TheRPGSite

I was answering on the fear of Authoirty thread, and my response drifted.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;352518Part of the problem with RPGs now, and a problem that has existed since the early 1990s (possibly even before then) is that, due to RPGs wargame roots, the epic struggle at the table wasn't "characters versus scenario" it was "players versus GM".  Wargamers, particularly wargamers who were terrible sports, found upon the invention of RPGs a way to "win", every time they wanted to, and play by the rules while doing so.  

Various game modifications were encouraged by D&D and antecedents, and the net result was that a DM was practically compelled to stick a 100' deep pit with four dozen poisoned spikes at the bottom (all of a particularly noxious type, save at -4!, etc.)

Thus a GM/referee/DM who had joined the RPG clique because wargaming was dying off and players were moving to RPGs now had a way to "win" at every turn, legitimately, by the rules.

The backlash against this has been every fucking whiny story I've heard over the last ten or twelve years: "Boo hoo, I gamed with an asshole DM and AD&D enabled him, so therefore AD&D sucks!  Boo hoo!"  I once asked Gary about this and his suggestion was that an adversarial DM was more fun to "win against", rather like playing a good chess or poker opponent.  I think an adversarial DM is a good thing.

Now, the original thrust of Pundit's post, though, was "issues with authority", so to get back directly to that: an authoritarian GM is often conflated with DMing from an adversarial point.  DM uses demi-human level limits?  DM won't let you play a dual-scimitar wielding Drow named Tzzir'd?  DM says "Yes, in fact, that boulder did do 10d6 damage to you when it fell on you." may, to some equal an adversarial DM.

The net result is we have seen a trend over the last two decades where the control of the game is shifted from the DM (who is now reduced to being a mere "encounter engineer" whose responsibilities seem to be entirely that of providing a balanced and 100% winnable scenario in the game Hasbro now advertises as "D&D") - to the players who will (for example) provide the DM with a "shopping list" of magic items they are to be given when they reach certain levels, DMs are admonished that if a player has a "cool idea" the DM is not to stand in their way, etc.

But D&D didn't create the asshole DM that people get all anti-authoritarian about.  That guy was always there, always waiting in the wings.  He got booted out of chess club for being a poor sport, ran off all the guys in the wargaming club, was asked not to play Avalon Hill dice-and-chit games in the back of the model railroad store.  Jerks are jerks, and to adopt a cooler-than-you-ain't-gonna-listen-to-the-DM, gonna make the hobby BE FAIR attitude is like declaring a war on the sun because some people get skin cancer.

I avoided this thread for a while, but this very well written post and well-expressed perspective brought me around.  I have a slightly different spin on it, but this expresses my take on the shared history pretty well.

I want to put in the 2 cents that when wargaming wer dominant but RPGs were gaining steam, the dynamic of Player vs GM was very much real, and that good gms were just as rare by % of poulation then as they are now, if slightly more  mature (adjusted for both the fact that the game has been around a lot longer so we have long-term players but also for the fact that the most poular rpgs have shifted their aim towards a younger demographic for a number of editions).   So as the RPGs cornered the prime real estate in the hobby shops, we had a great preponderance of killer dungeons and killer GMS, as well as Monty Haul campaigns with 20th level characters fighting gods.  In between, we had campaigns that had internal logic and proper growth curves.  
But when viewed through the lens that the Dungeondelver is using, it can be looked at as asshole Dm vs player games created killer dungeons, way-too accommodating GMS created Monty Hauls, and the good campaigns were in between, but the GM's decided where in the curve their game was going to fall because the rules did not.

Not good or bad, not a judgement call.  Their were articles and advise written all over the place, and then we had published adventures, etc, to try to set the GMs into the right path.
but as the rules changed, in more games than one, the direction became to change the game so that the rules dictated more to reduce the negative effects of bad GMS.  
(there was another dynamic I will not dwell on as much here, and that is the early shift from the 'game' to the 'campagn'.  Wargames were moments in time, and so were many of the early rpgs, but the shift from referree to Dm was part of this.  And this balancing act is also in play)

I also noted that many of the directions of some of the indie games and the thoughts behind them, as well as many of the heavy handed, metagaming rules that developed, just mirrored what a good GM was able to accomplish anyways.  They were, as many of us have mentioned in other threads, crutches for bad GMs that drove away good ones. A good GM always tried to work with a player's cool idea, within the framework of their game.

Your paragraph about the new role of the GM is another one I would comment on, though I doubt you will disagree on the input.  Obviously, no one chose a direction to hurt the hobby.  There is no fucking conspiracy trying to derail it.  There are people trying to create new ways of having fun or trying to increase their market share or trying to fix a problem they perceive due to their personal experience.  

There is, however, a lack of perspective in the game companies.  The split in the beginning, was from wargaming to roleplaying.  Accents on the words 'roleplaying'.  And the old role of a GM was, in my book, to create the scenario with enough detail and internal consistency, to allow for the players to immerse themselves in their roles, to really play their characters.  There was no power struggle in a good game, the GM's main job was to create something FOR THE SHARED GAME to enable maximum roleplaying.  The kind of game that created real pride for the players, in that it was an accomplishment to survive and thrive, but that was also the goal for the GM.

