You 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.
Indeed, if it is done in a well-made fashion, not the "cow from space" horror story that so often gets attributed to adversial GMs.
For me, this is the easiest way to GM. Don't hold back, don't fudge rolls to favour anyone, don't sweat the world simulation aspect or story arc or whatever is your main job in another GM style, just let your players and your prep clash into each other, play the adversaries smart, look who comes out on top, and shake hand afterwards.
That's the style I'll tailor my homebrew for, with limited GM resources, randomly determined dungeon layout and so on. World simulators and other non-adversial GMs can still leave that part out and prep as usual - adversial GMs like me however need something to provide a fair challenge ground without tying their hand on the back.
Quote from: jeff37923There 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 played with a tough and competitive GM in college. While I it wasn't my favorite style of pay, the one thing I can say about it was that when we got some sort of success or reward, it felt like a big achievement in a way that it doesn't if the GM is going easier on the PCs.
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'm J Arcane, and I endorse this message.
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'd say that competative play is the hallmark of games and why people have played them for millenia. Friendly competition within the rules is the norm of fun in a game, rather than the exception. It's what drives, boardgames, cards, sports, pretty much anything normally called a game. It even drove the parlor games of the 18th century, the competition being to show off your intelelct, learning and creativity.
I think what you describe I'd call a tough and fair GM, no plot protection for anything neither the GM's creation or the PCs. I want the GM to run the opponents well, if they are organized and intelligent they should act it and not show me mercy unless it makes sense for a world-oriented reason. I prefer the challenge/dungeon/etc. make some sense for a world-oreinted reason, becasue it helps me compete as a player and as a GM I want to feel I created a challenging but not an priori impossible adventure.
Any DM worth his salt LIVES for the moment when his players outwit/outsmart/defeat him.
Lord Hobie
As long as everyone at the table is having fun, the style doesn't matter. It's when some people show up looking for story telling and others show up looking for an arena of death that things start to fall apart.
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 eagerly await the next issue of your news letter. Please subscribe me immediately.
I'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.
Quote from: Elliot WilenConversely, 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.
Yes, there must be some limitation. You can do this by system, but the most common way is prep work: "Here's my dungeon, and there are exactly 30 orcs in it. They are all the ammo I as the GM can throw at my players, and if they're all slayed, the outwitted me."
World simulation can also work. However, as this always demands common sense, this can get a bit fuzzy at times, especially as everyone has other experience, knowledge and expectations and thereof a different common sense.
Not that it can't work, I know some adverserial GMs who do a really great job with world sim as limitation technique. However, I also do know some who do it horribly wrong, and I had to do with more than one group that got at odds about the expectations of plausible consequences for a cop kill in a cyberpunk metropolis. (A really tricky question, as several assumptions clash into each other (overwhelming crime and anonymity in cyberpunk vs aggravated cops in nowadays cop-kills), and most systems don't offer a mechanic to just check whether a police investigation against the PCs is successful or not. Moreover, the answer to that question is a very important one - an attack by a SWAT team + manhunts + wasted expensive forged IDs + whatnot makes a big difference in how difficult the life of the PCs is.)
Quote from: Lord HobieAny DM worth his salt LIVES for the moment when his players outwit/outsmart/defeat him.
I'm down with that. Few things are more entertaining than the players surprising me with their cleverness.
That being said, I don't want an adversarial GM. I want a calm, cool, impartial motherfucker. I want a GM that has "4 balrogs" in his key and it doesn't matter whether I bring a lone 1st level commoner or the entirety of the Round Table, either way there's gonna be 4 balrogs in that room.
Quote from: jrientsI'm down with that. Few things are more entertaining than the players surprising me with their cleverness.
One of that few being when they surprise you with their stupidity. (although in players' defense. it's usually not insane stupidty, it only looks that way from the omniscience seat)
Hell frakkin yes! This is one reason I was so excited about D&D's CR/EL system when heard about it, and so bummed out when I found out it doesn't really work.
