Quote from: flyingmiceElliot - That's basically how I run things. NPCs have personalities, motives, resources, and goals when I create them. I have no idea how the PCs will react, so I work from these established bases of the NPC to determine how the NPC reacts or acts. I try to make it feel real, not fictional.

Quote from: John MorrowAbsolutely.  It's simply a matter of having the game world and it's inhabitants behave as if they were real (world-oriented) as opposed to part of a story (story-oriented).  If the setting and NPCs are interesting enough, things will be pretty interesting no matter what the PCs do.

These two sum it up for me exactly.  Much of my prep being the world-oriented motivations, resources and interrelations thought out several moves ahead, along with crunch to help, just so that in real time without delay for much thought I can achieve more sophisticated world-oriented responses.

Quote from: flyingmice6 times in ten, it's 8 hours of fun in 8 hours. 4 times in 10 it's 4 hours of fun in 8 hours. WHen I first evolved this style, I was a well-prepared situational GM, like you, but I found it hard to avoid subconcoiusly steering the PCs towards what I had prepared, so I began evolving improvisational and low-prep techniques. Now most of my prep is focused on the initial situation, and I improvise the rest.

-clash

I think you're highlighting on my disconnect clash.  You learned, through experience, that situational GMing kept you from steering the PCs.  The players are proactive so you can further the session.  It's a give/take relationship.  In my opinion, the other method is trying to achieve the same playing atmosphere but it's hardwired into the rules.  What you learned from GMing is built into the game, so that players and GMs don't have to spend time learning how to avoid classic pitfalls of the GM/player relationship.  I don't see it as anything more than that.  I'm confused by the story game vs. trad game, GM disempowerment vs. player empowerment, exploration vs. contribution, players vs. GM taking advantage, don't tell me how to game, types of arguments.  Both sides of the argument are taking something simple and blowing it WAY the hell out of proportion.  Has internet debate poisoned the perception of the games themselves?

Quote from: GunslingerHas internet debate poisoned the perception of the games themselves?

I don't think so. It could be that you haven't read many of the more radical designs out there. Or, no offense, you may have such a strong idea of how to play/run an RPG that you impose that on all the games you play, so they all look the same to you.

That's just speculation, really, I have no idea if it applies to you. I do know that the description of "traditional" games by many Forgers is almost unrecognizable to me; given their experience it's perhaps understandable that they think it's a radical innovation to not railroad characters through linear plots. It all depends on where you're coming from.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt could be that you haven't read many of the more radical designs out there.

That is definitely a possibility.  I can only frame the argument through the games I have experience with, which is probably small compared to most.  I only have a handful of Forge inspired games, mixed with a majority of what I consider trad games.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenOr, no offense, you may have such a strong idea of how to play/run an RPG that you impose that on all the games you play, so they all look the same to you.

None taken and a good point.

Dancey said that it was better for the players to narrate game-world things than the GM. I said, "That just leaves the rules. What's the GM there for, then?" He said he agreed, and what was the GM there for?

What he's missing there is one of the main reasons we roleplay - for the joy of discovery.

In my view, the GM is there to describe the results of the PCs' interactions with the game world. The reason not to have the players do it is that if a player could come up with interesting things all by themselves they wouldn't be doing roleplaying, they'd be writing a novel.

I think people have expressed here well the idea of the "secret backstory" which the GM knows and is gradually revealed by the actions of the PCs, and which you can't have if game world things are narrated by players all the time.

But it's not simply secret backstories they'd miss out, because the GM has an overview of the game which players don't. That's why the coach is there in a football game, they're someone who's sitting back seeing the whole of the game, while the players naturally only see what's right in front of them. That's why dance companies have choreographers, too. The player naturally has a narrow view of things, the co-ordinator has a broad view, and tries to bring the narrow views together into something greater.

That may sound railroady, but I don't mean that. I mean more that the GM prompts the overall direction of things by who and what they put in the game world.

I also think that in any group, it's natural that someone or other will dominate, speak and be listened to more. I've played in GMless games, and someone always takes control. Dancey &co might say that this is just some holdover from traditional gaming, but it's something I've seen in work and sports and social groups, too. Even if you go to the pub with your mates for an evening someone will basically be in charge. I think it's better to formalise that role, so that the person dominating will do so for the fun of all, rather than just for their own fun.

There was a good bit in HeroQuest where they noted that part of the joy of reading a novel or watching a movie was not knowing what was going to happen next, then finding out. They said that in rpgs because you decide what's happening next, that could be missing - so that's why we have dice, to keep things uncertain, and to have the joy of discovery.