The rule changes and direction that have tried to reduce the Gms ability to screw up a game, to reduce the learning curve, have also removed the autonomy to create the same games as earlier games allowed.
But the orignal split, the inaugural schism, was the to create 'roleplaying games'.  Accent on roleplay.
The rules the Dungeondelver references, in their attempts to reduce bad GMing and the GM learning curve, are strictly metagaing rules.  Metagaming, the opposite of roleplaying, the opposite of immersion.  Almost every version of every rulebook talks about the evil of metagaming...but when a player knows that that the GM is going to throw a 'level appropriate' encounter at them instead of what would logically be there, that is a metagaming rule that reduces roleplaying and immersion.  When the player knows that that the rules say that 'x' treasures and certain items that they have requested are going to show up, no matter what logic dictates, this reduces the immersion and the roleplaying component of the game.

That is my interpretation.  That the same rules designed to reduce the role  of the GM and to empower the player also destroyed the autonomy to create a consistent setting.  And more importantly, these rules reduce the Roleplaying component of what is supposed to be a 'Fantasy Roleplaying game' to something else.

I disagree that meta-gaming and immersion are necessarily at odds. I think the right tools and better communication between player and GM can increase the understanding and participation in any one scene which is immersive. But that is me, I appreciate for many it's the opposite. I'm just saying we are not all built the same way.

And this not a new fancy thing. Far from treating meta-gaming as evil, the original Star Wars D6 rulebook is full of meta-gaming devices from cut-scenes to Force points. Not everyone's choice, but considering the following this game still has it works for some.

Also, encounters have always been "level appropriate" - even back in the early days D&D encounter tables were split by level, modules had the "for 4-6 players levels 1-3" written on them. Outside of the TSR sphere of games this wasn't always spelt out so clearly but unless you are playing Paranoia you got to give the players a fair shot at succeeding in the scenario.

As for "player knows that the rules say that 'x' treasures and certain items that they have requested are going to show up,"  how many games actually do that, or is it that just another D&D oddity.

I think that a lot of the changes are a good thing. When it comes to setting up encounter levels and magic items, what d&d has done is pretty helpful. For one, the GM can ignore the encounter level suggestions and put in whatever he wants. For two, it sucks to never get a decent magic item when other people are.

There isn't much logic woven into the power levels of different creatures and characters in d&d of any period. For example, a 3rd level fighter can kill about a dozen 1st level warriors. How many guys like that would be in an average town? How many have you ever met in real life? If the party hits 3rd level, logically they should be just about the baddest shit around because real people can't fight that well.

It is annoying when it seems you are doing everything right and all of the sudden you realize that the guy you are fighting is 6th level. You are 3rd. You just tracked down the bbeg. He starts beating your ass. The gm could say, "you are the dumb-asses that tried to fight the captain of the guard." The problem is, there isn't any reason for the captain to be 6th level, or any other level besides maybe 2nd. The GM just picked 6th because it sounded right to him and the players couldn't know that.

I find the encounter level suggestions in Pathfinder to be very helpful. In the old days, I just had to kinda know by reading what my party could deal with. The challenge rating speeds that up a good deal and for the most part, it is spot on.

Also, my players trust that as long as they stay within the confines of the adventure, they aren't going to get bushwhacked by something much more powerful than they realize. No surprise 12th level fighters brutalizing their 6th level party.

On the other hand, I can fill my game world with all kinds of shit. On occasion they have heard about someone or something a lot more powerful than themselves and decided to take it on. Those were hard encounters for them. Several they ran from.

I think it is dishonest when a GM conceals how powerful someone or something is. Player characters should be able to size other people up and get a ball park estimate on if they can take it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;352670I disagree that meta-gaming and immersion are necessarily at odds. I think the right tools and better communication between player and GM can increase the understanding and participation in any one scene which is immersive. But that is me, I appreciate for many it's the opposite. I'm just saying we are not all built the same way.

And this not a new fancy thing. Far from treating meta-gaming as evil, the original Star Wars D6 rulebook is full of meta-gaming devices from cut-scenes to Force points. Not everyone's choice, but considering the following this game still has it works for some.

Also, encounters have always been "level appropriate" - even back in the early days D&D encounter tables were split by level, modules had the "for 4-6 players levels 1-3" written on them. Outside of the TSR sphere of games this wasn't always spelt out so clearly but unless you are playing Paranoia you got to give the players a fair shot at succeeding in the scenario.

As for "player knows that the rules say that 'x' treasures and certain items that they have requested are going to show up,"  how many games actually do that, or is it that just another D&D oddity.

And I appreciate that we all see things slightly differently.
Metagaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)) in the way I  use it is, " the use of out-of-character knowledge in an in-character situation. A character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story."  

So for me, I look at Metagaming and Roleplaying on ends of a continuum, with some of both needed (we are all playing within the rules, some metagaming is necessary), but since it is supposed to be a 'roleplaying game', rules that move down this continuum must be carefully scrutinized.  This continuum can also be used to view the development of different rulesets from a historical perspective.

I concur with you that mcuh of it may be a D&D oddity, as in that particular game includes the examples the DungeonDelver and I were using.  However, I also ascribe this to some of the 'director-stances' and other mechanisms of games that encourages players to step out of their roles and share 'plotline' information and decisions.  I don't say people don't have fun in either the D&D version or the storygame side; I believe in both cases it reduces the roleplay element.

