Quote from: Peregrin;427416Because
b) The way you framed the "Big Fear" really makes people comfortable admitting they might have it

Also, the question has the soft implication that it's asking what the respondent's biggest concern might be. It's a pretty leading question.

I think the original, capital-letters Big Fear is a bad piece of usage to begin with, also.

Possibly useful to Ryan and relevant to this thread are the entry the taste for gratuitous difficulty on The Mule Abides and the New Yorker article it references.  Also potentially useful is glorious swinginess: results from the dcc rpg/castle zagyg experiment, part 1, a review of using the new Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG to play a module and how it differs in feel from D&D 4e.

Might be worth mentioning, by the way, that Clinton Nixon's game Donjon revolves around a more aggressive version of editing in gameworld facts by the players, in a similar dungeon-adventure context.

Quote from: Cole;427434Might be worth mentioning, by the way, that Clinton Nixon's game Donjon revolves around a more aggressive version of editing in gameworld facts by the players, in a similar dungeon-adventure context.

I've been wanting to take that for a spin with one of my groups as an experiment since the rules are available for free, but goddamn, so many d20s.

I guess I could just use d10s...

Quote from: Cole;427434Might be worth mentioning, by the way, that Clinton Nixon's game Donjon revolves around a more aggressive version of editing in gameworld facts by the players, in a similar dungeon-adventure context.

Quote from: Peregrin;427437I've been wanting to take that for a spin with one of my groups as an experiment since the rules are available for free, but goddamn, so many d20s.

I guess I could just use d10s...

It's found here : http://open.crngames.com/src/donjon.html since the place the free rules themselves are found isn't 100% obvious.

CRN's assessment of the game has this interesting aspect, I note:

Quote from: http://open.crngames.com/src/donjon.htmlLastly, this game is about winning. Don't be fooled by the fact that you're all friends: the GM's job is to take whatever you say and twist it around and screw you with it. Think of the GM as a genie - an evil one. You make wishes, and he tries work them to his advantage. The players' job is to not let the GM do this: think of cool actions she can't thwart, build characters that are engines of fun destruction, and smite down all the enemies she can throw at you.

Why I think this is interesting is that it suggests that, while the game is described as 'collaborative,' it makes the assumption that the relationship between Donjon GM and Donjon player is a contentious one (good-naturedly so), whereas the D&D GM theoretically has a disinterested or even-handed position toward the players. The "Big Fear" would seem to suggest that D&D's DM similarly has an interest in "thwarting" the players' action. I don't think that is the case - maybe it's more that there is an axis between contention between GM and player, and an axis between GM control of "editing" and player control of "Editing", and the two are relatively independent.

I could see how problems might exist where GM authority is total and the GM's goal is actively to thwart all player actions (I do not think D&D as written implies such a game.) I'm not familiar enough with Donjon to have a clear impact on the game if the Donjon GM were to show a more 'helpful hand' to the PC's edits.

Normally I don't have a problem with the GM saying no, provided there is a rational reason for doing so.

But I remember quite distinctly, distinctly because it was when I first started playing and learning to love RPGs, where an RPGA GM just completely shut-down a creative use of one of my spells where I was just trying to add some color to a scene.  Really, it was incidental to the entire adventure, and wouldn't have affected anything in a significant way.  But this dude was intent on shutting down a new player's idea...just...because.  I still don't know why to this day, and it definitely turned me off back then, because I was trying to make a positive role-playing contribution and playing my character the way he would be, and was essentially told, with the tone in the guy's voice "No, your idea is stupid."  I've also experienced this with several other GM's I've played under at LGSs, and it's always boggled my mind because of how different their views are compared to my own personal "home" groups that I've played with over the years.

As for the axis, I think they can intersect at some points (pure incidental scene editing/color vs. thwarting PC action during a legitimate conflict), particularly if a player is "immersed" in the world, comes up with an idea that, by their imagining of the pseudo-reality, should have a good chance at working, and their character has the means, but the GM either assigns a ridiculously difficult check or just shuts it down, and I think that's where it gets even more dangerous, because players can become frustrated and dissatisfied if their character, as an avatar in the imaginary world, is continually denied opportunities to engage with the imagined environment in novel ways.  

