I think it should be pointed out that Melan decries "fun" (of the player entitlement type) being hard-wired into the game and being rammed down the throats of DMs who dare to inconvenience the players with things like equipment loss (slimes, rust monsters, etc.) and death (... everything ...), while Jimlotfp just doesn't want people to enjoy RPGs, period.

I am currently (re)reading the 4e DMG and I have to admit the shift to "DM is not the enemy", "working together to tell a story", etc. - even going so far as to say that the DM should make adjustments to the game world based on player intent, is quite a change from how I've always played D&D.

One of the examples is where the PCs are trying to deal with a lich, and ask if there is a wizard college in town where they might find info on the lich when he was still alive. The DM knows there isn't one, because he hadn't put one there, but the guide says you should say "yes" and then make up the details on the fly and integrate the College and its NPCs later as they might provide more info/hooks down the line. Not a horrible idea, and I've done similar things in the past, I'll admit, but putting it in the DMG as an example of how things should be... hrm. Seriously, the section is called "Don't be afraid to say yes" or something like that. One of the "pro tips" is the author recounting how his 9-year-old completed an encounter, then took off on his own and decided he was going to search for treasure, and he was going to set off a trap, and so on - and the DM thought that was a good idea to let him steer his own story.

Maybe. If you're playing with a 9-year old.

Also, there is serious word-count given to finding ways to not kill PCs, including fudging monster die rolls or abilities if the encounter ends up being too powerful for PCs.

So - in short, the players can steer the game, to an extent at least, and the DM should try to "challenge" but not kill the players.

If you can't die, then what's the challenge?

Quote from: Werekoala;387338I am currently (re)reading the 4e DMG and I have to admit the shift to "DM is not the enemy", "working together to tell a story", etc. - even going so far as to say that the DM should make adjustments to the game world based on player intent, is quite a change from how I've always played D&D.

One of the examples is where the PCs are trying to deal with a lich, and ask if there is a wizard college in town where they might find info on the lich when he was still alive. The DM knows there isn't one, because he hadn't put one there, but the guide says you should say "yes" and then make up the details on the fly and integrate the College and its NPCs later as they might provide more info/hooks down the line. Not a horrible idea, and I've done similar things in the past, I'll admit, but putting it in the DMG as an example of how things should be... hrm. Seriously, the section is called "Don't be afraid to say yes" or something like that. One of the "pro tips" is the author recounting how his 9-year-old completed an encounter, then took off on his own and decided he was going to search for treasure, and he was going to set off a trap, and so on - and the DM thought that was a good idea to let him steer his own story.

Maybe. If you're playing with a 9-year old.

Also, there is serious word-count given to finding ways to not kill PCs, including fudging monster die rolls or abilities if the encounter ends up being too powerful for PCs.

So - in short, the players can steer the game, to an extent at least, and the DM should try to "challenge" but not kill the players.

If you can't die, then what's the challenge?

I have a big problem with every single of these philosophical points you mention.
Every single one of them.

These are known. I ranted about them time and time again.
I'll comment further later if need be.

Quote from: Werekoala;387338I am currently (re)reading the 4e DMG and I have to admit the shift to "DM is not the enemy", "working together to tell a story", etc. - even going so far as to say that the DM should make adjustments to the game world based on player intent, is quite a change from how I've always played D&D.

One of the examples is where the PCs are trying to deal with a lich, and ask if there is a wizard college in town where they might find info on the lich when he was still alive. The DM knows there isn't one, because he hadn't put one there, but the guide says you should say "yes" and then make up the details on the fly and integrate the College and its NPCs later as they might provide more info/hooks down the line. Not a horrible idea, and I've done similar things in the past, I'll admit, but putting it in the DMG as an example of how things should be... hrm. Seriously, the section is called "Don't be afraid to say yes" or something like that. One of the "pro tips" is the author recounting how his 9-year-old completed an encounter, then took off on his own and decided he was going to search for treasure, and he was going to set off a trap, and so on - and the DM thought that was a good idea to let him steer his own story.

Maybe. If you're playing with a 9-year old.

Also, there is serious word-count given to finding ways to not kill PCs, including fudging monster die rolls or abilities if the encounter ends up being too powerful for PCs.

So - in short, the players can steer the game, to an extent at least, and the DM should try to "challenge" but not kill the players.

If you can't die, then what's the challenge?

While much of all this is not bad conceptually, especially if used as part of one's style of gaming rather than as the entirety of how one plays, I agree that it's unfortunate to be presented in the DMG the way it is. To me, this is akin to my complaint about fluff text in monster books - too many people take it as canon, the only way something can be played, rather than as a suggestion. I think it would have been interesting - and cool - if they'd included a section, or some thoughts, on Old School DMing, or more specifically (because not everyone played "Old School" the same way), the "DM vs. Players" style of DMing.

Quote from: Benoist;387339I have a big problem with every single of these philosophical points you mention.
Every single one of them.

These are known. I ranted about them time and time again.
I'll comment further later if need be.

It's all fluff text. Ignore it. If you don't like that others play that way, then don't game with them. If you don't game with them, then there's no reason to be against any of it.

Interesting discussion.

Well, sure, it's not presented as "written in stone" by any means, but with it being presented as examples of how the DM should do things, in a way it becomes the "default" setting, if you know what I mean. Killer DMs are no fun, certainly, but I don't like the idea of a DM fudging rolls to keep people alive so they don't "ruin the fun".

Again, if there is no danger, then what is the challenge?