Quote from: Cranewings;352672I think that a lot of the changes are a good thing. When it comes to setting up encounter levels and magic items, what d&d has done is pretty helpful. For one, the GM can ignore the encounter level suggestions and put in whatever he wants. For two, it sucks to never get a decent magic item when other people are.

There isn't much logic woven into the power levels of different creatures and characters in d&d of any period. For example, a 3rd level fighter can kill about a dozen 1st level warriors. How many guys like that would be in an average town? How many have you ever met in real life? If the party hits 3rd level, logically they should be just about the baddest shit around because real people can't fight that well.

It is annoying when it seems you are doing everything right and all of the sudden you realize that the guy you are fighting is 6th level. You are 3rd. You just tracked down the bbeg. He starts beating your ass. The gm could say, "you are the dumb-asses that tried to fight the captain of the guard." The problem is, there isn't any reason for the captain to be 6th level, or any other level besides maybe 2nd. The GM just picked 6th because it sounded right to him and the players couldn't know that.

I find the encounter level suggestions in Pathfinder to be very helpful. In the old days, I just had to kinda know by reading what my party could deal with. The challenge rating speeds that up a good deal and for the most part, it is spot on.

Also, my players trust that as long as they stay within the confines of the adventure, they aren't going to get bushwhacked by something much more powerful than they realize. No surprise 12th level fighters brutalizing their 6th level party.

On the other hand, I can fill my game world with all kinds of shit. On occasion they have heard about someone or something a lot more powerful than themselves and decided to take it on. Those were hard encounters for them. Several they ran from.

I think it is dishonest when a GM conceals how powerful someone or something is. Player characters should be able to size other people up and get a ball park estimate on if they can take it.

Boy, no complaints with any logic here.  I left D&D over 20 years ago to write my own ruleset, so I agree with more than you might have thought ;).  

However, I do disagree with a few things you mention (and work is slow enough for me to reply to you...)

Quote from: cranewingsFor example, a 3rd level fighter can kill about a dozen 1st level warriors. How many guys like that would be in an average town? How many have you ever met in real life? If the party hits 3rd level, logically they should be just about the baddest shit around because real people can't fight that well.

no.  The GM CAN set things up in that PCs are one of the few who can advance in levels and powers, or they can not.  But making the PCs this special is rarely recommended, as they will be too powerful in comparison to the rest of the world very quickly.  
And the logically, if they are 3rd level and still very green, there should be lots of people more powerful...I think this logic is more important than how many people can fight 10 people, since the ruleset determines this ability to be fairly low power.

Quote from: CWI think it is dishonest when a GM conceals how powerful someone or something is. Player characters should be able to size other people up and get a ball park estimate on if they can take it.

Totally agree here.  The idea is for everyone to have fun, not for the GM to 'beat' the players.   Even if the GM is totally based on logical placement, etc, you still want to be able to look the players in the eyes and say, " I gave you every chance to figure out how tough that encounter was going to be..."

It kind of depends on the metagaming. When the old roleplaying books talk about meta-gaming the generally refer to players exploiting out-of-character knowledge to gain an unfair advantage and undermine the implicit risk-reward balance of the game. This refers to people who are not roleaplaying in the fist place.

Using ooc information to rolepalying your character more accurately is an entirely different proposition. Consider this, no matter how good the description of the GM, and the end of the day you the player are not actually there nor do you actually have the skills and experience of the character you are playing to process that information.  As a result you find your character  pretty much stumbling in the dark and acting like an idiot- that's not immersive for me, it's both boring and jarring. If a little ooc information from the GM can help set the scene and give everyone make choices which are more appropriate for their character, that can result in a more polished and immersive experience fro me.

Let's look at a concrete example, something I sure many of you will have experienced. Say the party are on the road and have captured an important NPC and for whatever reason are concerned he might get away. Now if this was a film, the party would probably tie his arms behind his back and that is it. In rolepalying game there is a very good chance you'll end up with some crazy discussion featuring all the most overblown, silly, paranoid and over-the-top schemes to ensure the prisoner doesn't escape. For some players that might actually be fun, but for me that is totally anti-immersive because, even if the discussion was held in-character (sort of) the end result doesn't feel authentic or natural at all. And deep I know the only reason the characters are acting so paranoid is that they know the are in a roleplaying game and so interesting things are bound to happen.

Now one option I use when GM if I see this kind of weirdness going on is to say "Look guys, as long as you take normal precautions he won't escape, I promise." and we can move one and everyone get's to act like normal people and not some insane parody.

Quote from: Soylent Green;352695It kind of depends on the metagaming. When the old roleplaying books talk about meta-gaming the generally refer to players exploiting out-of-character knowledge to gain an unfair advantage and undermine the implicit risk-reward balance of the game. This refers to people who are not roleaplaying in the fist place.

Using ooc information to rolepalying your character more accurately is an entirely different proposition. Consider this, no matter how good the description of the GM, and the end of the day you the player are not actually there nor do you actually have the skills and experience of the character you are playing to process that information.  As a result you find your character  pretty much stumbling in the dark and acting like an idiot- that's not immersive for me, it's both boring and jarring. If a little ooc information from the GM can help set the scene and give everyone make choices which are more appropriate for their character, that can result in a more polished and immersive experience fro me.

