience and/or foam at the mouth calling me illiterate or hypocritical again - but because honestly, I think that kind of total bullshit is just a reductio ad absurdum that needs to die in a fire, and I feel like actually delivering a retort for this one time. So forgive me if I veer a little off into a kind of "best of Justin Alexander's recent bullshit" medley territory here.
When you are eye-balling challenges in preparing for a game, you do have a rough idea of what kind of outcomes and courses of actions are possible, and yet at the same time, there is a vast grey area between certain failure and obvious victory where the outcomes become kind of unsure - this is this grey area that normal people will call "a challenge", because you actually have to make an effort get the outcome you want out of the resolution of the action.
When you are eye-balling for a 99% sure win for the PCs in your game, you aren't shooting for a "challenge". You're basically shooting for story telling time, as you admitted with your very first post on this thread (one of your very first posts) when you immediately started making comparisons with movies and novels about how "Sauron lost" and "Luke Skywalker not blowing the Death Star would make for a poor story" or whatever that was.
Some people don't play role playing games with that goal in mind. In fact, some people find this kind of game play annoying, because waiting 99% of the game at the table cruising through situations which have been pre-arranged and pre-determined as almost-auto-win-unless-the-players-are-mentally-retarded to finally get to the ACTUAL challenge is fucking boring to these guys.
Some people play role playing games because they are interested in the multiple outcomes occurring from multiple situations in the game, and how these outcomes affect further developments of situations and outcomes as far as their characters and the world around them are concerned. There is success, failure, and a whole excluded middle of Pyrrhic victories and flights to live another day and avoidance and parleys and deals and bluffs and surrenders and clues half understood and short term resolutions with long term failures and how understanding half of what's really going on behind the Elysium's halls in the City by Night after years of game play is actually a huge fucking reward in and of itself etc etc (see Zachary's post above (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=668472&postcount=111) for a sample of what I'm actually talking about), and all those sorts of things going on in actual play.
Implying that there's this binary win/lose series of outcomes to situations in the game by declaring that the "GM should be defeated 99% of the time" is dumb. Hell, reducing any particular challenge as only being able to be addressed by direct confrontation certainly is dumb as well. It's the sort of argument written by people in love with their theoretical thinking, spherical cows and all that sort of thing. People like you, Justin. It's dumb because it's so reductive as to be misinterpreted by pretty much anyone who reads it, especially those gamers who've never seen anything else in their gaming experience than games catering to their fragile egos by declaring their characters "heroes" unable to die because it'd be "unfair". If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you'd know that, and you would concentrate on a better mean to actually say what you want to say while making yourself understood rather than resort to obfuscation and word games as you are right now.
That's what is dumb about this whole thing.
That's like the whole bullshit about "OD&D is a story game". If you are half as smart as you think you are, this sort of crap should be beneath you, kind of like me getting frustrated at a bunch of whiners on the forums should be beneath me.
The thing that I find bizarre is that judging by some of your essays you can be more than that. But somehow, you just love to call people "illiterate" and go on raging rants arguing excluded middles like you do here, or just reading things patently wrong, just to play games with people, as you did by consciously muddying the waters between a game (OD&D) written explicitly as a framework for people to bash and reshape however they see fit to their heart's content (see afterword in volume 3) versus another game that is explicitly written for the GM to "follow the rules" and be boxed into specific "moves" as per Forge thinking that "System Matters", or when you misquoted, partially, on purpose, page 9 of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide and made dummies believe that this sentence "And while there are no optionals for the major systems of Advanced D&D (for uniformity of rules from game to game, campaign to campaign, is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system" actually means that "the DM has to follow the rules and is only allowed to express his creativity when it's not bounded by the parameters of the game system", which, I'm sorry to say, is not what this sentence actually means, on one hand (for someone calling other people "illiterate" that's a kicker), and is not reflective of the actual expectations for use of the AD&D game system's framework, on the other.
I know you've never understood AD&D First Edition. I didn't know until recently that you never really understood OD&D either. When you are making specific misreading of posts like you did here on this thread, when you make excluded middle arguments like you did here, misquote stuff in order to score points, make appeals of authority to the ignorant masses by blatantly misrepresenting stuff about games you are supposed to know, like say OD&D, or Dungeon World where you misrepresented moves (yes, I've read Dungeon World too) and who's actually choosing between possible outcomes on a partial success, you have no high ground calling people "illiterate".
There used to be a time when you made regularly good points in conversations. Sure, you melted a fuse once in a while, but who doesn't on the RPG Site, right? Now these actual good points are getting rarer and rarer. Almost non-existent. It's all drowned into spite and lies and misrepresentations and calling people "illiterate" when you willfully misconstrue the actual meaning of sentences yourself with your partial quotings and your truncated examples.
You should be better than that. I certainly should be better than that. Which is why I left the thread and didn't answer earlier. But now... well. I just thought I would give you an idea about the manner in which my respect for you has gone way down over the last few weeks.
Alright. Enough of that now. I'm going to get back to work, ignore you and your buddies' whining and ranting and antics, and return to talking about actual gaming now.
Good day, Justin.
I may never be 100% impartial to everything in life, but in the context of an RPG I have no problem making 100% impartial judgements as a referee.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668070What you've listed there, however, is the characters succeeding at everything the characters set out to accomplish. The stuff they've "failed" at is, ironically, only the stuff that you wanted them to do that they never actually considered a goal for themselves.
I had anticipated they would take a certain course, but it wasn't really a success/loss kind of thing. I didn't want them to do anything, I had only expected a choice on their part. Now I'm rolling with the choice they made, but it will be tougher now for them to achieve the character goals they chose themselves.
Also, you skipped the bit where they had several passages to choose to flee into, two of which would have almost certainly led to TPKs. I'd call that a loss, and a loss that would have been entirely their own responsibility owing to careless play. I suppose if they took passage #4 I could have played it so it led to an exit instead of a dead-end barracks. But that's not the way I run the game.
I get that it's fun to see players succeed, to see a grand story unfold, to reach high-level play and achieve world-saving deeds. But not at the cost of the kind of lackadaisical, complacent attitude that sets in once the players get the sense that they have plot immunity and ultimate success awaits them regardless of their choices. Tension is a crucial element of the kind of game we enjoy, and you can only sustain that tension when bad play results in bad consequences, and players are highly incentivized to buckle down and bring their A-game every time they sit down at the table.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668593I may never be 100% impartial to everything in life, but in the context of an RPG I have no problem making 100% impartial judgements as a referee.
If this is true, then be proud. It's an achievement that makes you quite the snowflake.
As evidence that many GMs have to work towards it, and rarely would achieve it at all, I refer you to the vast amounts of text in the 'how to GM' arena.
If you're really perfect at this, then you should write your own advice texts.
If you maybe don't feel qualified to do so, or believe it "isn't that hard" then we're having communication issues.
Quote from: Zachary The First;668472You know, setting aside the fact for a moment that PCs may full well fail repeatedly outside of combat (as they certainly do in my games), I went back to my notes from one of our longer-running games of the past few years, a Rolemaster campaign that lasted over a year. I count 14 major combats (there were some minor skirmishes I'll leave out). Of these, I note the following:
-The group was forced to retreat after attempting to hold a fortress against a rampaging band of kobolds. It was a valiant defense, but still a loss in the campaign's war.
-The entire party blundered into a trap of the Charming Villain's Elegant Dinner Party routine, falling prey to a mixture of poison and bludgeoning weapons. They were stripped of all possessions and sent into slavery.
-Attempting to intimidate an army that vastly outnumbered them, the (unarmored) leader of the group tried trash-talking a bloody-minded, fully-armored knight. As a result, the leader ended up with a lance through the head, the party was shot full of arrows, and had to flee into a nearby abandoned town to attempt to somehow recover.
-In the fight with the Big Bad Evil Guy at the end of the campaign, one player sacrificed himself to destroy their foe, after two players had suffered what appeared to be mortal injuries taking him down (one was, the other was healed in time). Additionally, they did not totally destroy their foe's spirit, meaning in the massive scheme of things, he could still return! That's a partial victory, sort of an "at what cost?" question, I suppose. I will say we still talk about that combat very fondly—both players who lost their PCs, and those who survived.
That doesn't mention notes in other combats, where the party was generally successful, but suffered some manner of setback. It also doesn't note there were three player characters killed in other combat actions or outside of combat proper.
Right there, in major combats, the PCs failed (or at least partially failed) in four of fourteen overall, pivotal combats. That's over a quarter of their major combats ending in less than total victory. Yet the campaign went wonderfully, despite even the final outcome being somewhat of a gray area.
If I had the philosophy that I was just there to be a success enabler for my players--that I was only there to be defeated, rather than carefully set up a scenario that could go either way, that required skill to succeed--I don't think those successes would have been as meaningful or entertaining to any of us.
If we go back to counting skills and goals outside of combat, I'm sure my players do not normally succeed on 99% of attempts to be diplomatic, to haggle, to bluff, etc. So no, my characters are not going to succeed in 99% of their actions, whether you take that to mean combat, overall conflict, or any other mark you wish to choose. That's just how we game.
and that is what my point was earlier. winning is not surviving, losing is not just dying, and most good sessions have lots in between that a good GM makes matter.
To the author of the statement in the OP: Welcome to theRPGsite!
That said, you're quite wrong. The "job" of the GM is to create a credible virtual world. No more, no less.
To imply "defeat" is to suggest there is a contest between the GM, who is in essence God, and the PCs, over whom if he wished to he could have absolute power. There is no such contest; the GM's job is to be a "clockmaker deity". Whether the PCs live or die, win or lose, is up to how they deal with the realities of the world they inhabit.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668971To the author of the statement in the OP: Welcome to theRPGsite!
That said, you're quite wrong. The "job" of the GM is to create a credible virtual world. No more, no less.
To imply "defeat" is to suggest there is a contest between the GM, who is in essence God, and the PCs, over whom if he wished to he could have absolute power. There is no such contest; the GM's job is to be a "clockmaker deity". Whether the PCs live or die, win or lose, is up to how they deal with the realities of the world they inhabit.
RPGPundit
The reason this doesn't actually work is that the DM doesn't create
everything and then adjudicate it fairly.
The idea of a clockmaker deity is that after winding up creation, no further intercession is required. There is no daily adjusting of the planets in their orbits, or creating a new globular cluster that didn't exist before.
Conceiving of an entire world in perfect detail before the first session of a game is not only impossible - it's not even desirable. Since DMs modify/create/detail their world in an ongoing process, such a strict 'sit back and watch' can never work.
So, as the DM modifies/creates/details their world in reaction to the PCs, their general goal is to create a 'challenging scenario'. A challenging scenario by definition is one that the PCs
could lose, or
cold win. In the role of arbiter, the DM doesn't need to take any steps to ensure one or the other (but he totally COULD), but as a friend and fellow-at-the-table, the DM should hope that the PCs overcome such challenges in a way that creates stories that are shared for years to come. Failing that, he should hope that the failure is epic enough that stories are told for years. Basically, if the players are entertained by the challenge, you've won.
In a strict 'by-the-numbers' accounting, PCs should 'win' more than they 'lose'. Winning is at least moving on to a new scenario usually no worse than they were before - they may not have accomplished all of their goals, but the world wasn't destroyed, either.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;669001So, as the DM modifies/creates/details their world in reaction to the PCs, their general goal is to create a 'challenging scenario'. A challenging scenario by definition is one that the PCs could lose, or cold win. In the role of arbiter, the DM doesn't need to take any steps to ensure one or the other (but he totally COULD), but as a friend and fellow-at-the-table, the DM should hope that the PCs overcome such challenges in a way that creates stories that are shared for years to come. Failing that, he should hope that the failure is epic enough that stories are told for years. Basically, if the players are entertained by the challenge, you've won.
.
Lots of GMs base their decision on what creation/modification/etc to add, on different criteria. A challenging scenario is one consideration. A good plot or adventure another. Another would be creating something that is internally consistent and feels like a living world. And there are more than these three. Most GMs are probably a combination of different ones when making decisions. But I would be cautious about assuming that all people want the GM to "hope that the PCs overcome such challenges in a way that creates stories that are shared for years to come" or find that the best criteria for a fun game. I find it more exciting when the outcome is less certain, and for me that means I prefer it when the GM doesn't hope for my success, but lets the dice fall where they may.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the approach you describe. I have run many games that way and am in many games that take that approach (and I would wager it is one of the most popular styles of play). It just isn't the only way to play the game. That really is my only point here. There are some of us who do prefer it when the GM is not personally invested in the outcomes as much. Where the GM is just as content to be suprised by the direction of the campaign, instead of worrying about making it the right amount of pacing, excitement, etc.
It is true GMs are human, they are never going to every attain any kind of deistic clockmaker ideal. But that doesn't mean the ideal itself cannot guide a GM's judgement. And since the GM is the source of all things in the settings, if he is consistently true to his judgment on what constitutes a real and living setting, that actually forms a pretty solid basis for experiencing a real and living setting as a player character. So my way of looking at it when I am in a game, is it may not be an actual living world, that is truly objective in the full sense of the word, but it is often my GMs attempt to consruct such a world, and that is good enough for me.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;669001The reason this doesn't actually work is that the DM doesn't create everything and then adjudicate it fairly.
The idea of a clockmaker deity is that after winding up creation, no further intercession is required. There is no daily adjusting of the planets in their orbits, or creating a new globular cluster that didn't exist before.
Conceiving of an entire world in perfect detail before the first session of a game is not only impossible - it's not even desirable. Since DMs modify/create/detail their world in an ongoing process, such a strict 'sit back and watch' can never work.
So, as the DM modifies/creates/details their world in reaction to the PCs, their general goal is to create a 'challenging scenario'. A challenging scenario by definition is one that the PCs could lose, or cold win. In the role of arbiter, the DM doesn't need to take any steps to ensure one or the other (but he totally COULD), but as a friend and fellow-at-the-table, the DM should hope that the PCs overcome such challenges in a way that creates stories that are shared for years to come. Failing that, he should hope that the failure is epic enough that stories are told for years. Basically, if the players are entertained by the challenge, you've won.
In a strict 'by-the-numbers' accounting, PCs should 'win' more than they 'lose'. Winning is at least moving on to a new scenario usually no worse than they were before - they may not have accomplished all of their goals, but the world wasn't destroyed, either.
Also, you are talking of perception vs reality.
I agree with everything you say, but all of the above is heightened and enhanced by the Illusion that the GM
has prepared everything. From here (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design).
First Corollary of the Third Rule
"It is the interesting task of the GM to create a feel in the world that everything, every event-chain, is happening around the PCs without the least concern whether the PCs join or not, while in reality making sure the game and these event chains are actually predicated on PC volition." and
Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design
"The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion. Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position. The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability.I actually root for my players. I look at their setbacks as interesting setbacks for the storyline, since my games tend to go on and on, which I consider one sign that I have at least done something right with my two main live groups. But it is important for the integrity of the game that no one is trying to win over the others, there is no GM or player 'defeat', they play their characters, I play the part of the rest of the world, we all play together. And while I could never hope to or want to create everything and cover every circumstance in my notes, I take a lot of pride that the PCS don't ever know when they are traveling from well prepared to less prepared or even unprepared.
Of course, I am a big believer in creating a large background of notes and backstory so as to have more to cross-reference and build off of. The more you have created, the easier it is to create consistently, so to speak.
Quote from: LordVreeg;669009Also, you are talking of perception vs reality.
I agree with everything you say, but all of the above is heightened and enhanced by the Illusion that the GM has prepared everything. From here (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design).
First Corollary of the Third Rule
"It is the interesting task of the GM to create a feel in the world that everything, every event-chain, is happening around the PCs without the least concern whether the PCs join or not, while in reality making sure the game and these event chains are actually predicated on PC volition."
and
Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design
"The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion. Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position. The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability.
I actually root for my players. I look at their setbacks as interesting setbacks for the storyline, since my games tend to go on and on, which I consider one sign that I have at least done something right with my two main live groups. But it is important for the integrity of the game that no one is trying to win over the others, there is no GM or player 'defeat', they play their characters, I play the part of the rest of the world, we all play together. And while I could never hope to or want to create everything and cover every circumstance in my notes, I take a lot of pride that the PCS don't ever know when they are traveling from well prepared to less prepared or even unprepared.
Of course, I am a big believer in creating a large background of notes and backstory so as to have more to cross-reference and build off of. The more you have created, the easier it is to create consistently, so to speak.
Those are some interesting guidelines.
I would add that failure can be good. It adds depth to characters and enhances the flavor of a campaign. While it is great when the players solve the mystery and save the princess, the times when they don't figure things out and the princess dies as a result, can lead down paths that are just as exciting if the GM is open to them.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;669012Those are some interesting guidelines.
I would add that failure can be good. It adds depth to characters and enhances the flavor of a campaign. While it is great when the players solve the mystery and save the princess, the times when they don't figure things out and the princess dies as a result, can lead down paths that are just as exciting if the GM is open to them.
Agreed. Success means more after failure.
Or delayed gratification can help. My PCs in the Igbarian Campaign have been trying to find the daughter of the couple that runs the Alternative School of Magic in Igbar, who was lost some 130 days past in game time, but since 2006 real time. It has been a real secondary quest and has colored many social and political events in Igbar for the players. They are sort of to blame for her disappearance (since they released the Vampyre that destroyed the Blue Turtle outpost they had started). They found evidence a few times, but just rescued her the session before last. There was much rejoicing. We had some wine.
Yeah, I've never bought into this whole 'Haha, we defeated the GM/broke his or her game' thing, and the title of the OP is pretty much the mirror image of that. I mean, why would the GM try to defeat the players, or vice versa? It just doesn't make sense. As other posters have said, it's not a competition; an RPG is a game where one of the participants has more or different agency, which can be pretty much summed up by the following:
Quote from: One Horse Town;667281The GM's job is to put up ducks for the players to knock down. Whether they can or not is where the game comes in.
Sure, there's often a bit of good-natured joshing, with the players occasionally saying things like 'Hee hee, we defeated the monster that the GM lined up to kill us', or the GM saying 'Damn, you killed my monster' in mock frustration, but I don't see that as in any way part of a process of the players deliberately
trying to defeat the GM, or vice versa. No, disagree, 100%.
Quote from: catty_big;669049Sure, there's often a bit of good-natured joshing, with the players occasionally saying things like 'Hee hee, we defeated the monster that the GM lined up to kill us', or the GM saying 'Damn, you killed my monster' in mock frustration, but I don't see that as in any way part of a process of the players deliberately trying to defeat the GM, or vice versa. No, disagree, 100%.
That's not what i meant, but i really can't be arsed to clarify.
Edit: That sounded rude, sorry. Just not got time for a lengthy back and forth at present.
Quote from: One Horse Town;669053That's not what i meant, but i really can't be arsed to clarify.
Edit: That sounded rude, sorry. Just not got time for a lengthy back and forth at present.
No problem. Perhaps it's me who should have clarified. What I thought you were saying was that the GM putting up ducks for the players to shoot down didn't constitute the GM trying to 'defeat' the players. This quote might be a better restatement of my views:
Quote from: Benoist;667276My job is to run the environment fairly. That means there is a milieu that exists outside the influence of the PCs, that the PCs come in contact with it by exploring the unknown, investigating stuff, going "out there," impact it, and the environment answers in kind. I'll do my best to play the undead mindless, the orcs as dumb, the evil magic user as a smart guy. And if they want to kill you, they're going to try their best (whatever that means as far as they're concerned) to do just that. It's up to you to survive.
And apologies Benoist if I've misinterpreted your post also. Maybe it's enough to say that I agree with both of you :).
Quote from: catty_big;669065And apologies Benoist if I’ve misinterpreted your post also. Maybe it’s enough to say that I agree with both of you :).
No, no, it's alright. I agree with what you've been saying. Actually...
Quote from: catty_big;669049Sure, there's often a bit of good-natured joshing, with the players occasionally saying things like 'Hee hee, we defeated the monster that the GM lined up to kill us', or the GM saying 'Damn, you killed my monster' in mock frustration, but I don't see that as in any way part of a process of the players deliberately trying to defeat the GM, or vice versa. No, disagree, 100%.
I do this a lot. The comments like "Crap you bastards survived AND killed my cool NPCs, but I am going to get revenge!" Going "ooh" and "aaah" when rolling dice... I do this a lot, followed by laughter, winks, fists raised to the heavens so the Gods of Gaming are going to grant me the TPK I seek! (LOL) It's actually part of the game aspect for me, and yeah, there's that friendly competition thing kicking in when you role play these confrontations but that's the thing: I am in the moment cheering for the bad guys and teasing the players when we're in the confrontation, but the game as a whole is not a competition, and I as GM am actually not the players' opponent. It's a layered thing were you are actually playing WITH the players on the macro level, which also implies role playing bad guys and good guys competing AGAINST each other, and us cheering for our respective sides and taunting each other at the immediate tactical level and all that,
at the same time, AS WELL.
I feel sorry for people who can't understand this sort of thing. It's like not having a sense of humor, you know? Actually, it's pretty darn close to it, like you'd be some Margo in
The Good Life always missing the jokes or taking them too seriously.
(http://www.automaticwasher.info/TD/AWJPEG/VINTAGE/2012/launderess++9-19-2012-22-57-13.jpg)
Quote from: Benoist;669072It's a layered thing where you are actually playing WITH the players on the macro level, which also implies role playing bad guys and good guys competing AGAINST each other, and us cheering for our respective sides and taunting each other at the immediate tactical level and all that, at the same time, AS WELL.
This is the point. The GM is operating on two levels, the macro- manipulating the gameworld- again, not really working
against the players as such- and the micro- playing the game sort of alongside the players. It's actually a very interesting role, but let's not get into 'What is a GM/What's the GM's role?' or we'll be here all night. Then again...
And dude, playing a game with Margot as GM? Scary, scary scary. I think I'd just say 'Er, so you want that big horrible ogre to kill me, even though he's clearly fatally wounded and I'm armed to the teeth? Sure, ok, whatever you say, just don't give me that withering putting up with idiots look.
Quote from: Benoist;668518OK I'm going to do this once. Not because I particularly care about an answer - I know you're going to be dishonest and redefine stuff to shape the likeness of this argument at your own convenience and/or foam at the mouth calling me illiterate or hypocritical again
It would be really unfortunate for anyone to be dishonest in this thread. Thankfully, I think we're all capable of--
QuoteWhen you are eye-balling for a 99% sure win for the PCs in your game
Oops. My mistake.
Well, let me know if you ever want to discuss something I actually said.
I mean, you're actually responding to a post in which I specifically said that I wasn't saying the thing that you just specifically claimed that I said.
You don't want me to call you illiterate or stupid or hypocritical? Fine. Give me some other explanation for what you just did here.
Quoteyou immediately started making comparisons with movies and novels about how "Sauron lost" and "Luke Skywalker not blowing the Death Star would make for a poor story" or whatever that was.
It should be noted that this is more stuff I never said. (Although I think some of that might have been said by someone else in the thread. It's possibly you're conflating their statements with what I said about assumption of the main character's success not resulting in a people being disinterested in a given piece of media. So at least in this case there's at least a possibility that you're just making an honest mistake
Quote from: Exploderwizard;668467You sound a bit upset. Its ok that you fudge your ass off while other s run a fair game. Its a personal preference after all.
I'll extend you the same courtesy I just extended to Benoist: You're claiming that I said something I clearly did not say.
My assumption is that you're stupid, illiterate, or dishonest. Possibly all three. If you have some other explanation for your behavior here, however, I'm more than willing to hear it.
Really can't see why there is a big argument.
You design a scenario the players can "beat".
Designing one they can not beat is just poor GMing.
Building a CoC game where the cultists really are secretive and have vast resources such that the PCs don't even know what is going on until the Old Gods have already risen from Sea is going to get old fast.
Building a game where the 1st level PCs have a week to steal the mcGuffin from a Lich king ...likewise.
You might build a "world" but within that world there will places that the PCs can find appropriate challenges. If there aren't any then your deisgn is flawed.
Once that is done you play the bad guys to the best of their ability, you don't pull punches you don't hold back you play them as part of a fully realised and ongoing world.
The best outcome of the game is for the players to just about succeed by the skin of their teeth. To have been pushed to the limits but just scrape through. Some PCs may perish some bad guys may get away to fight another day, some challenges may have been too strong and were avoided, but the players as a whole 'win'.
The alternative to that is a TPK or the universe being destroyed by an insane Dworkin, the Lords of Darkholm or He Who's Name Can Not Be Spoken.
The other arguments over 99% sucess or the GM just runs a world as accurately as they can or the CR levels need to be correct as defiend on page blah blah or whatever are just window dressing to the main event.
There is a setting that feels alive and immersive the players meet challenges and in the end they overcome them.
So I am with the OP.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;669118You don't want me to call you illiterate or stupid or hypocritical? Fine. Give me some other explanation for what you just did here.
Well, you could explain to me how you saying that the GM lets the players "win" 99% of the time and that "we all know that at the end the players are going to save the world, find the princess, etc" actually doesn't mean that you're eye-balling encounters to be auto-wins provided the players aren't mentally retarded...
Quote from: Justin Alexander;669121I'll extend you the same courtesy I just extended to Benoist: You're claiming that I said something I clearly did not say.
My assumption is that you're stupid, illiterate, or dishonest. Possibly all three. If you have some other explanation for your behavior here, however, I'm more than willing to hear it.
... My mistake. It was just a rhetorical trick. I should have known better. Nevermind.
Of course the GM can't map out every area and plan every contingency before starting the game; that would be an attempt at "realism" and I agree that's impossible.
However, when I said the GM was like a "clockmaker god", what I meant is that the GM sets up the overall structure of his world, he creates the "rules"; not in the sense of mechanics of the RPG, but in the sense of what the setting is all about, and what are the major areas and events transpiring. As the game proceeds, everything that "emerges" from the GM's point of view should be a natural progression from that skeletal structure, and/or the result of the PCs interacting with the setting and the things in the setting in accordance with those predetermined rules.
So regardless, the GM's role has nothing to do with the PC party "winning" or "losing".
RPGPundit
Quote from: Justin Alexander;669121I'll extend you the same courtesy I just extended to Benoist: You're claiming that I said something I clearly did not say.
My assumption is that you're stupid, illiterate, or dishonest. Possibly all three. If you have some other explanation for your behavior here, however, I'm more than willing to hear it.
It is quite possible that you talk directly out of your ass so much that you forget what it says and are thus actually surprised to hear what came out of it. Lets re-cap.:
Quote from: Justin Alexander;667414There are exceptions, but as a general rule: Yes. 99% of the time, the PCs should ultimately succeed at their objects. There will be setbacks and complications along the way, but ultimately they're going to solve the mystery; beat the bad guy; yada yada yada.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668026What we're describing is actual behavior at the table: 99% of the time, the forces controlled by the GM will lose and the PCs will win.
And thus, yes, if you were drafting up a list of things that describe a GM's job it would be 100% completely correct to include a bullet point that read: "To be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
So was your account hijacked or did you really post this?
Quote from: RPGPundit;669213However, when I said the GM was like a "clockmaker god", what I meant is that the GM sets up the overall structure of his world, he creates the "rules"; not in the sense of mechanics of the RPG, but in the sense of what the setting is all about, and what are the major areas and events transpiring. As the game proceeds, everything that "emerges" from the GM's point of view should be a natural progression from that skeletal structure, and/or the result of the PCs interacting with the setting and the things in the setting in accordance with those predetermined rules.
As I tried to say upthread, in most games even this framework is tilted towards the PCs being successful. If it wasn't, it would be a crap setting for the game. Compare a typical village with a tavern and a dungeon nearby to any given spot on the plane of fire. Where do you start the campaign?
It's from this point of view that I challenge the notion of impartiality. Not that you can't then be consistent and fair. You clearly can. But from the very beginning you are making adjustments to the playing field that the real world doesn't make. It is a form of bias.
Quote from: Phillip;668057This suggests the kind of game in which the GM is deciding either
(a) beforehand that the scenario is to attempt to accomplish goal X by means Y
or
(b) ad hoc that the players will succeed at whatever they choose.
This is a very different proposition than the old style of game in which the GM establishes environmental parameters and lets players choose how to interact with them!
In that kind of game, players are successful most of the time because they choose their goals and deploy their resources carefully enough.
My point is that the gm is fudging the resource allocation of the enemy, and rationalizing that it is because of setting integrity.
Its not impartial until the 'combat starts'
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668026Here's the thing: Absolutely nobody said anything about "assigning success to an endeavor ahead of time".
I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume miscommunication was the problem... until multiple people specifically clarified that point and people kept claiming that's what had been said. At that point we're dealing with either illiteracy or mendacity and I don't have a lot of patience for it.
What we're describing is actual behavior at the table: 99% of the time, the forces controlled by the GM will lose and the PCs will win.
And thus, yes, if you were drafting up a list of things that describe a GM's job it would be 100% completely correct to include a bullet point that read: "To be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved."
And if you're pedantic enough that you need to insert a proviso that this is not the entirety of the GM's job and the words "have the forces he controls" inserted after the word "to", more power to you. It doesn't change the fundamental truth of the statement.
As for those in this thread claiming that 20% or 50% or even 70% of their combat encounters end in a TPK? Garbage. Even if we're just talking about encounters that result in a temporary setback before the PCs return for the inevitable, victorious comeback those numbers still look ludicrously high.
And if we're talking about scenario-level outcomes? Please. If you're running a campaign centered around mysteries and 50% of the time the mystery remains completely unsolved... something is seriously wrong at your table.
Agreed. In MOST campaigns, pc success is highe rthan 70%.
(Paranoia and Call of Cthulu style games are perhaps a special case)
I maintain that even a gm like myself that strives for impartiality and setting integrity still fudges the challenges to place them 'in the ballpark' of the pc's most of the time.
Most settings can't have Integrity and challenges that are 'in the ballpark': mutually exclusive logically.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669249It's from this point of view that I challenge the notion of impartiality. Not that you can't then be consistent and fair. You clearly can. But from the very beginning you are making adjustments to the playing field that the real world doesn't make. It is a form of bias.
I disagree. Setting consistency isn't bias. Pick a world, any world. In most of them, there will be areas of danger and areas with a higher degree of safety.
