Quote from: StuartFor example, I think the original D&D dungeoncrawl game, where you explore the dungeon, avoid the traps, kill the monsters and collect the gold seems like a complete game you could build from the toolkit.

I'd agree with that.

Quote from: StuartWhat about other toolkit built games?  Are they as solid as something pre-built like My Life with Master?

I think that they can be, but there is nothing (outside of social forces in the group) which will guarantee that a toolkit game will be solid.

Quote from: StuartWhat about the "players invent their own goals" type RPGs?  If the players all have different goals, is the resulting game something like baseball-soccer-football-tennis?  Is the GMing just refereeing 4 seperate games where the players sometimes run across each other's playing fields?

I think this depends. If the various goals are all compatible ("We are all members of a backstabby royal family, looking to win favour with the dying King", for example) then individual goals aligned with that ("I want to kill the Grand Vizier", "I want to marry the King's hot daughter") are like everybody playing baseball, but with some players wanting to impress the girl watching from the sidelines, whereas another just wants to see how fast he can pitch a fastball, and so on. They all are going to concentrate on different things, but they are all playing the same core game.

On the other hand, if it's like "I want to kill Dragons", "I want to play my character's struggle toward spiritual perfection" and "I want to be a leet dude  standing on a rooftop in a trenchcoat", you are going to have a baseball-soccer-football-tennis situation, I think. I guess that can work, kinda, but it's heavy-going on the GM, and I think could be one of the causes of "GM-burnout" (which I have seen firsthand, and it's not fun for anybody, in my experience.)

Quote from: warrenOn the other hand, if it's like "I want to kill Dragons", "I want to play my character's struggle toward spiritual perfection" and "I want to be a leet dude standing on a rooftop in a trenchcoat", you are going to have a baseball-soccer-football-tennis situation, I think. I guess that can work, kinda, but it's heavy-going on the GM, and I think could be one of the causes of "GM-burnout" (which I have seen firsthand, and it's not fun for anybody, in my experience.)

And whether it works or not, I don't think it would be as solid as either the pre-built game (eg. MLwM) or the solidly built game from the toolkit (eg. the classic Dungeon).  

I think things like a Game Prospectus really help make a toolkit game more solid -- and that's exactly the sort of advice RPGs need to give players to help them build great games.

Quote from: warrenOn the other hand, if it's like "I want to kill Dragons", "I want to play my character's struggle toward spiritual perfection" and "I want to be a leet dude  standing on a rooftop in a trenchcoat", you are going to have a baseball-soccer-football-tennis situation, I think. I guess that can work, kinda, but it's heavy-going on the GM, and I think could be one of the causes of "GM-burnout" (which I have seen firsthand, and it's not fun for anybody, in my experience.)

I disagree. It's actually not that heavy going on the GM. That's fairly rudimentary stuff, as far as player desires. I also think it's not even the GM's primary responsibility to meet those kinds of needs, although it's great when they do. It's also important for players to have the skills to communicate what they are hoping to "get", and (this is important) the basic social skills to realize that the game isn't always all about them.

You, as a player may have important needs to be a trenchcoat guy or whatever.
The other players are also important.
The GM is also important.
The campaign world and it's integrity is an important entity.
The group is a gestalt entity that is probably the most important.

You have to recognize all of that.

Being a good player often means facilitating the stuff that doesn't apply to your character. I've often said that the GM's job is customer service, but in reality, expecting constant customer service is just selfishness.  

The truth is, the dragon-killer, the spiritual perfection guy and the leet guy in the trenchcoat can certainly exist happily in the same party.

Customer service is a fun term.  I got my recent hire by answering 'what is customer service' at the job interview properly.

See, customer service is commonly seen as 'customer first', giving the leet guy his leet-ness, the dragon killing guy his dragons, no matter what.  But the guy working customer service owes his boss, his employers... and in the case of the GM his game/group a duty. He can't give away the store. So customer service means balancing the customer's wants against the needs of the business.  The business doesn't want to lose customers....

But I am not going to make a Theory:GM is Mcdonalds guy!

Not gonna do it... nope.

"We Played Dungeons & Dragons For 3 Hours, Then I Was Slain By An Elf."

Quote from: Abyssal MawI disagree. It's actually not that heavy going on the GM. That's fairly rudimentary stuff, as far as player desires.

In my experience, I much prefer to play in and GM for games where everybody is "going in the same direction" (even if it's a backstabby PvP, as long as everyone is happy with that). Playing in the "rabbi, monkey, half-elf necromancer" style games, where each player has his own direction is nowhere near as much fun for me, and, as a GM, trying to manage spotlight time, provide appropriate & interesting challenges for each player and trying to prevent all the PC's conflicting desires, approaches and so on from causing the game to collapse in a bickering heap is no fun at all.