Let's look at a concrete example, something I sure many of you will have experienced. Say the party are on the road and have captured an important NPC and for whatever reason are concerned he might get away. Now if this was a film, the party would probably tie his arms behind his back and that is it. In rolepalying game there is a very good chance you'll end up with some crazy discussion featuring all the most overblown, silly, paranoid and over-the-top schemes to ensure the prisoner doesn't escape. For some players that might actually be fun, but for me that is totally anti-immersive because, even if the discussion was held in-character (sort of) the end result doesn't feel authentic or natural at all. And deep I know the only reason the characters are acting so paranoid is that they know the are in a roleplaying game and so interesting things are bound to happen.

Now one option I use when GM if I see this kind of weirdness going on is to say "Look guys, as long as you take normal precautions he won't escape, I promise." and we can move one and everyone get's to act like normal people and not some insane parody.

No argument at all, guiding the PCs and giving them the right info, greasing the skids of the game, is part of the GMs job.

But my point is that rules that encourage/create metagaming need to be looked at very carefully.  I have no problem with a GM giving players perspective, like, "Joram, your knight's training would tell you that the ogre leader is far more powerful than a normal ogre, similar to how much more poerful you are to a normal knight".  That encourages thinking in character.

But if the PCs know that the rules on encounters are set so that the ogre chief won't be too much more powerful, then the rules, or out-of-character forces, are changing the decisions the players make.

I agree with you there. It comes down to playing the character in a way that is true to the character.

Wow, my one little post started a thread all its own.  I reckon I should address it.

Quote from: LordVreeg;352662Your paragraph about the new role of the GM is another one I would comment on, though I doubt you will disagree on the input.  Obviously, no one chose a direction to hurt the hobby.  There is no fucking conspiracy trying to derail it.  There are people trying to create new ways of having fun or trying to increase their market share or trying to fix a problem they perceive due to their personal experience.  

I'm with you up to this point, and I'm going to address it starting off with an analogy because I think this one fits: the story goes that James Edward Olmos, during the shooting of the new Battlestar Galactica show, had a scene where he got really upset.  In his cabin on the titular ship there was a gorgeous, half-completed model of a squarerigger sitting on a shelf (no, really, it's beautiful - pause and zoom if you get the chance).  Anyway, there's the scene.  He's mad.  He flies into a rage and picks up the model and smashes it to pieces, in the name of drama.  He wasn't supposed to; it was an improvisation and one he thought worked for the scene, and a lot of people agreed with him.

However, the model he smashed was a museum-grade piece being meticulously worked on by a couple of set dressers (or effects people, I forget) who sort of stuck it in there as an easter egg to people who knew them and their historical hobbies, and of course it kind of makes sense that Adama might enjoy that sort of pursuit too.

Eddie Olmos had no idea what he'd done when he'd done it, but he saw the thing and said "I will break that, and it will make for a cool emotional scene" (he was mortified afterward, so the story goes).  He didn't know what it was, all he knew was, "I gotta smash that to make something cool happen."  I doubt he thought "Hey there's something people really like, LET'S BREAK THAT!"

Frankly I think the forcing DMs into the role that they must now fill per the 4e rules is just like that: there's not a notion of "must kill sacred cows" (not regarding this, but flat out the designers did do it on purpose elsewhere, but that's another thread), no grand conspiracy...but at the end of the day the deed was done, and there's no picking up the pieces and going back.  The effect is that they got their "cool thing" To wit, no more bad old DMs saying Yes and No with finality, nor maybe possibly creating a situation characters might just have to avoid instead of attack knowing that because the Rules Say So(TM), the challenge is appropriate (and therefore almost a guaranteed win) for them.

The desired outcome is that Asshole DMing is kept in check, the fallout is that DM flexibility (and that includes antagonist DMing) is wrecked.

The boat is smashed, hey cool scene, holy shit, we wrecked something irreplaceable.  That may not be what was wanted, but it is what happened.

QuoteThe rules the Dungeondelver references, in their attempts to reduce bad GMing and the GM learning curve, are strictly metagaing rules.  Metagaming, the opposite of roleplaying, the opposite of immersion.  Almost every version of every rulebook talks about the evil of metagaming...but when a player knows that that the GM is going to throw a 'level appropriate' encounter at them instead of what would logically be there, that is a metagaming rule that reduces roleplaying and immersion.  When the player knows that that the rules say that 'x' treasures and certain items that they have requested are going to show up, no matter what logic dictates, this reduces the immersion and the roleplaying component of the game.

That is my interpretation.  That the same rules designed to reduce the role  of the GM and to empower the player also destroyed the autonomy to create a consistent setting.  And more importantly, these rules reduce the Roleplaying component of what is supposed to be a 'Fantasy Roleplaying game' to something else.

Yes.  Exactly.  To focus in on a tight beam on a couple of things regarding D&D again (sorry, that's my largest field of gaming experience, I gotta go with what I know):  I have, in the past, "shown" low level characters (1st-3rd) a red dragon, of the huge and ancient variety (insofar as they could guess, and they surmised correctly).  Gleaming piles of treasure strewn about, the old beast snoozing away.  Why?  To whet their appetites!  So they'd mark their maps and at 7th level and higher come traipsing back with a lust for the old worm's loot!  Because it was cool.  They knew if they charged the beast they were as good as dead - they chanced to steal a purse full of gold, and did so successfully (seriously, the lowest damn Move Silently roll I have ever thrown)!