If you create a character from the pastoral heartland where there is little to any conflict and a character from the outermost frontier where every day is a fight to survive hostile neighbors, the environment and the local fauna, and create them using the exact same rules, you aren't being impartial, you're being inconsistent. A farmer from Brythunia or Cormyr is not going to be the same as a barbarian from Cimmeria or the Icewind Dale.
The characters and the danger should match the setting. If your first adventure for a beginning group of WFRP characters is to have them hop a barge to Kislev so they can explore the Chaos Wastes, you're just being an idiot, because almost no one does that. However, the Old World is famously one of the more brutal settings (it's Grim and Perilous doncha know) so your characters might have to fend off a Beastmen attack every single time they take a road through the forest from town to town (and nearly all the roads are through the forest).
If your going to start a RQ6 Hyborian campaign in the Bossonian Marches on the Black River where the settlers have to worry daily about raids by bandits or Picts, then you probably want to either make the characters native to the area and season them up a bit in chargen to be consistent and reflect that tougher childhood, or make them younger or new to the area, which will be a tougher campaign.
Both are consistent, and neither one is partial or biased. Yeah there are times and places where innocent unprepared people get caught up in severe conflict, but unless you're playing Grey Ranks or your characters enjoy extreme challenge, you don't have to be biased to have a campaign where the players can realistically and consistently survive without being squashed unless protected.
If every civilized place on the world could be wiped out at any minute by a marauding dragon or chaos invasion, there would be no civilized places. People like to trot out the canard of Apocalyptic Dragons, Evil Gods, etc... but when you posit that the world does in fact exist, you accept the conceit that for some reason this does not happen with any frequency or there would be no campaign.
Again, though, if you were truly impartial, consistent wouldn't matter. The fact that it is requisite for a 'good game' tells us a lot.
I know most folks are not as loose with the vocabulary as I am, so feel free to swap out the word bias as fits your own needs. But you DO get the point, yeah?
Because next I'd ask what '%' of partiality is acceptable, if due to the setting/genre.
It's a whittling tactic, and I hope you can anticipate where it's headed. Maybe?
Quote from: mcbobbo;669249It's from this point of view that I challenge the notion of impartiality. Not that you can't then be consistent and fair. You clearly can. But from the very beginning you are making adjustments to the playing field that the real world doesn't make. It is a form of bias.
A referee choosing to act as a "Clockmaker God" in running his games can do several things after the players do something.
He can always go with the most likely outcome in his judgment.
He could pick say the top likely outcomes and roll randomly between them.
He could pick one of the probable outcomes based on some arbitrary criteria.
Of these three the first two are without bias. The technique can be easily used by the average referee. This is what I believe the Pundit is describing.
The latter fits more what you are talking about and many referees do this including myself. The question then becomes what is the bias? Some referee makes their choices negatively based on some whim, an idea of what ought to happen, or some out of game issue. Other referees base their decision something more positive like what is more interesting, or fun.
I personally look at all the PROBABLE outcomes and pick the one that most interesting. Interesting being defined as the one that leads to more adventures. Or more accurate to where the PCs have more choices for adventures.
However with that being said many times there is only one probable outcome and in that case I will go with it even if it an unpleasant outcome including a total party kill.
This is because while I view the point of playing a RPG is to have adventures, the THRILL of playing an RPG is the risk from knowing that mistakes or circumstances can result in the death of your character. Without that the game loses something important and is no longer as interesting.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669292Again, though, if you were truly impartial, consistent wouldn't matter. The fact that it is requisite for a 'good game' tells us a lot.
I know most folks are not as loose with the vocabulary as I am, so feel free to swap out the word bias as fits your own needs. But you DO get the point, yeah?
Because next I'd ask what '%' of partiality is acceptable, if due to the setting/genre.
It's a whittling tactic, and I hope you can anticipate where it's headed. Maybe?
The way I see it, if you're playing a roleplaying game, then setting consistency being required is axiomatic. How can you achieve IC immersion in a setting that is inconsistent? The ideas are antithetical.
As far as acceptable goes, if at the end of the day, your players are engaged and enjoying the game, you did your job.
If that means they Roflstomped the bad guy because that's how your players roll, good for you.
If that means they got TPK'd by a crazyass random encounter in a dangerous area, but that means they'll appreciate the characters that live and thrive all the more because thats how your players roll, good for you.
Pick any topic on this board that people have ever fought over and most of the disagreements would end if people realized that any statement they make like "The GM's job is to be defeated by the players." really means "The GM's job
at our table is to be defeated by the players."
Nods to the 'at my table', for sure.
But even the most consistent isn't enough so that it would fit my ideal of the word impartial.
Imagine an established setting where everyone was playing humans. A new player walks up and wants to be an elf. Since no one ever said there weren't any elves, you add some in some remote corner of the known world and say the player comes from there.
That's the inconsistency I see. They weren't there before because you didn't need them. But now that they fill an unforeseen need you've changed things behind the scenes. Your players will never know, but ultimately you must agree that a change here was made.
I believe every GM does this, but feel free to claim you never do.
Anyway looking at the choice above (player wants elf) we can see huge opportunities for bias from one source or another. Fantasy typically has them (positive bias), but you don't like them (negative bias), and so on. Judgement is the result of this internal conflict.
Finally as to letting the dice decide, that too is inconsistent unless you're using Mythic or similar to do this all the time. Even using a table would be subject to the inherent bias of that table's author (who set not only the options but their size) and you're complicit in that by using it.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669317Nods to the 'at my table', for sure.
But even the most consistent isn't enough so that it would fit my ideal of the word impartial.
Imagine an established setting where everyone was playing humans. A new player walks up and wants to be an elf. Since no one ever said there weren't any elves, you add some in some remote corner of the known world and say the player comes from there.
That's the inconsistency I see. They weren't there before because you didn't need them. But now that they fill an unforeseen need you've changed things behind the scenes. Your players will never know, but ultimately you must agree that a change here was made.
I believe every GM does this, but feel free to claim you never do.
Anyway looking at the choice above (player wants elf) we can see huge opportunities for bias from one source or another. Fantasy typically has them (positive bias), but you don't like them (negative bias), and so on. Judgement is the result of this internal conflict.
Finally as to letting the dice decide, that too is inconsistent unless you're using Mythic or similar to do this all the time. Even using a table would be subject to the inherent bias of that table's author (who set not only the options but their size) and you're complicit in that by using it.
I see what you're saying, but something like PC Elves is always decided by me beforehand. I tell people what they can or can't make up, or I give them a chance to roll for something special (experience has taught me that someone coming in cold with an expectation of a unique character isn't going to be a good thing).
Sure there might be minor things, but honestly, I do always ask myself if it's actually possible or even probable that such a thing could occur and if not then my answer is "No." You're not playing a Mandarin Chinese in Spears of the Dawn, unless I've decided beforehand that for some reason there are Mandarin Chinese here. Sorry.
My approach isn't for everyone. When it comes to world consistency I take my time and I can be a hardass, but
my roleplayers at least love it, yours might not.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669292Again, though, if you were truly impartial, consistent wouldn't matter. The fact that it is requisite for a 'good game' tells us a lot.
I know most folks are not as loose with the vocabulary as I am, so feel free to swap out the word bias as fits your own needs. But you DO get the point, yeah?
Because next I'd ask what '%' of partiality is acceptable, if due to the setting/genre.
It's a whittling tactic, and I hope you can anticipate where it's headed. Maybe?
Impartiality doesn't mean that much to me. I generally take it a bit easy on the PCs and never go hard-core on them.
It's just that if the 1st level party decides to charge the orc horde head on, I have no problem letting the orc horde surround and slaughter them.
It's fun when the players use their wits to defeat the DM and their monsters.
Tonight the party came to a room with sarcophagi, opened one... a dwarven mummy! They killed it with fire, not before it struck Minsk the warrior and infected him with the dread mummy rot.
The party withdrew to camp and Minsk returned to town to get a cure disease, complete with orders to get "a barrel, a rock drill and a funnel."
They returned to the room of the sarcophagi, with the party sitting on the lid as the mummy battered away trying to escape, the wizard drilled holes in the sarcophagus. cackling wildly as he did so, poured in pitch and lit it. While other sarcophagi did not have the party on them, they used the lids from the slain mummies to weight down the other lids. Then cast hold portal, removed the extra lids, drilled holes, etc.
In this way a 2x 3rd level fighters, a 2nd level MU and a 3rd level cleric (along with a henchman and some men-at-arms) slew six mummies.
You don't get that sort of creativity in any fucking communist story-game. Necessity is the mother of invention, in a standup fight the party would have been... well, mummy rot.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;669461It's fun when the players use their wits to defeat the DM and their monsters.
Tonight the party came to a room with sarcophagi, opened one... a dwarven mummy! They killed it with fire, not before it struck Minsk the warrior and infected him with the dread mummy rot.
The party withdrew to camp and Minsk returned to town to get a cure disease, complete with orders to get "a barrel, a rock drill and a funnel."
They returned to the room of the sarcophagi, with the party sitting on the lid as the mummy battered away trying to escape, the wizard drilled holes in the sarcophagus. cackling wildly as he did so, poured in pitch and lit it. While other sarcophagi did not have the party on them, they used the lids from the slain mummies to weight down the other lids. Then cast hold portal, removed the extra lids, drilled holes, etc.
In this way a 2x 3rd level fighters, a 2nd level MU and a 3rd level cleric (along with a henchman and some men-at-arms) slew six mummies.
You don't get that sort of creativity in any fucking communist story-game. Necessity is the mother of invention, in a standup fight the party would have been... well, mummy rot.
It is fun, and it is, in my book, the example of the PCs and GM playing together.
One of the issues with some versions of RPGS that we've all talked about is mechanics that encourage the PCs to think from a less immersed, metagame perspective. IN the case of the example above, the mechanic that could have gotten in the way from in-game logic was 'level-appropriate encounter'. But it looks like Kyle had designed his adventure by logic, the PCs thought there way through the issue, and had a great time.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669289I disagree. Setting consistency isn't bias. Pick a world, any world. In most of them, there will be areas of danger and areas with a higher degree of safety.
If you create a character from the pastoral heartland where there is little to any conflict and a character from the outermost frontier where every day is a fight to survive hostile neighbors, the environment and the local fauna, and create them using the exact same rules, you aren't being impartial, you're being inconsistent. A farmer from Brythunia or Cormyr is not going to be the same as a barbarian from Cimmeria or the Icewind Dale.
The characters and the danger should match the setting. If your first adventure for a beginning group of WFRP characters is to have them hop a barge to Kislev so they can explore the Chaos Wastes, you're just being an idiot, because almost no one does that. However, the Old World is famously one of the more brutal settings (it's Grim and Perilous doncha know) so your characters might have to fend off a Beastmen attack every single time they take a road through the forest from town to town (and nearly all the roads are through the forest).
If your going to start a RQ6 Hyborian campaign in the Bossonian Marches on the Black River where the settlers have to worry daily about raids by bandits or Picts, then you probably want to either make the characters native to the area and season them up a bit in chargen to be consistent and reflect that tougher childhood, or make them younger or new to the area, which will be a tougher campaign.
Both are consistent, and neither one is partial or biased. Yeah there are times and places where innocent unprepared people get caught up in severe conflict, but unless you're playing Grey Ranks or your characters enjoy extreme challenge, you don't have to be biased to have a campaign where the players can realistically and consistently survive without being squashed unless protected.
If every civilized place on the world could be wiped out at any minute by a marauding dragon or chaos invasion, there would be no civilized places. People like to trot out the canard of Apocalyptic Dragons, Evil Gods, etc... but when you posit that the world does in fact exist, you accept the conceit that for some reason this does not happen with any frequency or there would be no campaign.
That is nearly all dead right except for a couple of things
i) When we create worlds we DO create level appropriate places and we don't do that because its a consistent world we do it for in game reasons. We simply do. we think what population might have encroached on the human lands and we decide goblins, we don't decide Hill giants whereas Hill giants actually would be more likely to move onto human lands with rich pickings as they would be less likely to find a sufficiently calorific diet in the well... Hills. (unless we change the ecology of a Hill giant and make them solitary creatures instead of social humanoids but I digress)
Pretending that we don't make world building decisions based on the fact that we are trying make an enjoyable game is a bit silly.
ii) You are correct that we accept civilisation exists and therefore for it to exist the monsters are held in check by something but often when we set our adventures that axiomatic truth is the thing that is being challenged, Winter is coming, The Dark is Rising, the Nine are Abroad a Shadow Grows in the East (why never the West eh... ). Again that is part of the conciet. The party are regular Joes but a number of strange events in the neighbourhood and of sounds at night have caused them to take an interest in the old Burns House, could rumours of the events of 20 years before be true afterall....
We don't tend to set our games at the point in which the great battle between good and Evil is tomorrow, certainly not when we have a campaign arc.
Now full on Sandbox games are fine, but we mustn't assume they are the only games out there. I am running one now with no overarch plot or Great Shadow in the background, but I suspect my next game will be more plot focused to give the players some variety and the last one was a murder mystery.
So I would argue that we do create settings that the party can beat and that is fine because unbeatable scenarios would be boring.
Quote from: jibbajibba;669474So I would argue that we do create settings that the party can beat and that is fine because unbeatable scenarios would be boring.
Yes! It's part of the social contract in your typical game, and that's how I read the original statement from the very start.
Quote"The GM's job is to be defeated by the players"
In my opinion the GM's job is to
engage and
entertain the players. No more, no less.
Quote from: jibbajibba;669474That is nearly all dead right except for a couple of things
i) When we create worlds we DO create level appropriate places and we don't do that because its a consistent world we do it for in game reasons. We simply do. we think what population might have encroached on the human lands and we decide goblins, we don't decide Hill giants whereas Hill giants actually would be more likely to move onto human lands with rich pickings as they would be less likely to find a sufficiently calorific diet in the well... Hills. (unless we change the ecology of a Hill giant and make them solitary creatures instead of social humanoids but I digress)
Pretending that we don't make world building decisions based on the fact that we are trying make an enjoyable game is a bit silly.
ii) You are correct that we accept civilisation exists and therefore for it to exist the monsters are held in check by something but often when we set our adventures that axiomatic truth is the thing that is being challenged, Winter is coming, The Dark is Rising, the Nine are Abroad a Shadow Grows in the East (why never the West eh... ). Again that is part of the conciet. The party are regular Joes but a number of strange events in the neighbourhood and of sounds at night have caused them to take an interest in the old Burns House, could rumours of the events of 20 years before be true afterall....
We don't tend to set our games at the point in which the great battle between good and Evil is tomorrow, certainly not when we have a campaign arc.
Now full on Sandbox games are fine, but we mustn't assume they are the only games out there. I am running one now with no overarch plot or Great Shadow in the background, but I suspect my next game will be more plot focused to give the players some variety and the last one was a murder mystery.
So I would argue that we do create settings that the party can beat and that is fine because unbeatable scenarios would be boring.
First off, I think you are missing the excluded middle. I think that a good setting designer does both to some degree. I am not saying you are completely off, but after a while doing this, I believe better settings have the in-game logic to support things like settlement placement, humanoids, adventures, etc. I think a good designer can do it for setting consistency and game reasons. (probably why I always have my humanoids living in mixed groups)...
Quote from: LordVreeg;669481First off, I think you are missing the excluded middle. I think that a good setting designer does both to some degree. I am not saying you are completely off, but after a while doing this, I believe better settings have the in-game logic to support things like settlement placement, humanoids, adventures, etc. I think a good designer can do it for setting consistency and game reasons. (probably why I always have my humanoids living in mixed groups)...
I think this is basically the point. There is a huge spectrum here, and groups really can exist in a number of places on that spectrum. There is no one approach that will work for everyone. And folks are going to have different feelings about lethality, unwinnable scenarios, the most desirable level of challenge in a game, etc. How much the GM wieghs setting consistency and issues of playability/challenge/level appropriateness is also going to vary a lot from one group to the next. Like you say, most probably blend both of these considerations. Playability and Believability can be blended in this way.
I've GMd for groups who basically want victory handed to them, or who want death off the table for PCs, and I have gamed with people who don't consider it a good night's fun unless there is a good chance of the PCs facing lethal threats. I've gamed with folks who want a living world that just reacts in the most plausible manner possible. I have also gamed with groups who expect all encounters to follow the CR system strictly, including using encounter formulas to maximize fairness and excitement (and I happily did so since that is what the group prefered). I do not see any of these approaches as wrong, and I certainly do not see any of them as impossible either.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669478Yes! It's part of the social contract in your typical game, and that's how I read the original statement from the very start.
It may have been the intent of the OP but the presentation of that premise wasn't what was stated. There is a difference between providing a setting in which the PCs
can claim victory and one in which the PCs will win 99 times out of 100 by default.
Kyle's example is evidence of this difference. The setup was, by the metagame numbers, a TPK just waiting to be sprung. If you sat by yourself in the basement and ran the numbers against each other then the PCs might have had a 1 in 100 chance to win, maybe not even that much.
The party won anyway against the "unfair" scenario. The victory wasn't defaulted to the PCs if they ran the standard "just fight it" playbook. The scenario
was winnable though, with a clever effort.
The original premise of this thread would never permit such a scenario because not only was victory not almost automatic, it was virtually impossible under standard conditions. The PCs could have just as easily all been slaughtered in this scenario.
There is a huge gap between definitions of "winnable". There is winnable by default requiring no real thinking, and winnable IF the players can think of a solution to do so.
The benefit of having real human players in these scenarios is that they can do things like Kyle's group that are outside of the original scenario programming and achieve things way beyond what mere mechanics are able to. Basing maximum scenario difficulty on what can be achieved strictly by the numbers is assuming a table full of lobotomized players incapable of action beyond pushing pre-programmed response buttons on a character sheet.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;669484I
There is a huge gap between definitions of "winnable". There is winnable by default requiring no real thinking, and winnable IF the players can think of a solution to do so.
That's it in a nutshell. And it was likely lots of experience with encounters that were statistically 'unfair' that gave Kyle's players the skill and resourcefulness to think outside the box and overcome those sorts of challenges.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;669484It may have been the intent of the OP but the presentation of that premise wasn't what was stated. There is a difference between providing a setting in which the PCs can claim victory and one in which the PCs will win 99 times out of 100 by default.
Kyle's example is evidence of this difference. The setup was, by the metagame numbers, a TPK just waiting to be sprung. If you sat by yourself in the basement and ran the numbers against each other then the PCs might have had a 1 in 100 chance to win, maybe not even that much.
The party won anyway against the "unfair" scenario. The victory wasn't defaulted to the PCs if they ran the standard "just fight it" playbook. The scenario was winnable though, with a clever effort.
The original premise of this thread would never permit such a scenario because not only was victory not almost automatic, it was virtually impossible under standard conditions. The PCs could have just as easily all been slaughtered in this scenario.
There is a huge gap between definitions of "winnable". There is winnable by default requiring no real thinking, and winnable IF the players can think of a solution to do so.
The benefit of having real human players in these scenarios is that they can do things like Kyle's group that are outside of the original scenario programming and achieve things way beyond what mere mechanics are able to. Basing maximum scenario difficulty on what can be achieved strictly by the numbers is assuming a table full of lobotomized players incapable of action beyond pushing pre-programmed response buttons on a character sheet.
And a game where the players and GM are playing together works to enable players to think outside the box.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;669484There is a huge gap between definitions of "winnable". There is winnable by default requiring no real thinking, and winnable IF the players can think of a solution to do so.
Exactly right.
One of the players commented that "wouldn't we get less xp for the monsters because it wasn't a standup fight?"
I explained, no. The xp are for
defeating the creatures. If you defeat them in a standup fight because of your sheer badarsedness, you learn something. If you defeat them from sheer luck of the dice, you learn something. If you defeat them through smarts, you learn something.
"Most importantly," I added, "xp give incentive for player behaviour. If you got less xp by being smart, that would encourage you to be stupid and just stand toe-to-toe bashing everything, and this would be boring as we just rolled the dice a million times. I prefer a game where you are encouraged to use your brains, this is more entertaining."
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;669538Exactly right.
One of the players commented that "wouldn't we get less xp for the monsters because it wasn't a standup fight?"
I explained, no. The xp are for defeating the creatures. If you defeat them in a standup fight because of your sheer badarsedness, you learn something. If you defeat them from sheer luck of the dice, you learn something. If you defeat them through smarts, you learn something.
"Most importantly," I added, "xp give incentive for player behaviour. If you got less xp by being smart, that would encourage you to be stupid and just stand toe-to-toe bashing everything, and this would be boring as we just rolled the dice a million times. I prefer a game where you are encouraged to use your brains, this is more entertaining."
I kind of agree, but then there are characters that don't quite mesh with that.
I played a cleric that was dumb as box of rocks, but did his best to rid the world of evil.
Should he get less xp for being simple minded?
Quote from: Bill;669553I kind of agree, but then there are characters that don't quite mesh with that.
I played a cleric that was dumb as box of rocks, but did his best to rid the world of evil.
Should he get less xp for being simple minded?
That's why I have different types of EXP. I give Roleplay experience as well. I agree with Kyle's example, but I also give exp for this
Quote from: Bill;669553I kind of agree, but then there are characters that don't quite mesh with that.
I played a cleric that was dumb as box of rocks, but did his best to rid the world of evil.
Should he get less xp for being simple minded?
Why would he? If he does his best and his best gets results whats the problem?
As Exploderwizard says, results count.
If you defeat the foe and get the loot, you're a successful adventurer. How you achieve that is up to you.
Anyway, player smarts is different to Intelligence and Wisdom scores for their character. Low cunning is not represented by Int and Wis. That's why a fighter doesn't need high Int - their class gives them tactical skills. You don't need Int 18 to lay an ambush.
Of course, you may choose to play your character as a mindless brute and then complain when they fail. But that's just the old, "but I'm just playing my character!" line that everyone hates. Don't do that.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669249As I tried to say upthread, in most games even this framework is tilted towards the PCs being successful. If it wasn't, it would be a crap setting for the game. Compare a typical village with a tavern and a dungeon nearby to any given spot on the plane of fire. Where do you start the campaign?
It's from this point of view that I challenge the notion of impartiality. Not that you can't then be consistent and fair. You clearly can. But from the very beginning you are making adjustments to the playing field that the real world doesn't make. It is a form of bias.
There is a certain "bias" in how the campaign is set up; but what we're actually talking about here is regarding how the GM interacts with the players/PCs once that world comes to life. And again, there, his priority is supposed to be the effective emulation of the world within its parameters, rather than the success or failure of the PCs.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;669594Of course, you may choose to play your character as a mindless brute and then complain when they fail. But that's just the old, "but I'm just playing my character!" line that everyone hates. Don't do that.
The key is "and then complain".
There is a place in our hobby for mindless brutes and more generally for playing characters who don't always make good choices, Fate even rewards that mechanically, but as a player you have to be grown up about it and be aware of when it is appropriate and when it isn't.
Or in other words, by all means play your character to the hilt, just make sure you create the right kind of character for the sort campaign that is being planned or don't join that game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;669666There is a certain "bias" in how the campaign is set up; but what we're actually talking about here is regarding how the GM interacts with the players/PCs once that world comes to life. And again, there, his priority is supposed to be the effective emulation of the world within its parameters, rather than the success or failure of the PCs.
RPGPundit
Not sure I agree that that was the point of the OP quote.
Like I said you build an adventure than can be beaten , with NPCs etc that have real goals and objectives and are as realised as possible.
Then you play those NPCs to the best of their abilities to achieve those objectives and 'beat' the PCs.
However, the best outcome for the game is that you fail in that attempt, but only just.
Just because the OP quote states "The GM's job is to be defeated by the players" that does not imply that he GM should roll over or gift the players easy wins or play the enemy like they were useless canon fodder, and if you read his comments and detail of the idea you will see he isn't proposing that at all.
Quote from: jibbajibba;669670However, the best outcome for the game is that you fail in that attempt, but only just.
I would say the best outcome for the game would be that everyone had a good time win or lose.
Its also highly a group preference thing. If the table wants the results to be fair, whatever the consequences then the DM provides the best outcome by doing that.
The GM's job is to fetch the beer.
Quote from: jibbajibba;669670Not sure I agree that that was the point of the OP quote.
Like I said you build an adventure than can be beaten , with NPCs etc that have real goals and objectives and are as realised as possible.
Then you play those NPCs to the best of their abilities to achieve those objectives and 'beat' the PCs.
However, the best outcome for the game is that you fail in that attempt, but only just.
Just because the OP quote states "The GM's job is to be defeated by the players" that does not imply that he GM should roll over or gift the players easy wins or play the enemy like they were useless canon fodder, and if you read his comments and detail of the idea you will see he isn't proposing that at all.
No, but where I have my issue is this attitude that the NPCs are all out to 'beat' the players any more than the GM is. Sometimes the NPCs are helpful, or neutral, or have their own agenda.
I had this conversation decades ago with a GM who ran stupid killer dungeons, etc, back in the late 70s or early 80s, and I still find it a counterproductive perspective.
They play the PCS, the GM plays the rest of the world, we play together.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;669581Why would he? If he does his best and his best gets results whats the problem?
My point was that a characater may be 'less effective' as some would define such a thing, due to roleplay. Some have suggested xp based on effectiveness.
Quote from: TristramEvans;669693The GM's job is to fetch the beer.
If my players tried this with me I'd use the trip to dream up plausible ways they could fail...
:)
Quote from: Bill;669713My point was that a characater may be 'less effective' as some would define such a thing, due to roleplay. Some have suggested xp based on effectiveness.
And we are sick in and twisted in this!
But actually, playing the character instead of the player gains some exp as well.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669718If my players tried this with me I'd use the trip to dream up plausible ways they could fail...
:)
We use the wine cellar. Not too much beer. And if I let the players do it, they'll wait until they don't think I am looking and start hitting the good vintages. Or the very good vintages.
Quote from: Bill;669713My point was that a characater may be 'less effective' as some would define such a thing, due to roleplay. Some have suggested xp based on effectiveness.
Why would he be less effective?
If you choose as a player to not play your character effectively for whatever reason and,as a result enjoy less success as an adventurer then you might not get as much XP.
Since such a result would be self imposed why would you not be satisfied with lesser rewards? Being less effective was the goal after all. You would be getting what you wanted.
Getting tangible mechanical results from your actions seems to be all the rage these days and being a doofus and accomplishing less would result in less XP giving you the results you were shooting for.
Player Character may also be MORE effective due to RPing and character skills. If a player isn't really a strategist, but he has high strategy/tactics skill, I'll give him advice how to handle the situation.
There's a certain focus that roleplaying = taking less advantageous decisions, but in my opinion, it should cut both ways. If you play a High Int Low Con wizard, you can avoid danger, but you should also be advised by GM where to find best scrolls. Those examples are lacking, I know, but you get the gist.
There's so many alternate suggested methods to XP in AD&D 2e that I think all bases are covered. Other games just leave it up to GM discretion. But I go back to all those 2e ideas and keep it in mind whenever I use my GM discretion. So it's rarely an issue of being "my favorite" to get anything from my discretion. (Unless you bring snacks and goodies... I may be bribed by a well-timed cheeto. :p)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;669728Why would he be less effective?
If you choose as a player to not play your character effectively for whatever reason and,as a result enjoy less success as an adventurer then you might not get as much XP.
Since such a result would be self imposed why would you not be satisfied with lesser rewards? Being less effective was the goal after all. You would be getting what you wanted.
Getting tangible mechanical results from your actions seems to be all the rage these days and being a doofus and accomplishing less would result in less XP giving you the results you were shooting for.
So you think a fighter with an 6 Intelligence should get less xp than one with an 18?
Because unless you don't roleplay, one guy is going to ber far less effective.
In any case, I have never found tracking/doling out xp to be of any use whatsoever. It's really a waste of time.
Even worse, it promotes metagamethinking.
Int 6 has little to do with contribution or roleplay. It's the player's response to the PC's stat that determines that.
If a player reads Int 6 as man of action, sticking with what he knows, and volubly hammering every nail he recognizes, that's roleplay.
If a player reads Int 6 as an uneducated rube, relating any old rural tidbits to situations at hand, that too is roleplay.
If a player reads Int 6 as shy simpleton, positioning close to smart people as they solve things, mimicking them later, and shows a general timidity in their own thinking when lives are at stake, that is also roleplay.
So what are you thinking about? Someone who sees Int 6 as time to turn off one's brain until combat starts? That's just being rude to fellow participants, as an Int 6 is not the only time you see that.
Or perhaps you are thinking about someone who doesn't speak until spoken to, and then in monosyllabic one-word responses? I think even that is conscious roleplay, because of how hard that makes accomplishing things. To maintain that in roleplay is actually a lot harder than spitting out a good plan now and then.
Quote from: Bill;669784So you think a fighter with an 6 Intelligence should get less xp than one with an 18?
Nope.
Quote from: Bill;669784Because unless you don't roleplay, one guy is going to ber far less effective.
Umm.....nope.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;669538One of the players commented that "wouldn't we get less xp for the monsters because it wasn't a standup fight?"
I explained, no. The xp are for defeating the creatures. If you defeat them in a standup fight because of your sheer badarsedness, you learn something. If you defeat them from sheer luck of the dice, you learn something. If you defeat them through smarts, you learn something.
"Most importantly," I added, "xp give incentive for player behaviour. If you got less xp by being smart, that would encourage you to be stupid and just stand toe-to-toe bashing everything, and this would be boring as we just rolled the dice a million times. I prefer a game where you are encouraged to use your brains, this is more entertaining."
This is a difference I noticed between old treasure-oriented D&D and later "encounter" oriented games.
Getting the treasure (or accomplishing some other objective) to score XP gives the players a lot of freedom in choosing means to the end.
The point total can be an assessment of the larger situation, rather than a sum of discrete steps along any one approach.
A player might think of something one cannot, and one might learn to adjust in anticipation of players able to outhink one, but basically the difficulty of coming up with crafty solutions can be part of the assessment.
By contrast, if the potential XP value (or just the majority of it) is the sum of "encounters," then avoiding those is counter-productive. Optimal strategy is to run into as many monsters, traps or other point-worthy complications as possible! I've seen players get into a "clear the level" mode, their only objective killing for the sake of killing (actually for the sake of XP).
Quote from: Phillip;669821This is a difference I noticed between old treasure-oriented D&D and later "encounter" oriented games.
Getting the treasure (or accomplishing some other objective) to score XP gives the players a lot of freedom in choosing means to the end.