IMO the best "killer DM" game would be one where the DM gets a set number of points per total PC levels and gets to build adversaries from it. You want to blow it all on a big demon? Go for it! You want to spread it out among thirty orcs, a minotaur and a black pudding? Nice!
That is a really killer idea. Any implementations?
There's Epos (http://www.epos-fantasy.de/), a German indie RPG that does that. Unfortunately there isn't a translation planned, and a translation at this point would demand much ongoing maintenance as it's still playtested and evoluting.
I tried something similar with my game, but the balancing issues of a complex cyberpunk/fantasy setting with spirits, monsters, robots, computer programs, gatling guns and so on grew over my head. I'm now doing this with random charts - not perfect in balancing view, but a limiter without to much exploit issues.
However, there too isn't a translation planned in the near future. (I'm already happy if I get the version in my native tongue on a playable level...)
Is that not basically the idea of both Rune and Agon?
Just looked at Agon, really NOT my kind of game. But there is the idea of strife points used to buy adversaries. Though the number of points spent isn't tied to the pc's in any way, its used to figure out the rewards.
The point system from the D&D minis game would probably work, and is readily portable.
Rune seems a lot closer. I can't tell from the free and preview material available if the points used to build encounters are derived from the abilities of characters.
D&D minis sounds interesting. Limiting but could serve as a good guideline.
Anyways, I would not want to always play an adversarial game. I do like to make things tough when appropriate.
On occasion I'd like to be able to run a game or two or a short campaign where its clear that I'm out for the smack down.
Quote from: jrientsI'm down with that. Few things are more entertaining than the players surprising me with their cleverness.
That being said, I don't want an adversarial GM. I want a calm, cool, impartial motherfucker. I want a GM that has "4 balrogs" in his key and it doesn't matter whether I bring a lone 1st level commoner or the entirety of the Round Table, either way there's gonna be 4 balrogs in that room.
I agree. I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.
One of the guys who's a player in my group also GMs, and he always does stuff like that. Some of my favorite examples:
* I use gaseous form to investigate a room, see it's filled with dangerous creatures, then decide to go a different way. The creatures magically teleport to my location.
* We need to get into a castle, but it's heavily guarded. We decide to enter through a sewer grate type thing at the back of the castle. Suddenly, the basement of the castle becomes heavily guarded, complete with a ballista down there (just in case?) The best part - later on there are almost no guards left for the front gate.
* When we first talk about getting into the castle, the walls are 15 feet high. The ramparts connect onto the 2nd floor of the keep. A session later, and we try to throw a guy off the wall to kill him - suddenly the wall is only 5 feet high (that's one low ceiling in the keep, lol).
That DM is a dick.
Quote from: jgantsI agree. I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.
I agree 100%. I think this is my least favourite style of GMing.
I don't even care if there's overt railroading ("Okay guys for the next session you need to be working as caravan guards escorting some merchants to this village called Hommlet") it's the move stuff around behind the scenes fake-choice that's a fun-killer for me.
Quote from: Elliot WilenIs that not basically the idea of both Rune and Agon?
I know nothing of
Agon, but this is exactly what
Rune is geared for. The GM (or whatever the role is called) has a set number of build points from which he buys challenges from various menus. Both the individual players
and the GM are scored at the end of the scenario based on how effectively clever and deadly they were. All players are supposed to take turns at the role of GM.
!i!
Quote from: jgantsI agree. I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.
One of the guys who's a player in my group also GMs, and he always does stuff like that. Some of my favorite examples:
* I use gaseous form to investigate a room, see it's filled with dangerous creatures, then decide to go a different way. The creatures magically teleport to my location.
* We need to get into a castle, but it's heavily guarded. We decide to enter through a sewer grate type thing at the back of the castle. Suddenly, the basement of the castle becomes heavily guarded, complete with a ballista down there (just in case?) The best part - later on there are almost no guards left for the front gate.