What they didn't do was crack a player's handbook and go "Aw this thing has to be a young critter, or sickly with the lowest possible hits or something, 'cause we're first through third level and there would never be anything in the world that could be too tough for us to handle.  CHAAAAARGE!"

Had they attacked?  Well...assuming your basic draconic awe power (sub ... 2HD/levels experience I believe and you're struck motionless with terror on a failed save) didn't stick them, and they didn't flee when it dawned on them what they'd done, it would've been a hell of a short session.  And I'm not one of those Dragonlance guys who believes all dragons should be untouchable god like creatures that tower over all creation, either.  

Finally (promise I'm shutting up soon) when they got around to coming back for it, (and the effort cost 'em a couple of PCs) they found all of it's loot was in coins, gems, and jewelry - there was no "level appropriate" magic items as dictated by the players to me in the pile.  The H, S and T treasure type die rolls didn't indicate any magic loot, qed.  Bumpkin dragon! :D

I had the flexibility to do all of that above - and the players had the flexibility as players to address the problem as they saw fit - because once upon a time, there were no fetters put on me as a DM nor admonitions to players to insist upon so-and-so "Christmas present" at each level of character advance.

harrumph.

Quote from: Cranewings;352672I think it is dishonest when a GM conceals how powerful someone or something is. Player characters should be able to size other people up and get a ball park estimate on if they can take it.

Are there no surprises in your game? No supposed bums who are 4th level fighters in disguise because they're out snooping for information about the beggar mage, Bruthi'zil?

Much of what you're saying sounds really stagnant. It sounds like you had a shitty DM and now all games must be "fair". Life ain't fair; why should the game be fair?

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352791Are there no surprises in your game? No supposed bums who are 4th level fighters in disguise because they're out snooping for information about the beggar mage, Bruthi'zil?

Much of what you're saying sounds really stagnant. It sounds like you had a shitty DM and now all games must be "fair". Life ain't fair; why should the game be fair?

I think my players would say my game is pretty difficult, and there is a lot of RP.

On the other hand, I have had an outrageous number of shitty GMs, and with a couple of groups I'm the only GM anyone will play with.

A part of that is that I am personally sick to fucking death of playing in games where the characters' lives are a comedy of errors. I'm sick of playing fighters that can't tell if their enemy would be a match for them. I'm tired of breaking my sword every time I roll a one. I sick of being shot by arrows because the archer rolled a one when she was shooting someone 20 feet from me. I'm tired of falling off horses, playing wrong notes, and not noticing the dragon sneaking up between the trees.

So, for your answer. There might be a 4th level fighter that took Bluff as a class skill and tries to pass himself off as such, but the players would get a sense motive roll. Sense ha the party has it maxed out, it is unlikely that the whole group would ever be taken in by such a trick.

But never, ever, would I be proud of going, "ok the beggar attacks. Take 12 damage from his quick drawn, power attacking cudgel. You are flat footed because no one ever suspects the beggar."

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352791Much of what you're saying sounds really stagnant. It sounds like you had a shitty DM and now all games must be "fair". Life ain't fair; why should the game be fair?

The game should be fair precisely because it is a game. What is the alternative to fair? The GM arbitrarily creating an unfair situation? How would he do that? By either fudging his dice, making the player's dice meaningless, or placing things in his game in places where they don't make sense and fucking the players with them?

The GM has all the power, but he has to take the low road and hold the players up if it is going to be fun. He doesn't do that by going, "look at my petty trick, the 4th level fighter with perfect bluff rolls," or, "turns out the orc boss used be a giant before he got turned into an orc but he gets to keep his giant stats."

Behold my power.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352791Life ain't fair; why should the game be fair?

Perhaps because it's a game, and not life?

But make no mistake, my reaction was very similar to yours when I read that same passage. I do think, both as a game and as emulation, that the element of surprise and uncertainty in threat evaluation are a desireable feature of gaming.

and that is at the heart of this thread.
Tools that can create a deeper and more consistent setting (Campaign focus vs game sesion focus is another thread, BTW) are also tools that enable the crappy GM to be an asshole.  

One thing that narrativists get points for is understanding that it is a shared game.  One of the biggest problems is that not enough GMs understood that it was their role to be 'the rest of the world and to portray the reaction of that world to the players actions'.  To break the bad news when their actions cause the characters difficulty, and to share in their comraderie and good fortune when they do well. The GM and the players are playing a game together, not against each other.


"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you're involved in, whether it's a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things." --Gygax

Quote from: Cranewings;352811On the other hand, I have had an outrageous number of shitty GMs, and with a couple of groups I'm the only GM anyone will play with.

A part of that is that I am personally sick to fucking death of playing in games where the characters' lives are a comedy of errors. I'm sick of playing fighters that can't tell if their enemy would be a match for them. I'm tired of breaking my sword every time I roll a one. I sick of being shot by arrows because the archer rolled a one when she was shooting someone 20 feet from me. I'm tired of falling off horses, playing wrong notes, and not noticing the dragon sneaking up between the trees.

Ok, let me touch upon what I quoted. I'm seeing stylistic differences here between how we view games.

I'm not so sure a person can tell who would be a match for them until combat begins.

I, also, think you might roll the dice too much. Might your problem be with the dice themselves? I mean, sense motive, really? That must be 3E or later because I don't recall that. Much of your complaint seems to be against the assholitude of a DM. I'm not sure rules can ever fix that.