I don't think it has to manifest itself as a "fear" per se, but I have seen it manifest itself with disinterest and the eventual departure of players from some groups.  Even if you're playing a completely "trad" game, a player still usually wants to make creative contributions via their character or contribute to the imagined spaced within the game-world, and if that player is continually neglected because the GM has their own vision, or favors other players, then it can become a problem for the player.

Peregrin, it's interesting that you pick out an RPGA game to describe that incident - although you point to a 'color' use as what was dismissed - in that with such play there is a constrained format that is very much at odds with the open ended approach implicit in the traditional D&D model.

Actually I have long felt that study RPGA data has been sort of a two edged sword - highlighting observations and complaints that are exaggerated in frequency and intensity compared to home play due to considerations toward consistency of experience in organized play. On the other hand something like the RPGA has advantages from the publisher side in terms of how well it can be monetized per player.

I consider myself more of a player as a DM, but I have DMed a lot and from behind the screen it is in no way my goal to shut down player ideas, especially to fit a preordained outcome or to keep things in accordance with my own preconceptions - I would rather be surprised, and find out what happens. But I try to present a game world that is treated as real, because that's what I want to explore as a player, and because I have found that compared to other approaches that produces the best results for keeping players engaged and happy.

Quote from: RSDancey;427393Yeah that was less robust.  Not.

Virtually nobody outside a small group of insiders has any clue what you mean when you say "Forge type theories", and a big portion of those who do don't have a negative reaction to them.

You're wasting time & energy concerning yourself with such trivia.

Note that eveything below the dashed line is what I would put into a book. Above is for the audience of this forum who know what forge type theories refer too.

I will make such formatting clearer in the future.

So yes I am not concerning myself with such trivia.

As for the robustness, it was not intended to be a "rule" but a guide. Ultimately it is up to the judgment of the human referee to implement it or not.

Quote from: Cole;427459Peregrin, it's interesting that you pick out an RPGA game to describe that incident - although you point to a 'color' use as what was dismissed - in that with such play there is a constrained format that is very much at odds with the open ended approach implicit in the traditional D&D model.

Actually I have long felt that study RPGA data has been sort of a two edged sword - highlighting observations and complaints that are exaggerated in frequency and intensity compared to home play due to considerations toward consistency of experience in organized play. On the other hand something like the RPGA has advantages from the publisher side in terms of how well it can be monetized per player.

I consider myself more of a player as a DM, but I have DMed a lot and from behind the screen it is in no way my goal to shut down player ideas, especially to fit a preordained outcome or to keep things in accordance with my own preconceptions - I would rather be surprised, and find out what happens. But I try to present a game world that is treated as real, because that's what I want to explore as a player, and because I have found that compared to other approaches that produces the best results for keeping players engaged and happy.

I've actually had similar experiences with the RPGA, most of them during the Living Greyhawk era or with people that really identify with that era. I had one last year at DDXP, in fact- I have a character with a +1 paired katar (a weapon that splits into two). I had some substance that turned it into a silvered weapon, so I was talking about applying that and then splitting the weapon into two weapons and the LG guys not only saw that as taking a huge advantage, they couldn't come up with how it would be different in any way from my normal attacks since I only rolled one dice for my attacks regardless. (ie, two weapon fighting is just a damage bonus).
 
How do you mean "monetized per player"? The RPGA is free. It's been free for a decade.

Here's an experience I had as a playtester for Torg 2. It led me to become almost a fulltime DM.

Our characters are fighting some kind of pulp superhero villain and I have a gadget type hero. After the main bad guy gives us his evil monologue, he climbs into his spaceship and starts it up, and lets free a big ogre guy and a bunch of other villians, all of which are being handled by the other PCs in the party. For some reason, I end up getting attacked by the big ogre guy.  

Torg has a "trick" type power as well as a "maneuver" type thing your character can do, as part of his attack. So I asked if I could do a sort of feint and snap one side of a pair of handcuffs I happened to have-- on the ogre guy. Which we go through the procedure, and the GM says "uhh..ok.."

The rocket is just about to take off (and of course the engine blast is blinding us and doing damage..)