I'd add that that's why we have a GM, to interpret and narrate the results of the dice rolls, and also the times when the dice aren't rolled at all.

If the player narrates the results of their character's actions, then the player loses that joy of discovering what was uncertain. It becomes the same as sitting at home by yourself writing a story.

The GM is better-placed than the players to narrate results of PC-world interactions because the GM knows the whole game world. Of course, it's possible to have GMless games where each player creates some part of the game world, but then the players' complete knowledge removes the joy of exploring, of discovery. You'd still have some surprise and discovery as other players surprised you, but the world wouldn't have that coherence and integration that a world well-designed by one person has. I mean, if you hear someone say, "this thing looks like it was designed by a comittee" then you think "mess", yeah? Well, with most of the game world created by players it'll be designed by a comittee.

Which could be fun for a session or two, but not longer-term. I was saying earlier how it's okay if campaigns don't have longevity, if you just want fun for an evening that's fine, nobody complains about not being able to have a series of connected games of Cluedo.

I guess what I mean is the difference between "fun" and "fulfilling." To fuck about with gingerbread men or just have "the fighter" and "the wizard" slay orcs in one room and skeletons in the next is fun, but it's not fulfilling. What's fulfilling is to have a campaign of several sessions where your characters can each live and change a bit, and explore and affect their game world.

Now, I've no doubt that for Dancey it was fulfilling to play gingerbread men for a day with his friends and family, just like every one is fulfilled by being with their family and friends. But that's not a game design issue, and it's not something we can take to roleplaying in general; he was fulfilled by family and friends, not by the game itself.

The difference between Dancey's gingerbread men session and even something as simple and straightforward as Against the Giants is like the difference between two kids playing kick-to-kick in the backyard and a full game of football with established teams and a referee. One is definitely fun, and if you do it with family and friends, fulfilling but not because of the game itself; the other is both fun and fulfilling.

For that feeling of fulfilment, you need players who describe their characters' interactions with the game world, and a GM who describes the results of that.

Not to respond for clash but here is how I see the difference.  But first things first.

Quote from: GunslingerHas internet debate poisoned the perception of the games themselves?

Of course isn’t that the purpose of internet debate?  No really I think it is Mr. Dancey’s delivering of his views in absolutists terms and absolute statements about traditional TRPG game play that get folks going.  The conclusions about traditional game play implied or outright made are counter to what people know from decades of personal experience, with respect to their games then and now.  

I’ll just address my side of it but I don’t mean to say the collaborative world-building approach is not fun, or badwrongfun, or that we shouldn’t have such games.  Sometimes I get the feeling Dancey is implying all those negative things about traditional TRPG play.  But he needs to if his goal is seeking investment in his new vision as the last best hope for TRPGs.    In the end if we all walk out of our game night having a great time who cares about the rules.  

Quote from: GunslingerI think you're highlighting on my disconnect clash.  You learned, through experience, that situational GMing kept you from steering the PCs.  The players are proactive so you can further the session.  It's a give/take relationship.  In my opinion, the other method is trying to achieve the same playing atmosphere but it's hardwired into the rules.  

I’ll first mention that not all players want to be so proactive, and the collaborative building part will turn them off or they’ll just narrate something very short and very simple.  What these players often want is to act in response to the world that behaves with an underlying reasonableness and they want a human so they are not limited in tactics or actions (the whole world is destructible and moveable in a TRPG) and have their opponents/obstacles react in a challenging way to them (the AI of MMORPG just isn’t anywhere near as good as a real person).

True, the give/take is the stated goal of the collaborative method in theory but it is unlikley in practice to address true problems.  Specifically…

Unrestrained Collaborative World/Story Building Does Not Solve the Adversarial GM/Player Problem
    The idea that the rules that empower players solve the adversarial problem is false.  Adversarial styles don’t come from the mechanics in most traditional TRPG (although evangelization of such styles can come from the designer) they arise from the people.  One or both being unreasonable in the social contract of the table.  Peer pressure to be reasonable is what controls this in a traditional TRPG as it will in the collaborative game.  But the rules are never going to result in an unreasonable person being reasonable any more than Rule 0 ever did.  They are rules without teeth, the teeth being the people around the table enforcing the rule, that is the local social contract of what is non-adversarial play.  In fact, collaborative games will only exacerbate the problem by putting it in the rules that you choose the outcome.  The jerk player will read this as a license to do anything, no matter rule caveats.  So you can get situations like this:

 Party comes to the first door in a dungeon that is know to have goblins, other fell beast, and a dragon deep below rumored to have a vast horde.  The Thief listens and rolls to hear something he succeeds now he needs to narrate, create the world he says:
“I hear a deeply snoring dragon as if he’s in coma from some powerful spell, occasionally he stirs and the sound of a massive pile of coins and large items shifting under him is heard.”

