Quote from: jeff37923You know, sometimes I want to to see if I can outsmart the DM and just have my character survive the intelligently crafted character-pulper of an adventure that he/she/it has devised. Its a competitive approach to gaming and so what? If it is fun for both the GM and the player, then what the fuck does it matter?

There is something to be said for the stark enjoyment of this kind of play. It is adversarial, but then again, it does touch on that primal part of the human psyche that wants to shout, "Ha! Motherfucker! I just beat the shit out of your Tomb of Horrors rip-off!" when we do succeed.

I approve of this post.
It's like that even in novels. I like when the writer throws at the protagonists a metric ton of problems, traps, etc. and they have to outsmart/survive/accept that.
There's a motto around writers that says you should put your protagonist in the crap at least once per chapter, if not per page.
I think that's right in RPGs too.

Hi!
  Oops, bad post, I think adverserial only works if everyone knows and understands the score. I think Adverserial gets a bad wrap when only 1 or 2 people are doing this and everyone else is losing spotlight or just plain confused...

Quote from: LucifugeThere's a motto around writers that says you should put your protagonist in the crap at least once per chapter, if not per page.
I think that's right in RPGs too

I vehemently disagree with that slogan in fiction.  Throwing the characters into trouble does not equal a story.  Frequently the whole thing seems too contrived and melodramatic.

On the other hand, constant  emergency in an RPG generally works much better than constant emergency in fiction.  

Quote from: Pierce InverarityConversely, there's this commentary from Dave Arneson on the exploits of one Robilar (Rob Kuntz) and Mordenkainen (EGG) in the City of Gods.

Quote from: ArnesonThis group could just as easily have been destroyed on a number of occasions, as been successful, as they ultimately were.

Arneson uses the word "as" three times.  I think he means that they were ultimately successful, in the context of this adventure.

I have read that D&D was originally intended to give more rewards for looting than for killing.  Of course, that presumes that the players are willing to think like burglars.

The situation where survival equals success explains why so many D&D groups became hack-and-slash orc-baby-genocide groups.  The treasure might be cursed.  Even to find the treasure would require a boring, annoying, dangerous search.  Many groups decide it's better to stick to the fun stuff, i.e. killing, which is guaranteed to give *some* XP, rather than try to get XP from loot.

Also:

Quote from: ArnesonThe lack of treasure found on the adventure was quite simply due to the party's failure to look for any. ... A prudent but hardly remunerative attitude. ...

The heroes also showed uncommon wisdom in disposing of the goodies they had found--quickly. Whether this was motivated by caution or greed I cannot say, but it certainly saved them from the fate that overtook the unfortunate merchants involved. Again, when previous expeditions left the city they had desired to "take it (the treasure) home" and thus brought down doom upon their heads and castles.

Apparently the treasure was cursed, or else the inhabitants of the city had a homing beacon which could track it down and call in airstrikes on whoever had it.  

Well, cursed treasure is highly appropriate to Conan stories.  However, I think a lot of DMs would get flak from players for overusing cursed treasure. In particular, if the players had never read 1930's pulp stories with cursed treasure, they might object with, "Hey, Indiana Jones steals treasure all the time and he doesn't get cursed!  He sits pretty while *Nazis* get cursed!"

I think there's a definite tension between pulp horror, in which "doom" is highly appropriate, and pulp adventure, in which happy endings are appropriate.  REH's Conan stories walked the line, but that's not easy to do.

I can see that a "Conan the Thief" attitude really would have paid off, but I think D&D was always extremely multi-thematic.  So Arneson wanted players who would grasp the "Conan the Thief" theme, but instead he got players who preferred the "Conan the Conqueror" theme.  

This kind of communication breakdown still happens.  The DM designs an adventure which is survivable and enjoyable to a specific play style, but fails to communicate the requirements to the players, and so the evening degenerates into a morass of mismatched expectations.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm not sure I play for the challenge, but I enjoy having things which would be challenging, according to the reality of the game, be challenging for me the player.

So I don't see challenge as something to exclude from world-simulation.

Conversely, given the fact that the GM usually has no formal restraints (i.e., not like Skyrock's game), I look at simulation as an important element of making a challenge coherent rather than arbitrary. I.e., the 10'x10' room with 200 Purple Worms (don't ask me how they fit in there) just isn't an interesting challenge; for that matter neither is a "clue" that's based on a completely idiosyncratic conception of the game world that the GM hasn't filled us in on.

I love challenges that coherent rather than arbitrary, and I think detailed simulation is often the best way to get them.  Unfortunately, that's often hard to achieve on the tabletop.  Many RPGs are set in worlds that seem to be 70% perpetual motion machines, 20% loopholes, and 10% smoke-and-mirrors.

I think Gygax/Arneson challenges make sense *if* you can DM them the way that Gygax did -- which is, unfortunately, a difficult art to learn, because Gygax never figured out how to teach it well.

The big challenge is making a coherent challenge that is still interesting to the players.

Examples can include exotic dungeons, magic-item-command-words, and political balance-of-power situations.

Example 1: A dungeon may have a lot of gimmicks and stunts that make sense when taken together.  Unfortunately, there's a limit to how many times one can rip off "Red Nails" before the players start saying, "Let me guess -- this dungeon also has a faction of amazons."

Example2: Magic items in AD&D often had command words that were absolutely essential, and the dungeon often had clues that would allow a very motivated searcher to figure out the puzzle, and deepen the campaign backstory.

If the DM has prepared this kind of thing, and if the DM can keep the players searching, then everyone wins big.  If the DM hasn't figured out a command word puzzle, either the players don't get their reward, or else the DM gives them a nice magic item that doesn't need a command word.  Or, more likely, the players say, "Magic sucks because it makes no sense.  Let's play Star Frontiers where science makes sense."

I personally don't like command words.  Alien races would make magic items whose command words were absolutely unpronounceable with human tongues.  Then all the bad guys would run around with magic treasure that was unlootable.  One might as well make magical monsters whose bodies contained spell-like-abilities and who rotted away to nothing when killed, so that the bodies couldn't be studied.

Example 3: Political networks are often hard to do on the tabletop, because they often require a bit of acting ability.  The temptation to overpower the NPCs is fatal, as is the use of mind control and mind reading.

These situations can work when they are centered on a realistic environmental conflict: e.g. two factions both want control of a realm of rich farmland.

Some GMs can get "murder mystery" type situations to play out well in TRPGs.  This is essentially a drama of manners, i.e. a political balance-of-power challenge.  I'm not good at this kind of game, but some folks love it.

Quote from: riprockI love challenges that coherent rather than arbitrary, and I think detailed simulation is often the best way to get them.

In case I've got misunderstood, I of course make sure that my adventures make sense and that there aren't dragons guarding a 10'x10' pit latrine.
What I do is to put the cart before the horse, though. I first make sure that my adventures are challenging and then make sure that everything makes sense. It can of course work too by starting with the simulation bit and then making sure that the adventure is challenging by adding new factors and running with alternate outcomes, but for myself I find the first way easier to accomplish. YMMV, of course.

I'm a storyteller and an adversarial DM. I want there to be creative, compelling reasons to kick your ass.

Method Acting Player: But what's my motivation? What would my character really do in this situation?

Adversarial GM: DIE

Quote from: SkyrockI first make sure that my adventures are challenging and then make sure that everything makes sense.

Your "challenge-first" way has the advantage of often being more vivid and motivating to the players, so that's a plus.  

The "simulation-first" way can bore a lot of players.

In the long run, you've got to know what your players like.