The point total can be an assessment of the larger situation, rather than a sum of discrete steps along any one approach.
A player might think of something one cannot, and one might learn to adjust in anticipation of players able to outhink one, but basically the difficulty of coming up with crafty solutions can be part of the assessment.
By contrast, if the potential XP value (or just the majority of it) is the sum of "encounters," then avoiding those is counter-productive. Optimal strategy is to run into as many monsters, traps or other point-worthy complications as possible! I've seen players get into a "clear the level" mode, their only objective killing for the sake of killing (actually for the sake of XP).
A HUGE difference. Encounter based play changes the whole dynamic of the game. Instead of an objective based approach, the idea is to jump through the prepared hoops and defeat each challenge as it comes. Its only advantage is that it can be quickly mastered by players with little thought.
Quote from: LordVreeg;669699No, but where I have my issue is this attitude that the NPCs are all out to 'beat' the players any more than the GM is. Sometimes the NPCs are helpful, or neutral, or have their own agenda.
I had this conversation decades ago with a GM who ran stupid killer dungeons, etc, back in the late 70s or early 80s, and I still find it a counterproductive perspective.
They play the PCS, the GM plays the rest of the world, we play together.
Agree with that. But the NPCs are still trying to win, if their goals align with the PCs then fine.
I think the idea that you can have a whole game where there is no form of conflict between the players and the world and its denizens woudl be pretty bizare.
Say the major baddies are a bunch of bandits raping a pillaging the land. The GM imagines the PCs as a group of noble adventurers who track down and kill said bandits.
Now in play either
i) The players do seek to eradicate the bandits and the GM plays them as realised as possible and they try to kill the PCs
ii) the Players decide that the region isn't work saving and they fuck off to do something else and the GM comes up with a new set of challenges. The bandits meanwhile rape and pillage the land and eventually maybe rise to become a larger scale threat or maybe get killed by Prince Thorsten and the Order of Mercury as part of your world in motion.
iii) The players decide rape and pillage sounds like a real giggle and join the bandits but as their infamy spreads they come into contact with Prince Thorsten and the Order of Mercury who's aims are to defeat the bandits, PCs included, and bring them to justice.
Inherent in the game is conflict of some type. The NPCs, monsters on the other side of that conflict to the PCs want to win. The GM should try to play them trying to win, doesn't mean they can't be stupid, greedy or gulible just means that within their fully realised personalities and abilites they will strive towards their own goals. One would assume the PCs will defeat the stupid, gulible opponents and eventually will find an opponent worthy of their metel.
However even at that point the best outcome for the game is for the PCs to win, that is the outcome that gives the most satisfaction, the tonic if you will. Now as a GM it's your duty to try and play the NPCs to 'win' ie to achieve their goals and the PCs being knocked back , facing challenges, loosing a few guys, making sacrifices and all that is all grist to a great campaign but in the end the most satiisfying outcome is for the PCs to emerge victorious, maybe they all die defeating the Lich King but the darkness is averted etc etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;669903Say the major baddies are a bunch of bandits raping a pillaging the land. The GM imagines the PCs as a group of noble adventurers who track down and kill said bandits.
Now in play either
i) The players do seek to eradicate the bandits and the GM plays them as realised as possible and they try to kill the PCs
ii) the Players decide that the region isn't work saving and they fuck off to do something else and the GM comes up with a new set of challenges. The bandits meanwhile rape and pillage the land and eventually maybe rise to become a larger scale threat or maybe get killed by Prince Thorsten and the Order of Mercury as part of your world in motion.
iii) The players decide rape and pillage sounds like a real giggle and join the bandits but as their infamy spreads they come into contact with Prince Thorsten and the Order of Mercury who's aims are to defeat the bandits, PCs included, and bring them to justice.
I started off playtesting a campaign of DDN which started with a group of 1st level characters being part a conquistador and other NPC adventurers landing on the Isle of Dread. They took the hook of going after the pirates, which is very similar to your bandit scenario.
A couple hours of gameplay consisted of the party convincing the locals, the conquistador, and the other NPC adventurers to band together into a single army to fight the pirates. The actual fight itself lasted maybe 15 minutes.
When the majority of actual time at the table is spent on cooperating with NPCs, with only a relatively small amount of time in conflict, I am having a hard time understanding how conflict is the major driver of the game.
Quote from: Old One Eye;669907I started off playtesting a campaign of DDN which started with a group of 1st level characters being part a conquistador and other NPC adventurers landing on the Isle of Dread. They took the hook of going after the pirates, which is very similar to your bandit scenario.
A couple hours of gameplay consisted of the party convincing the locals, the conquistador, and the other NPC adventurers to band together into a single army to fight the pirates. The actual fight itself lasted maybe 15 minutes.
When the majority of actual time at the table is spent on cooperating with NPCs, with only a relatively small amount of time in conflict, I am having a hard time understanding how conflict is the major driver of the game.
If there was no threat of conflict with the pirates then there would have been no scenario.
The entirity of your game, as described , is a conflict with the pirates. The party is merely chosing to use diplomacy and other skills to build a force to beat that conflict.
In addition that point even at a micro level the discussion with the locals is a conflict where the party are pursuading them to join a force to repel the pirates. The outcome of that conflcit is agreement on mutual goals and settling of minor gripes to get to those goals.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;669243So was your account hijacked or did you really post this?
You just proffered a couple of quotes which, in no way, state that I "fudge [my] ass off while other s run a fair game" while claiming that's what they actually said.
So I guess we're still waiting for some explanation of your behavior which isn't stupidity, dishonesty, or illiteracy.
Although, to be fair, you at least managed to actually quote something I actually said. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for Benoist...
Quote from: Benoist;669154Well, you could explain to me how you saying that the GM lets the players "win" 99% of the time and that "we all know that at the end the players are going to save the world, find the princess, etc" actually doesn't mean that you're eye-balling encounters to be auto-wins provided the players aren't mentally retarded...
Let's sum this up:
(1) You make up a bunch of shit I never said and claim that I said it.
(2) I offer you the chance to explain why you're doing that.
(3) You respond by making up a bunch of shit I never said and claiming that I said it.
Ah! But this time you put quotation marks around the shit that you just made up. I guess that's supposed to make your moronic lies more believable?
The irony, of course, is that the quotation marks only serve to prove that you're not merely misreading what I wrote (despite multiple, specific clarifications). The only way you end up with a completely fictitious "quote" like that is if you are deliberately lying.
You have one shot here, Benoist: Apologize for blatantly lying about what I said.
Quote from: jibbajibba;669150Really can't see why there is a big argument.
You design a scenario the players can "beat".
Designing one they can not beat is just poor GMing.
I've figure out what this discussion is reminding me of: Awhile back we had a thread where someone offered up some flavor of the "you should try saying 'yes, but...' instead of no" GMing advice.
And this board flipped its shit with all kinds of wacky, "BUT WHAT IF THE PLAYERS TRY TO BREAK DOWN AN ADAMANTIUM DOOR WITH FLUFFY PILLOWS? HOW CAN I POSSIBLY STOP THAT IF I'M NEVER ALLOWED TO SAY NO?" pedantry.
People around here seem to have a real difficulty processing quick advice taking the form of, "A lot of GMs are over-zealous about this, but here's a different way of looking at things." They want to parse it as if people were proposing amendments to the Constitution and anything that doesn't stand up to rigorous applications of
reductio ad absurdum simply cannot be tolerated.
Quote from: Phillip;669821By contrast, if the potential XP value (or just the majority of it) is the sum of "encounters," then avoiding those is counter-productive. Optimal strategy is to run into as many monsters, traps or other point-worthy complications as possible!
Sure. I'd add that you can run things as the objective being other than treasure. For example, in my campaign there were xp awards for goals achieved: find the bandit lair, defeat the bandit menace, discover the old dwarven halls, etc. So even if they'd talked or tricked their way into the bandits leaving and not found a single gold piece, they'd still be up for a good chunk of xp.
As well, an intelligent GM can say, "xp are for
defeating foes, not just killing them." That opens up more options, too.
Yep.
Those who have said they disagree with the statement have actually indicated by their posts that they do agree, they just are so fixated on the semantics that they insist they they don't agree.
I stand by the general statement I made at the beginning: a DM could 'reasonably, playing the world entirely faithfully and consistently' create a situation where low-level PCs are annihilated. Some of the more 'reasonable' examples (dragon attacks town - there are no survivors) clearly work - but if we're reducing it to absurdity, there's a small chance that a meteor impact destroys all life on any given world. It could even be included on a table or chart and rolled for. But would that make for a good game?
All DMs consider what makes for an 'interesting challenge' at some point. It may be 'before' the players interact with the world; it may be 'after'. But either way, if you're thinking about making a 'challenge', by definition it can be defeated by smart players.
The DM doesn't win when the party loses/dies/TPKs. Some DMs think they do.
This post can be specifically applied to those types of DMs. In this case 'losing' is actually winning. Since the DM can always add more bad guys (or sudden meteor strikes) he can always 'win' (if you're looking at it as an adversarial relationship). If winning were the DMs job, he would, every time, end of story. But that's not his job. He sets up challenges that can be defeated. By definition, if a challenge CAN be defeated, it can also defeat the party. The original quote isn't about lobbing softballs - it's about making interesting challenges and then being secretly pleased that your players were smart enough, lucky enough or creative enough to overcome a challenge that you really weren't sure they could overcome.
deadDMwalking, you're supposing a certain kind of campaign, where the DM sets up a series of challenges.
But there are other ways to do things. For example, you can just set up a game world, a game world which like the real or any fictional world simply has potential challenges floating around, and the players choose from among those creating their own challenges. Sensible players will choose things they have a fair chance of handling.
Things are happening in the game world. Players who keep their eyes and ears open will learn about those things. They may choose to interfere in those things. This then creates challenges for them - challenges they've chosen.
My players didn't have to open the sarcophagi lids, and when they opened by themselves, could have chosen to flee, as they earlier fled from a basilisk. They created and chose the mummy challenge...
Quote from: Justin Alexander;669953You just proffered a couple of quotes which, in no way, state that I "fudge [my] ass off while other s run a fair game" while claiming that's what they actually said.
So I guess we're still waiting for some explanation of your behavior which isn't stupidity, dishonesty, or illiteracy.
Pardon 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.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;669959Some of the more 'reasonable' examples (dragon attacks town - there are no survivors) clearly work - but if we're reducing it to absurdity, there's a small chance that a meteor impact destroys all life on any given world. It could even be included on a table or chart and rolled for. But would that make for a good game?
All DMs consider what makes for an 'interesting challenge' at some point. It may be 'before' the players interact with the world; it may be 'after'. But either way, if you're thinking about making a 'challenge', by definition it can be defeated by smart players
I don't consider the party at all when I design my campaigns -- in most cases because I have no idea who the players will be (let alone what characters they will be playing). I design a setting and populate an area of it (and have some idea in general what other areas are like) and use that setting for years. I've been using my two major homebrew settings since 1977 and 1985 respectively. I've used them with many different groups of players and characters.
There are all sorts of interesting locations and potential things to do. Some can be handled by low level characters, some my mid-level characters, some by high level characters, and a few probably can't be handled by any party (short of a party of gods). It's up to the players to interact with the setting, hear about/stumble on to/etc. possible "adventures" and decide whether they think they can handle them. If a low level party decides to visit the lair of a family of red dragons and attacks or tries unsuccessfully to steal from the dragons' treasure, the dragons are probably going to eat them alive for a TPK. That's the way the world works. The dragons aren't going to suddenly be less dangerous because the players made a silly decision to have their low level characters visit and annoy them. This has made for many good games -- at least for the style of play I (and the players in my games) enjoy.
Should everyone run their campaigns like this? Of course not, this is just one style of play. But I object to being basically told this style of play is "wrong" because the GM is supposed to ensure that whatever the players decide to have their characters attack in the setting is "winnable" (99% of the time yet) by the current group of characters at their current level and condition. I object to the assumption that everyone should run campaigns that are basically strings of level-appropriate "published adventure modules" strung together by the GM to ensure that the players never run into anything that might be too weak to be "interesting" (in combat, usually) or too powerful to beat.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;669968deadDMwalking, you're supposing a certain kind of campaign, where the DM sets up a series of challenges.
But there are other ways to do things. For example, you can just set up a game world, a game world which like the real or any fictional world simply has potential challenges floating around,
Semantics.
I didn't say I set up challenges and then set the PCs at them (railroading). I said the GM sets up challenges.
Whether that is creating every single detail of the world, placing every monster, knowing that there are exactly 102,933 Orcs in a particular Horde and knowing every single name and relationship among them or just general 'ther are orcs in this area' and you only flesh it out when the PCs go there; either way, you're creating challenges (that the PCs may or may not engage).
Unless you're some percentage of your campaigns have included: dragon attacks at 1st level, you all die; or Horde of Orcs pillage your village, you all die (which to be fair
are things that tend to happen in the game when the PCs are at a level appropriate to deal with it), people are setting up challenges that are 'winnable' in some manner.
I don't even understand why people are arguing to the contrary. If you're not setting up challenges that the PCs can win, then they will all die. Game over. You don't need to invite people over to explain how they die. You cna let them watch a Saw movie, instead.
Quote from: jibbajibba;669903Agree with that. But the NPCs are still trying to win, if their goals align with the PCs then fine.
I think the idea that you can have a whole game where there is no form of conflict between the players and the world and its denizens woudl be pretty bizare.
Jibba, the point of the thread is about the role of the GM, and the inherent competition in the statement. I play sessions where the PCs have a lot of fighting. I play many where I have to play out the parts and logical conclusions of very powerful, intelligent creatures plotting long-term against the PCs. So I see how easily it could be perceived as a competition, or the players trying to 'beat' the GM.
But that reduces the scope to much. I liked One-Eye's comment about the NPC interaction, because it showed what a good GM does, but it also shows that the role of the GM is to play, 'the rest of the world', the enemies and allies of the party and players, the shopkeepers, the politicians, the underworld.
Hell, I play magic, the gods, weather, and random chance. The players are not fighting those.
I also have a game coming on-line with the players playing students at a mage academy, and much of the game is roleplay and social skill.
Yes there is conflict, but at the heart of it, the players compete and struggle against the scenario and in the direction of their goals. The DO NOT compete with the GM. They might defeat the scenario. The GM is not the scenario, he is the whole of the setting.
I bother to post this (and all in the spirit of comradeship and fellows talking about what they care about) because I think the adversarial mode does can cause issues.
I can also see, BTW, in tourney or very short term play, it could be more of an, "US vs the GM' game. But in any game I play, it works against the 'table' as I run it.
Because any time the players start thinking about the setting as me, it is encouraging metagaming. Anything I do that makes them look behind the curtain, any time they look at it in terms of wondering what I created for them, instead of being able to live as much as possible from the immersed position, I consider a mistake.
Obviously, we laugh, we joke, we pass wine, but more and more, I notice my sessions' jokes are in-game, what happened to that gate sergeant who tried to bar us that day from the Recum Gate, why is Terrible Billy wearing expensive clothes, he's the most obvious thief anywhere, a player who is connected to Cylobar's house of erotic entertainment sending 2 ladies to 'entertain' the 15 yr old 1/2 ogre knight (another PC) who was guarding them...those are just a few from last session.
So, I am always for any mindset and mechanic that keeps my players
AND I in the immersed position as much as possible. And them looking at beating me contributes to moving away from that, in my eyes, at least.
Quote from: RandallS;669976Should everyone run their campaigns like this? Of course not, this is just one style of play. But I object to being basically told this style of play is "wrong" because the GM is supposed to ensure that whatever the players decide to have their characters attack in the setting is "winnable" (99% of the time yet) by the current group of characters at their current level and condition.
I was ninjaed. But nobody is saying that this is wrong, or even that a challenge that exists needs to be 'softballed' so the 1st level PCs can win. Nobody is saying. Not one person. Not the original quote, and not anybody that came after.
Let me ask another way:
The areas that have challenges that only could be defeated by Gods - why don't they ever steamroll all the 'low-level areas'? If they knew that a mortal could ascend to godhood, what's to stop them from murdering every mortal and turning your world into a post-apocalyptic nightmare?
My contention is that if you're not steamrolling the PCs the moment they enter the world because:
a) You totally can
b) The world would totally make sense if you did
c) Some basic level of probability means that if it can happen at any point, it WILL happen at some point, given enough reiterations
then you're making sure that they're not automatically overwhelmed by these challenges that exist.
You may not be guaranteeing victroy (which would suck for all kinds of reasons), but you're not guaranteeing defeat.
You're setting up the PCs to overcome the GM's challenges in as interesting a way as possible. In order to be interesting, sometimes they lose. But if they lost more often than they win, you wouldn't have many players. That's not even me speaking - that's E Gary Gygax in the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide telling you that.
Edit - Adding Quote:
Quote from: E Gary GygaxTo obtain real satisfaction from such effort, you must have participants who will make use of your creations: players to learn the wonders and face the perils you have devised for them. If it is all too plain and too easy, the players will quickly lose interest, and your effort will prove to have been in vain. Likewise, if the campaign is too difficult, players will quickly become discouraged and lose interest in a game where they are always the butt; again your labors will have been for naught. These facts are of prime importance, for they underlie many rules
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;669968deadDMwalking, you're supposing a certain kind of campaign, where the DM sets up a series of challenges.
But there are other ways to do things. For example, you can just set up a game world, a game world which like the real or any fictional world simply has potential challenges floating around, and the players choose from among those creating their own challenges. Sensible players will choose things they have a fair chance of handling.
Things are happening in the game world. Players who keep their eyes and ears open will learn about those things. They may choose to interfere in those things. This then creates challenges for them - challenges they've chosen.
My players didn't have to open the sarcophagi lids, and when they opened by themselves, could have chosen to flee, as they earlier fled from a basilisk. They created and chose the mummy challenge...
Yes to all, and I would add that this can be created so that all of this can happen with in-setting consistency. And sometimes, challenges do come up that the players, if they are smart, should run from.
My online Steel Isle Group ran into a green dragon on their way to some Venolvian Ruins at one point. They had clear warning, they could have avoided it...yes somehow, they wanted to confront it. And in my setting, people rarely compete with dragons. So there was a near TPK.
Hell, I was more pissed than they were, it set them back in the plotline. But no one ever looked at it like me beating them, they looked at me as playing the setting consistently, and they all came back for more, because that is what they want from me.
It's been said, but I'm willing to give it one more try. To Randall and others who still feel that the GM 'playing to lose' is a different style, what's the real, substantial difference between:
A) Designing a challenge that you expect your PCs to be able to overcome
And
B) Designing a world that contains challenges that your PCs could overcome, and then dropping hints about those challenges
At its core, this is the exact same thing, executed differently. It's like Chrome on Android vs Chrome on PC. Different only in a way that rarely matters, and doesn't matter at all to the topic from the OP.
Again, a completely free-spinning world would be a very bad place to introduce your typical low level adventurer. A real town wouldn't abide low level goblins living nearby, etc. So you build in some conceits, genre tropes, and the like.
I just hope to get you to see that you're doing it.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669986It's been said, but I'm willing to give it one more try. To Randall and others who still feel that the GM 'playing to lose' is a different style, what's the real, substantial difference between:
A) Designing a challenge that you expect your PCs to be able to overcome
And
B) Designing a world that contains challenges that your PCs could overcome, and then dropping hints about those challenges
At its core, this is the exact same thing, executed differently. It's like Chrome on Android vs Chrome on PC. Different only in a way that rarely matters, and doesn't matter at all to the topic from the OP.
Again, a completely free-spinning world would be a very bad place to introduce your typical low level adventurer. A real town wouldn't abide low level goblins living nearby, etc. So you build in some conceits, genre tropes, and the like.
I just hope to get you to see that you're doing it.
The big difference is in B part of the challenge is gauging whether an encounter is beatable and it can definitely lead to players taking on challenges they can't beat. From a player perspective I think it is a very difference experience if you are playing in a game where you know all of the challenges fall into a reasonable risk range for your party versus one where you know some encounters could be nearly or completely unbeatable. No one is really arguing that one style is better, just that there are more styles out there than A, they are distinct from A and that B is not the only other approach on the spectrum.
Even under a CR-strict system it's possible to bite off more than you can chew. You could accidentally pull more than one room, for example. Or charge in without full resting. Or fail to check for traps before fleeing down a hallway.
So still, breaking the game conceit is deadly.
It's different how?
Quote from: mcbobbo;669986It's been said, but I'm willing to give it one more try. To Randall and others who still feel that the GM 'playing to lose' is a different style, what's the real, substantial difference between:
A) Designing a challenge that you expect your PCs to be able to overcome
And
B) Designing a world that contains challenges that your PCs could overcome, and then dropping hints about those challenges
At its core, this is the exact same thing, executed differently. It's like Chrome on Android vs Chrome on PC. Different only in a way that rarely matters, and doesn't matter at all to the topic from the OP.
Again, a completely free-spinning world would be a very bad place to introduce your typical low level adventurer. A real town wouldn't abide low level goblins living nearby, etc. So you build in some conceits, genre tropes, and the like.
I just hope to get you to see that you're doing it.
No. You make a number of assumptions.
what is a 'real town'? How big is the world? what is the makeup of the humanoid societies outside town? what is the behaviors of these tribes? what level of control does the society have over the security of the local area> what level of security is expected?
I mean to say I think a good GM is capable of doing both at the same time. Sure, if you just create a typical mediavalesque setting with typical separate races without much thought there will be a incongruity between setting up the challenges in the right order and actual logic.
But I think one of the things a GM gets better with is reducing this difference, and getting to a place where there is some congruity between logic, in-game logic, and the scenarios.
I would argue that yes there will all sorts of stuff that will be peaceful and good and nice and kind and you need to play all of that as well of course. But there still needs to be conflict. In most games that is NPC or monster conflict but it might be traps and the environment instead.
In all those cases of conflict the GM has to run the antagonists to the best of the antagonists abilities to achieve their aims. Even if you have a setting full of traps with no monsters etc you still design the setting and you do it from the perpective of the guy that built the traps and he aim they had when so doing. However, building instant death traps get boring quickly so you try to limit the setting to be beatable by limiting the available parameters but still to be the best it can be within the confines of its reality.
So a classic sliding ceilg trap, the room is build such that a pressure plate will cause the ceiling to descend and crush the party. However, you could make this instant death for all intrepid Indiannas but instead you don't and you do this by
i) assuming the trap is old and has been triggered before and reset (assuming it has a viable reset mechanism that doesn't involve a lot of blokes that died 400 years ago filling a hidden room somewhere with sand ...) so the signs of crushed victims are there to be seen to give the PCs a clue as to the possible trap
ii) a reset mechanism the party can find as the room slowly drops, viable in case the patron of same trap got stuck himself in error
iii) the trap is old and doesn't work as well it might so mechanically blocking it either breaks it or give the heros time to escape
etc etc
In each case you build to the best of your ability, your aim as the builder of the trap is to kill any interlopers so you must try your best to produce a trap that works but you limit its ability to make it beatable.
Environment is a possible exception, personally I don't like party v environment games unless they have traps and the like becuase I don't want to track thirst and rations and so on closely. I would say that in that context you are perhaps just laying down a totally unbaised 'setting'
The game is for the party to cross a desert the desert is 400 miles across they can make 50 miles a day. They must consume 4 litres of water per day their mounts must consume 15 liters. There is a 10% chance per day of a sandstorm.
The party's job is to cross the desert.
Now this is every bit as much of a white room scenario as the fighter vs wizard arena duel as there is zero context.
I assume the party want to cross the desert for a reason the most liekly reason is as part of a conflcit, they have to find the mcguffin to rescue the princess, they need to get the Lost City of Tanis and it lies across the desert, they have had a bet with a local merchant that they can't cross the desert etc etc all conflict scenarios that lead to them having to cross the desert. However I can concede of a party just choosing to cross the desert because it's there now I don't think it would make for a riviting game but there you go. now you have a conflict that is totally unbiased. There is a desert the party are not being forced to cross it you are giving them no advantage to cross it, no magic carpet, no map of hidden oases, no convoy of jeeps, no helicopter. I think its such an outlier it almost becomes the exception that makes the rule.
A good quote to go with DeadDM's this one from Erick Wujcik
"All threats, Villains, monsters and disasters thrown at the players should be beatable and solvable. A good rule of thumb is that there should be at least three outs for the PCs in any dilemma. Two solutions that the GM has come up with before hand and an open mind to allow the players to come up with creative solutions on their own." - ADRPG pg 229
Mind you he also has a whole section on the importance of story and narative in RPGS .... and this section that talks about conflict deliberately uses language that may get me banned in the RPG section but here goes ....
Stories get a lot more interesting when there's conflict....
Stories with conflcit are unpredictable. They have drama, becuase the audience can't guess the outcome. Stories with conflcit are perfect for roleplaying settings because the player characters can make their own endings, but not without uncertainty. ADPRG pg 123
Lastly look at experience in all games. You get experience for overcoming conflict. You beat the critter, either by combat or by cunning, or by stealth or by magic, you used your skills under stress and improved them.
If you want to gain experience you have to live in intersting times.
Quote from: mcbobbo;669990Even under a CR-strict system it's possible to bite off more than you can chew. You could accidentally pull more than one room, for example. Or charge in without full resting. Or fail to check for traps before fleeing down a hallway.
So still, breaking the game conceit is deadly.
It's different how?
If the GM is presenting encounters with CRs that are effectively unbeatable, there is no difference. But people have not been advocating that. I see a big difference though between thoroughly beatable encounters where PCs die due to bad luck or tactics and having encounters present that the PCs have no hope of engaging should they do so.
If you do not see a difference that is entirely fine. But I see a huge difference between the type of play Lord Vreeg and Kyle are talking about versus the kind DeadGMwalking and others are talking about. Again, neither is good or bad. But these other styles do exist and they play very differently from styles that adhere to level appropriate encounters as the assumption. It is also a spectrum and I think most people are more in the middle.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;669989The big difference is in B part of the challenge is gauging whether an encounter is beatable and it can definitely lead to players taking on challenges they can't beat. From a player perspective I think it is a very difference experience if you are playing in a game where you know all of the challenges fall into a reasonable risk range for your party versus one where you know some encounters could be nearly or completely unbeatable. No one is really arguing that one style is better, just that there are more styles out there than A, they are distinct from A and that B is not the only other approach on the spectrum.
I personally prefer varied challenges over 'level appropriate challenges'
I agree there is s different feel to a game where one or the other is featured heavily.
Some players like risking defeat and death at every turn, others like some degree of comfort that they will overcome all obstacles.
As for which is better? depends on what people enjoy, allthough I see an extreme of either as generally undesireable.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;669793Nope.
Umm.....nope.
A person with a 6 int is less effective than a person with an 18 int.
I thought you said effectiveness was how one earns xp.
Perhaps I missunderstood your point?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;669996If the GM is presenting encounters with CRs that are effectively unbeatable, there is no difference. But people have not been advocating that. I see a big difference though between thoroughly beatable encounters where PCs die due to bad luck or tactics and having encounters present that the PCs have no hope of engaging should they do so.
If you do not see a difference that is entirely fine. But I see a huge difference between the type of play Lord Vreeg and Kyle are talking about versus the kind DeadGMwalking and others are talking about. Again, neither is good or bad. But these other styles do exist and they play very differently from styles that adhere to level appropriate encounters as the assumption. It is also a spectrum and I think most people are more in the middle.
I dislike CRS for lots of reasons mainly their lack of imagination.
I can kill a party of 10th level PCs with a 0 level little girl if I want and I don't mean make her a magically powerful little gilr ai just mean roleplay her in the right way and push the right buttons and bing
My point abot competition is that as the GM you play the NPCs to win. The more competatively you play them the more rewardiong it is for the PCs when they beat them. And yes they will be NPCs on the PC's side and there will be incompetant PCs and lazy PCs, I suspect I am the only GM on here that has deliberatley limited NPC memorised spells because I knew the NPC was too lazy to spend more than about an hour learning spells every day.
But those NPCs have to want to live and survive and prosper and get the girl or the mcguffin just as much as the PCs do and it's my job to play that as hard as I can.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670000I dislike CRS for lots of reasons mainly their lack of imagination.
I can kill a party of 10th level PCs with a 0 level little girl if I want and I don't mean make her a magically powerful little gilr ai just mean roleplay her in the right way and push the right buttons and bing
My point abot competition is that as the GM you play the NPCs to win. The more competatively you play them the more rewardiong it is for the PCs when they beat them. And yes they will be NPCs on the PC's side and there will be incompetant PCs and lazy PCs, I suspect I am the only GM on here that has deliberatley limited NPC memorised spells because I knew the NPC was too lazy to spend more than about an hour learning spells every day.
But those NPCs have to want to live and survive and prosper and get the girl or the mcguffin just as much as the PCs do and it's my job to play that as hard as I can.
I would say I play NPC's to do what the npc would do. Often that is to win, but not always. An npc might be driven to kill a hated rival and use poor tactics because of his blind hatred. For example.
Quote from: Bill;669998A person with a 6 int is less effective than a person with an 18 int.
I thought you said effectiveness was how one earns xp.
Perhaps I missunderstood your point?
The PC with a 6 INT is not automatically less effective than as an adventurer than one with an 18. Otherwise fighters, clerics, and thieves should also have INT as their prime requisite.
If you believe that YOU as a player have to behave in a stupid manner in order to roleplay then its your problem if you are less effective as a result.
Adventurers are effective in different ways which is why there are class archetypes. The 18 INT character may be able to rattle off facts at the drop of a hat but the strong fighter, the wise cleric and the nimble thief all have effectiveness in their niches.
A person playing a low INT character shouldn't need to play dumb any more than a low CHA character's player should always have to be obnoxious.
If a player actually
enjoys playing stupid then go for it. The rewards for doing so will be according to the laws of nature which are not particularly forgiving to the perpetually stupid.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;670011The PC with a 6 INT is not automatically less effective than as an adventurer than one with an 18. Otherwise fighters, clerics, and thieves should also have INT as their prime requisite.
If you believe that YOU as a player have to behave in a stupid manner in order to roleplay then its your problem if you are less effective as a result.
Adventurers are effective in different ways which is why there are class archetypes. The 18 INT character may be able to rattle off facts at the drop of a hat but the strong fighter, the wise cleric and the nimble thief all have effectiveness in their niches.
