Quote from: ggroy;729636Wonder how often gaming companies issue software patches to correct video games that are deemed "too hard" or "too easy", and how much fallout occurs subsequently from the whiners.

Whiners mostly focus on option balance issues in competitive multiplayer games, rarely on difficulty adjustments for single player modes.

Doesn't matter much anyway, most modern video games are languidly easy compared to what I grew up with (the "Nintendo hard" days). Skill isn't as important as patience, since you are usually brought back to life 10 seconds away from where you bit the dust to try again. Contrast that with when losing all your lives meant restarting the game, or at the very least the long and challenging level.

Oddly enough I've noticed a minor trend of JRGPs getting harder again after years of exploitable designs. Final Fantasy XIII and 4 Heroes of Light (among others) have genuinely challenged me.

Quote from: pspahn;729644Looking back, the only time I felt like I was an adversary GM was when running the dreaded Vampire the Masquerade. I almost feel like the game is built for that, with almost everything the characters do having the potential to be part of some far reaching antediluvian plot. Campaign last for over a year, but there was so much backstabbing, distrust, and inter-party dissent that two of the guys still hold grudges and won't game together.

Hah, most of my gaming buds are also playing board games, so after the first Game of Thrones or Twilight Imperium game, nothing we could do in RPGs would be even close to the amount of backstabbing that happens when we're playing those games .

Quote from: Brad;729650In my experience, I'd say that's probably true in about 95% of the cases. The only DM I've ever gamed with who "had it out for the players" was the one for a 3rd edition campaign I played back in grad school. He was very adversarial and didn't like it when the players figured out ways to "beat his monsters". He would also arbitrarily change rules whenever something annoyed him, but stick to extreme BtB rulings at all other times. The biggest gripe I had, and why I ended up quitting the game, was him directly fucking with my character. I had a bard and started spending a lot of skill points in languages. The DM didn't like that whatsoever (no idea why) and told me I had to instead spend more skill points for each language. I told him, BtB, bards got languages more cheaply because that's sort of their shtick. So he decided to randomly impose a ridiculous gold piece cost with learning a new language (2000 or something). He also didn't like my use of quick draw to immediately have access to weapons. Never could figure out that one...instead of saying, "I don't allow quick draw in my game", he just nerfed it to the point where it was entirely useless to me. And of course I couldn't retroactively pick another feat.

That sort of shit is not the same as being told no, it's just someone getting annoyed that you're "beating" his game.

Most of the true killer GMs are just railroad GMs.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;729656Whiners mostly focus on option balance issues in competitive multiplayer games, rarely on difficulty adjustments for single player modes.

Doesn't matter much anyway, most modern video games are languidly easy compared to what I grew up with (the "Nintendo hard" days). Skill isn't as important as patience, since you are usually brought back to life 10 seconds away from where you bit the dust to try again. Contrast that with when losing all your lives meant restarting the game, or at the very least the long and challenging level.

Oddly enough I've noticed a minor trend of JRGPs getting harder again after years of exploitable designs. Final Fantasy XIII and 4 Heroes of Light (among others) have genuinely challenged me.

To be fair, this depends a lot on the games in question. EU IV AI is aaaalmost close to being challenging enough that I can now choose a mediocre - size country rather than OPM to have a challenging game. Shooters are generally poor these days, but it's not just the issue of challenge. On the other hand, a lot of that Nintento Difficulty was stupidly artificial - I remember playing the first Marios, and me and my father at some point needed to go to an Internet cafe (I was lucky enough to live in Internet times ) to discover why we were stuck in a loop in the castle. And those loops only got worse. Not to mention other hijinks like that. Volgarr the Barbarian would be for me a great example of a game that mistakes true difficulty for the "retro difficulty". Needing to play the game in one sitting to get the good ending, lack of checkpoints in middle of (lengthy) levels, clunky controls - all those things didn't really exist because the designers wanted to make the game harder, but because the hardware couldn't handle the alternative back then. On the skill versus patience thing - I'd say the older games relied more on this.

Quote from: Dogbert;729619Some players are just too averse to character death.

There´s nothing wrong with that, but then players who abhor death shouldn´t play games where PC death is a very real possibility. There are plenty of non-trad games where death is rare (or may not even exist).