The GM and other players say “What?, This is the entry the dragon can’t be here, he’s deep underground.”

Thief: “No he’s here the locals were wrong, and he is very soundly asleep on a hoard of gold and magical items.  The goblins must use another entrance we haven’t found yet.  Anyway I don’t want some lame goblins, I want to create a story about grand dragons and hordes of treasure, not one mucking about for a few coppers with goblins. Anyway it says right in the rules I can narrate my story.”

GM and other players: ”OK”

Thief:  “OK I check the door, oil the hinges if necessary, and open the door as quietly as possible.”

GM: “You can’t it’s locked.”

Thief: “Wait, I didn’t say it was locked that’s not part of my story.  OK well I’m good at picking locks so I pick it, I roll x, success!”

GM: “Nope that roll doesn’t succeed the locks too difficult to pick.”

Thief: “What! Is this a collaborative game or what?  It sounds like you just don’t want me to get the treasure.  Anyway the mage has a spell that opens locked doors.”

Mage (who is Thief’s friend): “OK I cast the spell. Roll, success.  The door opens.”

GM: “Any more, can you add some more description.”

Thief looks at Mage, Mage: “The door opens without a sound to reveal a gleaming pile of treasure with magic items sticking out of it.”

Now the thief may go through the whole check for traps, sneak up on the dragon, etc.  When it comes time to determine what is discovered, a whole other can of worms is opened up.  You can imagine the Thief stating.

Thief: “I want to find a Dragon Slayer Sword.” GM: “Roll. Not there.”
Thief: “I want to find a Vorpal Blade.” GM: “Roll. Not there.”
Thief: “I want to find a Sword that makes me impervious to dragon breath, ignores armor and makes me invisible to anything.” GM: “Roll. Not there.”
Thief: “I want to find a Dragon Slaying Arrow like in The Hobbit, and Bow that never misses, and the Dragon has a weak spot just like Smaug.” GM: “Roll. Not there.  Ask for something reasonable”
Thief: “Reasonable, you mean lame. You just want me to create your story for you. You don’t want me to tell mine.  This is all just railroading until I guess what you want me to do.”

Is the player being juvenile and adversarial? Yes.   The point is, collaborative games don’t lessen this behavior but worsen it.  Adversarial is adversarial whether GM or player initiated.  The only check there has ever been on such behavior is not game rules but the social contract between players.   The fact that the other players can reign in such people is beside the point, they always could in any traditional TRPG as Tin God GMs were reigned in.  The answer when this is brought up is usually, well yeah you can create the world as a player within limits.   Yet the troublesome, adversarial player will just complain about those limits, and call the collaborative part a farce. As traditional games had limits too.

I won’t even begin to talk about what could happen if you have players that want to take the world and story in different directions, all of which fit with the premises of the world and situation.  Someone or thing is going to have to arbitrate and pick, maybe democracy, maybe the GM.  In the end , not everyone is going to get their way and some will not feel empowered by the rules.

QuoteWhat you learned from GMing is built into the game, so that players and GMs don't have to spend time learning how to avoid classic pitfalls of the GM/player relationship.  I don't see it as anything more than that.  

What is the classic pitfall?  You mean the adversarial relationships?  That ain’t going to go away and it was never universal or prevalent in my experience in the “I’m out to get you, dictatorial jerk sense.”  All the talk about making the collaborative game work relies on the social contract at the table, not the rules. Rather the rules in such games make it worse by giving everyone, except the GM, a basis and mandate to act by fiat.  

Frankly just because you can draw a division of labor between GM and player (which can get blurry and varies) it seems that certain game designers think this inherehtly leads to adversarial relationships in actuality and not just as a cnoveninet descriptor of a game style (nice that a descriptor is chose with negative connotations). And/or that certain games designers view GM’s as some species of Ogre unable to cooperate, be impartial, abstain from undesired railroading etc., or that traditional games almost always create such.  Yet players, who are also humans that often GM, are somehow paragons of reason and fonts of impromtu creativity that if only the right game existed would change the world forever.  I doubt that’s true, anymore than all players are whiners.