A person playing a low INT character shouldn't need to play dumb any more than a low CHA character's player should always have to be obnoxious.
If a player actually enjoys playing stupid then go for it. The rewards for doing so will be according to the laws of nature which are not particularly forgiving to the perpetually stupid.
I think Bill's point is that given any 2 figthers who are statisticlaly identical but one has 6 int and one has 18 int the one with 18 int is more effectively.
Quote from: Bill;670002I would say I play NPC's to do what the npc would do. Often that is to win, but not always. An npc might be driven to kill a hated rival and use poor tactics because of his blind hatred. For example.
And I agree with that totally you have to play the NPC as is but within that fully realised NPC complete with flaws and weaknesses they are trying to win.
The blind hatred guy doesn't give quarter or go easy on his prey for example.
i have loads of examples of this type of behaviour uppost.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670016I think Bill's point is that given any 2 figthers who are statisticlaly identical but one has 6 int and one has 18 int the one with 18 int is more effectively.
Well just like AT&T, it isn't complicated. When it comes to any stat, higher is better.
It doesn't however, make you a better
fighter in D&D terms. You might be smarter and able to make those INT checks to remember stuff but it isn't as big a deal as the same INT gap between magic users.
The 18 INT magic user WILL be more effective as a magic user. This is reflected in the 10% bonus to earned XP. The 6 INT magic user will have to put in 10% more adventuring work to remain on par with the smarter one, not to mention the humilliation at being laughed at as the class dunce.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;669996If the GM is presenting encounters with CRs that are effectively unbeatable, there is no difference. But people have not been advocating that. I see a big difference though between thoroughly beatable encounters where PCs die due to bad luck or tactics and having encounters present that the PCs have no hope of engaging should they do so.
If you do not see a difference that is entirely fine. But I see a huge difference between the type of play Lord Vreeg and Kyle are talking about versus the kind DeadGMwalking and others are talking about. Again, neither is good or bad. But these other styles do exist and they play very differently from styles that adhere to level appropriate encounters as the assumption. It is also a spectrum and I think most people are more in the middle.
I need more explanation of the perceived difference to understand the disconnect.
Again why draw a division between the two identical 'break the game conceit' situations?
On the one hand, CR game players are expected to keep their encounters contained. They are expected to intuit what the GM expects in order to keep inside their CR boxes.
On the other hand, free form game players are expected to self select level appropriate challenges. They are expected to intuit what the GM expects in order to keep inside their characters' capabilities.
This not apples and oranges in terms of 'playing to lose'. This is more like green apples and red apples.
What am I missing?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;670021Well just like AT&T, it isn't complicated. When it comes to any stat, higher is better.
It doesn't however, make you a better fighter in D&D terms. You might be smarter and able to make those INT checks to remember stuff but it isn't as big a deal as the same INT gap between magic users.
The 18 INT magic user WILL be more effective as a magic user. This is reflected in the 10% bonus to earned XP. The 6 INT magic user will have to put in 10% more adventuring work to remain on par with the smarter one, not to mention the humilliation at being laughed at as the class dunce.
Putting the whole not rping stats thing to one side for a moment ....
The 6 int guy can't be a MU as you need nine Int mimimum. The 18 int fighter will have more languages and nwp (if you are using them). In any situation where the GM says make an Int check to .... they will suceed far more often and so will be more effective. Than a 6 int fighter.
But really not worth any more sub-discussion.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;669982The areas that have challenges that only could be defeated by Gods - why don't they ever steamroll all the 'low-level areas'? If they knew that a mortal could ascend to godhood, what's to stop them from murdering every mortal and turning your world into a post-apocalyptic nightmare?
Most of these types of challenges aren't into taking over the world. Here are a few examples:
From the Hidden Valley setting, there is the Necromancer's Tower: A huge tower visible from many miles away. No one has ever reached it (at least reached it and returned). The area for about 30 miles around it is full of (mainly mindless) undead. Any living creature that dies within this area rises up as an undead creature. Undead creatures that try to leave the area turn to dust somewhere between 30-40 miles from the tower (including undead who enter the "undead zone" from outside). The undead zone is slowly growing, it will be 31 miles in radius in 1d4 * 100 years. Legend says the world's greatest necromancer once lived (perhaps still lives) here and it is full of unique magical devices.
From the Arn setting, there is the Mad Mage's island. An island that appears out of nowhere (because it cannot be seen or detected from further than a mile away). An ancient mage (assume mage level is at least 4 times whatever the maximum PC level allowed in the campaign is). He has discovered the secret of immortality and lives only to study magic, create strange magic devices, and to mutate volunteers into new species. He controls the island as if it were a living thing. Thousands of years ago, he put out an ad for volunteers for his magical experiments and he assumes anyone who comes to his island is a volunteer and uses them in his experiments. He has no interest in the world at large, but will utterly destroy anything that threatens himself, his island, or its inhabitants. He is rumored to have a staff that can destroy anything it can touch, even a deity.
From the Arn setting, there is the M'dread the Cursed Knight, cursed by the Gods to be unkillable and to be constantly battling for causes he could care less about. He is the best fighter in the world by a huge margin, but only seeks his own death and fights in the hope of receiving it. He can be hired by someone able to influence the deities to allow it, but is never fully under anyone's command, let alone control. If under someone's command, he does not try to pervert his orders to cause harm to his commander's side, but to give himself the best chance of death.
Quote from: mcbobbo;670025I need more explanation of the perceived difference to understand the disconnect.
Again why draw a division between the two identical 'break the game conceit' situations?
On the one hand, CR game players are expected to keep their encounters contained. They are expected to intuit what the GM expects in order to keep inside their CR boxes.
On the other hand, free form game players are expected to self select level appropriate challenges. They are expected to intuit what the GM expects in order to keep inside their characters' capabilities.
This not apples and oranges in terms of 'playing to lose'. This is more like green apples and red apples.
What am I missing?
If you see no difference, I am not going to try to convince you one exists. To me, having played in both types of campaigns, I find them incredibly different.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670035If you see no difference, I am not going to try to convince you one exists. To me, having played in both types of campaigns, I find them incredibly different.
If you're baking a pie, red apples and green apples matters. I am not claiming there is no style difference or that there aren't differences that might cause one person to enjoy one type over the other.
I am saying that both types of GMs 'play to lose'. (The topic at hand, IMO.)
Do you disagree?
Quote from: jibbajibba;670026The 6 int guy can't be a MU as you need nine Int mimimum. The 18 int fighter will have more languages and nwp (if you are using them). In any situation where the GM says make an Int check to .... they will suceed far more often and so will be more effective. Than a 6 int fighter.
But really not worth any more sub-discussion.
An OD&D or B/X character has no stat minimum for any class and NWP don't exist.
The INT check thing I mentioned.
Quote from: mcbobbo;670037If you're baking a pie, red apples and green apples matters. I am not claiming there is no style difference or that there aren't differences that might cause one person to enjoy one type over the other.
I am saying that both types of GMs 'play to lose'. (The topic at hand, IMO.)
Do you disagree?
I dont think either is play to lose. To me play to loose, means letting the PCs win by eithe fudging or rigging it so pc deaths are incredibly rare (and most likely always the product of taking extreme risks). Both the A and B approaches do make things a bit easy on the PCs (though again, it is a spectrum and you can easily have a GM who plays much harder against the PCs in both these cases). But in both cases you are not protecting the PCs from death, and you can easily have frequent PLayer character Death with both approaches. I think B tends to be less forgiving, and A gives the players a bit more control over how far they push themselves. They are different in that respect. They are also different in that with A you know the GM is rigidly adhering to the CR system, in B you do not assume that so it means any encounter could be anything from a cakewalk to a certain death. I find players are a lot more cautious when the latter approach is employed and that has big impact on play. We could debate how distinct they are ecxactly.
Also losing doesnt just refer to death. It can mean whether adventures can crash and burn. Is failure to complete an adventure an actual possibility? My reading of the article, and personally i think there is nothing wrong with the advice, I just prefer to play a different way, is he is suggesting something has gone wrong if the players do not beat the adventure or if a character dies. It is possible I am wrong and said as much in my initial response (because he doesnt really expand on what he means by playing to lose). But if this is the case, I do not think the advice can apply to all campaigns. Some people do play where the probability of not completing an adventure, dying, or just having to stop and find some other thing to do in the setting, is much greater. All I am saying is there is a huge spectrume on this front. Most folks are probably somewhere in the middle. We shouldn't assume everyone wants the GM to play to lose. I agree with Vreeg, the GM plays, not to lose or to win.
Quote from: mcbobbo;670037I am saying that both types of GMs 'play to lose'. (The topic at hand, IMO.)
Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. When I GM I play the opposition as I think they would act and could care less if they "win" or "lose". It's not my job to see that they do either, after all -- especially as in most cases there are more possible outcomes than "win" or "lose".
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670042I dont think either is play to lose. To me play to loose, means letting the PCs win by eithe fudging or rigging it so pc deaths are incredibly rare (and most likely always the product of taking extreme risks).
You (and basically everyone who has expressed disagreement with the original sentiment) seems to be taking it this way, despite that nobody intended it that way.
It's possible to intend to lose without trying to lose. If you generally set up challenges fairly so that even 'unbeatable' challenges can be avoided, players will self-select challenges that (while they may be tough) they're reasonably confident that they'll win.
I wouldn't drive to work if I felt that there was more than a 1% chance that I wouldn't arrive safely. Real people take calculated risks; characters played with a modicum of self-preservation will not (without great reason to the contrary) enter a situation where they expect to die/lose. Outside of a noble sacrifice to save your other party members, they're going to seek challenges that can be overcome.
Long running games recognize that the PCs tend to survive most (if not all) challenges. Even if they
could die, that doesn't happen most of the time. If it did, the campaign wouldn't run very long.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;670011The PC with a 6 INT is not automatically less effective than as an adventurer than one with an 18. Otherwise fighters, clerics, and thieves should also have INT as their prime requisite.
If you believe that YOU as a player have to behave in a stupid manner in order to roleplay then its your problem if you are less effective as a result.
Adventurers are effective in different ways which is why there are class archetypes. The 18 INT character may be able to rattle off facts at the drop of a hat but the strong fighter, the wise cleric and the nimble thief all have effectiveness in their niches.
A person playing a low INT character shouldn't need to play dumb any more than a low CHA character's player should always have to be obnoxious.
If a player actually enjoys playing stupid then go for it. The rewards for doing so will be according to the laws of nature which are not particularly forgiving to the perpetually stupid.
Thanks for the clarification; I still think I may be taking some of what you say out of context, so bear with me.
A fighter with a 6 Int and a fighter with a 18 Int are not remotely equal in effectiveness, unless there is no roleplay in the game.
If the character has a 6 INT, I would not roleplay them as a genius.
I guess I am challenging the concept that xp should be rewarded based on character effectiveness.
Quote from: RandallS;670043Yes, I disagree. When I GM I play the opposition as I think they would act and could care less if they "win" or "lose". It's not my job to see that they do either, after all -- especially as in most cases there are more possible outcomes than "win" or "lose".
You may be joining late, so forgive me for repeating myself...
You may not care about the outcome of the fight after it begins, or the chain of events that sets the result into motion, etc. That's not required, and that's not what I am talking about.
I am referring to your populating the world with level appropriate challenges and advertising them to the PCs.
In my view this is entirely the same GM behavior as designing CR-strict encounters.
I suppose it could define out to 'design to lose', if that makes it any clearer.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670042I dont think either is play to lose. To me play to loose, means letting the PCs win by eithe fudging or rigging it so pc deaths are incredibly rare (and most likely always the product of taking extreme risks). Both the A and B approaches do make things a bit easy on the PCs (though again, it is a spectrum and you can easily have a GM who plays much harder against the PCs in both these cases). But in both cases you are not protecting the PCs from death, and you can easily have frequent PLayer character Death with both approaches. I think B tends to be less forgiving, and A gives the players a bit more control over how far they push themselves. They are different in that respect. They are also different in that with A you know the GM is rigidly adhering to the CR system, in B you do not assume that so it means any encounter could be anything from a cakewalk to a certain death. I find players are a lot more cautious when the latter approach is employed and that has big impact on play. We could debate how distinct they are ecxactly.
Also losing doesnt just refer to death. It can mean whether adventures can crash and burn. Is failure to complete an adventure an actual possibility? My reading of the article, and personally i think there is nothing wrong with the advice, I just prefer to play a different way, is he is suggesting something has gone wrong if the players do not beat the adventure or if a character dies. It is possible I am wrong and said as much in my initial response (because he doesnt really expand on what he means by playing to lose). But if this is the case, I do not think the advice can apply to all campaigns. Some people do play where the probability of not completing an adventure, dying, or just having to stop and find some other thing to do in the setting, is much greater. All I am saying is there is a huge spectrume on this front. Most folks are probably somewhere in the middle. We shouldn't assume everyone wants the GM to play to lose. I agree with Vreeg, the GM plays, not to lose or to win.
It's hard for me to slice quotes up on my phone, sorry.
Brendan, I think your points about different player behavior are very valid. But that's not GM behavior, I don't think. Like DeadDM said, if they pull the BBEG, they may well still die. Nobody here is arguing that out of CR events cannot happen, even if that is alluded to in the article.
And I agree about the spectrum. I try to deliberately mix my styles and beg/borrow/steal from other games. Complete agreement.
And I am also not advocating a GM do it all the time, or save players from failure, etc.
What I am driving at is a recognition that some level of this behavior is employed by all GMs either during play or design.
Quote from: mcbobbo;670025I need more explanation of the perceived difference to understand the disconnect.
Again why draw a division between the two identical 'break the game conceit' situations?
On the one hand, CR game players are expected to keep their encounters contained. They are expected to intuit what the GM expects in order to keep inside their CR boxes.
On the other hand, free form game players are expected to self select level appropriate challenges. They are expected to intuit what the GM expects in order to keep inside their characters' capabilities.
This not apples and oranges in terms of 'playing to lose'. This is more like green apples and red apples.
What am I missing?
I will see if I can help, without adding difficulty. And I think your apples might be right.
Well, the first thing is that if your statement above is true, the GM is doing it wrong, to some degree. In a good game (under my ideals, crazy though they might be) the GM creates a consistent and detailed enough setting and setting feel that the players trust it and are not trying to intuit the GMs mind, they are working from what they feel is logical within the framework.
it does bring a big change to the players mindset, when they don't have the safety net of CR. Sometimes, realistically, it means some retreats, or doing part of an adventure then realizing that part of it is beyond them, as few of my adventure scenarios are set at a consist difficulty, there are often pockets or areas that are at a complete different challenge level. My Miston Groups whole starting premise was like that.
the net affect is that when a GM is using CR, he is designing more in mind to 'challenge the players', since the scenarios are written with the players capabilities expressly in mind In the second, this is less true, as my first goal is to be true to the setting first and fairness to the players is way down the priority line, though I am not going to lie and say I don't try to do both in all cases, but after a certain time of doing this I think that this comes pretty naturally.
If we define success in an AD&D game as actually surviving and overwhelming enough challenges during a particular expedition in the dungeon to be that much richer, with XP and magic items and so on, then I can tell you from experience that the moron player with 18/00 Strength charging into melee expecting to win "because 18/00 STR", dying as a result of his ineptitude, and then bitching because "the game isn't fair" will be astronomically less "efficient" than a player with a 15 Strength fighter who actually knows how to play the damn game.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670049Long running games recognize that the PCs tend to survive most (if not all) challenges. Even if they could die, that doesn't happen most of the time. If it did, the campaign wouldn't run very long.
But there are long running games where player characters not only can die, but do so frequently. Particularly when I was younger, I was often in such campaigns. I recall being in a D&D campaign that lasted about two years or so and most of the people went through three or four characters. That is a bit on the extreme end, but it does occur. There are people who enjoy that style of play, and who manage to keep a game going despite PC death. In highshool lethality rates of the campaigns I was in ran the spectrum from characters dying nearly every session (sometimes people losing multiple characters in a single session) to games with total plot immunity.
Quote from: mcbobbo;670054What I am driving at is a recognition that some level of this behavior is employed by all GMs either during play or design.
The critical thing though is not all GMs are doing it in equal measure. Even if you accept that all GMs are holding back at some level, they are not all pulling their punches equally. And I think it is effectively possible to run a game without player character survival as a priority. Most games will assume things are tilted a certain peecentage in favor the PCs, this is true. But again how much will vary a lot from one group to the next. A game like the one Vreeg describes is much more about trying to use the facts within the setting as the basis for your decision rather than having challenge level be your measure. I suppose if you probe, you may find traces of both. But that doesnt mean making challenge your primary measure, versus in game logic, a meaningless distinction.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670062But there are long running games where player characters not only can die, but do so frequently. Particularly when I was younger, I was often in such campaigns. I recall being in a D&D campaign that lasted about two years or so and most of the people went through three or four characters. That is a bit on the extreme end, but it does occur. There are people who enjoy that style of play, and who manage to keep a game going despite PC death. In highshool lethality rates of the campaigns I was in ran the spectrum from characters dying nearly every session (sometimes people losing multiple characters in a single session) to games with total plot immunity.
Based on the example above,
Assuming a weekly game, and a party of 4 characters, each dying 3 times over two years; you end up with one character death every 8 or 9 weeks.
That seems about right for a 'deadly challenging game' to me.
I would be fine with that as long as the deaths were not 'gm just decides you die' in its various disguises.
Quote from: Benoist;670059If we define success in an AD&D game as actually surviving and overwhelming enough challenges during a particular expedition in the dungeon to be that much richer, with XP and magic items and so on, then I can tell you from experience that the moron player with 18/00 Strength charging into melee expecting to win "because 18/00 STR", dying as a result of his ineptitude, and then bitching because "the game isn't fair" will be astronomically less "efficient" than a player with a 15 Strength fighter who actually knows how to play the damn game.
Agreed, and I have seen a few of those players get themselves stomped repeatedly.
But, beware the clever, intelligent, careful, experienced player, that has the 18/00 :)
Quote from: Bill;670065Based on the example above,
Assuming a weekly game, and a party of 4 characters, each dying 3 times over two years; you end up with one character death every 8 or 9 weeks.
That seems about right for a 'deadly challenging game' to me.
I would be fine with that as long as the deaths were not 'gm just decides you die' in its various disguises.
And that was about our comfort level at the time. I remember playing a few times with another group where you might see several character deaths each session. At the time that felt a bit much for me.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670069And that was about our comfort level at the time. I remember playing a few times with another group where you might see several character deaths each session. At the time that felt a bit much for me.
I would not enjoy several deaths each session. No character developement.
A call of cthulu one shot, or Paranoia game, maybe.
But it is difficult for me to care about a character that only exists for 1 hour.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670062But there are long running games where player characters not only can die, but do so frequently. Particularly when I was younger, I was often in such campaigns. I recall being in a D&D campaign that lasted about two years or so and most of the people went through three or four characters. That is a bit on the extreme end, but it does occur. There are people who enjoy that style of play, and who manage to keep a game going despite PC death. In highshool lethality rates of the campaigns I was in ran the spectrum from characters dying nearly every session (sometimes people losing multiple characters in a single session) to games with total plot immunity.
My Igbar game, one of my more current, only one PC is on their first character. There were times we were losing a few a session, and others where you go 6 months or more.
It does add, in my estimation, the feel of the setting when death happens. When things have consequences. In terms of the earlier conversation, it is part of understanding the risk level of a setting.
EDIT...here is the player page for my Steel Isle game (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956323/Steel%20Isle%20online). partway down you find former members.
Quote from: Bill;670051Thanks for the clarification; I still think I may be taking some of what you say out of context, so bear with me.
A fighter with a 6 Int and a fighter with a 18 Int are not remotely equal in effectiveness, unless there is no roleplay in the game.
If the character has a 6 INT, I would not roleplay them as a genius.
I guess I am challenging the concept that xp should be rewarded based on character effectiveness.
I'm still fond of awarding XP for treasure won (for D&D at least) so whomever wins the most treasure is the most effective. The smarter fighter may not have to work as hard for some rewards but isn't guaranteed of being any more effective than the dull guy.
Since treasure can be won through the luck of sheer discovery, combat, diplomacy, or trickery, no character that isn't deemed hopeless (and thus probably not in play) is really that much less effective than any other assuming rough level parity.
Because of this, XP is rewarded based on
player effectiveness. Players who try and maximize treasure gain will be more successful than those who don't. Since this is a game in which the statistics of the characters are randomly generated, it is only fair that the input of the player be the foremost determining factor in success. Telling a player, " ha ha you rolled a crappy stat so you have to play like shit too" just isn't my idea of fun.
If these assumtions are changed and players custom craft their special little snowflakes and are then ushered through a series of challenge hoops not of their choosing the whole nature of the game is changed and we are discussing a different animal.
Quote from: Bill;670071I would not enjoy several deaths each session. No character developement.
A call of cthulu one shot, or Paranoia game, maybe.
But it is difficult for me to care about a character that only exists for 1 hour.
I didn't really enjoy that level of pc death at the time, but what was clear to me was the regular players in the group did enjoy it.
Quote from: mcbobbo;670053You may not care about the outcome of the fight after it begins, or the chain of events that sets the result into motion, etc. That's not required, and that's not what I am talking about.
I am referring to your populating the world with level appropriate challenges and advertising them to the PCs.
However, I don't populate my world with level appropriate challenges, I populate my world without any knowledge of the level of the characters (or how many characters or what classes these characters will be). 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. Outdoors, however, wandering monsters vary by terrain (and in some cases season of the year/time of day) -- the level of the characters in the party do not factor into it. If you are in the forest at first level, you might encounter wondering goblins or a wondering full grown green dragon depending on what comes up on the random roll. The world doesn't care about level appropriate.
Of course, neither the GM (me) nor the system assume that you have to fight everything you encounter. I've found that level appropriate encounters are far less important when "attack" is not the standard default action in an encounter.
Side Note: "Level appropriate" has far less meaning in old school games where the character levels in a party may be all over the place. What's a "level appropriate" encounter for a party with a 5th lvl thief, a 3rd lvl fighter and magic-user, a 1st lvl fighter, a 2nd lvl cleric, and 8 0-lvl men-at-arms?
Quote from: RandallS;670085Of course, neither the GM (me) nor the system assume that you have to fight everything you encounter. I've found that level appropriate encounters are far less important when "attack" is not the standard default action in an encounter.
Side Note: "Level appropriate" has far less meaning in old school games where the character levels in a party may be all over the place. What's a "level appropriate" encounter for a party with a 5th lvl thief, a 3rd lvl fighter and magic-user, a 1st lvl fighter, a 2nd lvl cleric, and 8 0-lvl men-at-arms?
File these two tidbits into the FORGOTTEN BY LATER EDITIONS bin please.
Quote from: RandallS;670085However, I don't populate my world with level appropriate challenges, I populate my world without any knowledge of the level of the characters (or how many characters or what classes these characters will be). Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world.
Of course, neither the GM (me) nor the system assume that you have to fight everything you encounter. I've found that level appropriate encounters are far less important when "attack" is not the standard default action in an encounter.
Side Note: "Level appropriate" has far less meaning in old school games where the character levels in a party may be all over the place. What's a "level appropriate" encounter for a party with a 5th lvl thief, a 3rd lvl fighter and magic-user, a 1st lvl fighter, a 2nd lvl cleric, and 8 0-lvl men-at-arms?
Attack is not the automatic response partially because level appropriate does not exist.
And I find it funny that the last part is a place I end up in as well. My groups and NPCs are all over the place.
That's a good point - you can't aim for an average level where there isn't one.
But even if your world includes challenges from 'impossible' to 'impossible to lose', PCs will self-select for interesting challenges. Few will play a game where they're ambushing single orcs at 15th level; few will play where they're launching full scale assaults against dragons at 1st level.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670098But even if your world includes challenges from 'impossible' to 'impossible to lose', PCs will self-select for interesting challenges. Few will play a game where they're ambushing single orcs at 15th level; few will play where they're launching full scale assaults against dragons at 1st level.
This is why treasure is such an important carrot.
how much risk do you want to assume and how big a reward are you going for? Thats the name of the game.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670098But even if your world includes challenges from 'impossible' to 'impossible to lose', PCs will self-select for interesting challenges. Few will play a game where they're ambushing single orcs at 15th level; few will play where they're launching full scale assaults against dragons at 1st level.
True people will generally tackle challenges they feel they have a good shot at beating. But they get to make that judgement. Sometimes with more accurate information to base it on than others. Once in a while challenges may be thrust upon them and they decide to engage, capitulate, retreat, etc. the key difference is the challenges are not necessarily tailored to them. Also some threats may be misleading. The meek looking poet could be a powerful sorcerer for example. I have seen that happen. But to me that is all pretty believable.
Again, no one is saying you ought to play this way or that this is the best way to play. All folks are saying is it is a preference that exists and is achievable.
This is why I liked the truly random encounter world building guidelines of AD&D. The world was living, regardless of what the PCs were doing or what level they were.
1st level party that decides to cut over the mountain pass instead of the roads and gets ambushed by ogres resulting in a TPK? Not the ogre's fault, they lived there all along. Not the DM's fault, he or she didn't prod the PCs in any direction. Perhaps the PCs should have done some research as to what lives in the mountains, or scouted before just walking on.
So I guess in that sense, I don't believe in making sure all encounters are balanced perfectly with the players. At least not the ones not directly part of the adventure.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670098But even if your world includes challenges from 'impossible' to 'impossible to lose', PCs will self-select for interesting challenges. Few will play a game where they're ambushing single orcs at 15th level; few will play where they're launching full scale assaults against dragons at 1st level.
I totally agree.
smart players will maximize their ability and push the envelope.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670103This is why I liked the truly random encounter world building guidelines of AD&D. The world was living, regardless of what the PCs were doing or what level they were.
1st level party that decides to cut over the mountain pass instead of the roads and gets ambushed by ogres resulting in a TPK? Not the ogre's fault, they lived there all along. Not the DM's fault, he or she didn't prod the PCs in any direction. Perhaps the PCs should have done some research as to what lives in the mountains, or scouted before just walking on.
So I guess in that sense, I don't believe in making sure all encounters are balanced perfectly with the players. At least not the ones not directly part of the adventure.
I use a lot of randomness again these days. Especially with encounters, I just put together charts based on what I think ought to be in a given area and in what numbers. But I do not assume every encounter is going to result in combat and have take to various approaches for reaction.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670106I use a lot of randomness again these days. Especially with encounters, I just put together charts based on what I think ought to be in a given area and in what numbers. But I do not assume every encounter is going to result in combat and have take to various approaches for reaction.
And yet when I suggested you could build a perfectly well formed Sandbox setting using a computer to randomly generate climate, terrain, ruis, deployment of monsters etc (using smoothign algorithyms and running the whole thing though a hundred years of weathering of course) everyone said that was impossibel and would be crap becuase only people can roll randomly on tables :)
This whole argument has become the same old stuff.
The OP quote was interesting and a different Meta view of the game but the same entrenched positions about OSR games being just much better regardless, about the idea of pitching appropriate level risk being a ridiculous concept, stats being no measure of effectiv eness or a guide for role play ... really sounds like a bunch of curmugeonly old men complaining that cars were better in the old days and theatre was better than the movies ....
Quote from: jibbajibba;670127And yet when I suggested you could build a perfectly well formed Sandbox setting using a computer to randomly generate climate, terrain, ruis, deployment of monsters etc (using smoothign algorithyms and running the whole thing though a hundred years of weathering of course) everyone said that was impossibel and would be crap becuase only people can roll randomly on tables :)
This whole argument has become the same old stuff.
The OP quote was interesting and a different Meta view of the game but the same entrenched positions about OSR games being just much better regardless, about the idea of pitching appropriate level risk being a ridiculous concept, stats being no measure of effectiv eness or a guide for role play ... really sounds like a bunch of curmugeonly old men complaining that cars were better in the old days and theatre was better than the movies ....
I can't speak for others but I never said level appropriate encounters or any of these other things were ridiculous. As far as I am concerned all these approaches are entirely worthwhile and a matter of taste. I play in games and run games that use level appropriate encounters. Personally I fit the style to my players and the game/setting.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670127And yet when I suggested you could build a perfectly well formed Sandbox setting using a computer to randomly generate climate, terrain, ruis, deployment of monsters etc (using smoothign algorithyms and running the whole thing though a hundred years of weathering of course) everyone said that was impossibel and would be crap becuase only people can roll randomly on tables :)
This whole argument has become the same old stuff.
The OP quote was interesting and a different Meta view of the game but the same entrenched positions about OSR games being just much better regardless, about the idea of pitching appropriate level risk being a ridiculous concept, stats being no measure of effectiv eness or a guide for role play ... really sounds like a bunch of curmugeonly old men complaining that cars were better in the old days and theatre was better than the movies ....
Oh, crap on that.
I don't even play d&d anymore. I think I am complaining that my shiny new car I built does a better job with some old precepts than the older cars did.
And the op was just a call back, to me, of the old 'gm vs player' idiocy I did not like and argued with decades ago. Different meta view? Only if by different you mean, 'the same mistake my next door neighbor made thirty years ago'.
And I think your random setting idea would be a valuable gm setting aid, personally.
Quote from: LordVreeg;670130Oh, crap on that.
I don't even play d&d anymore. I think I am complaining that my shiny new car I built does a better job with some old precepts than the older cars did.
And the op was just a call back, to me, of the old 'gm vs player' idiocy I did not like and argued with decades ago. Different meta view? Only if by different you mean, 'the same mistake my next door neighbor made thirty years ago'.
And I think your random setting idea would be a valuable gm setting aid, personally.
The OP doesn't say that though.
The OP isn't claiming the DM's goal is just to kill the players.
The OP is saying the GM should design games that can be beaten but play those games as well as they can to make the challange as tough as it can be but still be beatable, and the best outcome is is the PCs manage to beat it.
That doesn't sound like a old killer dungeon, or a level appropriate cake walk that sounds like sound GMing advice.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670132The OP doesn't say that though.
The OP isn't claiming the DM's goal is just to kill the players.
The OP is saying the GM should design games that can be beaten but play those games as well as they can to make the challange as tough as it can be but still be beatable, and the best outcome is is the PCs manage to beat it.
That doesn't sound like a old killer dungeon, or a level appropriate cake walk that sounds like sound GMing advice.