Quote from: The Shaman;352817Perhaps because it's a game, and not life?

But make no mistake, my reaction was very similar to yours when I read that same passage. I do think, both as a game and as emulation, that the element of surprise and uncertainty in threat evaluation are a desireable feature of gaming.

I'm all for a game holding surprises. Uncertainty is one of the reasons I play. The challenge of knowing each fight/adventure might be my last before I end up back at the drawing board.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352855I'm all for a game holding surprises. Uncertainty is one of the reasons I play. The challenge of knowing each fight/adventure might be my last before I end up back at the drawing board.

YES.
The ability to create anxiety and uncertainty is also mirrored by the glow of achievement and enjoyment on the other end.  What is epic, defeating something the rules say should be a good fight for you, or facing the unknown?

(then again, my igbar group has had a ridiculous PC kill ratio lately...)

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352851Ok, let me touch upon what I quoted. I'm seeing stylistic differences here between how we view games.

I'm not so sure a person can tell who would be a match for them until combat begins.

I, also, think you might roll the dice too much. Might your problem be with the dice themselves? I mean, sense motive, really? That must be 3E or later because I don't recall that. Much of your complaint seems to be against the assholitude of a DM. I'm not sure rules can ever fix that.

You wouldn't be the first person that tells me I let the dice rule my games. I roll everything in the open and if I have to make a decision that isn't already in my note book but could be detrimental to the party, I usually roll for it.

For example, if the party knew someone was looking for them and they ran off, I'd roll his Tracking in front of the group. If he failed, I'd roll a scatter dice in front of the group to show what way he went. While they wouldn't know the details, they might know a one or two would keep him on their trail on accident.

Secondly, I think a good fighter, such as a player character, can tell when someone is a match for them. Someone without levels that doesn't have any experience with fighting can tell.

In real life, I have pretty tough shins. I can tell when I spar with someone if I can safely click shins with another person just by how they stand, even if I never met them before. I'm not a real fighter though. Really experienced people can do way better than me.

Let alone some crazy, fantasy killer that lives by the sword.

Quote from: LordVreeg;352862YES.
The ability to create anxiety and uncertainty is also mirrored by the glow of achievement and enjoyment on the other end.  What is epic, defeating something the rules say should be a good fight for you, or facing the unknown?

(then again, my igbar group has had a ridiculous PC kill ratio lately...)

I think what is epic is knowing that something you are going to fight will be hard, making preparations, and then going after it. Boss fights in 3.x d&d, for example, can be 2-3 levels higher than the group, which can kill player characters with good dice alone, even without the GM really trying to be smart with it. Just surprising the players by applying arbitrary stats to something isn't epic. It is trite.

Quote from: Cranewings;352866I think what is epic is knowing that something you are going to fight will be hard, making preparations, and then going after it. Boss fights in 3.x d&d, for example, can be 2-3 levels higher than the group, which can kill player characters with good dice alone, even without the GM really trying to be smart with it. Just surprising the players by applying arbitrary stats to something isn't epic. It is trite.

Cranewings, I certainly agree that sounds epic.  I also like the bit about prep, as I love it when my PC's research and use Lore CC rolls to gain some knowledge and take advantage.

however, if the PC's know it is a 'boss fight', and that they are prepping because it is a 'boss fight', knowing that it 'can be 2-3 levels higher than the group', I would consider it a little less epic since that is metagaming.  Sometimes the leader of the guard has been tougher than the ruler, sometimes the advisor is the power behind the throne.

And as I am positing in this thread, making up encounters and hiding behind the screen reeks of the players playing against the players, as opposed to with the players.  It is the type of GMing that caused all the rules I am talking about.  The rules that reduce the authority of the GM to screw the players reduce his autonomy to create a fully realized setting.

It looks to me like one of the underlying questions here is "when is it okay for a character to die?" Should it only be when players can kind of see it coming, should it ever be the result of random chance, or should it be the result of the player making a visibly bad choice? I think every group answers these questions differently. Personally I have more fun, when death is harder to predict. At least as a player.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352855I'm all for a game holding surprises. Uncertainty is one of the reasons I play. The challenge of knowing each fight/adventure might be my last before I end up back at the drawing board.

And when you ease up as a GM, you get that sort of surprise in that role as well.

Seanchai

Quote from: Cranewings;352865You wouldn't be the first person that tells me I let the dice rule my games. I roll everything in the open and if I have to make a decision that isn't already in my note book but could be detrimental to the party, I usually roll for it.

For example, if the party knew someone was looking for them and they ran off, I'd roll his Tracking in front of the group. If he failed, I'd roll a scatter dice in front of the group to show what way he went. While they wouldn't know the details, they might know a one or two would keep him on their trail on accident.

Secondly, I think a good fighter, such as a player character, can tell when someone is a match for them. Someone without levels that doesn't have any experience with fighting can tell.

In real life, I have pretty tough shins. I can tell when I spar with someone if I can safely click shins with another person just by how they stand, even if I never met them before. I'm not a real fighter though. Really experienced people can do way better than me.

Let alone some crazy, fantasy killer that lives by the sword.