Give me a simple focus at the start of play ("A backstabby struggle for the throne!", "An underground mercenary group in LA", "The crew of a small smuggling ship, evading the Evil Empire", etc.) and then riff off of that. Much more fun, in my experience.

Quote from: warrenIn my experience, I much prefer to play in and GM for games where everybody is "going in the same direction" (even if it's a backstabby PvP, as long as everyone is happy with that). Playing in the "rabbi, monkey, half-elf necromancer" style games, where each player has his own direction is nowhere near as much fun for me, and, as a GM, trying to manage spotlight time, provide appropriate & interesting challenges for each player and trying to prevent all the PC's conflicting desires, approaches and so on from causing the game to collapse in a bickering heap is no fun at all.

Give me a simple focus at the start of play ("A backstabby struggle for the throne!", "An underground mercenary group in LA", "The crew of a small smuggling ship, evading the Evil Empire", etc.) and then riff off of that. Much more fun, in my experience.

First of all, no, bullshit.

Forced or preset cohesion isn't the secret to making it more fun. It might make it seem more easy on the surface to certain types of people, but that doesn't mean fun. I'd be very fucking careful trying to tell me what's "more fun", because I have already drunk from the forgie well and spit out the poison. And no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

Forced cohesion only means "this will be easier for people who have lost the ability to roleplay in a group, or are unwilling to do so." It's just another attempt to force the will of the game designer on the lowly players. And it doesn't guarantee fun, create fun, or quantify 'more fun' in any way.

Players have things they want, and those things are varied and various. Part of the GM's job is to help facilitate a fusion in the group- helping all of the players to get as much as possible of what they want, while also serving the group, and the setting and getting his own part. Part of the responsibility of every single player in the group is to also find this fusion. Sometimes this means you can only be a trenchcoat Katana guy 80% of the time, or you have to help kill the dragon or provide support while the other guy seeks spiritual perfection.  Or sometimes you can all be 100%, all the time.

But these are the most basic of social skills in gaming.  If there is anything of worth in the so-called Lumpley Principle, than this is it. You find a way to play together.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'd be very fucking careful trying to tell me what's "more fun", because I have already drunk from the forgie well and spit out the poison. And no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

I can't speak for Warren, but I'm certainly not quoting the GNS littany... I don't really know what the Lumpley principle is... I looked it up once and it seemed stupidly obvious.  I can't be bothered looking it up again. At the same time -- even if the Forge-folk are saying some of these same things doesn't automatically make them untrue.  

Quote from: Abyssal MawForced cohesion only means "this will be easier for people who have lost the ability to roleplay in a group, or are unwilling to do so." It's just another attempt to force the will of the game designer on the lowly players. And it doesn't guarantee fun, create fun, or quantify 'more fun' in any way.

Why would the use of a Game Prospectus mean these things?  There are a lot of people saying that they sound great / are great in practice.  These are not Forge-folk -- they're traditional RPG gamers.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPlayers have things they want, and those things are varied and various.

In Classic D&D the players have a fairly standardized set of things they want, and generally work together towards that common goal.  It's mostly in newer RPG where the players are encouraged to have varied and various goals for their characters -- which in turn means varied and various types of games.

Quote from: Abyssal MawFirst of all, no, bullshit.

Forced or preset cohesion isn't the secret to making it more fun. It might make it seem more easy on the surface to certain types of people, but that doesn't mean fun. I'd be very fucking careful trying to tell me what's "more fun", because I have already drunk from the forgie well and spit out the poison. And no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

But he doesn't.  He ends it with "In my experience."

And he knows 100% about his experience, and you know zero.  He knows what experiences have been fun for him.  You only know what experiences you think must have been fun for him.  So the one insisting what fun must be is you.

Which is to say ... the crabs of illogic and hypocrisy have clamped their pincers onto the dangling unmentionables of your already feeble argument, and are pinching.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd no, I don't care if you end every sentence with 'In My Opinion'.

So, let me get this straight. Everything in your post is fact...wait.. how about the truth?

Edit. Okay, that was unnecessarily hostile. But Abyssal, this is a forum about rpgs. Very little is about fact, most of it, is about what works for you. You dig ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Abyssal MawForced cohesion only means "this will be easier for people who have lost the ability to roleplay in a group, or are unwilling to do so." It's just another attempt to force the will of the game designer on the lowly players.