"To put it bluntly, the GM's job is to be defeated by the players in the most entertaining way for everyone involved. With this core concept in mind, it's easy to see how the role of GM can be both fulfilling and frustrating. There are, of course, many other responsibilities that fall to the GM, plenty of which are enjoyable."
i never said I was against the whole idea. I said I dislike the overarching attitude, that there is any level of competition. That the idea of players 'defeating' the GM assumes a conflict or competition (one cannot have a defeat without one), and that this idea is, to my eye, deleterious to the type of game I like to play. Everything you say above is ok, more than ok, but you removed this key component of the OP and linked post. The point of my contention.
I think the attitude moves us further down the continuum towards metagaming (looking at the GM vs players, vs characters in the setting), and is, in general, antithetical to my long-held ideal that the players and GM are playing the game together to create the best game experience.
I may be wrong, and it would not be the first time I have over reacted. PLease feel free to say so...it won't be the first time. :/ But my meta GM/setting ideal is pretty well thought through and this bumped into part of it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670132The OP doesn't say that though.
The OP isn't claiming the DM's goal is just to kill the players.
The OP is saying the GM should design games that can be beaten but play those games as well as they can to make the challange as tough as it can be but still be beatable, and the best outcome is is the PCs manage to beat it.
That doesn't sound like a old killer dungeon, or a level appropriate cake walk that sounds like sound GMing advice.
I just re-read it and am really not seeing this in what he said. He was quite vague though and I imagine it is entirely possible he was thinking that. But all he really says is the job of the GM is to beaten in the most entertaining way possible. He does mention that the GM plays npcs and monsters but doesn't really say anything about playing them tough.
That said we have probably been too hard on the OP. it is going to be sound advice for a large number of GMs and groups. I guess my point was, like a lot of GM advice it isn't universal.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;669979I don't even understand why people are arguing to the contrary. If you're not setting up challenges that the PCs can win, then they will all die. Game over.
You still don't get it.
As DM, I don't create challenges. I create a game world, and the
players create challenges in that game world. They may choose challenges they can't handle, or challenges they can handle, or challenges which seem impossible but with their wits and some luck they manage them anyway, or challenges which seem easy but by stupidity and poor luck they fail them anyway.
As well, you're supposing that all "challenges" involve combat, and that the combat must lead to the deaths of some of its participants.
Lastly, the game is not over when characters die, because the players simply roll up new characters and play on - having learned something, they play better next time.
It's not
Doom, it's a roleplaying game set in a world, a world which will continue to exist and change with or without the PCs.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;670137You still don't get it.
As DM, I don't create challenges. I create a game world, and the players create challenges in that game world. They may choose challenges they can't handle, or challenges they can handle, or challenges which seem impossible but with their wits and some luck they manage them anyway, or challenges which seem easy but by stupidity and poor luck they fail them anyway.
As well, you're supposing that all "challenges" involve combat, and that the combat must lead to the deaths of some of its participants.
Lastly, the game is not over when characters die, because the players simply roll up new characters and play on - having learned something, they play better next time.
It's not Doom, it's a roleplaying game set in a world, a world which will continue to exist and change with or without the PCs.
Vreeg's Third Rule of Setting Design,
"The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of setting design. The players need to feel like things are happening and will happen with or without them. They need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but that these events have weight of their own. Event-chains need velocity, not just speed.
Cause and effect from an event-chain cements the feeling of setting-weight and the march of time to the players. It's not enough to have an election in a town, the effect of that election must be there when the players return to that town. It is not enough that a band of trolls and giants is spotted, what devestation due they cause and what actions do the locals take, and from there what wreckage and ruin?"
First Corrollary of the Third Rule
"It is the interesting task of the GM to create a feel in the world that everything, every event-chain, is happening around the PCs without the least concern whether the PCs join or not, while in reality making sure the game and these event chains are actually predicated on PC volition."
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670136I just re-read it and am really not seeing this in what he said. He was quite vague though and I imagine it is entirely possible he was thinking that. But all he really says is the job of the GM is to beaten in the most entertaining way possible. He does mention that the GM plays npcs and monsters but doesn't really say anything about playing them tough.
That said we have probably been too hard on the OP. it is going to be sound advice for a large number of GMs and groups. I guess my point was, like a lot of GM advice it isn't universal.
Check where he shows up on the thread and states his position (post 61) .
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;670137You still don't get it.
As DM, I don't create challenges. I create a game world, and the players create challenges in that game world. They may choose challenges they can't handle, or challenges they can handle, or challenges which seem impossible but with their wits and some luck they manage them anyway, or challenges which seem easy but by stupidity and poor luck they fail them anyway.
As well, you're supposing that all "challenges" involve combat, and that the combat must lead to the deaths of some of its participants.
Lastly, the game is not over when characters die, because the players simply roll up new characters and play on - having learned something, they play better next time.
It's not Doom, it's a roleplaying game set in a world, a world which will continue to exist and change with or without the PCs.
But when you populate a world you are creating challenges.
the world you populate is full of challenges becuase one with no challenges has no conflict and would be crap.
Some of those challenges will be beatable by the current party some won't. The smart party will work out the ones they can beat and do those first amass more experience levels, technology, plasma rifles so they can then take on the next most difficult ones and so on.
But the only way they know of any of these options the only way they can experience the world at all is through you as you are their eyes, ears, nose, the rumours in the dark, the whispered promise on a dead girls lips... you point them at adventure possibilities.
There are ways to do this that are totally unbiased but really who uses them. Who randomly populates an area with monsters appropriate to 'temperate plains' and drops their PCs in the middle in a small village and gives them no clues that the North has Giants the sount has dragons the west has Centaurs and the east has some interesting caves where there have been rumours of goblin raids.....
As soon as you start to flesh out your world and add NPCs and put the world into moton you start to flag to players the best place to start their adventure. Now most of us do that through the interaction of the world. In the simple example I gave the 1st level PCs understand that they should fix the goblins first. Sure they can go after the giants and they will probably die.
The goblin warrens are then fleshed out as a challenge suitable for a bunch of 4 or 5 pcs from levels 1-3 etc ...
The primary takeaway I am getting from this thread is the strong desire to start off my next campaign in some town in the middle of being burned down by a flight of dragons, hell and chaos everywhere with panic stricken townsfolk fleeing all directions. Ask the players who they are and why they are in town. Let them figure out how they want to interact with things from there.
If that means I am designing a challenge to be beaten by the party, so be it.
If you did that, I'd say that you (alone among these posters) is creating a situation where you, as the DM, do not have an expectation that the players are (most likely) going to overcome the challenge in an interesting way.
No matter how complete the SandBox, good DMs don't throw players into a situation they can't handle without adequate warning. Bad DMs might.
But if the PCs wander around for two weeks, then suddenly get murdered in their sleep by an overwhelming force (because the setting and the villains logically would do that, even if the PCs didn't know they were endangering the villainous plot) without any warning in advance, you clearly don't care about providing an interesting challenge. Or an interesting game.
Good DMs create tough challenges for their players (whether their players engage them or not) and hope that the players do overcome them. Forcing the PCs to fail is too easy, but that's why there is a reputation for 'Killer DMs'. You may want to give the illusion that you're gunning for the PCs (since most of the time, your monsters REALLY ARE if you're playing them correctly) but that's just the monsters - you're really hoping that the PCs beat all the kobolds and find the awesome treasure.
That doesn't mean that you have the kobolds suicide and you give the PCs the treasure even without looking - player actions MUST matter.
We have a bunch of good GMs basically doing the same thing in slightly different ways and then arguing that because they get to the same place from a different direction it's not at all the same. I fail to see how it is not basically the same.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670144No matter how complete the SandBox, good DMs don't throw players into a situation they can't handle without adequate warning. Bad DMs might.
Good 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.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670139Check where he shows up on the thread and states his position (post 61) .
Will take a look.
What you are not getting is that 'while the world just is', starting location is not random.
If I were starting a campaign in the 'real world', there is a chance that I start just before a devastating earthquake killing everyone in a town, or along a coast as a tsunami rushes through.
In a fantasy world, the number of villages that are destroyed REGULARLY is much larger than in our relatively safe world.
If you notice that in all the hundreds of times a village was razed there was never a starting party of 1st level adventurers, you should admit that you started the PCs with a 'good chance to overcome a challenge' or even avoid it completely.
With all the dark gods being summoned from the Chaos, there's a chance that the PCs 'start' right when the world is ending, rather than with enough time to thwart the summoning.
Since the campaign starts with the assumption that the PCs will get a chance to overcome challenges we're all doing basically the same thing. Even (especially!) running the world completely randomly the result of a PC party facing overwhelming odds with no chance to retreat or escape is REALLY high.
If you use exclusively random tables for all encounters, and you have a 1% chance of running into a Great Wyrm Red Dragon if an encounter is even rolled (say, on a 1 on 1d6; rolling 3x/day), eventually a 1st level party will encounter said dragon.
Since the party has nothing to offer (1st level), there's no reason a DM 'playing the world fairly' will not have the PCs eaten, no chance to escape (dragon's are stronger, faster, more mobile than low-level PCs). If the GM instead decides 'dragon is not hungry' or something similar, he's soft-balling the encounter.
Sandbox GMs are simultaneously saying they wouldn't kill a low-level party that never had a chance to do ANYTHING to avoid it (which is the mark of a good GM) and trying to claim that they're not trying to set up challenges (whether for the party or for the world) that the PCs can overcome.
They can't have it both ways. Either you have random unavoidable death happening with alarming frequency (because the world includes things that even high-level characters fear, and those things can spill out into the rest of the world at a moment's notice) or you're confining the environment to support 'reasonable challenges'.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670144If you did that, I'd say that you (alone among these posters) is creating a situation where you, as the DM, do not have an expectation that the players are (most likely) going to overcome the challenge in an interesting way.
I will not even know what the challenge is, just creating a world where things are happening.
Players might decide they want to be a part of the draconian forces and go around slaughtering peasants. Players might decide they are the mayor's personal guard trying to sneak her out of the city. Players might decide they are the thieves guild, skulking in the sewers until the dragons pass to loot through the ruins. Players might decide they are the town guard and vainly attempt to mount a defense.
I will not know what will happen, who are the party's allies or enemies, or otherwise have a clue on how the game progresses until after the players interact with things. I am just world crafting.
Quote from: Old One Eye;670151I will not even know what the challenge is, just creating a world where things are happening.
Players might decide they want to be a part of the draconian forces and go around slaughtering peasants. Players might decide they are the mayor's personal guard trying to sneak her out of the city. Players might decide they are the thieves guild, skulking in the sewers until the dragons pass to loot through the ruins. Players might decide they are the town guard and vainly attempt to mount a defense.
I will not know what will happen, who are the party's allies or enemies, or otherwise have a clue on how the game progresses until after the players interact with things. I am just world crafting.
But you have just created a bunch of challenges.
The thieves in the sewers, the draconians against the city watch, the converse of that etc etc ....
All of those things are challenges and all of those things I assume will have an option for a 1st level PC to influence events.
Its a nice adventure setting but its nice because its chock full of challenges.
Take a position of a wizard has raised an army of iron Golems and they are marching on a town. the party are 1st level PCs. They have no way of affecting the incoming army, the wizard has stated he will raize the city to the ground and spare no souls.
The party's options are now
i) flee
ii) stay and fight and in all likelyhood die
if they take 2 then they get to make new characters with the same options etc so eventually they flee and the GM expands a new part of the setting and populates it with conflict opportunities.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670148What you are not getting is that 'while the world just is', starting location is not random.
Yes, PCs in a new campaign start out somewhere relatively safe, but what they do there is up to them. They might choose to try things they think are easy, they might choose to try things that are hard or impossible. They might do something I've never thought of. Or they might even decide to pack up and go elsewhere.
They later happened at the start of my Wilderlands Microlite74 campaign. I started the characters in Thunderhold and they decided to ignore all the stuff to do in the Thunderhold area and head for the City-State. But all of these choices have been made by starting groups in games I've ran.
QuoteIf I were starting a campaign in the 'real world', there is a chance that I start just before a devastating earthquake killing everyone in a town, or along a coast as a tsunami rushes through.
There's a very slight chance of major disasters like that when I roll for monthly events. Of course, earthquakes and similar major disasters are unlikely to kill everyone in an area, just as they are unlikely to kill everyone in an area in the real world. And many give warning signs.
That said, I've started two campaigns in the middle of a disaster. A "historical" campaign started with the PCs in central London during the Great Fire of London in 1666. Another started with the PCs members of the city guard -- on the day the city fell to a siege -- a different device for getting characters together than the standard meet-in-a-tavern .
QuoteSince the party has nothing to offer (1st level), there's no reason a DM 'playing the world fairly' will not have the PCs eaten, no chance to escape (dragon's are stronger, faster, more mobile than low-level PCs). If the GM instead decides 'dragon is not hungry' or something similar, he's soft-balling the encounter.
Dragons aren't always hungry, like to talk, and like to be flattered. If the reaction roll for the dragon is neutral or friendly (6 or higher or 2d6), there is no reason for the dragon to autoattack. I understand that more modern versions of D&D do without reaction rolls, but they are one of the prime mechanics for ensuring that PCs do not have to fight everything they encounter and I would not run any edition of D&D without them (just as I would not run any version of D&D with morale rolls). This is only "soft-balling the encounter" if one assumes that the only purpose an encounter can serve in the game is an excuse for yet another combat.
Here's an encounter with a dragon (although a young one) from my Wilderlands campaign where reaction rolls determined what happened: OD&D Wilderness Campaign: Hired by a Dragon at a "Generous" 15% of Treasure Found (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2010/02/od-wilderness-campaign-hired-by-dragon.html)
Quote from: jibbajibba;670153Take a position of a wizard has raised an army of iron Golems and they are marching on a town. the party are 1st level PCs. They have no way of affecting the incoming army, the wizard has stated he will raize the city to the ground and spare no souls.
Err, they may have no way to defeat the army of iron golems in a standup combat, but they might be able do something that does not involve directly fighting the army that would save the village or delay the attack until people who could defeat the army arrive. It's impossible to say from the limited info you have given, but there are likely options other than flee immediately or stay to fight and die.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670148What you are not getting is that 'while the world just is', starting location is not random.
If I were starting a campaign in the 'real world', there is a chance that I start just before a devastating earthquake killing everyone in a town, or along a coast as a tsunami rushes through.
In a fantasy world, the number of villages that are destroyed REGULARLY is much larger than in our relatively safe world.
If you notice that in all the hundreds of times a village was razed there was never a starting party of 1st level adventurers, you should admit that you started the PCs with a 'good chance to overcome a challenge' or even avoid it completely.
With all the dark gods being summoned from the Chaos, there's a chance that the PCs 'start' right when the world is ending, rather than with enough time to thwart the summoning.
Since the campaign starts with the assumption that the PCs will get a chance to overcome challenges we're all doing basically the same thing. Even (especially!) running the world completely randomly the result of a PC party facing overwhelming odds with no chance to retreat or escape is REALLY high.
If you use exclusively random tables for all encounters, and you have a 1% chance of running into a Great Wyrm Red Dragon if an encounter is even rolled (say, on a 1 on 1d6; rolling 3x/day), eventually a 1st level party will encounter said dragon.
Since the party has nothing to offer (1st level), there's no reason a DM 'playing the world fairly' will not have the PCs eaten, no chance to escape (dragon's are stronger, faster, more mobile than low-level PCs). If the GM instead decides 'dragon is not hungry' or something similar, he's soft-balling the encounter.
Sandbox GMs are simultaneously saying they wouldn't kill a low-level party that never had a chance to do ANYTHING to avoid it (which is the mark of a good GM) and trying to claim that they're not trying to set up challenges (whether for the party or for the world) that the PCs can overcome.
They can't have it both ways. Either you have random unavoidable death happening with alarming frequency (because the world includes things that even high-level characters fear, and those things can spill out into the rest of the world at a moment's notice) or you're confining the environment to support 'reasonable challenges'.
No.
You CAN have it both ways. I agree that party placement is normally done to create the best situation, but you are again making assumptions that a GM can't have within-setting logic that allows things to exist but not have them show up everywhere or at a moment's notice.
I DID start one of my most storied groups (which is still going on) in a town in the far north that HAD been over run by the Giantclan Silverworth, and the town was occupied by the clan's Gnoll, Ograk, Gartier (bugbear) minions with 2 giants still there for good measure. And if they started out at all resisting openly, they'd have been probably killed right off. It was years of playing before there was an opportunity for open revolt.
who the hell has a full 1% chance of running into ANY dragon in any terrain? There just are not that many dragons in Celtricia. In 90% of my terrain, they are only found as part of a subchart, and the type and age is a subchart of a subchart. Ancient Red? There are three in Celtriica. 1%? Try .0001%
However, I do agree that no matter the amount of randomness or good design, and despite the fact that most of us don't start characters in the real world, starting location is not random, it's part of the setting. I don't randomize everything as I do not find it to be helpful, but I do normally set the PCs in a civilized area, and almost all of these are somewhat safe, and most far safer than one over run with giants.
I think you are right that we ae somewhat making a lot out of a small distinction, and I am pleased I don't see anyone tryng to push the 'defeating the gm' thing so much. SO maybe we are making some progress/
Quote from: jibbajibba;670153But you have just created a bunch of challenges.
The thieves in the sewers, the draconians against the city watch, the converse of that etc etc ....
All of those things are challenges and all of those things I assume will have an option for a 1st level PC to influence events.
Its a nice adventure setting but its nice because its chock full of challenges.
Well, I guess you could say that I am creating challenges. With typical modus operandi, I will just download a map of some generic fantasy city off the internet, assume it is populated with standard genre appropriate stuff, tell the players there are a whole bunch of dragons attacking, have them roll up some characters, and ask them who they want to be/why they are in the city. Everything that exists in the city or happens will be me riffing back and forth with the players as it is happening, whatever comes to mind and seems to make sense.
As my campaigns progress, things get more and more solidified. Sometimes use an established campaign setting or fleshed out homebrew with some set locations. Rarely have anything planned specifically with the PCs in mind, though. Let them decide what they think is appropriate for their 1st level characters to do, riffing off what they say they want to try.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670153Take a position of a wizard has raised an army of iron Golems and they are marching on a town. the party are 1st level PCs. They have no way of affecting the incoming army, the wizard has stated he will raize the city to the ground and spare no souls.
The party's options are now
i) flee
ii) stay and fight and in all likelyhood die
if they take 2 then they get to make new characters with the same options etc so eventually they flee and the GM expands a new part of the setting and populates it with conflict opportunities.
iii) attempt to ally with the wizard
iv) stay in town and try to hide from golems
v) try to divert the army away from the town
Not sure why 1st level PCs would have no way of affecting the golems. Trick 'em, trap 'em, or something. Of course, I am a bit lenient on letting players try things.
Overall, I understand where you are coming from. It just feels a bit odd for "creating challenges" to encompass both me just making shit up as I go and a 4e campaign I once played in where the DM would set up the exact combat in his adventure, we fight it and have a very short post-battle interlude, then he flips the page and sets up the next fight. Seems like the concept of "creating challenges" get a bit whitewashed if it is covering that much variance in gaming styles.
Quote from: Benoist;670145Good 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.
Pretty much this. There is a reason the DM was originally called the "referee". The DM's job is not to force the players down one path or the other; not to intentionally screw the players nor protect them from themselves. The DM is there to ensure the rules of the game are followed and to control the game world and every NPC therein.
If the players throw caution to the wind and just go hiking in giant invested mountains, they'll learn better next time. DeadDM, what you call a good DM I call a bad one because if the DM runs a game world where every and any encounter is going to be level appropriate, it's a fake world. And players that expect to never have to face overwhelming danger no matter what foolhardy action they take are spoiled.
TL/DR: The PCs are just players in the world that goes on independent of them for the most part, the world doesn't revolve around them.
Quote from: Old One Eye;670161Well, I guess you could say that I am creating challenges. With typical modus operandi, I will just download a map of some generic fantasy city off the internet, assume it is populated with standard genre appropriate stuff, tell the players there are a whole bunch of dragons attacking, have them roll up some characters, and ask them who they want to be/why they are in the city. Everything that exists in the city or happens will be me riffing back and forth with the players as it is happening, whatever comes to mind and seems to make sense.
As my campaigns progress, things get more and more solidified. Sometimes use an established campaign setting or fleshed out homebrew with some set locations. Rarely have anything planned specifically with the PCs in mind, though. Let them decide what they think is appropriate for their 1st level characters to do, riffing off what they say they want to try.
iii) attempt to ally with the wizard
iv) stay in town and try to hide from golems
v) try to divert the army away from the town
Not sure why 1st level PCs would have no way of affecting the golems. Trick 'em, trap 'em, or something. Of course, I am a bit lenient on letting players try things.
Overall, I understand where you are coming from. It just feels a bit odd for "creating challenges" to encompass both me just making shit up as I go and a 4e campaign I once played in where the DM would set up the exact combat in his adventure, we fight it and have a very short post-battle interlude, then he flips the page and sets up the next fight. Seems like the concept of "creating challenges" get a bit whitewashed if it is covering that much variance in gaming styles.
Our play styles seems pretty similar as what you describe would be how I threw stuff together as well, but I would then on the fly create somethign that the players could engage with and that is a challenge/conflict call it what you will. And goign back to the OP I want the PCs to win but I will make it fucking hard for them
iii) the wizard can't be reasoned with - he is that NPC that no social skill check will ever work on :D
iv) the Golems will level the whole town and lay it unto dust - I picked golems because they are remorseless, cannot be harmed are immune to all forms of reasoning and will continue to pound tjhe very bricks of the city until all that remains is dust
v) diverting an intractable group of remoreless rentless magical entities with one set objective... well you coudl try I put that down to a variant on option 2 though :D
I have no more so I surrender to the collective and allow the mob to do as it wilt.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670171iii) the wizard can't be reasoned with - he is that NPC that no social skill check will ever work on :D
iv) the Golems will level the whole town and lay it unto dust - I picked golems because they are remorseless, cannot be harmed are immune to all forms of reasoning and will continue to pound tjhe very bricks of the city until all that remains is dust
v) diverting an intractable group of remoreless rentless magical entities with one set objective... well you coudl try I put that down to a variant on option 2 though :D
Have the feeling I would loose several characters before feeling out your DMing style. :P
Quote from: Benoist;670145Good 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.
Take a look at what RandallS said
"However, I don't populate my world with level appropriate challenges, I populate my world without any knowledge of the level of the characters (or how many characters or what classes these characters will be). 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. Outdoors, however, wandering monsters vary by terrain (and in some cases season of the year/time of day) -- the level of the characters in the party do not factor into it. If you are in the forest at first level, you might encounter wondering goblins or a wondering full grown green dragon depending on what comes up on the random roll. The world doesn't care about level appropriate."Fist he says he doesn't guide PCs to level appropriate areas. Then turns right around and shows how he guides(through rumors and gathering informations) the players to level appropriate areas. Then states that to get to these areas they will
have to chance being screwed by random charts.
Quote from: Sommerjon;670174Fist he says he doesn't guide PCs to level appropriate areas. Then turns right around and shows how he guides(through rumors and gathering informations) the players to level appropriate areas. Then states that to get to these areas they will have to chance being screwed by random charts.
No he doesn't. In fact he says quite the opposite. If PCs gather rumors, they gather *all* rumors, and then can decide for themselves where to go. Trouble reading again Sommerjon?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670177No he doesn't. In fact he says quite the opposite. If PCs gather rumors, they gather *all* rumors, and then can decide for themselves where to go. Trouble reading again Sommerjon?
I see a spade as a spade.
"Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world."
Oh how will they find out things about the world? Oh wait he tells us.
"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."
Oh look he is guiding them. Wait, maybe he has a rumors chart to roll on, you know cuz "The world doesn't care about level appropriate." It much prefers "depending on what comes up on the random roll".
Cuz we alllll know the random chart roll fits setting logic. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;670145Good 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.
That's my preference as well. I just present the initial situation/environment and then riff off of the players. My experience is that the key to this is making sure all my players' characters have clearly defined motivations from the start. I'll provide hooks, but if the PC's think a field of grass with some cows in it looks more interesting that the daunting ruins of a wayside temple built around the mouth of a cave, well then we're going to go check out some cattle. I've also found, on the other hand, that all PCs for the most part incredibly adept at creating conflicts. If a shopkeeper even squints at them oddly, there are several gamers that will at the very least have him held at sword point and interrogated about his political affiliations while the others rifle through his store looking for "trap doors" or "anything that looks weird and old". So I just create a bunch of NPCs, figure out what each of them wants, come up with their plans to get it, and then just wait for the PCs to interfere.
If they get way off track, then I improvise and/or use randomized charts until the next game, which is why I tend towards 'culture games' that do a lot of the heavy lifting.
Quote from: Sommerjon;670185I see a spade as a spade.
"Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world."
Oh how will they find out things about the world? Oh wait he tells us.
"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."
Oh look he is guiding them. Wait, maybe he has a rumors chart to roll on, you know cuz "The world doesn't care about level appropriate." It much prefers "depending on what comes up on the random roll".
Cuz we alllll know the random chart roll fits setting logic. :rolleyes:
Players make up their own minds where to go. The rumors are there as a reference.
Using a familliar example of a mini sandbox, if the PCs are playing in module B2 and gather rumors at the keep they have some information with which to make decisions.
They are advised that the upper caves are more dangerous but no one guides them to ensure they stick to the lower caves until a certain level. Greedy player might want to explore the upper caves in search of better loot and be willing to face the dangers.
Quote from: Sommerjon;670185I see a spade as a spade.
"Nor do I guide PCs to level appropriate encounters in the world."
Oh how will they find out things about the world? Oh wait he tells us.
"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."
Oh look he is guiding them. Wait, maybe he has a rumors chart to roll on, you know cuz "The world doesn't care about level appropriate." It much prefers "depending on what comes up on the random roll".
Cuz we alllll know the random chart roll fits setting logic. :rolleyes:
Not sure how others do it. I simply rarely have anything jump the party, but rather, present it in a way that lets the party determine how it want to interact.
A dragon doesn't swoop down and attack, the party sees a dragon flying overhead. A T-Rex doesn't come charging, the ranger sees T-Rex tracks. An orc horde doesn't ambush the party, they come over the crest of a hill to see an orc horde surrounding a merchant wagon train.
Not sure if that means I am presenting level-appropriate or maybe softballing encounters, but it is how I DM the game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670177No he doesn't. In fact he says quite the opposite. If PCs gather rumors, they gather *all* rumors, and then can decide for themselves where to go.
In most situations they are going to hear multiple rumors (some not even true). In larger towns and cities, what rumors they hear will even depend on where they hear them. the rumors they hear in a tavern with a criminal clientele will be different that those they could here at the Mage's guild or at the guard barracks. And in large towns and cities, chances are good it would take them weeks of chasing around town to hear most of the rumors, let alone *all* the rumors available at the time.
I don't use rumors to guide players to "my level-appropriate adventure for the session" because I don't have a prepared adventure for the session to begin with. The adventure for the session is whatever the players decide their characters want to do. And as I've said before, "level-appropriate" doesn't even make much sense as a concept in my campaigns because the characters are unlikely to be at the same level, except for the first session.
It really does not matter to me if Summerjon and others assume that I really am guiding people to level appropriate adventures with rumors, except that if these people were playing in my campaign they would probably be very confused when they discovered that I really am not doing what they are claiming I am really doing (but am apparently too stupid to realize what I'm doing).
Quote from: Old One Eye;670261Not sure how others do it. I simply rarely have anything jump the party, but rather, present it in a way that lets the party determine how it want to interact.
A dragon doesn't swoop down and attack, the party sees a dragon flying overhead. A T-Rex doesn't come charging, the ranger sees T-Rex tracks. An orc horde doesn't ambush the party, they come over the crest of a hill to see an orc horde surrounding a merchant wagon train.
Not sure if that means I am presenting level-appropriate or maybe softballing encounters, but it is how I DM the game.
It depends how smart and arrogant the encounter is, and the area and history. Are they in their own area or roving? And again, as we have all noted, the pcs become very careful many mindful after. They get jumped a few times.
No 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.
Just as you can say that Investigators don't know about level appropriate challenges, so applies the first generation DM style.
That said, the thread really has helped me to see the harm XP from defeating creatures did to the fantasy I genre. It has led to some insanely bloodthirsty behavior. Not that I think treasure was better, because it led to insanely greedy behavior. No I think games like D6 WEG, SW, etc, probably got it right - you get points for surviving the night and more points for participating.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670139Check where he shows up on the thread and states his position (post 61) .
I checked it out and see your point. I think this may also be a case of things on the internet being taken too literally and we have ignored the tacit "in my opinion/in my style of play" assumption of the article. We probably do get too pedandic about that stuff online. Plus one to the OP for posting here to clarify his position. I guess for me, the reason I tend to push that this wont work for all styles, is because I have played for a while now and I have seen people too often try to carry GM advice designed for a particular style of play into groups where it is obviously a bad fit. On the internet, this tends to be exxagerated and you get universal advice where people get pretty militant about their style (and as you point out, we do it here as well).
My issue hasnt been so much with the OP,(whose exact position I was never 100% clear on until now) but in some of the responses which have stated a style of play I see and have participated in is either impossible or undesireable. It is true though that I am probably more inclined to notice it when it is directed at a style of play I enjoy, rather than when it is directed the other way. To be clear, I think there is a huge spectrum and there isn't a wrong way. DeadGMs style for example is entirely valid and I have embraced when the players in my group preferred that. I think one thing every GM can benefit from is occassionally getting outside your comfort zone and trying a a different approach on its own terms.
So all that said, the OPs appraoch is one I can see a lot of people enjoying. It isnt quite how I prefer to do things, but it isn't radically outside my norms of play either and it is something I could enjoy playing or GMing (Lord Vreeg's approach is probably closest to my comfort zone at the moment). It is certainly not a bad piece of advice for folks want the kind of experience enjoyed by the OP (I suspect he speaks for a large chunk of the hobby). The only thing I would add to what he is saying, is it can also be fun to go the other direction and, not compete with the players, but crank up the carnage and make it a real challenge where players have less expectation of survival. For some reason, the older I get, the more exciting I find it when our party gets slaughtered. There are lots of different guidelines out there for gamemastering. It can be fun to try them all on for size. This is why I have said in the past, paying for an optimized group can be fun. That is the polar opposite of my prefered style, but I was forced into it as a GM by circumstance and found I really enjoyed the challenge of running a game for a group of optimized system mastery folk. It taught me a lot (such as It is not a lesser style of play, and what matters really is the expectations of people at the table).