It's preference. You're all for rolling dice when I'm not. Seeing as how we don't play in the same game, it's fine. We might argue too much if we did. :p

Ok, I don't fully agree with your assessment about fighting. Or would you mean once the combatants begin moving around? I can buy that much better than I can buy you can tell as soon as you see someone.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;352876It looks to me like one of the underlying questions here is "when is it okay for a character to die?" Should it only be when players can kind of see it coming, should it ever be the result of random chance, or should it be the result of the player making a visibly bad choice? I think every group answers these questions differently. Personally I have more fun, when death is harder to predict. At least as a player.

I'd say that the death of a PC is handled differently by different people.  And some of this is pure the differential of human nature.
 We talk about 'asshole GM's a lot...  
but just there are sore losers who should not play cards or other games, these people are are even worse in multiple-session campaign games.  

At my worst, I blame much of the directional shift towards sharing authority on immature, petulant players.  For every 'asshole GM' claim, I think there is a pretty high priority of a crybaby player.  
"Everyone says my character died fairly by the rules?  Fine, I want easier rules!"

But my logical side understands different people find different types of games gratifying, or even at different times in their life.  One thing about my game or D&D, dice can kill a PC.  it's one thing when you can look at a player and say, "Smooth Move, Ex-lax", and they know they died based on a tactical mistake/stupid move.  (I can say this with Igbarians lately...).
But it DOES suck when bad rolling casues or heavily contributes to the death of a PC.  It sucks hard.  So there is that side to the story.

PC death is just handled differently between people, but it can also change with the same people but differnet games. My recent Marvel Super Hero games was explicitly non-lethal. My Pendragon was horrendously lethal. My current Fudge post-apocalypse game is lethal but players have some mechanical safeguards which the can use - so its very much in their hands. In each case I think i is as it should be for that specifc campaign, but when you move to a new campaign, it's a whole new set of ground rules.

I think virutally all discussions about roleplaying games boil down to "it depends" which makes it very difficult to talk in abstract terms.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352885It's preference. You're all for rolling dice when I'm not. Seeing as how we don't play in the same game, it's fine. We might argue too much if we did. :p

Ok, I don't fully agree with your assessment about fighting. Or would you mean once the combatants begin moving around? I can buy that much better than I can buy you can tell as soon as you see someone.

We might argue a lot (:

As far as fighting, I can personally tell once someone puts their dukes up, so to speak. Sometimes, I can tell before hand, but you could argue that is all psychological.

A lot of characters from books and T.V. shows can tell just by looking. I'm not saying you need to know their attributes, but it is nice to know if someone is way above, below, or in the same ball park as you. A 4th level guy might not be able to tell that a 5th level guy is better than him, but he should be able to tell when someone is 8th level. The intensity, confidence, scars, cunning, and stare and the awareness with which he watches his environment should work together to create a sense of power that a 4th level character would notice and probably fear. For another thing, no one gets to 4th level by being a dummy.

Quote from: LordVreeg;352875Cranewings, I certainly agree that sounds epic.  I also like the bit about prep, as I love it when my PC's research and use Lore CC rolls to gain some knowledge and take advantage.

however, if the PC's know it is a 'boss fight', and that they are prepping because it is a 'boss fight', knowing that it 'can be 2-3 levels higher than the group', I would consider it a little less epic since that is metagaming.  Sometimes the leader of the guard has been tougher than the ruler, sometimes the advisor is the power behind the throne.

And as I am positing in this thread, making up encounters and hiding behind the screen reeks of the players playing against the players, as opposed to with the players.  It is the type of GMing that caused all the rules I am talking about.  The rules that reduce the authority of the GM to screw the players reduce his autonomy to create a fully realized setting.

Could you elaborate on your last paragraph? I'm having a hard time following it.

I do on occasion use BBEGs that are much more powerful, but it becomes a part of the game to bust them down or find another way to win. What I don't like doing is forcing a fight with someone that powerful.

There should at least be a chance ahead of time to avoid it. I'm all for punishing blown chances... but I don't like the idea of the party walking in on a natural fight and getting demolished just because I gave the bad guy too many bonuses.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;352876It looks to me like one of the underlying questions here is "when is it okay for a character to die?" Should it only be when players can kind of see it coming, should it ever be the result of random chance, or should it be the result of the player making a visibly bad choice? I think every group answers these questions differently. Personally I have more fun, when death is harder to predict. At least as a player.

How do you define when it is ok to kill a player character?

I personally don't see much wrong with killing a player at anytime. What I distinguish is when they get to keep their experience or when they come back at a lower level.

In general, if the player is role playing a good character that is compelled to do something by the plot and dies, if they die because of GM fiat, or they die after making a good plan and are betrayed by the dice, I let them retain all of their experience, though they wouldn't have much in the way of magic items.

On the other hand, if they die from being ignorant or in an avoidable fight that they started because they thought they could gain something better or easier, they come back a level lower than the lowest level original character.

Quote from: Cranewings

Quote from: VreegAnd as I am positing in this thread, making up encounters and hiding behind the screen reeks of the players playing against the players, as opposed to with the players. It is the type of GMing that caused all the rules I am talking about. The rules that reduce the authority of the GM to screw the players reduce his autonomy to create a fully realized setting.

Could you elaborate on your last paragraph? I'm having a hard time following it.

I have a tendency to over-write a bit, coupled with me trying to do it when I have no time.