* When we first talk about getting into the castle, the walls are 15 feet high. The ramparts connect onto the 2nd floor of the keep. A session later, and we try to throw a guy off the wall to kill him - suddenly the wall is only 5 feet high (that's one low ceiling in the keep, lol).
It's possible to make everything up as you go along and never pull any of this kind of shit.
Quote from: jgantsI agree. I can't stand the style of GM-ing where everything is just made up as you go so it doesn't matter which hallway you go down, you're still going to run into those 4 orcs or whatever.
One of the guys who's a player in my group also GMs, and he always does stuff like that. Some of my favorite examples:
* I use gaseous form to investigate a room, see it's filled with dangerous creatures, then decide to go a different way. The creatures magically teleport to my location.
* We need to get into a castle, but it's heavily guarded. We decide to enter through a sewer grate type thing at the back of the castle. Suddenly, the basement of the castle becomes heavily guarded, complete with a ballista down there (just in case?) The best part - later on there are almost no guards left for the front gate.
* When we first talk about getting into the castle, the walls are 15 feet high. The ramparts connect onto the 2nd floor of the keep. A session later, and we try to throw a guy off the wall to kill him - suddenly the wall is only 5 feet high (that's one low ceiling in the keep, lol).
Holy shit! This is damn blatant... And I thought we in Germany had shitty illusionist GMs.
Nothing against spontanously kitbashed adventures (everyone needs to run an improvised adventure every now and then), but permanently morphing reality hasn't to be part of it. Actually, any kind of forcing the PCs around hasn't to be part of it.
Quote from: AosIt's possible to make everything up as you go along and never pull any of this kind of shit.
Agreed.
And yet, some players, including me, are also annoyed by less blatant stuff. Sometimes you want to sneak in and get out without a fight, or at least get the drop on the bad guys using your recon abilities.
I reckon it's hard as a GM to enable that while making stuff up as you go along, isn't it? How do you do it?
Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd yet, some players, including me, are also annoyed by less blatant stuff. Sometimes you want to sneak in and get out without a fight, or at least get the drop on the bad guys using your recon abilities.
I reckon it's hard as a GM to enable that while making stuff up as you go along, isn't it? How do you do it?
Not really harder than anything else. Honest- I've had both of those things happen in very recent games. The characters escaped from a prison cell inside of a huge military facility and pinched a small starship- things went to hell as soon as they lifted off, but that has more to do with the fact they started shooting up the hanger. I make it up as I go along, sometimes, but usually after we get rolling I have a pretty good idea of the environment. Smart cautious play is always rewarded, a successful stealth roll is a successful stealth roll, and if you see something it doesn't magically change into something else later on- unless, of course, it magically changes into something else later on in a way that makes sense and doesn't lead to a pointless fuck over.
After the end of the session in the game I mention above I came clean about having no prep- everyone was surprised. they thought i had everything planed out from the beginning, but sometimes I just can't think of anything until the heat is on.
Furthermore, if a DM/GM whatever is inclined to pointlessly fuck over the characters just to make things more difficult, it doens't matter weather he has notes or not- that's an attitude and a playstyle that have nothing to do with prep. After all, who is going to make said GM adhere to his notes? Do you audit your GM's prep notes, dungeon keys and the rest at the end of a game? I doubt it- how else would you know? A competent (different than good) GM could change everything in mid-stride just to facilitate the fuckover and you would never know it. I know I could do it if that was what I was into, but I'm not there to win- I'm there to make sure everyone has fun.
A fuckover GM is a fuckover GM is a fuckover GM.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI reckon it's hard as a GM to enable that while making stuff up as you go along, isn't it? How do you do it?