QuoteI'm confused by the story game vs. trad game, GM disempowerment vs. player empowerment, exploration vs. contribution, players vs. GM taking advantage, don't tell me how to game, types of arguments. Both sides of the argument are taking something simple and blowing it WAY the hell out of proportion.

I agree.  

I just disagree with the original Dancey implication that traditional TRPG are somehow inherently flawed and his current game of choice is inherently going to solve those flaws.  Sure it can be a fun game world building together, some players are going to dig it, others hate doing it, and others have a hard time improving something that is as good what they would have come up with had they sat down and thought on it for a while.

I’ll leave it to his research data that what TRPG people really want is his version of storytelling games.  I can only say in my antidotal way that every experience I have had, or forum I have read (self selected for sure and excepting The Forge) tends to want exactly what they already got, a traditional RPG.  Sure people may gripe about rules bloat, time commitment, edition of D&D, T&T vs. TFT vs. RIFTS vs. GURPS vs. games without an acronym, but they are certainly more on the traditional side of the play style and none of them seem to regularly feel disempowered or have Ogres for GMs.

We might have a clue as to why Dancey thinks we need GMless games, or rather games where everyone's the GM. He says there are too many GMs, not enough players.

Quote from: Ryan Dancey1970: Any GM could find players.
1980: Most GMs could find players.
1990: Many GMs could find players.
2000: Some GMs could find players.
2010: Few GMs will find players.

This trend, which is now 40 years old, is unlikely to change.

I can guarantee you that for 95% of the TRPGs being sold in the market today, there are more GMs than players. Most of those games have NOTHING but GMs; people who read the games, think about playing them, and never do because they can't assemble a group to do it with. Probably 50% of the TRPGs for sale right now are played regularly by fewer than 1% of the people who have read them.

For the remaining 5% (D20, Storyteller, Palladium, etc.) there are more people playing than GMing, but the number of players is dropping fast, and more and more GMs are finding their game groups dissolving despite their best efforts to keep them intact.

I don't know what planet he's living on, but everywhere I've ever been, there were more people keen to play than to GM. I think perhaps he's confusing "bought a few game books" with "wants to GM," or else "will GM if they have to just to get a game going," with "wants to GM."

Or maybe it's just that the 95% of rpgs he's talking about can't get players because, well, not many people want to play gingerbread men, low-class teenaged girls, or oppressed minions of an evil overlord. So he's taking a "we can't get people to play these games" problem and claiming it's a problem with all of roleplaying. And I suppose it is - for the indie game designers.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat is the classic pitfall?

There's a lot there to respond to, so I'll start with this.  The classic pitfall, to me, is an awareness of what the group desires out of a game.  This doesn't derive from any particular system or is fixed by any particular system.  It may change the approach or at least satiate certain aspects of that desire but what more is there to it than that?

Oh, you just mean, "the group doesn't talk to each-other." Yes, that's a classic problem for game groups.

In my game groups I always keep one player from the last campaign, to go with the 2 or 3 new players. This old player knows me well enough to take the piss out of me on a regular basis. This mockery of the GM and host of the game acts to bond the new group members together. It also means people feel free to speak up. Mocking someone regularly in a light-hearted and non-malicious way makes it easier to talk to them about more important stuff.

Maybe Dancey doesn't let anyone make fun of him, and that's why his game sessions aren't much fun.

Quote from: XantherNot to respond for clash but here is how I see the difference.  But first things first...

I thoroughly agree!  Really well said!  Bravo!!  

Well, perhaps if they ever stop trying to push Ivory-Tower-Rhetoric-Driven game designs, they might do better?   It doesn't take a brainiac to figure out that evangelizing "Player Empowerment" to Gamesmasters is not going to be a winning Marketing Strategy.  After all, it's not Players who drive RPG sales, it's GMs.  And why would GMs be attracted to RPGs that are intrinsically opposed to - GMing?  It appears to make no sense.  Unless there's more to the picture than meets the eye.

Anyway...  Brilliant Post!!  Thanks!

Long Live GM Fiat!

Quote from: Kyle AaronWe might have a clue as to why Dancey thinks we need GMless games, or rather games where everyone's the GM. He says there are too many GMs, not enough players.

I don't know what planet he's living on, but everywhere I've ever been, there were more people keen to play than to GM. I think perhaps he's confusing "bought a few game books" with "wants to GM," or else "will GM if they have to just to get a game going," with "wants to GM."