It can be exposited down to 'making up over-tough encounters to screw the players and then hiding behind the GM screen reeks of a GM playing against the PCs, as opposed to playing with them.  Thak kind of attitude is one of the things that caused many games to create rules to scale back GM authority. Sadly, those same rules are the ones that also rein in GM autonomy.'

The rest of your comments fall right into line with this.  the Dungeondelver also touched on it, in that it's great as a GM to be able to place encounters where they are logical...but the PC's should never be railroaded into fighting something too tough for them.  That's not going to keep players around too long.

I hear you. That makes sense.

I'm doing it again, pulling a quote from the other thread and responding to it here, because I believe the topic being discussed belongs better here than there. I hope this sort of thing is okay.

Quote from: LordVreeg;353058I very specifically phrased my comment as describing a continuum as opposed to a nominal value: i.e., "Less of a Roleplaying game" as opposed to, "Not a Roleplaying game".  Because of course it is still Roleplaying; it is just a shift down the continuum, and in many cases, a small shift.

Deciding that you want your character to 'discover' a road is still, to me, a metagaming construct, stepping outside the character and the character's view.  Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.  And therefor, I stand by the statement, " it is less of a role playing game and more shared narrative game."

For me, this definition of the act of role-playing as the immersive act of seeing a fictional world from the point of view of a fictional character, responding to the fiction and making decisions from that point of view is just far too narrow. I would call that a specific aspect of role-playing, but not its entirety. Acting in a "meta-game" way, such as the example above of "discovering" a road is not the opposite of role-playing, it is also role-playing. I simply don't agree with the continuum that you're proposing. I think the act of "role-playing" needs a better definition than that, a definition that is more inclusive of the activities involved with playing a role-playing game.

Quote from: 2f

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegI very specifically phrased my comment as describing a continuum as opposed to a nominal value: i.e., "Less of a Roleplaying game" as opposed to, "Not a Roleplaying game". Because of course it is still Roleplaying; it is just a shift down the continuum, and in many cases, a small shift.

Deciding that you want your character to 'discover' a road is still, to me, a metagaming construct, stepping outside the character and the character's view. Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying. And therefor, I stand by the statement, " it is less of a role playing game and more shared narrative game."

For me, this definition of the act of role-playing as the immersive act of seeing a fictional world from the point of view of a fictional character, responding to the fiction and making decisions from that point of view is just far too narrow. I would call that a specific aspect of role-playing, but not its entirety. Acting in a "meta-game" way, such as the example above of "discovering" a road is not the opposite of role-playing, it is also role-playing. I simply don't agree with the continuum that you're proposing. I think the act of "role-playing" needs a better definition than that, a definition that is more inclusive of the activities involved with playing a role-playing game.

PLease cross post at will.  I actually appreciate your atttempts to keep things where they might stay in topic.  it's refreshing.

"In role-playing games, metagaming is the use of out-of-character knowledge in an in-character situation. A character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story."

I would say that, "the immersive act of seeing a fictional world from the point of view of a fictional character, responding to the fiction and making decisions from that point of view" covers the definition well.  Whether in terms of the orignal meaning of the definition or it's psychological uses, being in-character is critical to this definition, absolutely fundamental.  
 
You are thinking purely from a current gaming viewpoint, i.e., describing something that happens in a roleplaying game as roleplaying because it happens in the game.  

This ignores and frankly contradicts the meaning of the word, which has always involved at it's root an inclusion of an 'in-character' component.  It is actually circuitious false logic, since the term, "Roleplaying game' was chosen to describe the games that were being played due to the activities that were going on at that time, and the term predates the game.

LordVreeg, I agree completely. The history of roleplaying, at its root, was the discovery of the first-person experience.

But that was a long time ago, and at least if you're going to have any hope of communicating, I'm thinking these days that the term "immersion" may have to be surrendered.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;353229LordVreeg, I agree completely. The history of roleplaying, at its root, was the discovery of the first-person experience.

But that was a long time ago, and at least if you're going to have any hope of communicating, I'm thinking these days that the term "immersion" may have to be surrendered.

Perhaps I *am* a throwback/dinosaur.  
Sigh

your comment about communication is very timely, Elliot.

My issue above was partially lexicon-derived.  I doubt the term immersion needs to be mothballed, but a reintroduction of how it, Roleplaying and metagaming interact does seem to be in order.

Not to speak in 'Pundit',  but the terminology has been shanghaied.

It has. Might have a look at this. (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/51188.html)

Fucking brilliant work, Elliot.
I mean that.

And timely, as well.

But I won;t surrender the term.  I will, however, admit to needing to define early in these convos' where it comes from.  

Tying this back into the title,
The misunderstanding of the term, "Roleplay", in it's later incarnation due to it's very use in the phrase, "roleplaying game", has in fact contributed to the issue.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352885It's preference. You're all for rolling dice when I'm not. Seeing as how we don't play in the same game, it's fine. We might argue too much if we did. :p

Ok, I don't fully agree with your assessment about fighting. Or would you mean once the combatants begin moving around? I can buy that much better than I can buy you can tell as soon as you see someone.

Yeah, it's bullocks.  I've done some boxing and I have a friend whom I used to beat soundly; however, I've never seen him lose a real fight, simply because he's a hell of a lot meaner than I am.  If you saw the two of us together, you'd probably say I was the more dangerous of the two.   But you'd be wrong.  WAAAY wrong.