Who said anything about the game designer? Yeah, sometimes the game can dictate a strict focus (Dogs in the Vineyard). But even traditional RPGs have things which suggest a focus (Shadowrun, Star Wars). And even in games which are completely open (GURPS), you've never agreed/set a focus for your group before character creation? Even something like "You have all been hired to escort a caravan through the desert", or "Wouldn't it be cool to have a good old tactical dungeon bash"? That's a focus. That's what I'm talking about, nothing more.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPlayers have things they want, and those things are varied and various. Part of the GM's job is to help facilitate a fusion in the group- helping all of the players to get as much as possible of what they want, while also serving the group, and the setting and getting his own part. Part of the responsibility of every single player in the group is to also find this fusion. Sometimes this means you can only be a trenchcoat Katana guy 80% of the time, or you have to help kill the dragon or provide support while the other guy seeks spiritual perfection.  Or sometimes you can all be 100%, all the time.

Yeah, cool. I have found it (much) harder work to do things that way, but whatever works for you. In any case, this is a process by which the players adapt and comprimise so that everyone is headed in the same direction -- the "fusion" as you call it. And that was the main point I was trying to make.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut these are the most basic of social skills in gaming.  If there is anything of worth in the so-called Lumpley Principle, than this is it. You find a way to play together.

Yep. The point I was trying to make is that getting "a way to play together" is very important. (Hell, I'd even say it was a prerequisite for the group to have fun.)

Well, I have a feeling there are some misinterpretations of what I'm saying.

I totally call BS on the argument that players all have to be tightly concepted before going in, or you get a baseball-tennis situation. It's simply not true. Obviously you need to have as much communication amongst all players as possible going in, but forcing the situation (whether through game design or decree) is not the answer.

What really happened: at one point, as Stuart pointed out- there was a baseline expectation that players would work together. This is how D&D has always worked, and still works today. And many other games.

Then everyone got all avant-garde and decide to have games where the 'party concept' is sort of out the window.

And that's where you have problems. On that, I guess your'e on your own. All your'e really doing is trying to go back to a situation where the players don't split off and go 'griefer' on you.  

I think it's 'more fun' for players to find their own comfort level and achieve group cohesion on their own. We used to call this 'group bonding'.
So when warren says he considers concept cohesion a 'prerequisite' for a group to have fun, I have to object: it's a process. It's ongoing. It is often fun in itself. But to force it to happen before you play-- or even worse- to force it to happen before you play as a precondition to fun-- is not a good expectation.

If you go down that path very far, you'll likely end up only being able to play with highly trusted associates at cons.

Wait, who does that describe?  

Game prospectus: I'm ambivalent on these. I've spent the past two days looking for the old ads I put up at Wizards and Enworld and they seem to have all aged off, but those are my version of this. They really aren't that rigid as I recall them: I said something like 'the campaign world is designed to fit in with standard D&D expectations. I provide the setting, you provide the story..." So I'm not sure if that even counts. I had no idea what I was going to get. (Turns out, I got an evil cleric, a grim but good ranger, an alien-ish psion, a gnome trickster, and a comic relief 'buffoon" type PC.  They are about as different as any group of PCs could be. ) I should also point out that the ranger, the trickster, and the psion were complete strangers to me in real life before the campaign started. Great guys, all of them.

I have an advantage in that I never wanted to mess with the basic play expectation of players being part of an adventuring team that worked together. New style games seem to break that expectation, and thus have to rely on a whole set of extra conditions all just to re-establish that situation.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo when warren says he considers concept cohesion a 'prerequisite' for a group to have fun, I have to object: it's a process. It's ongoing. It is often fun in itself. But to force it to happen before you play-- or even worse- to force it to happen before you play as a precondition to fun-- is not a good expectation.

Nope, I didn't mean that "concept cohesion a 'prerequisite' for a group to have fun". What I am saying is that it's hard to have fun when you have got situation where the players are spliting off and doing there own thing without any regard for each other or the game. One way I have found of solving that is to have a strong focus. But, as you point out, building a bond in the group, and letting the players build that group cohesion together, works as well.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf you go down that path very far, you'll likely end up only being able to play with highly trusted associates at cons.

Quite the contrary, in my experience. When you run or play a con game with a strong core concept (Paranoia, Dogs in the Vineyard, The Mountain Witch) everybody starts off going in the same direction straight off the bat, even if they are all total strangers.

I'd guess (never played/run D&D at a con) that classic "party mode" D&D works in the same way, because the focus ("A team that works together to kill things and take their stuff") is just as strong -- albeit an unspoken, "basic expectation" focus.

Quote from: StuartI don't really know what the Lumpley principle is... I looked it up once and it seemed stupidly obvious.

Lumpley Principle, RPGsite style:

"System is the actual process used at the table to make decisions.  Fuck the books.  Fuck the advice.  What you actually do?  That's your system."

Levi, thanks for putting that in the local argot!  My own concern with the Lumpley Principle is that my behavior at the table is not systematic, it's idiomatic and intuitive.  So i feel weird thinking about my actions as part of a system.