[everything this site loves] John Wick's at it again, Benoist writes epic reply

Haffrung · October 17, 2014, 01:54:26 PM

Quote from: Omega;792503True, But its still treating the DM as the enemy. Someone who cannot be trusted right out the gate before you even know their style.

I disagree. In games where both the DM and players improvise aims and plans at the table, you can get an edge by doing not prematurely disclosing information. It's nothing to do with trust. Or even an adversarial playstyle. The DM's job is to challenge the players. If players surprise the DM and don't give him time to formulate a counter-plan, that's fair play.

Will · October 17, 2014, 02:11:40 PM

I think it CAN be adversarial, particularly when it's part of unexamined habits.
It can also be just a different, strategy-focused style of play.

One of the big lessons I've taken from game theory is simply 'talk out what and how you are doing things, and why.'

Unexamined stuff tends to go badly.

Bedrockbrendan · October 17, 2014, 02:35:54 PM

Quote from: Will;792649I think it CAN be adversarial, particularly when it's part of unexamined habits.
It can also be just a different, strategy-focused style of play.

One of the big lessons I've taken from game theory is simply 'talk out what and how you are doing things, and why.'

Unexamined stuff tends to go badly.

I certainly think talking about what you want is a good thing in a group but I am also not convinced that getting into the murky territory of "why" is all that useful. I think people naturally reside over a broad spectrum of styles and this isn't a problem at all. But what I see often occurs when people get into theory or deep online discussions is they start artificially cutting themselves up around abstract groupings that don't really have much basis in actual play. So my advice is do what you like but don't overthink it either. Too much analysis can also go badly.

Bren · October 18, 2014, 07:37:41 PM

Quote from: Haffrung;792642I disagree. In games where both the DM and players improvise aims and plans at the table, you can get an edge by doing not prematurely disclosing information. It's nothing to do with trust. Or even an adversarial playstyle. The DM's job is to challenge the players. If players surprise the DM and don't give him time to formulate a counter-plan, that's fair play.

I tend to agree, though this too is a matter of taste.

Nexus · October 18, 2014, 08:04:32 PM

Its an interesting comparison. The GM is outnumbered usually. There's more players coming up with plans. But the GM is also much better armed, so to speak, with essentially limitless resources and probably better knowledge of the PCs' capabilities than they have of the opposition.

RPGPundit · October 20, 2014, 11:42:43 AM

You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

crkrueger · October 20, 2014, 12:45:24 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;793032You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

As well as the Laws of Physics, Time itself, and Lady Luck.

Bren · October 20, 2014, 02:31:40 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;793032You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

Only if two things are true. (1) An interventionist god exists and (2) the GM in question is a rocks fall and then you die sort of dick.

Otherwise it is quite feasible to tactically defeat or "beat up" the GM and limiting the amount of information the GM has may help to do that. Attempting and sometimes defeating the GM's tactics was certainly an element in old school play back in the mid 1970s in the groups I played in.

Will · October 20, 2014, 03:52:57 PM

Yeah, while it's not my cuppa, the positive version of that sort of game is basically no more adversarial than someone posing riddles or making crosswords.

Gronan of Simmerya · October 20, 2014, 05:36:44 PM

Quote from: Bren;793049Only if two things are true. (1) An interventionist god exists and (2) the GM in question is a rocks fall and then you die sort of dick.

Otherwise it is quite feasible to tactically defeat or "beat up" the GM and limiting the amount of information the GM has may help to do that. Attempting and sometimes defeating the GM's tactics was certainly an element in old school play back in the mid 1970s in the groups I played in.

On the other hand, I always plan the bad guys tactics out in advance, and if the players come up with a good counter, they come up with a good counter. They aren't beating my tactics, they're beating the bad guys' tactics. The lizard men in room 26 have very different tactics from the harpies in room 27.

Spinachcat · October 20, 2014, 06:51:10 PM

All I can say about John Wick is...Don't Set Him Off.

Well, at least that's what the movie poster told me.

As for the author John Wick, I can't in good faith rag on him because I've had such incredible fun with L5R and 7th Sea BUT my preference would be for him to make more awesome games that I'd enjoy.

Bren · October 21, 2014, 09:22:02 AM

Quote from: Old Geezer;793079On the other hand, I always plan the bad guys tactics out in advance, and if the players come up with a good counter, they come up with a good counter. They aren't beating my tactics, they're beating the bad guys' tactics. The lizard men in room 26 have very different tactics from the harpies in room 27.

While you can plan out the bad guy's initial tactics....

Quote from: Paraphrase of Helmuth von Moltke the ElderNo plan survives contact with the enemy.

At which point you, the GM, are improvising the responses of the lizard men, harpies, etc. As you are a war gamer from way back I'm sure you understand the potential advantage of not letting your opponent know your plan ahead of time and how that can apply to player vs. GM interactions.

Gronan of Simmerya · October 22, 2014, 12:52:24 AM

Quote from: Bren;793148While you can plan out the bad guy's initial tactics....At which point you, the GM, are improvising the responses of the lizard men, harpies, etc. As you are a war gamer from way back I'm sure you understand the potential advantage of not letting your opponent know your plan ahead of time and how that can apply to player vs. GM interactions.

Actually, if the PCs come up with a surprise plan I'll roll dice to see how well the NPCs can adapt to their tactics.

Haffrung · October 22, 2014, 11:22:29 AM

Quote from: Old Geezer;793290Actually, if the PCs come up with a surprise plan I'll roll dice to see how well the NPCs can adapt to their tactics.

But surely whatever you roll, their tactics are limited to what you, the DM, can think of. And you'll probably come up with less effective tactics on the spur of the moment than you would with some planning.

Doctor Jest · October 23, 2014, 12:55:03 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;793032You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. How many hitpoints does God have?