Or maybe it's just that the 95% of rpgs he's talking about can't get players because, well, not many people want to play gingerbread men, low-class teenaged girls, or oppressed minions of an evil overlord. So he's taking a "we can't get people to play these games" problem and claiming it's a problem with all of roleplaying. And I suppose it is - for the indie game designers.

That's just friggin weird.  Where in the world is he getting this stuff?  I can't imagine there is any data on this stuff from the 1970s or 1980s.  And what is he saying, that we'll all be GMs and there will be no players.  Like being a GM and player are mutually exclusive?  I can see it now, "Hi Kyle want to play D&D 5th edition.  Sorry, I'm a GM now I can't play.  Sorry Kyle, I'm a GM too, can't play any more. Man it sucks no one likes TRPGs anymore, up for playing a MMORPG?"

IIRC in the 70's we were all GM, player and game designer rolled into one because OD&D had gaps that came up in play.  

I think you probably have the gist of it, he's misreading or misleading with some statistic on percentage of games played.  It is also misleading to say 95% of games are never played as if that mean 95% ofa ll TRPGers can't find players to play with.  No tehy play teh otehr 5% of games they have on their shelf.  It's a misleading way to put it as only a small fraction of the number of games make up a huge segment of the market.  The "5%" of d20 is probably 80% of all RPGs played.  

I'm losing all respect for this Ryan guy, it's one thing to sell the game on good game play, and rules designed to really support a style of play.  I mean that is cool, you might actually convince me to try it.  But the scare tactics and hubris?  Wait is he playing a game with us?  Is this some like viral marketing kind of thing for Dogs in the Vineyard?  Convert or else?

Quote from: Kyle AaronDancey said that it was better for the players to narrate game-world things than the GM. I said, "That just leaves the rules. What's the GM there for, then?" He said he agreed, and what was the GM there for?

Might help to mention that this was in a different thread from the one you referenced in the OP.

What really strikes me in all this, and it's a pattern I've seen before, is the extremely limited basis for comparison on which the "storytelling" games are being touted as both "revolutionary" and "necessary". You can see it most clearly in the comments by Ken Burnside, and I strongly suspect it's where Dancey's coming from as well. Ken:

QuoteI've played MMOs. I really can't see anything in a D&D game that I can't do in Worlds of Warcraft, with a lot less work on my part. I get the same thrill of minmaxing powers, don't have to worry about die rolls, and don't have to put up with a GM as a player, or generate three file boxes of back story as a player.

And later,

QuoteMost D&D games have a band of looters (PCs) who go through a series of adventures (sometimes against giants) killing things to get experience points, gaining bigger toys to get bigger powers to kill more powerful things. It's a very nice Skinner treadmill.

Most WoW games have a band of looters (PCs) who go through a series of adventures (usually starting with rats and working their way up to giants), killing things to get experience points, gaining bigger toys to get bigger powers to kill more powerful things.

The fact that you can actually roleplay while doing your adolescent power tripping is a nice side effect, but there's very little in D&D to actively encourage roleplaying....and the exploration/simulative part of the RPG market will find WoW more immersive than a D&D game where the room descriptions are read by a sweaty guy with a nasal voice and all the delivery panache of a wet blanket.

So from a limited set of data, essentially hack & slash module-based D&D, not even "D&D in general" let alone games like RQ or GURPS, Ken & Ryan conclude that players who are tired of the H&S climb-the-experience-ladder style of play are really hungering for the power to improvisationally define the game world outside of their character. It's like arguing that the house isn't blue, therefore it's orange.

Do I think that RQ or GURPS are the real answer to hack & slash exhaustion? Of course not. But the Dancey-indie show is just a classic case of someone trying to usurp leadership and impose unity on a diverse fringe by attacking the mainstream.

(I also find it interesting that Dancey claims that TTRPGs must offer greater player control over the world in order to survive the supposed drain of exploration/challenge-oriented players by MMORPGs, but he then offers two online games (EVE and Second Life) as proof of the appeal of worldbuilding and player proactivity.)

Quote from: XantherThat's just friggin weird.  Where in the world is he getting this stuff?  I can't imagine there is any data on this stuff from the 1970s or 1980s.  And what is he saying, that we'll all be GMs and there will be no players.  Like being a GM and player are mutually exclusive?

Well, the old AD&D1e DMG did have Gygax saying that players weren't allowed to look into the DMG, and there were sections on "dealing with troublesome players" in which he said the DM should rid himself (it was always "him" with Gygax) of those players, he didn't mention what the other players might say... So there was definitely the thought that just one person would be the game master - forever - and never be a player again.