The way I look at it is every group has a different approach to the game; I would be wary of any one size fits all GM advice (whether it is "the GM as player friend" or "GM as player enemy" or something in the middle). I personally like games where characters drop dead every once in a while, but I am not averse to playing in a game where the threat of death isn't as strong (or absence all together). And if someone wants prefers a style that isn't my first choice, I don't really see the point of going to war over them with it. If someone likes linear adventures, with a GM who fudges results to save PCs, it is no skin off my back.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;387352It's all fluff text. Ignore it. If you don't like that others play that way, then don't game with them. If you don't game with them, then there's no reason to be against any of it.

To me explanations and advice to GMs are just as important to a game, if not more, actually, than the rules themselves. Particularly if we're talking about new GMs to RPGs who pick up a game for the first time. It affects their understanding of what RPGs are and are not, and how to manage different aspects of game play.

The notion that you can ignore such advice is of course very true, just like you can ignore rules entirely. A great GM could make any game awesome. We all know that. But these rules and advice aren't geared towards awesome GMs. They're geared towards newbies and mediocre-to-decent GMs who want to understand the game and get better at it.

Ignoring this or that part of the advice provided does not somehow magically erase the fact that such advice was included in the game for a reason, and was thought to be helpful to people who want to run the game. Just like a rule being faulty isn't somehow magically erased if you just ignore it in game play.

So your argument fails, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Benoist;387357To me explanations and advice to GMs are just as important to a game, if not more, actually, than the rules themselves. Particularly if we're talking about new GMs to RPGs who pick up a game for the first time. It affects their understanding of what RPGs are and are not, and how to manage different aspects of game play.

The notion that you can ignore such advice is of course very true, just like you can ignore rules entirely. A great GM could make any game awesome. We all know that. But these rules and advice aren't geared towards awesome GMs. They're geared towards newbies and decent GMs who want to understand the game and get better at it.

.

I do agree that GM advice in books can be helpful. I certainly owe a lot of my own style to what I picked up from different gaming books in their advice sections. However I quickly learned that every book has a POV that might not match my own, and mixing and matching advice is really what worked for me. And often, advice that I took to heart in 1993, I reject in 2010. I can forgive a game book, if the advice section was written by someone I just disagree with philosophically, provided the other chapters of the book are useful. If its a great game, with crappy advice, I won't really hold it against the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;387359I can forgive a game book, if the advice section was written by someone I just disagree with philosophically, provided the other chapters of the book are useful. If its a great game, with crappy advice, I won't really hold it against the game.

Not me. I love both old and new Worlds of Darkness, but there is a complete schizophrenia between what the authors think their game emulates, and what it actually achieves in game play, for instance. The net result is that great GMs run great games with WoD, but you have legions of average GMs out there who just drink the WoD Kool Aid and propagate ideas that are in the end nocive to game play in a variety of ways I won't get into, which in turns inspire other game designs, and leads to all sorts of aberrations, both in game play and in game design, over the years.

Same thing here. Even moreso when you consider we are not talking about Random RPG #XX, but Dungeons & Freaking Dragons, the 800 pounds game in the room, the gateway of many gamers into the hobby, etc etc.

Quote from: Benoist;387361Same thing here. Even moreso when you consider we are not talking about Random RPG #XX, but Dungeons & Freaking Dragons, the 800 pounds game in the room, the gateway of many gamers into the hobby, etc etc.

I would have to agree with this.  I don't want to get all melodramatic, but I think in some ways WotC has kind of neglected the 'legacy' of D&D as the primary portal into role-playing.  No one cares if "Stan's Shitty Free PDF Role Playing System" has a section that advises the GM to constantly fellate the characters and give them anything they want in terms of equipment or ability scores.  When D&D advises to give the players their wish list items, or to whole cloth change the setting according to the player's whims (Werekoala's example of a Wizard College in mind here), there can be problems when they discover new games.  Especially since those games are not likely to share the same design ethos, and may be less enjoyable because of it.  A stark example would be Paranoia, but I am sure others can come up with less blatant examples.

Just want to thank J_Arcane and Melan for their insightful posts. Changed a lot how I perceive the wider spectrum of computer games and how they've changed over the past 10-15 years.

I'd add that the (to my knowledge) most vocal proponent of what Melan loosely termed the open-ended approach is Yathzee, whose Zero Punctuation reviews have mercilessly shown the utter ineptness of contemporary computer game design. Contrast his review of Fable 2 with a historically very insightful review of Thief the Dark Project.

(I recalled Zero Punctuation because Melan referenced the latter game.)

Quote from: Benoist;387361Not me. I love both old and new Worlds of Darkness, but there is a complete schizophrenia between what the authors think their game emulates, and what it actually achieves in game play, for instance. The net result is that great GMs run great games with WoD, but you have legions of average GMs out there who just drink the WoD Kool Aid and propagate ideas that are in the end nocive to game play in a variety of ways I won't get into, which in turns inspire other game designs, and leads to all sorts of aberrations, both in game play and in game design, over the years.

I don't play storyteller, so I can't really comment on that. If there is an actual disconnect between mechanics and what the designers think they are acheiving, then that is a point worthy of criticism. But I've just never been troubled by different GM philosophies. If something doesn't work for me, I don't use it. If it does I do. If it is in vogue now for the DMG to say "everybody wins" is the best way to play, I am just not that impacted by that. To be fair, I don't play 4E, so I am not really in a position to criticize or praise the 4E gm philosophy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;387381If something doesn't work for me, I don't use it. If it does I do. If it is in vogue now for the DMG to say "everybody wins" is the best way to play, I am just not that impacted by that.

And it's all fine and good, which amounts to the Colonel's argument that "this is fluff text, ignore it". Thing is, that's your case, my case, the Colonel's case, but not every GM does that. Especially not people picking up the game for the first time or trying to better themselves by reading the advice presented by the book. i.e. this. We've come full circle.