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.
Just as you can say that Investigators don't know about level appropriate challenges, so applies the first generation DM style.
That said, the thread really has helped me to see the harm XP from defeating creatures did to the fantasy I genre. It has led to some insanely bloodthirsty behavior. Not that I think treasure was better, because it led to insanely greedy behavior. No I think games like D6 WEG, SW, etc, probably got it right - you get points for surviving the night and more points for participating.
No offense taken. I sort of agree. And new PCs are given the choice to come in as level 1 or 10% less exp than the lowest in our groups. I post on other boards, and some of the really good GMS and I talk all the time about the differences in attitude. I also agree about the affects of the reward have created behavior patterns.
I personally made the choice years ago about exp, from a psychological standpoint. There are people who think it does not matter, but from what I see every single game I really delve into or talk about with others, progress and how progress is charted is a reward system.
And bringing that around to the OP, since I am the one rewarding the players for their good play, they are not defeating me, they have done my bidding....
Quote from: LordVreeg;670286I personally made the choice years ago about exp, from a psychological standpoint. There are people who think it does not matter, but from what I see every single game I really delve into or talk about with others, progress and how progress is charted is a reward system.QUOTE]
Can you elaborate and explain this to me?
I scrapped tracking xp 25 years ago and it seems to have been a positive thing.
But I like to keep an open mind.
Quote from: Bill;670287Quote from: LordVreeg;670286I personally made the choice years ago about exp, from a psychological standpoint. There are people who think it does not matter, but from what I see every single game I really delve into or talk about with others, progress and how progress is charted is a reward system.QUOTE]
Can you elaborate and explain this to me?
I scrapped tracking xp 25 years ago and it seems to have been a positive thing.
But I like to keep an open mind.
Sure, as far as my head understands it.
We both scrapped the trad exp mode of the time way back when. We share that.
At the time when I really changed it, I had just started my progression towards my psych degree, and over the next 5 years would end up running a lot of experiments, and I used my games and players often, ad a few times, we'd use other groups to get a better 'n'.
Really. I laugh now.
And we played a few different types of games, as well. which was nice to highlight differences.
But one theory from psych I always liked and fit into my own is that something that is earned is a stronger reinforcer than something given, because there is a connection to understanding where it comes from. It's Why it is nearly impossible to be happy without being satisfied with the effort you are putting in. Satisfaction with yourself is an essential building block to happiness.
So I realized my playstyle was becoming less combat driven and less adventure driven, and yet rewards came heavily from this. And while this caused a lot of changes, I realized that there was no denying the power of reinforcement (I am not an ardent behaviorist, but not do I deny the fact that there is too much research supporting much of it), and that some of the greatest satisfactions for a Player came from truly earning their achievement, and the closer I tied the rewards to the type of achievement I wanted (behavior), the more satisfying and enjoyable the game to these players.
So I did not remove combat experience, but I lessened it I added in a lot of skill based experience, so players really get better in the skills they use, and that is probably 30% of the total experience, but the goal and roleplay exp is a full 50% of the experience, because while my players enjoy roleplay and the game, I have rarely seen the satisfaction of a player who gets a high reward at the end of a well-played session taking in the congratulations of the other players around the table.
Something is working.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;670240Players make up their own minds where to go. The rumors are there as a reference.
Using a familliar example of a mini sandbox, if the PCs are playing in module B2 and gather rumors at the keep they have some information with which to make decisions.
They are advised that the upper caves are more dangerous but no one guides them to ensure they stick to the lower caves until a certain level. Greedy player might want to explore the upper caves in search of better loot and be willing to face the dangers.
Veteran Gamer knows what's what. Sure if your table is full of newest players possible that is one thing, playing with people who have been gaming for any length of time have a much firmer grasp on how to 'read' into what is being related to them.
Quote from: Sommerjon;670291Veteran Gamer knows what's what. Sure if your table is full of newest players possible that is one thing, playing with people who have been gaming for any length of time have a much firmer grasp on how to 'read' into what is being related to them.
That's still not guiding them though. The DM isn't doing anything different regardless of players. He's only providing information based on character action. That's it.
What 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.
Quote from: LordVreeg;670289Quote from: Bill;670287Sure, as far as my head understands it.
We both scrapped the trad exp mode of the time way back when. We share that.
At the time when I really changed it, I had just started my progression towards my psych degree, and over the next 5 years would end up running a lot of experiments, and I used my games and players often, ad a few times, we'd use other groups to get a better 'n'.
Really. I laugh now.
And we played a few different types of games, as well. which was nice to highlight differences.
But one theory from psych I always liked and fit into my own is that something that is earned is a stronger reinforcer than something given, because there is a connection to understanding where it comes from. It's Why it is nearly impossible to be happy without being satisfied with the effort you are putting in. Satisfaction with yourself is an essential building block to happiness.
So I realized my playstyle was becoming less combat driven and less adventure driven, and yet rewards came heavily from this. And while this caused a lot of changes, I realized that there was no denying the power of reinforcement (I am not an ardent behaviorist, but not do I deny the fact that there is too much research supporting much of it), and that some of the greatest satisfactions for a Player came from truly earning their achievement, and the closer I tied the rewards to the type of achievement I wanted (behavior), the more satisfying and enjoyable the game to these players.
So I did not remove combat experience, but I lessened it I added in a lot of skill based experience, so players really get better in the skills they use, and that is probably 30% of the total experience, but the goal and roleplay exp is a full 50% of the experience, because while my players enjoy roleplay and the game, I have rarely seen the satisfaction of a player who gets a high reward at the end of a well-played session taking in the congratulations of the other players around the table.
Something is working.
What I do, with level based games, in a nutshell, is reward the players as a group with a level when:
They, as a group, are giving off a vibe, or even patting themselves on the back, over thier characters acomplishments.
Tempered by not wanting the rate of advancement to be too fast or too slow in a general sense.
If the players happen to ask "When do we get a level?" I will usually reply with something like "When you have accomplished more of X ( X being whatever the characters goals are)" Or I might say "When you manage to reveal to the king that his brother plans to steal the throne instead of screwing up like you have and making the brother's regicide easier"
Depend son what the players are trying to do.
I can't speak for others, but I personally think a player should be concerned with what their character is doing, and immerssion in the game, and not metagamethinking about how to earn xp for the next level.
Quote from: RandallS;670263In most situations they are going to hear multiple rumors (some not even true). In larger towns and cities, what rumors they hear will even depend on where they hear them. the rumors they hear in a tavern with a criminal clientele will be different that those they could here at the Mage's guild or at the guard barracks. And in large towns and cities, chances are good it would take them weeks of chasing around town to hear most of the rumors, let alone *all* the rumors available at the time.
I don't use rumors to guide players to "my level-appropriate adventure for the session" because I don't have a prepared adventure for the session to begin with. The adventure for the session is whatever the players decide their characters want to do. And as I've said before, "level-appropriate" doesn't even make much sense as a concept in my campaigns because the characters are unlikely to be at the same level, except for the first session.
It really does not matter to me if Summerjon and others assume that I really am guiding people to level appropriate adventures with rumors, except that if these people were playing in my campaign they would probably be very confused when they discovered that I really am not doing what they are claiming I am really doing (but am apparently too stupid to realize what I'm doing).
I've played with a number of Gms like you in my time. Your setting matters more than anything the players do.
You say the players can take weeks running through the whole town catching all of the rumors? WTF 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. That's just the way it is. That doesn't mean that the gossip stays 100% accurate through all the 'filtering'.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670294That's still not guiding them though. The DM isn't doing anything different regardless of players. He's only providing information based on character action. That's it.
What 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 sure as shit better do something different based on the players.
Quote from: Bill;670295Quote from: LordVreeg;670289What I do, with level based games, in a nutshell, is reward the players as a group with a level when:
They, as a group, are giving off a vibe, or even patting themselves on the back, over thier characters acomplishments.
Tempered by not wanting the rate of advancement to be too fast or too slow in a general sense.
If the players happen to ask "When do we get a level?" I will usually reply with something like "When you have accomplished more of X ( X being whatever the characters goals are)" Or I might say "When you manage to reveal to the king that his brother plans to steal the throne instead of screwing up like you have and making the brother's regicide easier"
Depend son what the players are trying to do.
I can't speak for others, but I personally think a player should be concerned with what their character is doing, and immerssion in the game, and not metagamethinking about how to earn xp for the next level.
I think we do what we do for the same reason, and maybe even get similar results from different directions.
Something else I did was break every skill into it's own level, so a beginning character may have 10-15 skills they have going on, and a mid level one may have 20-25 skills, as growth is very free form and is as much about acquiring new skills and sub skills as getting better at a class. So a player normally breaks 1-3 small skill levels per session.
And one of the dynamics of rewarding skill use is character's becoming what they do. The more they bribe people, they better they get at it, the more they schmooze, the better they get at schmoozing, the more they try to identify magic, the better they get at it.
So players get used, and start to live out the whole, "become what they do" ideal. One of the casters had a little restorative spell ability when a priest went down (with a bunch of scrolls) early in an adventure, and his response was, "guess I'm going to become a better healer, huh?".
I also play stupid long games, so I did this to also keep them happy with lots of little progressions, since I don't like high-power games.
Quote from: Sommerjon;670301He sure as shit better do something different based on the players.
You 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.
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: BenoistQuote 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.
Quote from: Old One Eye;670532There 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?
It's a good point, as I purposely went this route years ago, worrying as much about logical placement as I could in the setting before looking back and seeing If I can combine good design with this as much as possible.
But again, I don't write any of this with my PCs in mind.
But I also believe game style/design style begets player behavior. Adventures written for the PCs and designed with playability first In mind create players who expect this kind of adventure. Adventures written with the setting consistency first create players who look for setting consistency and sometimes run out after 4-5 encounters.
Quote from: Sommerjon;670553I'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."
OK, clearly you don't know what the word "guide" means. In those two quotes you replied to, all the DM is doing is providing information that the players took it upon themselves to go find without any commentary of what is better for them and what isn't (what "guiding" is). He's not pushing or prodding them into one direction or the other. He's simply providing the information that they have uncovered, not giving any info that they haven't uncovered, and they make the decision themselves.
QuoteAs 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.
And again, you have failed to explain how this proves that he guides one group of players over another. In fact, it has nothing to do with anything. Your argument is getting weaker and stranger by the second.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670626OK, clearly you don't know what the word "guide" means. In those two quotes you replied to, all the DM is doing is providing information that the players took it upon themselves to go find without any commentary of what is better for them and what isn't (what "guiding" is). He's not pushing or prodding them into one direction or the other. He's simply providing the information that they have uncovered, not giving any info that they haven't uncovered, and they make the decision themselves.
Guide:
1. to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person:
He guided us through the forest.2. to accompany (a sightseer) to show points of interest and to explain their meaning or significance.
3. to force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.
4. to supply (a person) with advice or counsel, as in practical or spiritual affairs.
5. to supervise (someone's actions or affairs) in an advisory capacity.
What does he do? Could be number 1 or number 2 or number 3 or number 4 or number 5 Could be any one of them or multiples or all of them. You have no idea.
"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."So he doesn't
'guide' players to level appropriate areas?
If the Players jump through his hoops and he rolls well on his random rumor charts they may, just may, have some clues about what is going on in some fixed locations?
You have no idea if his rumor charts 'force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.'
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670626And again, you have failed to explain how this proves that he guides one group of players over another. In fact, it has nothing to do with anything. Your argument is getting weaker and stranger by the second.
Read this post of yours
Quote from: SacThat's still not guiding them though. The DM isn't doing anything different regardless of players. He's only providing information based on character action. That's it.
What 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.
This has fuck all to do with RandallS.
I was responding this post about the theoretical DM you describe. Yet for some dumb reason you keep trying to tie it back into something else. The only thing it ties back into is my original sentence in this thread.
"Players are at the complete mercy of DM description. I would say Good DMs give adequate information to the players."That means the needs of the players is for fuck sure more important then the need of the DM to keep his precious setting logic intact.
See those people 'not familiar' have no clue about setting logic or "trying to keep it real" or level appropriate areas or hand holding is for losers or "just trying to play the setting" or any of that bullshit.
Your intellect is truly dizzying.
And again, you haven't shown anything where he flip flopped. Quit being such a Sommerjon just once.
Quote from: Old One Eye;670532There 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?
First the bold part. I do exactly that. That is precisely my approach to the whole world but ... they are the Dripping Spear Orc tribe. They are orcs and that limits how much of a challenge they can be. For me the Dripping Spear Orc tribe is a challange for a 3-4th level party. Now when I decide to place them at point X I have no idea if the PCs will get there if they are 1st level or 10th level but everyone involved in the game knows the relative power of orcs so when they learn of the tribe that will tell them that its a challenge they can face or one they can't face. That is creating level appropraite challenges in the world because in the case of D&D at least the whole game is geared around that concept that is what levels do that is the way the DNA of the game is designed.
To your last point... in a sandbox game there will be challenges of various degrees. Sandbox games, very rarely take place in Brobinganian where all potential opponents are 25 HD Giants. The GM places creatures in their game world maybe at random more likely as part of a wider overarching template. That placement creates by its very existance challenges of different difficulties appropriate to parties of different levels.
Take your 'Realm of Fire' dragon assault example. Once you start to flesh it out you already thing about Draconian foot soldiers and sewers where the PCs can flee too. The World, the DnD model for stuff naturally organises into challenges of different levels. And the players understanding of the game and the genre means that they know immediately how that breaks down. "We are 1st level we can't fight the dragon lets hide in the sewers" as opposed to "We are 12th level lets waste those dragons".
Compare that to a game of CoC or a modern day spy setting. In CoC the ghoul wandering round the graveyard can easily kill the entire party, so the entire party are shit scared of any and all creatures and generally run from danger unless they can meet it on their terms.
In a modern day spy game though you don't say Smersh are atting London , but they are too toucgh for my first level PCs so we will flee to paris and see what we can do there. The game isset up so that the party are competant from the get go and expect to be able to meet with and dispatch Smerch Agents from the off. But even then the GM will hold off and won't getteh PCs to encouter 20 Smersh agents with automatic weapons in an Ambush. So even without the concept of level appropriate risk you still have it only sans levels
Does that make any sense?
All I know is that in close to30 years of GMing, I've never once used or thought the phrase 'level-appropriate'
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670692Your intellect is truly dizzying.
And again, you haven't shown anything where he flip flopped. Quit being such a Sommerjon just once.
I am so sorry.
He in no way guides his players to level appropriate areas in his setting. That whole thing about players getting information of "fixed locations" in absolutely no way is 'guiding'. :rolleyes:
That is merely the players getting lucky rolls on the rumors charts. :rolleyes:
Quote from: TristramEvans;670696All I know is that in close to 30 years of GMing, I've never once used or thought the phrase 'level-appropriate'
So?
(http://www.freewebs.com/peelsterjava1/photos/For%20The%20Codes/Cookie.GIF)
Yes of course I want a cookie. Who the hell doesn't want a cookie?
Quote from: Sommerjon;670691Guide:
1. to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person: He guided us through the forest.
2. to accompany (a sightseer) to show points of interest and to explain their meaning or significance.
3. to force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.
4. to supply (a person) with advice or counsel, as in practical or spiritual affairs.
5. to supervise (someone's actions or affairs) in an advisory capacity.
Telling the players random rumors (that may not even provide correct info) their characters hear when talk to various people in an inn, town, or city does none of the above. All it does is provide raw information. It does not guide anyone to any place or action. I realize that you have some incomprehensible need for my campaigns to be based on level appropriate encounters so are trying hard to figure out some way that I really am ensuring that characters get to level appropriate encounters, but your desire for this does not change the fact that is not how my campaign works.
Quote"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."
So he doesn't 'guide' players to level appropriate areas?
No, providing rumors does not guide people to level appropriate areas. It provides information which is generally somewhat vague (or even completely incorrect at times) about the area and what is going on in it. It can give players an idea of what is in a particular place so they can decide if it is something they want to investigate in person but a rumor of goblin bandits in the woods a day's ride away does not mean this is automatically a level appropriate encounter.
The rumor may be accurate, or true but incomplete (say, the bandits are lead by a Ogre Magi with his pet umbar hulks who simply do not go on raids so no one has ever seen them), or misleading (the goblins are actually hobgoblins), or not true at all (the bandits have left the area, or the bandits are just an illusion used to scare people away by a high level mage who is looking for a powerful magic item in the woods, or ...). It's just a rumor, not a guaranteed lead to an encounter that a low level party can defeat in combat (or defeat in any other way).
This doesn't even consider the fact that -- as I have stated in a prior post in this thread -- the idea of "level appropriate encounters" is meaningless in my campaigns as most of time PC adventuring parties are not composed of characters all about level X, but are composed of characters of a wide range of levels.
QuoteIf the Players jump through his hoops and he rolls well on his random rumor charts they may, just may, have some clues about what is going on in some fixed locations?
Yes, they will have some idea from rumors. Although it has nothing to do with jumping through hoops, but with roleplaying the characters. I realize that seeking rumors in a town is probably considered part of the boring stuff between action/combat that designers of games like D&D 4e think should be skipped, but my players enjoy such interaction.
QuoteYou have no idea if his rumor charts 'force (a person, object, or animal) to move in a certain path.'
Hearing a rumor does not force anyone to do anything. The idea that it might is so silly that is in impossible to take you seriously.
This is one of those discussions where you can tell who is playing the game, and who is just reading and theorising about it. Lots of things which seem stupid when you read the game - or the GM's description of how they run things - work out pretty well in play, and vice versa.
Players' decisions are not meaningful unless there is a chance they can seriously fuck up or have amazing victories, and not merely from ridiculously bad or good dice rolls. Their wits and the (non-dice) chance of things must be a big part of it.
Some GMs really do give players a choice about what to do next. Sometimes this choice will be based on incomplete or wrong information. Nor is there any obligation on the part of the GM to make their choices post facto good or interesting ones. That's part of the joy of the thing, the exploration of the game world. "This is what we think is so... but let's go find out!"
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;670734This is one of those discussions where you can tell who is playing the game, and who is just reading and theorising about it. Lots of things which seem stupid when you read the game - or the GM's description of how they run things - work out pretty well in play, and vice versa.
Players' decisions are not meaningful unless there is a chance they can seriously fuck up or have amazing victories, and not merely from ridiculously bad or good dice rolls. Their wits and the (non-dice) chance of things must be a big part of it.
Some GMs really do give players a choice about what to do next. Sometimes this choice will be based on incomplete or wrong information. Nor is there any obligation on the part of the GM to make their choices post facto good or interesting ones. That's part of the joy of the thing, the exploration of the game world. "This is what we think is so... but let's go find out!"
In my campaign, I generally cannot predict what will happen next. During the last campaign I DM'd, the players ignored the town where I intended them to go for the adventure, and went to a different town entirely. It worked out great. Sometimes the PCs do things that fuck them up, sometimes they do things that allow them to shine.....but they're always out there, exploring something new.
It seems like some folks are trying to argue there is no meaningful difference between a campaign based entirely on giving players level appropriate encounters and one where encounters can vary from easy to impossible or nearly impossible. If you are using random encounters, your encounter charts will determine where you reside on the spectrum (same thing for adventures and challenges if you are using rumor charts). I mean there is a big difference between a game where the encounter charts keep all the results within four levels of the party and one where the encounter charts include things way beyond and way below the party's level. I would never argue one approach is better, and like I said I think most GMs and groups are somewhere in the middle really, but it is entirely possible to run a campaign where the party may have to face challenges well above their current level. Some GMs may softball it when a bad result comes up, but others will not, and will play out the encounter using the reaction roll to determine how hostile the deadly foe is. There will also be tremendous variety, some gms may put a dragon on the 20 of a 2d10 roll, others, like lord vreeg, may make them part of a subchart where the liklihood is low, but still there depending on where the party happens to be.
I think a lot of folks are assuming all players have the same reaction to challenge levels. For me, I honestly have no problem if an encounter roll leads to a TPK because a dragon came up (I do think it ought to be played t as fairly as possible though, and a group that does something like split up in five different directions may have a shot at avoiding the tpk, even if some of the party still dies). To me that is the most exciting way to play the game. It is true, most groups wont go for this. Often as both a player and GM I do have to compromise on this preference. Still it keeps me much more entertained than a more predictable approach.
Obviously I expect the Gm to put some thought into encounter charts if he goes this direction.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670737It seems like some folks are trying to argue there is no meaningful difference between a campaign based entirely on giving players level appropriate encounters and one where encounters can vary from easy to impossible or nearly impossible. If you are using random encounters, your encounter charts will determine where you reside on the spectrum (same thing for adventures and challenges if you are using rumor charts). I mean there is a big difference between a game where the encounter charts keep all the results within four levels of the party and one where the encounter charts include things way beyond and way below the party's level. I would never argue one approach is better, and like I said I think most GMs and groups are somewhere in the middle really, but it is entirely possible to run a campaign where the party may have to face challenges well above their current level. Some GMs may softball it when a bad result comes up, but others will not, and will play out the encounter using the reaction roll to determine how hostile the deadly foe is. There will also be tremendous variety, some gms may put a dragon on the 20 of a 2d10 roll, others, like lord vreeg, may make them part of a subchart where the liklihood is low, but still there depending on where the party happens to be.
I think a lot of folks are assuming all players have the same reaction to challenge levels. For me, I honestly have no problem if an encounter roll leads to a TPK because a dragon came up (I do think it ought to be played t as fairly as possible though, and a group that does something like split up in five different directions may have a shot at avoiding the tpk, even if some of the party still dies). To me that is the most exciting way to play the game. It is true, most groups wont go for this. Often as both a player and GM I do have to compromise on this preference. Still it keeps me much more entertained than a more predictable approach.
Obviously I expect the Gm to put some thought into encounter charts if he goes this direction.
Brendan I think what a couple of us are saying is more a case that in D&D all encounters are level appropriate for the correct level and the GM through rumours hints, placement and other stuff effectively overlays across their game world a level appropriate way of negotiating the game world.
This is is not the same as saying "ah they have gone north I will more the Dripping Spear orcs to the Northern hills", and its not the same as saying "ah they have entered the Dungeons of Gisk I will retool these to be CR appropriate for a group of 4 4-5th level PCs."
However, the fact remains that when we build an orc fortifaction, a goblin warren, a Fire giant castle those things are designed for a certain level of PC, that is how all offical D&D games have always been written and the Random monsters tables in 1e, the concept of increasing danger as you descend, are all geared round this form of play.
A good GM will provide in game reasons for the PCs to be presented with the option of taking on foes they can beat or foes they can't and let the dice fall where they may. But a GM that give no such warnigns no foreshadowing of danger may well be playing a far more realistic game world but it will be much less sucessful as a game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670750Brendan I think what a couple of us are saying is more a case that in D&D all encounters are level appropriate for the correct level and the GM through rumours hints, placement and other stuff effectively overlays across their game world a level appropriate way of negotiating the game world.
This is is not the same as saying "ah they have gone north I will more the Dripping Spear orcs to the Northern hills", and its not the same as saying "ah they have entered the Dungeons of Gisk I will retool these to be CR appropriate for a group of 4 4-5th level PCs."
However, the fact remains that when we build an orc fortifaction, a goblin warren, a Fire giant castle those things are designed for a certain level of PC, that is how all offical D&D games have always been written and the Random monsters tables in 1e, the concept of increasing danger as you descend, are all geared round this form of play.
A good GM will provide in game reasons for the PCs to be presented with the option of taking on foes they can beat or foes they can't and let the dice fall where they may. But a GM that give no such warnigns no foreshadowing of danger may well be playing a far more realistic game world but it will be much less sucessful as a game.
I am not dispting that this is true for you, or posibly even 70-80 percent of players out there. But my point is not everyone embraces the conceit of dungeon levels correponding to party level. And it isnt an either or propositoin, there is a spectrum. Some do employ random encounter tables that include things way beyond the party's ability. This is a style of play that is out there. Some mitigate the lethality of such an approach but some do not. Some want the gm to clearly indicate howlethal a potential challenge is so the party can weigh that in their decision, some wont mind less clarity and making the choice to take their chances on the house in the woods (perhaps it is a level 2 encounter, perhaps it is a level 20 encounter, let's find our). I have been in plenty of games where you go into a dungeon and the bulk of the encounters could be moderately level appropriate, but a handful of surprises in the encounter table are not. This is probably where my comfort level is as aplayer. I dont want to be overwhelmed with uber encounters but i find it more exciting when they are possibilities sprinkled in. And personally, i do not feel the gm needs to give me fair warnings in these cases. My feeling is of our level two party goes into a dungeon or ventures into the wilderness, it's fair for there to be some things down there that we can't handle (particularly if encounters are being rolled randomly and the charts are well constructed). I like to feel like i am really taking a chance on an adventure.
At the same time i can definitely enjoy a game that is nothing but surprises.
Also, this is not neccesarily connected to desiring realism. For me it is about excitement. I just ind it far more exciting when challenge levels are not oarticularly predictable and the stakes are higher (a session that ends with a tpk involving a dragon can be a lot more fun for me than one where we make it through six encounters, all in fair range of our levels).
I am not saying level appropriateness is never a consideration. But different groups will give it different weight. Some expect all or most encounters to be level appropriate, some do not. For me the dullest ort of game is one that has the party involved in exactly the right encounters for their level over the course of the evening. I think it is helpful to factor in. I dont want an equal chance of a level one encounter or level 20 encounter at every point in the adventur. But i also do not like feeling as though the world is perfectly tailored to our party orclacks unexpected dangers.
In terms of GM guidance, i think what i actually expect there is a chance to discover the rough challenge level of a potential a challenge, with the understanding that we may get misinformation at times or that a foe could deliberately conceal his true power level on occassion. But it ought to be a chance that has a psibility of failure, where the party can end up seriously overestimating or underestimating a threat. I also want random encounters that cover a much broader range than within four levels of the party average. Even if the prbability of getting something like a Tarasque is low, i like knowing something such as that could crop up.
Again though, this is my set of preferences. I've met people who want more measured encounters and those who want more unpredictability and carnage.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670750However, the fact remains that when we build an orc fortifaction, a goblin warren, a Fire giant castle those things are designed for a certain level of PC, that is how all offical D&D games have always been written and the Random monsters tables in 1e, the concept of increasing danger as you descend, are all geared round this form of play.
It's not as cut and dried as that, at least not in 0e (and not in 1e as I recall, but I don't have my 1e books out at the moment).
In Dungeons: You are supposed to hand-place your specials on each level and roll randomly for the rest of the rooms. 33% have a monster. If there is a monster you roll a D6 on the "Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix.
For the 1st level of the dungeon, the rolls are:
1-2 Table 1
3-4 Table 2
5 Table 3
6 Table 4
Which means a 1st level dungeon room with a monster has a 16% chance of the monster being on 4th table of the 6 tables. the 4th table includes monsters like: wraiths, lycanthropes, ogres, 6th level fighters, 7th level magic-users, gargoyles, etc. These are hardly what most people would consider level appropriate encounters for first or second level characters on the first level of the dungeon. This is a big hint to me that ensuring that every encounter PCs run into is "level appropriate" was not a big concern.
In the Wilderness, encounters are determined by terrain, the level of the PCs has NO bearing on what is encountered. This was why wilderness adventures were often considered far more dangerous than dungeon adventures for lower level characters. At least with a dungeon, most of the room with monsters would be creatures "appropriate" to the dungeon level. In the wilderness, not only was there no such likelihood, but the number of monsters in a group was often higher, sometimes much higher.
Quote from: jibbajibba;670750Brendan I think what a couple of us are saying is more a case that in D&D all encounters are level appropriate for the correct level and the GM through rumours hints, placement and other stuff effectively overlays across their game world a level appropriate way of negotiating the game world.
This is is not the same as saying "ah they have gone north I will more the Dripping Spear orcs to the Northern hills", and its not the same as saying "ah they have entered the Dungeons of Gisk I will retool these to be CR appropriate for a group of 4 4-5th level PCs."
However, the fact remains that when we build an orc fortifaction, a goblin warren, a Fire giant castle those things are designed for a certain level of PC, that is how all offical D&D games have always been written and the Random monsters tables in 1e, the concept of increasing danger as you descend, are all geared round this form of play.
A good GM will provide in game reasons for the PCs to be presented with the option of taking on foes they can beat or foes they can't and let the dice fall where they may. But a GM that give no such warnigns no foreshadowing of danger may well be playing a far more realistic game world but it will be much less sucessful as a game.
I disagree with some of this, but not totally. As to Brendan's post, I see this as something of a continuum. I also do not place any holiness in the term, 'that is how all offical D&D games have always been written'. That cuts ZERO ice with me. I think often level appropriateness and those charts you mention create very fun, playable adventures for the new GM and new player, and then we can grow up and expand our minds and games a bit.
I also appreciate your use of terminology; the phrase, "the GM through rumours hints, placement and other stuff effectively overlays across their game world a level appropriate way of negotiating the game world." is a good example.
I believe a good GM, as I have said, creates less incongruence between the in-game logic and the placement of placed playable scenarios. It really is, in my book, one of the key GM skills to look at for the quality of a game.
And a good GM has in-game reasons that the players can see and understand why they should attempt scenario 'X' and maybe 'Q', but that this 'Z' thing they heard of, that's out of their league. I don't think this needs to be level appropriate so much as it needs to make sense and the PCs will learn to see where they need to go. Do I design my longer scenarios to reflect in game logic and yes still possibly get tougher as the PCs move on? to some degree, I think.
Quote from: RandallS;670732Telling the players random rumors (that may not even provide correct info) their characters hear when talk to various people in an inn, town, or city does none of the above. All it does is provide raw information. It does not guide anyone to any place or action. I realize that you have some incomprehensible need for my campaigns to be based on level appropriate encounters so are trying hard to figure out some way that I really am ensuring that characters get to level appropriate encounters, but your desire for this does not change the fact that is not how my campaign works.
I couldn't care less about your selfmasterburatory games.
You've made it perfectly clear that you don't give two shits about your players.
Quote from: RandallS;670732No, providing rumors does not guide people to level appropriate areas. It provides information which is generally somewhat vague (or even completely incorrect at times) about the area and what is going on in it. It can give players an idea of what is in a particular place so they can decide if it is something they want to investigate in person but a rumor of goblin bandits in the woods a day's ride away does not mean this is automatically a level appropriate encounter.