So maybe Dancey's meetings with Gygax brainwashed him or something

Quote from: XantherI think you probably have the gist of it, he's misreading or misleading with some statistic on percentage of games played.  It is also misleading to say 95% of games are never played as if that mean 95% ofa ll TRPGers can't find players to play with.  No tehy play teh otehr 5% of games they have on their shelf.  

Of course. I mean, John Kim's webpage tells us there are about 1,000 rpgs put into print in English - not too many of them get played regularly. But still, I think that there's more variation in what's played than at first sight.

I've 15 different rpg systems on my shelves (not counting d4-d4), and 56 on pdf. And yet now we're playing a new one I came up with for a playtest. A game group I know across town is playing Burning Wheel, but previously played over 150 sessions of Hackmaster. Another group has a GM who says, "I'll play anything so long as it's GURPS." Down at the game clubs at the unis I see mostly D&D and nWoD being played.

So really there's a huge variety of stuff being played. There are lots of gamers who refuse to try other than their favourite system, or they try it but don't take it seriously and sabotage the game, but a pretty large number are happy to try lots of stuff. So if your little indie game can't have some success, that's not because gamers are stupid or busy playing WoW, but because your game is lame or badly-written or whatever.

And yes, Elliot, I agree that Burnside's and Dancey's comments sound like they're coming from bad D&D game sessions. Just like Uncle Ronny's comments seem to come from bad Vampire sessions. And like was said by Xanther above, most of the time it's just about crap players and people, not about crap game systems. They're confusing their bad personal experiences with some general principle. It's a bit like how if some guy's missus screws around on him, he might say, "all women are bitches!" Okay, Dancey and Burnside, so you ran or played in some shit D&D games: build a bridge and get over it.

Often though, I don't think they're even thinking back to some specific actual bad experience of their own, more to some imaginary caricature of things. Like, "if we take all the worst parts of System X, what kind of game would we get? Okay - every session of X is like this! It's terrible! A Skinner treadmill! An angsty wank! D&D has no rules for anything but smashing stuff, so all you can do is smash stuff! Brain damage!"

I'm starting to think this is almost a political difference. There are the socialists, who want laws to make things fair and bring out the best in people, and the liberals, who think the best thing government can do is get out of the way. So we've got the rules-heavy or rules-specific types who think that we need rules for what we want to happen in a game session, and the rules-light or rules-general types who say, "just roleplay it", etc.

But players can surprise you with their creativity. Last night one player had his character's first action on joining a private security and intelligence firm as... redecorating the tea room. But I didn't have rules for that! Oh no, what to do?! I was at a loss! Better tear up the system! Maybe we need a micro-game, Tea & Scones, with specific rules for redecoration?!

Again, it just seems like these guys are in a different world to us. Do Dancey and Burnside ever post about their game sessions? Do they have game sessions? Aside from one-offs with gingerbread men, I mean.

I mean, I don't everyone to be as open as me, me you can trace my old posts and find just about everything I've ever done, the great successes and the embarassing failures where I made a dick of myself... but still, you know... can't they tell us about their 25th level drowlesbianstripperninja, or their gay cowboys eating pudding?

Wow!  A nice rant, Ken, please show us on the doll where the GM hurt you.

What I can't do in a MMO?  Stack boxes to climb out a window.  Cut down a tree, build a ladder and scale a wall.  Any computer program is limited in what you can pull off with the environment.   It can be expanded by still limited.

AI opponents, are stupid and really unsatisfying to engage for the thrill of combat.  Big battles are just tedious point and click.  There is no real tactics, and the ones you can pull off often just exploit weakness in the AI.  

MMO have tedium of there own, albeit of a different kind than TRPGs.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWell, the old AD&D1e DMG did have Gygax saying that players weren't allowed to look into the DMG, and there were sections on "dealing with troublesome players" in which he said the DM should rid himself (it was always "him" with Gygax) of those players, he didn't mention what the other players might say... So there was definitely the thought that just one person would be the game master - forever - and never be a player again.

So maybe Dancey's meetings with Gygax brainwashed him or something

...

Yes I remember it well, that being an example of an evangelizing designer.  I thought Gary's tone was strident, the recent posts form Ryan and Ken are putting old Gary to shame.

Yeah we all laughed at Gary then about not reading the DMG, there really wasn't any secret knowledge you didn't learn real quick from playing alot.  But then again we never memorized things, and surprise, as GMs we changed things slightly to mix it up.  Some would say he meant not to look in the DMG during play, which I might agree with.

Game designer kool-aid, refereshing!