Though I am less inclined to "make stuff up as I go along" nowadays, there are times when I find myself required to, or interested in, doing so. I find that if the game reaches a decision point and I am in any way uncertain as to how the world should react to the actions of the PCs, I will choose a resolution method, use it and allow the decision to stand... The resolution method is often just a die roll. ("On a 1-2, the nobleman is planning to screw them over!") It works much like those classic Traveller scenario seeds did. There is just enough there to guide my response, and often I will try and throw in one or two chances that something odd happens.
Then of course, my mind races to couch the new situation in terms of what is already known... and then make a coherent story out of it. That is the fun part and often where PC backgrounds get farmed for ideas. ("The nobleman betrays you because he is being blackmailed by your long-standing enemy.")
Yeah, I can see both methods; I can also see intents-based-resolution, or stakes, or conflict resolution-what-have-you, where a skill roll stands as a proxy for the player getting what he wants.
On the other hand if you've got something like the gaseous cloud example, it's harder isn't it? The player sees a troll in room A, so the party avoids that room and goes to room B. The GM should obviously not move the troll to room B, but who says there isn't an ogre there?
Well, a lot of that comes down to what kind of adventure you're running. I would not do any kind of dungeon type site based adventure without at least some minimal prep- or at the very least I would spend 10 minutes and make a few encounter tables.
Winging it is not my absolute solution, and i'm the first to admit it works better in some situations than others.
Back in the days of 3.0, I ran Necromancer Games' character pulper, Rappan Athuk, on off nights between regular sessions or when we had missing players, or when I was visiting friends I don't usually play with. We put the campaign story arcs and deep character development aside and dove in.
Sometimes it's fun to look at the scenery in a fancy special effects amusement park ride. But sometimes, you want the freakin' roller coaster!
I'm about to start playing Rappan Athunk Reloaded. From the player side of the screen. I'll have a stack of characters ready and will be sending servants of Orcus to their grave until I draw my last breath.
I can't wait. :D
Quote from: AosWell, a lot of that comes down to what kind of adventure you're running. I would not do any kind of dungeon type site based adventure without at least some minimal prep- or at the very least I would spend 10 minutes and make a few encounter tables.
Winging it is not my absolute solution, and i'm the first to admit it works better in some situations than others.
I'm all for winging it, however to avoid the encounter moves to follow the players problem, I have to make notes of what I'm creating while it happens and stick to those notes so that there isn't any setting conflict in the future.
Quote from: jeff37923I'm all for winging it, however to avoid the encounter moves to follow the players problem, I have to make notes of what I'm creating while it happens and stick to those notes so that there isn't any setting conflict in the future.
Yeah, I do that too, but my guys rarely scorch the same bit of earth twice.
Quote from: AosYeah, I do that too, but my guys rarely scorch the same bit of earth twice.
Neither have mine, I just save the notes for the next player group.
(As an aside, while cleaning out the parent's house, I found that my Mom had saved all of my homework papers from 1st grade onward and mixed in with all that were my old notes from Basic/Expert D&D. Most of it turned out to be crap, but some stuff was still useful.)
Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd yet, some players, including me, are also annoyed by less blatant stuff. Sometimes you want to sneak in and get out without a fight, or at least get the drop on the bad guys using your recon abilities.
I reckon it's hard as a GM to enable that while making stuff up as you go along, isn't it? How do you do it?
It's actually easier to make up a recon mission as you go along. You still have to create the same scenery and visuals as you would with a combat adventure, but you don't need any stats beyond Spot and Listen.
Quote from: Elliot WilenOn the other hand if you've got something like the gaseous cloud example, it's harder isn't it? The player sees a troll in room A, so the party avoids that room and goes to room B. The GM should obviously not move the troll to room B, but who says there isn't an ogre there?
Why shouldn't there be? If it makes sense for the two creatures to be in the area and living together, what's the problem?
There's no problem if the GM paused for a minute before the PCs arrived, and thought, "Okay, there's a troll at the X and an ogre at the Y."