The rumor may be accurate, or true but incomplete (say, the bandits are lead by a Ogre Magi with his pet umbar hulks who simply do not go on raids so no one has ever seen them), or misleading (the goblins are actually hobgoblins), or not true at all (the bandits have left the area, or the bandits are just an illusion used to scare people away by a high level mage who is looking for a powerful magic item in the woods, or ...). It's just a rumor, not a guaranteed lead to an encounter that a low level party can defeat in combat (or defeat in any other way).
Of course. No one ever really knows anything in your settings :rolleyes:.
It's all half truths and half or false informations. Giving them actual concrete information is a big :nono:
You can't fuck them if they have foreknowledge. What fun will you have if they walk in with confidence?
Quote from: RandallS;670732This doesn't even consider the fact that -- as I have stated in a prior post in this thread -- the idea of "level appropriate encounters" is meaningless in my campaigns as most of time PC adventuring parties are not composed of characters all about level X, but are composed of characters of a wide range of levels.
I don't care about LAE. You've already stated numerous times your dislike for combat and have abstracted combat to a couple rolls. Your campaigns are all carrot on the stick.
Quote from: RandallS;670732Yes, they will have some idea from rumors. Although it has nothing to do with jumping through hoops, but with roleplaying the characters. I realize that seeking rumors in a town is probably considered part of the boring stuff between action/combat that designers of games like D&D 4e think should be skipped, but my players enjoy such interaction.
:rotfl:Yeah of course they do:rolleyes: They could have the most perfect roleplaying ever done in the history of gaming and will come out with nothing but some ideas from vague rumors.
Quote from: RandallS;670732Hearing a rumor does not force anyone to do anything. The idea that it might is so silly that is in impossible to take you seriously.
:banghead: You know I really think you are that ignorant.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;669959Those who have said they disagree with the statement have actually indicated by their posts that they do agree, they just are so fixated on the semantics that they insist they they don't agree.
Why choose such semantics, then, rather than, "The GM's job is to
challenge the players?" Why complain about people making clearer statements?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;669979Unless you're some percentage of your campaigns have included: dragon attacks at 1st level, you all die; or Horde of Orcs pillage your village, you all die (which to be fair are things that tend to happen in the game when the PCs are at a level appropriate to deal with it), people are setting up challenges that are 'winnable' in some manner.
I don't even understand why people are arguing to the contrary. If you're not setting up challenges that the PCs can win, then they will all die. Game over.
The challenge of not getting attacked by a dragon at 1st level is "winnable" in old D&D by staying the hell out of the wilderness and the deeper dungeon levels -- or by luck if you're more reckless.
That's a very different matter than 'fudging' so that players who buck the odds get a soft pitch.
The likelihood of a village getting pillaged in the near future tends to be related to events in the near past. Do you
force your players to locate themselves in such a situation? How do you explain the ordinary villagers' decision to do so?
How is it automatic death? Do you suddenly and arbitrarily make it impossible to escape?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;670049If you generally set up challenges fairly so that even 'unbeatable' challenges can be avoided, players will self-select challenges that (while they may be tough) they're reasonably confident that they'll win.
So, why do you call this "the GM's job to be defeated," rather than "the player's job to choose challenges?"
Apart from your
wanting to provoke disagreement, all I can figure is that you have in mind a game in which it is in fact the GM -- not the players -- who decides what the PCs undertake.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;670062But there are long running games where player characters not only can die, but do so frequently. Particularly when I was younger, I was often in such campaigns. I recall being in a D&D campaign that lasted about two years or so and most of the people went through three or four characters. That is a bit on the extreme end, but it does occur. There are people who enjoy that style of play, and who manage to keep a game going despite PC death. In highshool lethality rates of the campaigns I was in ran the spectrum from characters dying nearly every session (sometimes people losing multiple characters in a single session) to games with total plot immunity.
With the original D&D set -- before the slight HD inflation and greater monster-damage inflation of Supplement I -- a 1st-level fighter might have a 100% chance of getting killed with one hit, or a 0% chance. Average figures have a 1/3 or 1/2 chance. The toughest has 8 HP (7/12 chance of surviving two hits).
That means you try to avoid letting a monster get a swing at you, and at the least you want a hefty treasure to be on the line! In my experience, it's still quite typical even for skilled players to go through three or four characters before getting one to second level.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;670240Using a familliar example of a mini sandbox, if the PCs are playing in module B2 and gather rumors at the keep they have some information with which to make decisions.
If memory serves, there's a medusa in a situation (at least at start) that's very likely to come down to a save vs. petrification for a character. The element of chance is a big part of the game, too!
The larger role of chance is another contrast with WotC's presentation of D&D, among other rules sets. In old D&D, in my experience, initial high ability scores account for less because so many changes can happen to a figure in such unpredictable fashion.
There's no "level appropriate" rule for magical treasures, for instance, and they can be lost as well as gained. All sorts of surprising transformations can come about, and even death need not be final.
Quote from: Phillip;670824So, why do you call this "the GM's job to be defeated," rather than "the player's job to choose challenges?"
Apart from your wanting to provoke disagreement, all I can figure is that you have in mind a game in which it is in fact the GM -- not the players -- who decides what the PCs undertake.
to be fair he din't it was the OP that make that comment and the threaad has been trying to maintain that as central and weirdly for this forum we have stayed pretty much on track so that has to be a good thing right?
Quote from: jibbajibba;670844to be fair he din't it was the OP that make that comment and the threaad has been trying to maintain that as central and weirdly for this forum we have stayed pretty much on track so that has to be a good thing right?
I would agree, this thread has stayed unusually close to the original topic as far as RPG discussions go.
Quote from: LordVreeg;670778I disagree with some of this, but not totally. As to Brendan's post, I see this as something of a continuum. I also do not place any holiness in the term, 'that is how all offical D&D games have always been written'. That cuts ZERO ice with me. I think often level appropriateness and those charts you mention create very fun, playable adventures for the new GM and new player, and then we can grow up and expand our minds and games a bit.
I also appreciate your use of terminology; the phrase, "the GM through rumours hints, placement and other stuff effectively overlays across their game world a level appropriate way of negotiating the game world." is a good example.
I believe a good GM, as I have said, creates less incongruence between the in-game logic and the placement of placed playable scenarios. It really is, in my book, one of the key GM skills to look at for the quality of a game.
And a good GM has in-game reasons that the players can see and understand why they should attempt scenario 'X' and maybe 'Q', but that this 'Z' thing they heard of, that's out of their league. I don't think this needs to be level appropriate so much as it needs to make sense and the PCs will learn to see where they need to go. Do I design my longer scenarios to reflect in game logic and yes still possibly get tougher as the PCs move on? to some degree, I think.
First the bolded... I don't place any reverence to it either I was merely trying to highlight that its the default mode of play out of the box (the 1e box and the 2e box, from Randall's post I see that 0e liked to drop in wierd random shit for no reason and some of it was way too tough for the PCs)
I think we are roughly on the same page for the rest of it the difference is that I both believe that the PCs winning is the best outcome and I want to foster the sense of competition between them and the Big Bad as embodied by me. I actually want them to high five each other when they kill that demon, I want them to cry when their PCs die I want them to totally care more about some made up shit in our heads than they do about their own families for 4 hours every week :D Competion breeds that level of bonding (I am sure there are other ways too of course).
I think dropping in unbeatable bombs that the players might randomly encounter is well random. Say I built a 'haunted house' scenario for low level PCs. I would populate it with say ... skeletons and there would be an area with ghouls and maybe one wight that rules the place but the PCs are kind of expecting so they have a sliver weapon or a stash of silver arrows, maybe they find them on a corpse on the way in maybe they hear a rumour from a local wise woman whatever, the point is a low level party organised and with some degree of forethought can beat a wight. It's tough and they need to be on their game. However, if I droped in a Spectre as a possible random encounter that would be a bit silly. Basically if it showed up the first thing the PCs would notice is that one of them was dead then they could all try and run away. Now I could introduce a spectre and just play them very badly, ie not like an ancient powerful super intelligence malevolant being that's only sustances is to suck the life out of living beings but instead like some character in a scooby Doo cartoon who lets the PCs escape or whatever but I think that would reduce the potency of when I want to introduce a 'proper' Spectre.
Now this is the oposite of say a CoC game where the sudden death of one of the PCs to a creature from the void is totally part of the genre but also is good to introduce tension and rack up the fear level, even then though I would probably foreshadow such a creature.
Well, I'll stand by what I said before: "The GM's job is to be defeated" is a common enough kind of entertainment these days that I can see how a blogger can retail it as conventional wisdom. On the other hand, it is (as with most things RPG) not a universal truth.
I am one who happens to enjoy games in the old style in which it's up to a player to define victory conditions and take measures toward attaining them, and the dice fall as they may.
Quote from: Phillip;670824So, why do you call this "the GM's job to be defeated," rather than "the player's job to choose challenges?"
Apart from your wanting to provoke disagreement, all I can figure is that you have in mind a game in which it is in fact the GM -- not the players -- who decides what the PCs undertake.
Players don't also get to pick the challenges they're faced with. If you're a Sandbox GM with complex encounter charts, it's reasonable to say that there is a 1% chance for the players to run into Astromaryx, the Great Wyrm Red Dragon if they travel through the Dragon Tooth mountains.
It's very possible and reasonable for the players to have a legitimate reason to pass through that area without trying to engage the dragon. They'd probably prefer to avoid the dragon.
If the random chart indicates that they encounter the dragon, what then?
If the answer is anything other than 'dragon kills everyone', it's clear that the GM is making it POSSIBLE for the players to overcome the challenge.
Why would the GM assume that the dragon
isn't hungry? Why is the dragon traveling around if he isn't hungry?
Dragon killing the party is unsatisfying. The GM finding reasons for the party to 'engage' the dragon without necessarily all becoming lunch is usually the superior option. It is a game; players dying without any chance to save themselves isn't fun.
A dragon is a great example of how the entire party could be killed if that's what the dragon wants to do. Combined with the inability to be damaged by non-magical weapons, the ability to travel further and faster than the PCs (can't be outrun) superior senses (scent), there's no reason that the Dragon can't win if he doesn't want to.
Sometimes the GM finds ways to make a situation that could reasonably be an auto-lose situation into a challenge.
The other option might be more 'realistic', but it tends to make for a less exciting game.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671030Why would the GM assume that the dragon isn't hungry? Why is the dragon traveling around if he isn't hungry?
.
That is what reaction tables are for. There are methods for running such encounters where everything from "the dragon attacks" to "the dragon passes overhead and continues on" are possible. There is also the issue of whether the dragon sees the party or not. Obviously an encounter with such a creature is potentially quite lethal, but dragon eating the party is not the only possible outcome of such an event.
But if my party decides to travel through a pass where dragons are present, even if the chance of meeting one is small, and we get eaten because we decide to pass through and the dice are not on our side, I am not going to object.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671030Why is the dragon traveling around if he isn't hungry?
Daring to answer this question is exactly what makes my gaming style possible without having all dragons swoop in for the kill.
This:
(http://www.trustile.com/images/uploads/mirror-door-closed-large.jpg)
This seems to be representative of a lot of people's minds when it comes to RPGs.
Open the door. Open your mind. Get out of this mindset that tabletop RPGs have to be played like a computer game, where if you get too close to a mob, you automatically get aggro.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671030Why would the GM assume that the dragon isn't hungry?
Because the party did not attack him and I did not roll "hostile -- automatically attacks" as the dragon's reaction roll? Reaction rolls are this wonderful thing (IMHO) in TSR editions of D&D that make it possible for PCs to encounter lots of intelligent monsters without every encounter automatically turning into a battle. I would not run ANY version of D&D without using reaction rolls.
QuoteWhy is the dragon traveling around if he isn't hungry?
D&D Dragons are generally quite intelligent -- as intelligent as humans. So this is like asking why do people travel around if they aren't hungry (or aren't looking for a fight). There are lots of reasons a Dragon might be out and about when he's not hungry. A few examples:
* Visiting friends/returning from such a visit
* Returning home from a meal
* Looking for treasure
* Surveying his territory for other dragons/problems moving in.
* Just out flying around
* flying over villages because its fun to see all the people run away
Even if a dragon meets a group of people, unless he is very hungry or they attack, he might not want to kill them (as that puts himself at risk of damage and/or makes it more likely that heroes will come after him), he might want to take some or all of their treasure as a toll, get them to go do a task that he needs done but can't easily be done in dragon form, talk to them to find out what's going on if he just awakened from a long sleep, etc. Powerful human/dem-human lords usually do not kill everyone they encounter, so it seems dumb to expect that powerful/intelligent monsters would.
Also, not all dragon encounters are going to be with adult dragons. Young dragons are at far greater risk of death or severe damage from humans and are therefore even less likely to attack if they don't need to.
QuoteA dragon is a great example of how the entire party could be killed if that's what the dragon wants to do. Combined with the inability to be damaged by non-magical weapons, the ability to travel further and faster than the PCs (can't be outrun) superior senses (scent), there's no reason that the Dragon can't win if he doesn't want to.
Right, that's why dragons are defeated by D&D parties fairly often, they are so unbeatable. Note that I'm talking about TSR-era dragons here, I don't have enough experience with WOTC-era dragons to know how how they would fair (and since I don't play WOTC D&D much, it really does not matter to me).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671030Why is the dragon traveling around if he isn't hungry?
I've seen you do this time and time again: You assume one scenario, and then put the blinders on, like all others would be just beyond your comprehension, like they'd be huge stretches to your suspension of disbelief, or something. This is what makes me think your imagination is irreversibly broken some times. Cue your game with the giants and Diplomacy and the Dragon's lair and how that all played out.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671034Daring to answer this question is exactly what makes my gaming style possible without having all dragons swoop in for the kill.
I would say in this case if you are going to have random wilderness encounters that include stuff like dragons then either
i) You are going to also randomly roll for the Dragon's current frame of mind, hungry, angry content (maybe he just got laid and is on the way back from Mrs Dragon's house) Or you are going to select the attitude that best suits your game plan. the first could be said to be gimping the GM of course
ii) You are going to roll to see if the Dragon notices the PCs Or you are going to decide if the Dragon passes harmlessly overhead. This will obviously be affected by point (i) above a dragon looking for dinner is more likely to alight on the party than one just getting back to look after her eggs and releive the baby-sitter. If you decide the dragon just passes overhead and he PCs can 'Be Warned' then the encounter is little more than writting 'here be dragons' on a map.
iii) If you do run the dragon encounter and you decide or roll the dragon is looking for the PCs for whatever reason then you have to decide a slew of other stuff. How hard will it look, how good are its senses, how much effort will it expend, will it cast a spell to make finding them easy etc etc . Again you have to decide how hungry the dragon is and how much effort they will put into dinner. You can opt to pull punches here of course, but I always thought that a Black Rider being 3 meters from the One Ring and not finding ti because the hobbit holding it is hiding behind a tree was a bit crap. A dog could have found Frodo just from the smell of bacon in Pippin's backback. But anyway if you decide that the supra intelligent hungry dragon won't use its improved senses or its magical power then maybe you are giving the PCs a chance.
iv) If you do all that and the Dragon does find the party youy then have to decide tactics. The best tactic for a dragon taking on a group of unknown oppoents in a fairly tight knit marching order is to swoop in and tigger their breath weapon, from an evolutionary stand point that is why they have breath weapons its their pouncing attack their trapdoor spider jump their cobra venom. Now you coudl ignore that and use a dice roll as decribed in the 1e MM. This is so that the party has a chance. the breath weapons use rules for dragons are basically gimping the DM to reduce the effectiveness of a dragon to give the PCs a chance to survive.
So ... if you do decide to add a random roll for a dragon and it comes up you then have a load of decision points each of which is a way for you to let the PCs survive. You can either roll these randomly, arguing it's a living and breathing world and the dice represent variables that may well be in play in a 'real' situation, and in effect you get the option of passing responsibility for the rest of your game to chance. Or you can man up and select a range of options that make the game better and more fun for everyone playing, but in the latter course the best outcome for the game is going to be that you pull punches somehow and the PCs survive. Maybe they lose the pack pony and their supplies which means they have to raid the next gnoll settlement they find; maybe the party manage to spot a cave and make it just in time and the cave links into your Underdark setting; maybe one of the PCs bravely decides to distract the dragon and gives the rest a chance to escape whilst toys with him tortuously. But do not kid yourself all of those options whilst they lead to better play and a more interesting game are the dragon pulling punches. If the dragon was being serious especially a powerful elder wrym type thing, it would turn invisible and silent, swoop down behind the PCs and breath weapon them all and then eat them and take any treasure back to its lair.
So in short I have no problem with putting in a random dragon encounter, I would limit to a certain area of the setting, thus giving low level PCs in built immunity to it if they desired, I would probably use a random list to determine it's activity, hunting, travelling, etc, and if it was hunting I would have it pick off a pack mule or NPC first as a way to rack up tension and show the players the danger and give them an out. If they then choose to flee I would pursue until the dragon was full and if they chose to fight I would do everything within the power of the dragon to kill all of them and take their stuff.
The best outcome for me as GM of a random dragon encounter would be for the PCs to loose a trusted hireling or NPC that was acting as plot exposition (guide, hermit, old wise woman, Travis the merchant whose daughter they are seeking etc ) and a bunch of their equipment and supplies and for the party to become scared shitless of dragons from that point onwards.
the worst outcome woudl be for me to play the dragon in a totally unbelievable way and for the party to escape through no skill of their own but just from GM fiat.
Killing the whole party might be okay in a very loose sandbox game. Though setting up a reboot and new party gets old for me fast, I like continuity even if its just on the "I have had this broom for 20 years, I have changed the head 8 times and the handle 6 times" kind of a way. Usually for me a TPK means the game is over and we scrap it and play something else. Certainly from a fun perspective Greg the Paladin dying whilst battling the great wrym single handed to give the others tiem to escape is a great game moment, the entire party gettign crisped with random dragon fire is less likely to be remembered round the table in the pub 30 years later.
Speaking of dragons, I looked a brief comparison by edition of an ancient black dragon (because that's the only one that has been released with Next):
.............. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e
HP............64, 100, 536, 1190, 126
Avg dmg....15, 17, 52, 32, 33
avg BW.....64, 72, 60, 24, 18
Holy fuck that's some serious HP bloat going on there. And the fans of those editions call AD&D monsters "bags of HP". SMH..
At least it looks like Next is bringing it back down to earth
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671055Speaking of dragons, I looked a brief comparison by edition of an ancient black dragon (because that's the only one that has been released with Next):
.............. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e
HP............64, 100, 536, 1190, 126
Avg dmg....15, 17, 52, 32, 33
avg BW.....64, 72, 60, 24, 18
Holy fuck that's some serious HP bloat going on there. And the fans of those editions call AD&D monsters "bags of HP". SMH..
At least it looks like Next is bringing it back down to earth
BW looks really weak though. Is that 18 correct ? For me the 2e stats look good lots of HP powerful BW. 1e is also good just a bit light on HP. 3&4 are just silly.
Quote from: jibbajibba;671052snipped for brevity
I pretty well agree with everything you've said and have done everything listed under i, ii, iii, iv in varying degrees.
I do most certainly pull punches/softball encounters, because I want to present encounters in a manner that lets the players drive the action. Much more likely for the players to come across a dragon that is preoccupied doing something else than for the dragon to be stalking the party. Therein, the party can choose whether to interact with the dragon.
I am not, however, nearly as consistent in my approach nor do I analyze and worry about my DMing nearly to the extent that many in this thread appear to be. I usually just make up shit as I go along; it is not particularly hard to present a fun game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;671060BW looks really weak though. Is that 18 correct ? For me the 2e stats look good lots of HP powerful BW. 1e is also good just a bit light on HP. 3&4 are just silly.
The 18 average damage on the DDN black dragon's BW is correct. The stats do not say what age the dragon is, though. Looks more like an adult dragon to me, arguably even a young adult.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671064The 18 average damage on the DDN black dragon's BW is correct.
Acid just ain't what it used to be.
Quote from: RandallS;671048Because the party did not attack him and I did not roll "hostile -- automatically attacks" as the dragon's reaction roll? Reaction rolls are this wonderful thing (IMHO) in TSR editions of D&D that make it possible for PCs to encounter lots of intelligent monsters without every encounter automatically turning into a battle. I would not run ANY version of D&D without using reaction rolls.
D&D Dragons are generally quite intelligent -- as intelligent as humans. So this is like asking why do people travel around if they aren't hungry (or aren't looking for a fight). There are lots of reasons a Dragon might be out and about when he's not hungry. A few examples:
* Visiting friends/returning from such a visit
* Returning home from a meal
* Looking for treasure
* Surveying his territory for other dragons/problems moving in.
* Just out flying around
* flying over villages because its fun to see all the people run away
Even if a dragon meets a group of people, unless he is very hungry or they attack, he might not want to kill them (as that puts himself at risk of damage and/or makes it more likely that heroes will come after him), he might want to take some or all of their treasure as a toll, get them to go do a task that he needs done but can't easily be done in dragon form, talk to them to find out what's going on if he just awakened from a long sleep, etc. Powerful human/dem-human lords usually do not kill everyone they encounter, so it seems dumb to expect that powerful/intelligent monsters would.
Also, not all dragon encounters are going to be with adult dragons. Young dragons are at far greater risk of death or severe damage from humans and are therefore even less likely to attack if they don't need to.
Right, that's why dragons are defeated by D&D parties fairly often, they are so unbeatable. Note that I'm talking about TSR-era dragons here, I don't have enough experience with WOTC-era dragons to know how how they would fair (and since I don't play WOTC D&D much, it really does not matter to me).
Couple of points .
i) I generally agree with all you wrote and you can see my comments and yours are a pretty close match.
ii) Reaction rolls only apply if the dragon encounters the party. You always choose for them not to do so. And much like the other stuff I noted reaction rolls are a perfectly fine way to either a) re-create a living world ; b) gimping the GM by taking away their ability to play the world in motion; c) relieving the DM of responsibility " well it wasn't my fault you got killed by a dragon that was wha the dice said" - Depending on your perspective
iii) Dragons get killed by D&D parties fairly often because in TSR era D&D the dragon was scaled to be a threat when PCs were roll 3d6 in order, there were no prestigue classes like rangers and plaladins and a 5th level fighter with +1 chain and a +2 sword was the equivalent of Beowulf. The PCs got buffed a lot faster than the dragons so in 1e era D&D the Dragon is a medium level oponent which is why 2e bumped them up so much. Also DMs rarely play dragons liek super inteligent spell casting MFs and usually play them like a giant badger that can fly and may randomly opt to use a breath weapon.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671030Players don't also get to pick the challenges they're faced with. If you're a Sandbox GM with complex encounter charts, it's reasonable to say that there is a 1% chance for the players to run into Astromaryx, the Great Wyrm Red Dragon if they travel through the Dragon Tooth mountains.
It's very possible and reasonable for the players to have a legitimate reason to pass through that area without trying to engage the dragon. They'd probably prefer to avoid the dragon.
If the random chart indicates that they encounter the dragon, what then?
If the answer is anything other than 'dragon kills everyone', it's clear that the GM is making it POSSIBLE for the players to overcome the challenge.
Why would the GM assume that the dragon isn't hungry? Why is the dragon traveling around if he isn't hungry?
Dragon killing the party is unsatisfying. The GM finding reasons for the party to 'engage' the dragon without necessarily all becoming lunch is usually the superior option. It is a game; players dying without any chance to save themselves isn't fun.
A dragon is a great example of how the entire party could be killed if that's what the dragon wants to do. Combined with the inability to be damaged by non-magical weapons, the ability to travel further and faster than the PCs (can't be outrun) superior senses (scent), there's no reason that the Dragon can't win if he doesn't want to.
Sometimes the GM finds ways to make a situation that could reasonably be an auto-lose situation into a challenge.
The other option might be more 'realistic', but it tends to make for a less exciting game.
Are you serious?
All attack all the time is the most boring fucking D&D imaginable. All the wonder, the mystery, the possibilities involved in exploring a fantasy world swept away and replace by....
round 1- FIGHT!!!.
Fuck that noise. If I'm going to play an all combat game then I'll pick something a lot less abstract than D&D to do it with.
This scenario is a good example of why a CHA in TSR D&D wasn't a dump stat. A decent reaction roll could be the difference between life and death. The game was designed to work around the fact that sometimes the PCs might encounter something that could flat out kill them in an open fight.
Luck plays role in the outcome of such encounters but so does player intelligence. Mashing the attack button nonstop from either side of the screen is not what the game was designed to do best.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;671179Are you serious?
All attack all the time is the most boring fucking D&D imaginable. All the wonder, the mystery, the possibilities involved in exploring a fantasy world swept away and replace by....round 1- FIGHT!!!.
.
It also eliminates the opportunity for some great memories. I'll give an example of a campaign I was in back in the early 90s. I was playing a Bard with the blade kit, and was somehow separated from the party. Eventually I made my way into a huge cave to seek shelter from a storm. Turns out the cave was home to a very large dragon. Obviously combat wasn't going to be an option, and the dragon gave me a few seconds to explain my purpose before it ate me. Using my bardic skill (I was of decent level by that time and somewhat known in the area), I managed to convince the dragon that if he let me seek shelter and let me go, I would spread the word far and wide about the wisdom, power, and strength of this great wyrm.
I basically talked my way out of that scenario by using the dragon's arrogance against him. Never would have happened if all dragons were were stat blocks to be used in combat.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;671179All attack all the time is the most boring fucking D&D imaginable. All the wonder, the mystery, the possibilities involved in exploring a fantasy world swept away and replace by....round 1- FIGHT!!!.
Fuck that noise. If I'm going to play an all combat game then I'll pick something a lot less abstract than D&D to do it with.
To be honest, if I want an every encounter is combat, I will not bother with a tabletop version of of D&D, I'll just play a D&D/D&Dish computer RPG. Because if every encounter is going to be combat, I might as well be playing a CRPG.
Side Note: Of course, I find most CRPGs boring because most seem to be 90+% combat. I certainly do not want to duplicate that in tabletop D&D.
Quote from: jibbajibba;671060BW looks really weak though. Is that 18 correct ? For me the 2e stats look good lots of HP powerful BW. 1e is also good just a bit light on HP. 3&4 are just silly.
The BW damage is down significantly in Next, but the claw/claw/bite damage is up. For example, a red dragon's basic claw/claw/bite is 3d8+12/3d8+12/4d12+12. Incidentally, the red's BW is 7d6+5. So they dropped BW a lot from TSR era (especially 2e).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671194The BW damage is down significantly in Next, but the claw/claw/bite damage is up. For example, a red dragon's basic claw/claw/bite is 3d8+12/3d8+12/4d12+12. Incidentally, the red's BW is 7d6+5. So they dropped BW a lot from TSR era (especially 2e).
How often can the dragon use breath? And is the area big enough to get the job done?
Also, is the dragon tough enough to stay alive to use the breath more than once?
Quote from: Bill;671208How often can the dragon use breath? And is the area big enough to get the job done?
The AOE for BW are pretty standard across editions, it seems to me. I.e., in Next, the black's BW is an 80' line. It has limited useages, but one thing that is new with Next is that for legendary creatures (like an ancient black) have an option to recharge it
From the most recent black dragon download:
At the end of each of its turns, it gets four legendary points that it can use for the below:
2 points: recharge acid breath
1 point: move at half speed at the start or end of another creature's turn
1 point: make a tail sweep at the start or end of another person's turn
1 point: detect hidden creatures within 50 feet
QuoteAlso, is the dragon tough enough to stay alive to use the breath more than once?
I would think so, with the caveat that I haven't played a dragon encounter yet in Next. I say this because dragon lairs now grant a bunch of other special advantages for the dragon. I'll link them here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/LegendaryBlackDragon.pdf), because it's too wordy to retype in this box
So if someone is foolish enough to take on a dragon in its lair, they better be a lot more powerful because the odds are stacked against the party and even though the dragons in Next have hp similar to 2e, they still have a lot of staying power. Even if you are smart enough to lure it out, it's still pretty tough. Looking at the action mechanic above, a dragon could do up to 4 tail swipes at the start of 4 different character's turns. That would be murder to any spell caster trying to cast a spell. PCs would be flying everywhere, like that illio in the 1e DMG with the green dragon fighting the kobolds.
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/gdragon.jpg)
*edit* on an unrelated note, whatever happened to fat dragons? I've been painting my bones minis, and I noticed that every dragon mini is either slender or muscular. There are no dragon minis that are fat like in that picture. That's a damn shame. I'd like some variation in my dragons please.
Sounds good.
In my experience two things usually allow pc's to own dragons. Both are the gm screwing up.
1) Poor dragon is all alone, exposed, and has inadequate area of effect capabilities.
2) Dragon is simply too weak to defeat the characters.
When this was first released, I know one person said their group of level 10 characters killed the black dragon in one round, so it was way too weak. However, I strongly suspect that they were just doing a typical gladiator style of play. Or in other words, this:
Quote from: Bill;6712301) Poor dragon is all alone, exposed, and has inadequate area of effect capabilities.
.
or they were just ignoring many of the dragon's special abilities, like it's immunity to being paralyzed, polymorphed, or put to sleep. Or that for 4 times a day it automatically makes a saving throw. Essentially making it immune to magic on the first round, so I don't know what the person was doing when they were playing it. I'm still curious to see how that battle turned out. I guess the WoTC crowd, being used to 500-1000 hit points, see 125 and automatically think "too easy" without actually playing the game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671183It also eliminates the opportunity for some great memories. I'll give an example of a campaign I was in back in the early 90s. I was playing a Bard with the blade kit, and was somehow separated from the party. Eventually I made my way into a huge cave to seek shelter from a storm. Turns out the cave was home to a very large dragon. Obviously combat wasn't going to be an option, and the dragon gave me a few seconds to explain my purpose before it ate me. Using my bardic skill (I was of decent level by that time and somewhat known in the area), I managed to convince the dragon that if he let me seek shelter and let me go, I would spread the word far and wide about the wisdom, power, and strength of this great wyrm.
I basically talked my way out of that scenario by using the dragon's arrogance against him. Never would have happened if all dragons were were stat blocks to be used in combat.
