Our 'killer GM'

robiswrong · February 07, 2014, 02:08:42 PM

Quote from: Ravenswing;729773It not only didn't matter that four of us were explaining to the newbie that he was wrong, he just Knew What He Knew ... and got so hot under the collar he even started swinging fists.

Two words: Cluster B.

Imp · February 07, 2014, 04:05:40 PM

Quote from: Dogbert;729759In a hack&slash table, their definition of "realistic" is kicking at the bad guy´s door and charging everything head-on, and a hack&slasher GM has ways of punishing anyone who doesn't do that at the table, from docking their XP (or just giving other hack&slashers more XP than you, same result) to taking in-game punitive measures like placing a landmine under the cautious player´s feet.

I don't think I've ever seen a "hack & slash" GM be quite that controlling. IME, what hack & slash GMs do is:

- have a lot of fights
- encounters are set to kill first, ask questions never
- encounters fight to the death
- occasionally you get people who make fights as hard as possible and you get the "zombie Navy SEALS syndrome", but at least as often it's a meatgrinder for the monsters

How you go about surviving all that is not usually much of a concern. The exception would be the hack & slash GM who also has everything happening at a hectic pace, you have to stop the evil sorcerer NOW NOW NOW, that sort of thing.

Ravenswing · February 07, 2014, 06:06:26 PM

Quote from: Nexus;729791That's something Virtual Lynch Mobs tend to forget. There's one guys, there's the other guy's story and there's what actually happened which is usually somewhere in the middle. It doesn't even have to be a conscious thing, just an aspect of human nature. We're all the hero of our story.

Yep. Come to that, I've seen a few thread over the years running along the lines of "Hi, I am OP's GM/play in OP's game, and a friend tipped me off to this discussion. I'd like to set the record straight."

I've yet to see one of those where the OP didn't dissolve into inarticulacy or abandon the thread without further ado.

snooggums · February 07, 2014, 09:11:27 PM

Quote from: CRKrueger;729850In the tables I play at or run, sometimes "kick in the door" works, sometimes "reasoned debate and time-consuming research" works, sometimes "buy 'em off and run like hell if they say no" works. The characters, not having perfect GM knowledge, frequently pick a less optimal tactic, and succeed anyhow through wits, determination and luck.

One of the main keys to the "neutral GM" position is that the challenges are determined beforehand. If the trapdoor is in the hallway, but triggered on a delay after the door opens, then "kick in the door" succeeds. If the trap door is in the room, then "kick in the door fails". The GM doesn't reward or punish. The characters choose and act, the world responds with appropriate consequences.

A GM can create challenges ahead of time that don't come across as neutral, such as trapping doors that are an escape from a larger threat.

I think mixing it up overall but following a consistent pattern is the most neutral, for example:
Goblin entrances are almost always trapped
Human entrances are sometimes trapped
Orc entrances are rarely trapped

If players expect a pattern, then it no longer matters if it is ahead of time or not since they can prepare for the pattern. Mixing it up a bit means that traps are a thing, but the GM isn't trying to kill the players with them intentionally.

Dogbert · February 07, 2014, 10:07:55 PM

Quote from: CRKrueger;729850Hmm... If you're suggesting the "Punish" thing is normal, and everyone does it based on table culture, I'd say that's incorrect.

Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

Quote from: Imp;729901I don't think I've ever seen a "hack & slash" GM be quite that controlling.

It's okay, you're still young, you'll have your chance as you get around more tables.

crkrueger · February 08, 2014, 02:11:12 AM

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

I'm not sure that you're aware of the definition of meritocracy. You do know the word itself doesn't assume a subjective biased ranking of achievement, right?

As I said before, with the world adequately prepared, and/or significant level of improvisational skill the GM plays the world, the characters reward or punish themselves through their choices and the roll of the dice. If two thugs decide to rob a bar without legwork and find out when they walk in with ski masks on that it is a cop bar, or belongs to the mafia, it's not the GM who is punishing them. I'm sorry you never achieved or participated in that kind of campaign, but be assured, many have.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986You establish a privileged class.

Here we go. :rolleyes:

Sommerjon · February 08, 2014, 11:19:55 AM

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

They live in denial here, DB.

dragoner · February 08, 2014, 11:32:36 AM

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

I reward those who play by actually thinking and "role playing" vs mechanical roll playing from their character sheet like a play book. That is in fact the nice thing about being a killer GM, that privileged class are those that live.

Gronan of Simmerya · February 08, 2014, 02:39:25 PM

I honestly think I've never heard pseudo Marxist sensibilities applied to RPGs in a nonironic manner before.

I need that animated GIF of Orson Welles doing a slow clap. But I'm too fucking lazy to look for it.

Benoist · February 08, 2014, 03:35:45 PM

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

Quote from: CRKrueger;730006Here we go. :rolleyes:

What is it with everything being pseudo-political bullshit these days? That's like Monte Cook playing OD&D with Tweet, Heinsoo, Reynolds, Cordell and crew and starting the game by modifying the baseline of HP per hit dice because "drawbacks in races are bad," everybody gets a trophy, switching to ascending armor class and nuking Cure Light Wounds because "choices are hard" to switch to healing bursts instead, or my personal favorite, "fighting men are needlessly genderized and 'quaint' in OD&D but that's problematic".

What the fuck is up with people these days?

Exploderwizard · February 08, 2014, 04:06:21 PM

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

It's okay, you're still young, you'll have your chance as you get around more tables.

You poor thing. Have lie down on ze couch and relax. Now, tell me about your mother?

S'mon · February 08, 2014, 04:09:46 PM

Quote from: Benoist;730110What the fuck is up with people these days?

American Universities are very good at political indoctrination. They make our British ones look hilariously inept.

ggroy · February 08, 2014, 04:24:38 PM

Quote from: S'mon;730115American Universities are very good at political indoctrination. They make our British ones look hilariously inept.

In some majors, it was possible to minimize (or even completely avoid) exposure to such indoctrination type courses..

For example in engineering and the hard sciences, it was possible to satisfy some liberal arts or general ed type requirements by taking relatively "neutral" courses like "symbolic logic", "mathematical methods in economics", etc .... :rolleyes:

Gronan of Simmerya · February 08, 2014, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730113You poor thing. Have lie down on ze couch and relax. Now, tell me about your mother?

* slow clap * Well done, that lad.

Gronan of Simmerya · February 08, 2014, 04:35:28 PM

Quote from: Benoist;730110What is it with everything being pseudo-political bullshit these days? That's like Monte Cook playing OD&D with Tweet, Heinsoo, Reynolds, Cordell and crew and starting the game by modifying the baseline of HP per hit dice because "drawbacks in races are bad," everybody gets a trophy, switching to ascending armor class and nuking Cure Light Wounds because "choices are hard" to switch to healing bursts instead, or my personal favorite, "fighting men are needlessly genderized and 'quaint' in OD&D but that's problematic".

What the fuck is up with people these days?

A combination of "wanting to sound smart" and "if you say ANYTHING, somewhere, SOMEBODY will jump on your ass," combined with an unwillingness to tell somebody they're being an idiot.

And we've been calling "fighting-men" "fighters" since 1972 because it has less letters. Ooo, we're progressive!

Although for a while any female PC fighter was called a 'fighting-man' and any male PC fighter was called a 'fighting-woman' but we dropped that in about ten minutes because it was too many syllables and the joke got old.