And then there´s the issue of gaming culture.

At a table where I used to play, I was known as a "killer GM" and none of the PCs died even once, all I did was making the PCs face the consequences of their actions... still, isn´t that what ALL GMs DO? Granted, not all GMs make players "pay" for the same mistakes, because just as we (GMs) reward the playstyles we like most, by the same token, we punish those styles that displease us (once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats, and whoever says otherwise is lying). One table´s "clever tactician" is another table´s "sissified wuss" just like one table´s "real man" is another table´s roadkill. It all depends on each table´s gaming culture.

P.D: Hello, RPGsite.

I've found that some people just want to have a dice that rolls D20s all the time. But indeed, there's sometimes a confusion, when the "killer GM" is actually just a GM who doesn't allow players to walk all over him, and draws consequences from actions of the players. I don't even want to think about where this sort of behaviour stems from.

Heh.  Welcome to "Crom's hairy nutsack, I fucking hate gamers."

Yes, most stories of "Killer GMs" are whiny-ass crybaby players, which is why I said in the other thread that whiners, not lawncrappers, are the real threat to this hobby culture.

And there is something in whining, per se, that grates on the nerves.  Somebody who wants to argue in the actual meaning of the word, to try to persuade by reason why I should change something, I don't mind; they are arguing ABOUT something; they have REASONS.

It's the constant "Waah waah waah" that drives me to either i) rip off their head and shit down their neck or ii) curl up onto a fetal position crying and drinking bleach.

* pant wheeze pant wheeze pant wheeze *  [/rant]

And there are some players who just don't want anything bad to happen to their characters.  Sometimes it's because there is a disconnect in expectations; there are some people in one group I know who seem to think they're playing "Disney Fairy Tale."  By that I mean "Yes, we thought one knight, two squires, and an apprentice sorceror would be able to sneak into the tower full of 20 evil necromancers and hundreds of undead and destroy them."

Which fucked things up royally for those of us who thought we were on a recon mission to find the hidden entrance and would then sneak back out, tell the Baron, and he'd send 25 knights and five full fledged Sorcerors in the back door at the same moment the army outside launched the attack on the castle.

Moral:  Do everything you can to make your expectations clear, referee and players alike, BEFORE the game starts.  Assume NOTHING.

Quote from: Dogbert;729619Hello, RPGsite.

Welcome to the adult swim.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;729656Skill isn't as important as patience . . .

Worth repeating.

Personally, it doesn't bother me to have a character killed in a game.  You laugh, pick up the PHB and roll a new one.  I don't get upset at losing in monopoly or cards either.

I am Jack's killer GM.

Quote from: RunningLaser;729677Personally, it doesn't bother me to have a character killed in a game.  You laugh, pick up the PHB and roll a new one.  I don't get upset at losing in monopoly or cards either.

To be fair to some of the people who hate losing characters, I don't worry about losing a character it takes me 5 minutes to create, but if it's a day-long process, to hell with that.

Of course I no longer PLAY games that take that long to create a character.

I AM a killer GM, though it took me years before I realized it.  I roll in the open, never fudge, and only run GURPS, so the lethality level is really cranked up.  No one ever called me a killer GM, though, and people I've run for don't tend to take it personally.  I think it's a clash of expectations that leads to people whining about it.  Like someone used to playing Pathfinder and doesn't realize how lethal Basic D&D can be dying to an orc spear in the first fight.

Quote from: Old Geezer;729687Of course I no longer PLAY games that take that long to create a character.

Thankfully, neither do I.

Quote from: Dogbert;729619One table´s "clever tactician" is another table´s "sissified wuss" just like one table´s "real man" is another table´s roadkill. It all depends on each table´s gaming culture.

To a certain degree, sure.  But take that notion too far and you get to "gaming the GM" which is a time-honored talking point for the whiners.

Whether a King will react to a character's insult by...
1. Tossing him in prison for however long.
2. Chopping his head off
3. Laughing because he likes that the character isn't a toady.
...depends on the King's personality as determined beforehand over at my table.

Verisimilitude and setting consistency are the most important.  That's the table's culture, but it's got nothing to do with figuring out whether I will accept something or not, it means you have to figure out whether the NPC will accept something or not.

P.S.  I know you weren't specifically making the argument about "gaming the GM" Dogbert, I generally agreed with what you said.