On my next round I snapped the other end of the cuffs to my own grappling gun and fired it at the rocket just before it took off. So if the bad guy is leaving, he's taking the ogre too, dangling at the end of the rocket. Dude, it was straight out of Batman. I might be minus one grappling gun, but i was pretty sure I could get a new one.

The GM says "no". can't do it. Can't what? Can't hit the rocket with the grappling gun? I did in an earlier part of the game.. Can't attach the cuffs to the gun?

No- what I can't do is "ruin" this battle.

So I let it go. But I never let that guy GM for me again.

Quote from: RSDancey;427393You're wasting time & energy concerning yourself with such trivia.

In addition you haven't stated where there assertion comes from. What experience or data led you to conclude that there there is a "Big Fear".

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;427497So I let it go. But I never let that guy GM for me again.

So the question is with your and Peregrin's story is how much of a problem is it?

I had similar experiences as well but I had way more DMs appreciate the things I come up with while roleplaying my character and work it in.  The results are at times are not quite what I expect. But they are generally plausible so I go with it and roleplay off of that.

Quote from: estar;427502So the question is with your and Peregrin's story is how much of a problem is it?

I had similar experiences as well but I had way more DMs appreciate the things I come up with while roleplaying my character and work it in.  The results are at times are not quite what I expect. But they are generally plausible so I go with it and roleplay off of that.

It's hard to say, because while I consider that to be a very bad problem (the negating DM)- I think that in my situation (shared world with a bunch of DMs) it's easy to just make a mental note and move forward to the next game with a new DM. If you have the negating DM as a feature of your group- you are kinda hosed unless you can get the guy to step down.

Unfortunately ... A lot of gaming group drama comes from attempts to get someone to step down or being asked to step down. It's not even an easy job, so that makes it worse, and depending on the situation, may get players to "go along with it" just because nobody else wants the job.


Here's another example: My pal Hudson won't game with a certain group in PA anymore because during one of their gamedays we went down there and he ended up in one of their groups. Right away they had issues with his character when, after extensive going-nowhere RP with a guard, Matt decided to have his character pickpocket the key they wanted from him. Despite having some kind of maxed out roll on a thievery check, the DM decided that the guard noticed and that they would all be attacked. Hudson then teleported away, went invisible.. he had a lot of tricks up his sleeve and they weren't used to magically equipped rogues, so he got away. So the rest of the adventure everywhere the group went just turned into a thing where the entire city was out to get his character for pickpocketing a key.

That's negating and.. unrealistic. Like.. it wasn't even that important of a key.

This is an RPGA group that runs about 180 degrees different from the ones I run back in MD, and that people around here are used to. Which shows to me at least how local differences make a big deal.

Quote from: estar;427501In addition you haven't stated where there assertion comes from. What experience or data led you to conclude that there there is a "Big Fear".

Well, it wasn't my poll thread on the Big Purple, where so far 88 people have voted and (it's a multiple choice voting poll so it's not scientifically perfect, but still) results in so far are:-

1 vote for it's my Big Fear so I get detailed descriptions
1 vote for it's my Big Fear so I use say yes or roll dice
3 votes for it's a big fear of mine so I get detailed descriptions
6 votes for it's a big fear of mine so I use say yes or roll dice
3 votes for it's not a big fear of mine but lots of people think that way
45 votes for it's not a big fear of mine and not many people think that way
34 votes for who on earth would think like that?
and 4, 5 and 4 votes for miscellaneous add-on questions
(the last of them being Special Snowflake)

In other words, more votes for who on earth would think like that? than for all the "it's my big fear" or "it's a big fear" options combined - in fact, nearly 3 times as many. And that's before you consider the votes for "not many people think that way".

A minimum of 74 out of the 88 people who voted did NOT indicate that it was a big fear of theirs at all, and a minimum of 71 out of the 88 did NOT indicate that it was a big fear of theirs NOR that many people they knew thought that way. By contrast the minimum number indicating that it IS a big fear of theirs is I think 6 or more likely 7.

If Dancey doesn't like these results he only has himself to blame for the "big fear" wording but perhaps someone else would care to set up a more neutral poll? Neutral polls are fairly boring IMHO YMMV but I guess they might be a bit more informative...