I'm not saying this shouldn't happen - quite the contrary. And certainly I think that a good DM would have been happy with you as a clever player for coming up with an attractive bargain for this particular dragon. But how did he decide that the dragon would
a) give you a chance to explain your purpose
b) decide that letting you live was worthwhile
Did the GM just decide those things, or were there rolls involved?
If the GM just decided it was reasonable, he was making it a challenge that could be overcome.
If there were rules on what it takes to influence the dragon (reaction rolls/diplomacy checks/reputation or some such) then you were probably just very lucky.
For most parties, the Dragon (that is totally just an example of the type of thing that SHOULD happen in a Sandbox without necessarily killing the PCs everytime it DOES happen) doesn't have much to benefit by leaving the PCs alive. They're edible; they're alone. If they have treasure, he can take it just as easily from their corpses as from them as tribute. Now the dragon might be afraid that the party is tougher than they look (they don't have signs on their head that say 15th level or 1st level), so he might be willing to accept tribute without having to worry about the possibility of getting hurt in a fight. Dragons aren't known for trust; so why should the dragon trust the PCs to do something nice for him if he leaves them alive?
But when those types of things are decided by the DM (which I think they should be) the DM is making it possible to overcome the challenge. There's nothing wrong with that.
If the party is stupid, the dragon can still eat them.
Having a chance is fun. Not having a chance is boring.
Good GMs try to make sure that every challenge
can be overcome. So when a good GM rolls a random dragon encounter, he DECIDES that the dragon is on his way back from a heavy meal; not on his way to find one. The DM gives the party an interesting encounter that doesn't necessarily involve fighting.
If the PCs start a fight, they all get killed.
The GM can set up challenges for the party to overcome without letting them win every combat. Not every encounter has to devolve into combat. By having other ways to 'win', the GM is signalling that he wants the PCs to overcome the challenge.
Good GMs are rooting for the players, even while they run the opposition.
Quote from: Bill;6712302) Dragon is simply too weak to defeat the characters.
How is this the DM screwing up? The dragon is what it is. It might be too powerful for the PCs to defeat or it might be somewhat easy.
Quote from: Bill;671230Sounds good.
In my experience two things usually allow pc's to own dragons. Both are the gm screwing up.
1) Poor dragon is all alone, exposed, and has inadequate area of effect capabilities.
2) Dragon is simply too weak to defeat the characters.
BTB you can subdue dragons. It's actually something that is not easy to do, and pretty cool when it happens in-game.
It occurs to me that I overlooked a simple fact - OD&D doesn't use 'levels' at all. Or at least not levels that are comparable to any other types of levels. Can you build a 4th level encounter not knowing if you have two thieves or a fighter and a magic user? Not really.
So that would make it fundamentally different enough to put it in its own category.
My Savage Worlds game is in that same boat, and some of the "always fight" design of the Paizo material I have been running has been hard to roleplay out. But using some of the insights from this very thread, I think I was able to turn that corner pretty well.
That said, I still tailor encounters for what feels appropriate.
Someone should work up a set of terms and matrices to quantify this stuff. Would make it easier to discuss.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671250I'm not saying this shouldn't happen - quite the contrary. And certainly I think that a good DM would have been happy with you as a clever player for coming up with an attractive bargain for this particular dragon. But how did he decide that the dragon would
a) give you a chance to explain your purpose
b) decide that letting you live was worthwhile
Did the GM just decide those things, or were there rolls involved?
If the GM just decided it was reasonable, he was making it a challenge that could be overcome.
If there were rules on what it takes to influence the dragon (reaction rolls/diplomacy checks/reputation or some such) then you were probably just very lucky.
Or maybe he had the dragon's personality already determined long before I ever got there, and the DM just played out the dragon as if it were it's own unique intelligent creature. Maybe it wasn't a challenge at all. It was just a scenario I happened to stumble upon and we role-played it out the same as we would with anything else. Depending on my actions, it
could have become a challenge, but perhaps it never started that way.
Seriously man, open the door. Take off the blinders. Not everything in an RPG has to be shackled to some rule or guideline.
Quote from: Bill;671208Also, is the dragon tough enough to stay alive to use the breath more than once?
When I played DDN with the Isle of Dread, the 4 characters were 6th level when they fought the green dragon. The party was prepared and beefed-up-to-the-gills for the fight. We were all tired of the island and mainly interested in seeing how the rules flowed, so I did not play it very tough. And I rolled randomly to see if the dragon was prepared, she was not.
Through good use of controlling the terrain, the party whacked the dragon down in about 3 or 4 rounds of combat. The wizard was on the ground twitching and the paladin hurt bad. The barbarian and the ranger were hardly touched. The party as a whole never feared defeat.
Had I played it more seriously with the dragon being cunning, having minions, used terrain to advantage, it could certainly have taken the party down.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671183It also eliminates the opportunity for some great memories. I'll give an example of a campaign I was in back in the early 90s. I was playing a Bard with the blade kit, and was somehow separated from the party. Eventually I made my way into a huge cave to seek shelter from a storm. Turns out the cave was home to a very large dragon. Obviously combat wasn't going to be an option, and the dragon gave me a few seconds to explain my purpose before it ate me. Using my bardic skill (I was of decent level by that time and somewhat known in the area), I managed to convince the dragon that if he let me seek shelter and let me go, I would spread the word far and wide about the wisdom, power, and strength of this great wyrm.
I basically talked my way out of that scenario by using the dragon's arrogance against him. Never would have happened if all dragons were were stat blocks to be used in combat.
this is a great example of a really cool D&D moment where the DM did their job and let the player win through skill and roleplaying.
This prooves rather than disproves the OP.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;671179Are you serious?
All attack all the time is the most boring fucking D&D imaginable. All the wonder, the mystery, the possibilities involved in exploring a fantasy world swept away and replace by....round 1- FIGHT!!!.
Fuck that noise. If I'm going to play an all combat game then I'll pick something a lot less abstract than D&D to do it with.
This scenario is a good example of why a CHA in TSR D&D wasn't a dump stat. A decent reaction roll could be the difference between life and death. The game was designed to work around the fact that sometimes the PCs might encounter something that could flat out kill them in an open fight.
Luck plays role in the outcome of such encounters but so does player intelligence. Mashing the attack button nonstop from either side of the screen is not what the game was designed to do best.
Charisma as a reaction roll is actually a bit crazy. Charisma is charm, personality and looks, but if a Dragon spots a party of armed adventures on her patch why would the fact that the knight at the front of the party under his helmet and armour has a great physique, really good skin and cheekbones to die or that he was a great guy to hang with or a caring and considerate lover make her not want to eat him if she was peckish ?
Considering your reaction to social skill checks being able to influence NPCs with considerable roleplaying effort from the player I am suprised that you would allow a social check like 'reaction' to be so influential with out any roleplaying effort on the part of the players at all.
Surely a more effective way to randomly determine the mindset of a dragon or anything else would be to have a 'state' roll for the monster that was modified by its intelligence, ferocity and other 'personality' factors or environmental concerns. You could even modify it based on the actions of the party, if they have a mob of hirelings all carrying pitchforks and burning torches then the vampire in the castle is , based on historical precedent alone, going to treat them as a threat from the get go.
Of course you could just choose how the dragon reacts based on what you think would make the best game for everyone but that might be a little too non Old school for you. If you did I suspect most people would agree that 'letting the players win' is the best game outcome and that would fit into your own prediliction for dragons that aren't all about combat.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671392When I played DDN with the Isle of Dread, the 4 characters were 6th level when they fought the green dragon. The party was prepared and beefed-up-to-the-gills for the fight. We were all tired of the island and mainly interested in seeing how the rules flowed, so I did not play it very tough. And I rolled randomly to see if the dragon was prepared, she was not.
Through good use of controlling the terrain, the party whacked the dragon down in about 3 or 4 rounds of combat. The wizard was on the ground twitching and the paladin hurt bad. The barbarian and the ranger were hardly touched. The party as a whole never feared defeat.
Had I played it more seriously with the dragon being cunning, having minions, used terrain to advantage, it could certainly have taken the party down.
Which is again totally supporting the OP quote. The best outcome is to have the players win. Now personally I play the monster to the hilt, the competative bit implied by the OP, but if the party suprised it and it was not expecting a fight and what not they should be able to take it down.
Quote from: jibbajibba;671434Charisma as a reaction roll is actually a bit crazy. Charisma is charm, personality and looks, .
Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical
attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetismwhy do people keep forgetting this part?
Quote from: Benoist;671279BTB you can subdue dragons. It's actually something that is not easy to do, and pretty cool when it happens in-game.
Subduing dragons is a little silly in a game where you can't subdue anything else don't you think?
If D&D has a subsystem called
subduing monsters, even highly intelligent ones that can use spells, then it might have made sense. As a throwaway rule it seems incongruous that only dragons can be subduded and not basilisks, or wyverns, or unicorns or Theon Greyjoy :D
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671438Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical
attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism
why do people keep forgetting this part?
no I was summing that up in what I though was an amusing way :)
Still not sure how personal magnetism shines forth through a suit of plate mail covered in 30 days of trail dust, a closed helm and a kite shield when you are surrounded by half a dozen guys armed to the teeth ..... or how persuasiveness comes through before you actually speak... probably a thesis for Desmond Morris in that one...
just sayin.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;671437Which is again totally supporting the OP quote. The best outcome is to have the players win. Now personally I play the monster to the hilt, the competative bit implied by the OP, but if the party suprised it and it was not expecting a fight and what not they should be able to take it down.
Yes, the OP advice covers a fair bit of what I do. My main quibble is that it does not cover enough of what I do to feel like universal advice. As my earlier example, I have no problem whatsoever with Luke blasted in a million pieces, the Death Star obliterating the last vestiges of the rebellion, while the Falcon flies off to other adventures on the other side of the galaxy.
A better fit would be to say that I try to run a semi-plausible world that follows the players actions or just keeps having shot happen if they do nothing. Fully admit to not being terribly consistent, though.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671446Yes, the OP advice covers a fair bit of what I do. My main quibble is that it does not cover enough of what I do to feel like universal advice. As my earlier example, I have no problem whatsoever with Luke blasted in a million pieces, the Death Star obliterating the last vestiges of the rebellion, while the Falcon flies off to other adventures on the other side of the galaxy.
A better fit would be to say that I try to run a semi-plausible world that follows the players actions or just keeps having shot happen if they do nothing. Fully admit to not being terribly consistent, though.
Fair enough :)
Like I say I think our styles are pretty close and like you I usually just make shit up but keep it consistent. I usually make hte game system up as I go as well though.
I do spend a fair bit of time thinking about why and how I do things though which is why I am interested in GM advice type stuff as well as rule systems and how the ruels affect the game and vice versa
Quote from: jibbajibba;671442no I was summing that up in what I though was an amusing way :)
Still not sure how personal magnetism shines forth through a suit of plate mail covered in 30 days of trail dust, a closed helm and a kite shield when you are surrounded by half a dozen guys armed to the teeth ..... or how persuasiveness comes through before you actually speak... probably a thesis for Desmond Morris in that one...
just sayin.....
Was sitting at a restaurant the other day and said to the wife that it was unfair to judge, but I absolutely hated the couple at the next table over, they looked like such pretentious snots. She said that she was thinking the exact same thing. That couple had a charisma penalty to their reaction roll.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671449Was sitting at a restaurant the other day and said to the wife that it was unfair to judge, but I absolutely hated the couple at the next table over, they looked like such pretentious snots. She said that she was thinking the exact same thing. That couple had a charisma penalty to their reaction roll.
Were they wearing full plate helms and riding on horses :)
How much of your reaction was due to a dislike of pretentious snots on your part (and in comparison how much do dragons dislike armoured knights or mystriously cloked wizards or scrawny guys in black leather armour coming close to their layers) and how much was due to observation of their behaviour and body language over a period.
Book, cover, cover book.
Often our innate reactions to people stem more from our own clutural and environmental preconditioning. Which was of course why I referenced Desmond Morris in my original post.
I suspect a dragon would feel much the same way about groups of well armoured adventurers moving through their domain as a redneck sherrif would feel about a bunch of black kids in a black chrysler blaring out Cypress Hill driving through his town. yes the dragon's preconceptions are quite possibly wrong but ... That would affect their reactions far more than the fact that the leader of kids was a bit of a charmer.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671392When I played DDN with the Isle of Dread, the 4 characters were 6th level when they fought the green dragon. The party was prepared and beefed-up-to-the-gills for the fight. We were all tired of the island and mainly interested in seeing how the rules flowed, so I did not play it very tough. And I rolled randomly to see if the dragon was prepared, she was not.
Through good use of controlling the terrain, the party whacked the dragon down in about 3 or 4 rounds of combat. The wizard was on the ground twitching and the paladin hurt bad. The barbarian and the ranger were hardly touched. The party as a whole never feared defeat.
Had I played it more seriously with the dragon being cunning, having minions, used terrain to advantage, it could certainly have taken the party down.
Sounds good. With dragons I tend to think of them as epic threats more than a mundane beast you dispatch regularly.
I also like how you did not automatically have the dragon ambush the characters.
Quote from: jibbajibba;671434Charisma as a reaction roll is actually a bit crazy. Charisma is charm, personality and looks, but if a Dragon spots a party of armed adventures on her patch why would the fact that the knight at the front of the party under his helmet and armour has a great physique, really good skin and cheekbones to die or that he was a great guy to hang with or a caring and considerate lover make her not want to eat him if she was peckish ?
Considering your reaction to social skill checks being able to influence NPCs with considerable roleplaying effort from the player I am suprised that you would allow a social check like 'reaction' to be so influential with out any roleplaying effort on the part of the players at all.
Surely a more effective way to randomly determine the mindset of a dragon or anything else would be to have a 'state' roll for the monster that was modified by its intelligence, ferocity and other 'personality' factors or environmental concerns. You could even modify it based on the actions of the party, if they have a mob of hirelings all carrying pitchforks and burning torches then the vampire in the castle is , based on historical precedent alone, going to treat them as a threat from the get go.
Of course you could just choose how the dragon reacts based on what you think would make the best game for everyone but that might be a little too non Old school for you. If you did I suspect most people would agree that 'letting the players win' is the best game outcome and that would fit into your own prediliction for dragons that aren't all about combat.
The basic reaction roll IS a general 'state' roll for any encounter which features monsters of unknown disposition. It is only modified by CHA. A good CHA score only gets you so much, a bit of a bonus on the reaction roll.
A reaction roll is just that- an initial reaction. There is still plenty of room for a high CHA character's player to screw up a good reaction roll or for a low CHA character's player to recover from a not so great one.
Once the initial reaction is determined it is still up to the player to nudge the encounter towards civility or hostility through words and deeds. If the PCs feel confident, they might take an initial good reaction and still deliberately through intimidation and insult, pick a fight.
A reaction roll is not a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, etc check. Any of that is still up to the player.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;671552The basic reaction roll IS a general 'state' roll for any encounter which features monsters of unknown disposition. It is only modified by CHA. A good CHA score only gets you so much, a bit of a bonus on the reaction roll.
A reaction roll is just that- an initial reaction. There is still plenty of room for a high CHA character's player to screw up a good reaction roll or for a low CHA character's player to recover from a not so great one.
Once the initial reaction is determined it is still up to the player to nudge the encounter towards civility or hostility through words and deeds. If the PCs feel confident, they might take an initial good reaction and still deliberately through intimidation and insult, pick a fight.
A reaction roll is not a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, etc check. Any of that is still up to the player.
Well lets be honest an 18 CHr gives you +35% reaction bonus so no one meeting an 18 Chr PC will ever react hostile and the worst they will ever get is an uncertain moving toward negative and that only 10% of the time and they have a 60% change of friendly immediate acceptance or better. hardly just a bit of bonus.....
And Chr is one of the few stats where you start getting bonuses at 13 + in AD&D as opposed to 15 or 16 s for Str, Con, Dex etc.
However putting that to one side.....
Why should a high Charsima PC say a paladin in their armour etc get that bonus without ever even talking to the creature or being observed by them for more than a moment? Except for the fact that 'its in the rules' you haven't explained why its a good rule at all.
Surely modifications based of stuff I mentioned like intelligence, ferocity or other stuff would be much better modifiers.
Ogres are fierce flesh eaters usually raveanously hungry and notoriously grumpy due to the indigestion caused by their overactive stomach acid. Ogres get -50% on all reaction rolls you may modify this to just -25% if they have just eaten.
that sort of thing makes much more sense than a charisma based adjustment.
Just sayin....
Quote from: jibbajibba;671567Well lets be honest an 18 CHr gives you +35% reaction bonus so no one meeting an 18 Chr PC will ever react hostile and the worst they will ever get is an uncertain moving toward negative and that only 10% of the time and they have a 60% change of friendly immediate acceptance or better. hardly just a bit of bonus.....
And Chr is one of the few stats where you start getting bonuses at 13 + in AD&D as opposed to 15 or 16 s for Str, Con, Dex etc.
However putting that to one side.....
Why should a high Charsima PC say a paladin in their armour etc get that bonus without ever even talking to the creature or being observed by them for more than a moment? Except for the fact that 'its in the rules' you haven't explained why its a good rule at all.
Surely modifications based of stuff I mentioned like intelligence, ferocity or other stuff would be much better modifiers.
Ogres are fierce flesh eaters usually raveanously hungry and notoriously grumpy due to the indigestion caused by their overactive stomach acid. Ogres get -50% on all reaction rolls you may modify this to just -25% if they have just eaten.
that sort of thing makes much more sense than a charisma based adjustment.
Just sayin....
All reaction rolls should be situationally modified when appropriate. It should be noted along with a monster's stats what it is doing and its disposition so that appropriate modifiers can be considered.
Only in random encounters involving thinking monsters without a specific agenda would an unmodified reaction roll be used.
If the monster in question is a castle guard and he catches someone trying to sneak in then its a good bet that it won't be an unmodified reaction roll. Not to mention modifiers for monsters who have interacted with the same PCs before. If the party encounters an orc and they have actually saved his life in the past there will be quite a large bonus on the reaction roll.
Likewise certain creatures will react automatically with no roll required. Mindless undead and the like may just attack, there is nothing to consider.
Why I like the rule:
The CHA adjustment is the one factor that represents an adjustment based on the intrinsic qualities of the
character much like a STR penalty affects how much a PC can lift no matter how strong the player is. In B/X all ability scores start giving bonuses and penalties at the same values. 13-15 is +1, 16-7 is +2, and 18 is +3.
The reaction adjustment combined with the retainer limitation and morale levels make charisma an important stat for everyone without being a prime requisite.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;671576All reaction rolls should be situationally modified when appropriate. It should be noted along with a monster's stats what it is doing and its disposition so that appropriate modifiers can be considered.
Only in random encounters involving thinking monsters without a specific agenda would an unmodified reaction roll be used.
If the monster in question is a castle guard and he catches someone trying to sneak in then its a good bet that it won't be an unmodified reaction roll. Not to mention modifiers for monsters who have interacted with the same PCs before. If the party encounters an orc and they have actually saved his life in the past there will be quite a large bonus on the reaction roll.
Likewise certain creatures will react automatically with no roll required. Mindless undead and the like may just attack, there is nothing to consider.
Why I like the rule:
The CHA adjustment is the one factor that represents an adjustment based on the intrinsic qualities of the character much like a STR penalty affects how much a PC can lift no matter how strong the player is. In B/X all ability scores start giving bonuses and penalties at the same values. 13-15 is +1, 16-7 is +2, and 18 is +3.
The reaction adjustment combined with the retainer limitation and morale levels make charisma an important stat for everyone without being a prime requisite.
I can totally see why Chr should be used for loyalty and all that and for social skill checks absolutely but it makes no sense as an initial reaction modifer, even if it was beauty that should vary dramatically between races. What an ogre finds attractive is going to be largely different to what a dwarf finds attractive. And why a giant badger or anything with animal inteligence would be affected I have no idea unless you were playing Snow White the RGP I suppose....
In any case saying its a good modifier because it stops Charisma being a dump stat is using the rule to justify the logic. I know you aren't a believer in role playing stats you don't like to think that just because the fighter has 6 int that means he needs to be played stupid so I assume the fighter can be ruggedly handsome if he has 9 charisma.
So meh... seem like a bit of a daft rule to me.
Quote from: jibbajibba;671578I can totally see why Chr should be used for loyalty and all that and for social skill checks absolutely but it makes no sense as an initial reaction modifer, even if it was beauty that should vary dramatically between races. What an ogre finds attractive is going to be largely different to what a dwarf finds attractive. And why a giant badger or anything with animal inteligence would be affected I have no idea unless you were playing Snow White the RGP I suppose....
In any case saying its a good modifier because it stops Charisma being a dump stat is using the rule to justify the logic. I know you aren't a believer in role playing stats you don't like to think that just because the fighter has 6 int that means he needs to be played stupid so I assume the fighter can be ruggedly handsome if he has 9 charisma.
So meh... seem like a bit of a daft rule to me.
I have always seen CHA as a catch all of physical beauty and the intangible "likability vibe". So yeah a 9 CHA fighter could be handsome but he would just be average on the likability meter. Someone with with even a 5 CHA could be smoking hot physically but be an insufferable ass. Because of the factors that comprise the stat value there is a lot of flexibility for individual interpretation for even identical stat values.
I have created npcs with really high CHA scores who were wrinkled old ladies. They had a high CHA because they were very charming and had that grandma likability vibe going on.
As far as animals go there are certain people whom animals seem to just like and others they don't and it has little to do with human values of beauty.
In the D&D that I enjoy most there are no social skill checks. The CHA modifier represents that initial vibe that the player can't do anything about and any actual interaction beyond that point is the player's to make or break.
Its fun to watch someone do verbal gymnastics working to overcome a low CHA. You really do get better at the diplomacy game when you have to overcome that ' I'm an asshole' vibe that your low CHA character is constantly broadcasting. It might not even be true but something about your character just gives that impression.
Not everyone likes this interpretation of CHA but thats ok.
The comparison of the black dragon by edition is very interesting; it definitely shows the change in direction in 5e.
Quote from: jibbajibba;671578I can totally see why Chr should be used for loyalty and all that and for social skill checks absolutely but it makes no sense as an initial reaction modifer, even if it was beauty that should vary dramatically between races. What an ogre finds attractive is -
Charisma is much more than looks. The AD&D1e gives Hitler as an example of high Charisma. I don't think Gygax was saying he wanted to make sexy-time with Adolf. It's also presence. Some people have a strong presence, they walk in the room and everyone notices. Other people are easily ignored. Still others you dislike the moment you meet them.
Looks are a different thing, which is why 2e introduced a different attribute for them (which I don't use since it's not relevant to fantasy adventure games, but only to thespier stuff, but that's another story).
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;672162Looks are a different thing, which is why 2e introduced a different attribute for them (which I don't use since it's not relevant to fantasy adventure games, but only to thespier stuff, but that's another story).
Minor nitpick, but that was in 1e not 2e. Comeliness in Unearthed Arcana.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;672162Charisma is much more than looks. The AD&D1e gives Hitler as an example of high Charisma. I don't think Gygax was saying he wanted to make sexy-time with Adolf. It's also presence. Some people have a strong presence, they walk in the room and everyone notices. Other people are easily ignored. Still others you dislike the moment you meet them.
Looks are a different thing, which is why 2e introduced a different attribute for them (which I don't use since it's not relevant to fantasy adventure games, but only to thespier stuff, but that's another story).
That is what I have been saying if you read my post.
I still don't think that if you put Adolf (and he did have beautiful eyes and a dapper moustache :) ) in a suit of armour on a horse then any monster he met would be swayed by his rhetoric and personal magnetism.
My point is simply that enconter rolls should be affected by a vast number of other things more than they are by charisma. I have no issue with using charisma for all social skills and as I have written at length I have no issue blending social skill checks into roleplaying so I suspect at my table charisma is far more useful that at some others.
Initial reactions (which I shall try to steer back to the OP) should be far more affected by
i) the Intelligence of the creature
ii) the base "ferocity" of the creature
iii) the 'state' of the creature, hunting, travelling, protecting young, searching for a lost golden medalion that was lost 200 years ago etc etc ...
iv) the allignment of the creature
v) what the GM thinks makes the most enjoyable game for the players (SHOCK HORROR!!!) becuase afterall its the GMs job to loose to the players :)
Generally I like the player to describe what exactly their characters charisma is all about.
Ugly as sin but a commanding presence? cool
Beauty to die for but socially inept? cool
Same with Intelligence. One person might be an absent minded professor, the other uneducated but with insane natural intellect.
If people insist on a more specific definition, I lean toward charisma having almost nothing to fo with beauty, and all force of personality.
Quote from: jibbajibba;672174v) what the GM thinks makes the most enjoyable game for the players (SHOCK HORROR!!!) becuase afterall its the GMs job to loose to the players :)
A wise guy eh? Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;672162Charisma is much more than looks. The AD&D1e gives Hitler as an example of high Charisma. I don't think Gygax was saying he wanted to make sexy-time with Adolf. It's also presence. Some people have a strong presence, they walk in the room and everyone notices. Other people are easily ignored. Still others you dislike the moment you meet them.
Looks are a different thing, which is why 2e introduced a different attribute for them (which I don't use since it's not relevant to fantasy adventure games, but only to thespier stuff, but that's another story).
Wait..looks are not relavant? How so?
Quote from: jibbajibba;672174That is what I have been saying if you read my post.
I still don't think that if you put Adolf (and he did have beautiful eyes and a dapper moustache :) ) in a suit of armour on a horse then any monster he met would be swayed by his rhetoric and personal magnetism.
My point is simply that enconter rolls should be affected by a vast number of other things more than they are by charisma. I have no issue with using charisma for all social skills and as I have written at length I have no issue blending social skill checks into roleplaying so I suspect at my table charisma is far more useful that at some others.
Initial reactions (which I shall try to steer back to the OP) should be far more affected by
i) the Intelligence of the creature
ii) the base "ferocity" of the creature
iii) the 'state' of the creature, hunting, travelling, protecting young, searching for a lost golden medalion that was lost 200 years ago etc etc ...
iv) the allignment of the creature
v) what the GM thinks makes the most enjoyable game for the players (SHOCK HORROR!!!) becuase afterall its the GMs job to loose to the players :)
Well, in another thread we talked about social skills. And while I agree with all of the above to a large degree, charisma may not do to much in an initial reaction check (or social CC roll, as we use).
First off, it can be an opposed roll, and in the case of a dragon, it would be. They all have a huge intimidate/awe number when I play them. So not that many will stand up to them in the first place.
Secondly, in the other wise, many charisma-based social skills we use, such as Leadership, Organize, Exhort, Fight to Oblivion, affect others around the PC and would help this situation. And others would help in the initial response/ CC roll.
So...High Charisma by itself? Not much good for us. some levels in charisma-based skills? very useful.
Quote from: LordVreeg;672343Well, in another thread we talked about social skills. And while I agree with all of the above to a large degree, charisma may not do to much in an initial reaction check (or social CC roll, as we use).
First off, it can be an opposed roll, and in the case of a dragon, it would be. They all have a huge intimidate/awe number when I play them. So not that many will stand up to them in the first place.
Secondly, in the other wise, many charisma-based social skills we use, such as Leadership, Organize, Exhort, Fight to Oblivion, affect others around the PC and would help this situation. And others would help in the initial response/ CC roll.
So...High Charisma by itself? Not much good for us. some levels in charisma-based skills? very useful.
Yes an opposed roll makes sense in Social skill checks. This is how I do skills in my heartbreaker. Still won't do that in a reaction situationas I see the PCs aas largely passive in relation to intial encounters.
Quote from: Bill;672336Wait..looks are not relavant? How so?
He's saying Charisma was much more than looks and really didn't focus on that, as is evidenced by the fact of the Comeliness attribute that was added in Unearthed Arcana. I.e., they created another stat just for looks because Charisma was meant more for personality, persuasiveness, and presence.
Looks are not relevant to fantasy gaming? What? Maybe if all of your adventures happen in dungeons, but there's more to fantasy than that.
And come to think of it even dungeon adventurers may care about their looks for their own reasons. Dungeonpunk is a thing, after all.
Quote from: vytzka;672371Looks are not relevant to fantasy gaming? What? Maybe if all of your adventures happen in dungeons, but there's more to fantasy than that.
And come to think of it even dungeon adventurers may care about their looks for their own reasons. Dungeonpunk is a thing, after all.
In my dungeons, dark elves make sure to capture, and not kill any attractive elves or paladins they find.
I hear rumors that beautiful people get gifts more often too.
Quote from: Bill;672396I hear rumors that beautiful people get gifts more often too.
It isn't just a rumor. Play WOW and roll a hot chick as your toon. More players will offer you stuff, offer to run you through instances, etc. Its pretty funny and pathetic at the same time.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;672404It isn't just a rumor. Play WOW and roll a hot chick as your toon. More players will offer you stuff, offer to run you through instances, etc. Its pretty funny and pathetic at the same time.
You mean female avatars aren't female players? :eek:
I thought with all those women, it was a great place to pick up chicks ;)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;672404It isn't just a rumor. Play WOW and roll a hot chick as your toon. More players will offer you stuff, offer to run you through instances, etc. Its pretty funny and pathetic at the same time.
That is consistant with how my own IQ drops about 50 points in the presence of attractive women.
Quote from: Bill;672406That is consistant with how my own IQ drops about 50 points in the presence of attractive women.
Do we put that in the reaction charts?
Quote from: LordVreeg;672407Do we put that in the reaction charts?
Yes. Perhaps also add in a percentage chance to spontaneously say something stupid.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;672404It isn't just a rumor. Play WOW and roll a hot chick as your toon. More players will offer you stuff, offer to run you through instances, etc. Its pretty funny and pathetic at the same time.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;672404It isn't just a rumor. Play WOW and roll a hot chick as your toon. More players will offer you stuff, offer to run you through instances, etc. Its pretty funny and pathetic at the same time.
The last time I looked for it I couldn't find it, but someone ran a blog for this once. He routinely posed as female and deliberately pushed the envelope to see if his marks would discover him. He asked for more and more outrageous things, and blamed any inconsistencies on his period. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad...
Quote from: Bill;672409Yes. Perhaps also add in a percentage chance to spontaneously say something stupid.
there needs to be a few levels of this.
There is a difference between simple idiocy and mind-numbingly catastrophic pronouncements.