Quote from: Dogbert;729619Some players are just too averse to character death.

There´s nothing wrong with that, but then players who abhor death shouldn´t play games where PC death is a very real possibility. There are plenty of non-trad games where death is rare (or may not even exist).

And then there´s the issue of gaming culture.

At a table where I used to play, I was known as a "killer GM" and none of the PCs died even once, all I did was making the PCs face the consequences of their actions... still, isn´t that what ALL GMs DO? Granted, not all GMs make players "pay" for the same mistakes, because just as we (GMs) reward the playstyles we like most, by the same token, we punish those styles that displease us (once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats, and whoever says otherwise is lying). One table´s "clever tactician" is another table´s "sissified wuss" just like one table´s "real man" is another table´s roadkill. It all depends on each table´s gaming culture.

I think this is worth repeating;

At a table where I used to play, I was known as a "killer GM" and none of the PCs died even once, all I did was making the PCs face the consequences of their actions... still, isn't that what ALL GMs DO?

Granted, not all GMs make players "pay" for the same mistakes, because just as we (GMs) reward the playstyles we like most,

by the same token, we punish those styles that displease us

(once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats, and whoever says otherwise is lying).

One table´s "clever tactician" is another table´s "sissified wuss"

just like one table´s "real man" is another table´s roadkill.

It all depends on each table´s gaming culture.

It sure does.

Sometimes GMs can surprise you. I was playing in a Hero Space game with a GM I liked and respected, one of the best I've ever played with, certainly not someone I considered a "killer GM". Well, one day another guy and I were walking down a corridor on a starship investigating something. It was a non-combat situation. My partner peaked around a corner and a computer targeted gun focused on him and disintegrated his head! My guy was an expert doctor character so it was literally a case of the body falling into his doctor's hands. There was nothing I could do though, the head was the one thing I couldn't replace. I carried his body to medbay anyway and kept it alive but it was pointless. Sure, we could have cloned a new body but the character was gone with the brain. The whole scene shocked everyone at the table (the victim was the GMs favorite player too.)
The GM had killed one of my characters too in the past, but I'll admit I did something foolish (but in character!) at the time and probably deserved it.

These things happen.

The worst problem with being a killer GM (and you shall know me by the trail of dead PC's I leave in my wake) is that your players become over cautious at every encounter, which then slows things down until it is like "C'mon, play!"

Quote from: Rincewind1;729664To be fair, this depends a lot on the games in question. EU IV AI is aaaalmost close to being challenging enough that I can now choose a mediocre - size country rather than OPM to have a challenging game. Shooters are generally poor these days, but it's not just the issue of challenge. On the other hand, a lot of that Nintento Difficulty was stupidly artificial - I remember playing the first Marios, and me and my father at some point needed to go to an Internet cafe (I was lucky enough to live in Internet times ) to discover why we were stuck in a loop in the castle. And those loops only got worse. Not to mention other hijinks like that. Volgarr the Barbarian would be for me a great example of a game that mistakes true difficulty for the "retro difficulty". Needing to play the game in one sitting to get the good ending, lack of checkpoints in middle of (lengthy) levels, clunky controls - all those things didn't really exist because the designers wanted to make the game harder, but because the hardware couldn't handle the alternative back then. On the skill versus patience thing - I'd say the older games relied more on this.

You raise some fair points, as I am likely cherry picking my best older game experiences. Still, in general I feel game difficulty (both legitimate and artificial) has been bubble wrapped. There was no way you were getting through Ninja Gaiden's unfair difficult parts without true skill no matter how patient you were.  The satisfaction of completing that piece of shit far exceeds any rush you'll get out a similarly dubious modern game like Mario Sunshine that eventually waves you through the turnstiles with its generous halfway points.

Quote from: dragoner;729695The worst problem with being a killer GM (and you shall know me by the trail of dead PC's I leave in my wake) is that your players become over cautious at every encounter, which then slows things down until it is like "C'mon, play!"

In the kind of group I like to assemble I consider that a feature, not a bug. It's fun watching the players try to think their way through problems, it gives me opportunities to steal ideas from them and time to calibrate what will be needed in the next, and most importantly it extends the duration of my adventure notes, reducing my prep time.