There is a problem if the GM doesn't do any prep and just sticks an ogre at the Y because the players managed to avoid the troll, and you know, a fight scene would be nice. Because to the players, what that means in the long term is that they don't really have to try to strategize, the GM will just ramp the encounters up or down to achieve the a certain pacing and a certain quantity of tactical challenges.
In other words the player with gaseous cloud spell doesn't really get to affect the game in a meaningful way.
I never wing it altogether. I know myself--I WILL railroad in some fashion because on the fly it's easier for me to do. Instead, I prepare populated maps and handle spontaneous issues exactly the way cmagoun does. The maps force me to adhere to the objective situation, and the randomizer washes my hands off the emergence of new events within that situation during play. I just dot the "i"s, again like cmagoun described.
Quote from: Elliot WilenThere's no problem if the GM paused for a minute before the PCs arrived, and thought, "Okay, there's a troll at the X and an ogre at the Y."
There is a problem if the GM doesn't do any prep and just sticks an ogre at the Y because the players managed to avoid the troll, and you know, a fight scene would be nice. Because to the players, what that means in the long term is that they don't really have to try to strategize, the GM will just ramp the encounters up or down to achieve the a certain pacing and a certain quantity of tactical challenges.
That power could be used for good or evil.
We used to have a GM who we would not strategize around. We'd wait until he went to the restroom or when we were on a food run without him to plan things... otherwise, he'd factor in your plans and screw you over.
When I need to improvise on the fly, I avoid dungeon-crawls (unless you define thrown in mini-dungeons of a few rooms as dungeon-crawls - and this is stuff I prepare beforehand when I find a minute or two to scratch down the layout and the inhabitants).
Usually I just set up an straightforward mission where the players get something to do for themselves while I get the relieve to scratch down stat blocks, NPC strategies etc.
The last time I improvised a Shadowrun adventure, I just came up with a protection money scenario and jotted down the layout of the endangered location - these are the possible entries, these are the functions of each room where you can find what could be logically found there, and now do your best to fortify it before the gangsters come in 3 hours.
Similar in my last improvised CP2020 adventure - a rockster received a threat on her life, this is how the concert hall looks like, in 3 hours the concert starts, and now go and do what you can do to guarantee her safety.
This just left me enough time to write down the number of attackers, their stats and their general battleplans, while only looking up occasionally to answer brief questions.
What also works well is just a journey through a dangerous environment (D&D wilderness, CP2020 slums etc.) and a random encounter table, together with a bit of creativity in incorporating the encounters. It's linear and offers more tactical than strategical options, and it results more in a random string of action scenes than in a coherent plot, but it works without illusionism and morphing reality.
Well, I ran a session on the fly last night (one player), and I discovered something useful- in a fantasy context anyway, when in doubt, just rip off a Robert E. Howard.
The gonzo version of this approach is called the GFS model.
Quote from: Elliot WilenOn the other hand if you've got something like the gaseous cloud example, it's harder isn't it? The player sees a troll in room A, so the party avoids that room and goes to room B. The GM should obviously not move the troll to room B, but who says there isn't an ogre there?
Well, I have done dungeon crawls on the fly, but generally, my crawls are based off of some known structure (like my kids' school, or a shopping plaze, or a local McDonalds) and consist of a small number of rooms. As the crawl begins, I usually make a determination that X, Y and Z will be the major issues in the crawl and unless I really have an inspiration, I stick with it.
So, my McDonalds becomes a ruined and sunken temple with zombie worshippers who dip their hands in a vat of flaming goo and throw it at the PCs. A strange structure of twisted and jagged metal acts as a torture device for captives. The lead zombie (who you know is in the manager's office) has a key leading into the vault that contains an ice spirit who is being held for some nefarious purpose... you get the idea. It works because I only have to consider a single situation (as opposed to a full-fledged dungeon crawl with encounter after encounter) and because I have no presuppositions about forcing my players to fight.
Ran across some vintage Gygaxian "DM vs. Players" stuff while paging through my copy of WG6, Isle of the Ape. I'd read this way back when, of course, but reading it again now after seeing all the debate and discussion about the adversarial DM here and elsewhere is wistfully amusing. Plus it seems very tongue-in-cheek to me.
Quote from: Introduction to WG6 Isle of the Ape, by Gary GygaxThe place you are about to send your Player Characters is a very deadly one indeed. Well, players have been asking for high-level adventures, and you are about to give them what they've been asking for (in spades). Before they begin, and before you prepare to run, remember this: if you DM this module according to the rules of the game, and its spirit, the best of players are going to be in real trouble before very long. There are not many tricks, traps, or clever devices here. This is an adventure of attrition. The place is literally infested with horrible monsters, and the sheer numbers of huge, man-eating creatures will soon take toll of the PCs. Unless they are clever about conserving their resources, the adventurers will find that they have exhausted far too much of their power and not explored half of the island. Magic-users will be particularly vulnerable to this. The point of all this preamble is to exhort you to be tough. That's right, don't allow any sympathy to interfere with the game as it is designed. Too many players are marching around claiming that they have characters able to handle anything. Now is the time to let them demonstrate the mettle of these invincible characters they have.
Conversely, there's this commentary from Dave Arneson on the exploits of one Robilar (Rob Kuntz) and Mordenkainen (EGG) in the City of Gods.
QuoteCITY OF THE GODS
Dungeon Master Comments
(Arneson)
It is much easier to judge a situation from hindsight and especially so when one is the DM. The DM has access to all information after all. So in this instance judgments can be made about the conduct of this expedition that are not too pretentious.
One of the very first considerations for a party entering a new and unknown area should be to keep a low profile, i.e., keep one's eyes and ears open without drawing too much attention to oneself. In this expedition there was a rather indiscriminate and widespread use of lightning bolts which could be observed from a multitude of points throughout the city. The use of such pyrotechnics from a very early stage in the adventure was risky to say the least and was one of the reasons that more and more wandering monsters were encountered thereafter.
As the adventurers spent more and more time within the city confines they made little or no attempt to conceal themselves or their activities and so more roving creatures were drawn to their ramblings.
The lack of treasure found on the adventure was quite simply due to the party's failure to look for any. As in the case of the giant weasel, no effort was made to check the pyramid it had emerged from after it had been disposed of. The supposed reasoning behind this was the desire to avoid any other creatures that might be drawn by the fighting. A prudent but hardly remunerative attitude.
The adventurers were poorly equipped to operate together, showing greater willingness to take as much different equipment as possible. This resulted in their engaging in separate adventures such as "R's" flight to the tower while "M" was left standing around in the open doing nothing. Such action risked a double chance of encountering more wandering monsters while reducing their ability to resist such encounters. Also, since "M" did nothing in the absence of "R" there was no increase in the expedition's search capability for the increased risks involved.
The expedition's main claim to fame was their escape from the city when it appeared that the entire complex was searching for them. Why our two heroes were surprised that their activity had aroused the city, and that the Guardians had taken the elementary precaution of guarding the exits, was quite naive of them. They did, however, leave before it became impossible to do so, and they also kept moving rather than stand and fight (although they did consider doing so) their pursuers. This latter fault has been the downfall of other expeditions to the city where the desire for more goodies merely led to the loss of PC lives and all that they had found.
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.
In summation, this group engaged in highly visible activities but was reluctant to probe the lairs of creatures, with the result of a relatively poor (money- and experience-wise) adventure resulting. Our two heroes were clearly running scared at the end of the adventure, although they did manage to pick the right time to do so. This was rather surprising since things were quiet at the time they decided to depart the area of small buildings they were in, which should have drawn them into more exploring.
I must state that they did the best of any group that has visited the city to date, which means after some three years of existence. But I was not impressed by their highly visible exploration and devil may care style. This group could just as easily have been destroyed on a number of occasions, as been successful, as they ultimately were.
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.