Quote from: Shipyard Locked;729706In 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.

Not to mention the occasional "Wandering Monster Check time" * roll dice * just to keep 'em guessing.

Fair Play Disclaimer:  I let players know beforehand EXACTLY what they're getting into.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;729706In the kind of group I like to assemble I consider that a feature, not a bug.

Exactly.  I'm firmly in the camp of that gamers are less whiny assholes than astonishingly unwilling to articulate in advance their styles of play and expectations.  I've never gotten my head around how in a hobby where everything is based around communication people are just plain so bad at it.

Beyond that, though, almost every complaint made to a bulletin board has one common factor: that we only hear the complainant's side.  It isn't often the case that the complainant makes himself out to be the bad guy.

Quote from: Ravenswing;729718Beyond that, though, almost every complaint made to a bulletin board has one common factor: that we only hear the complainant's side.  It isn't often the case that the complainant makes himself out to be the bad guy.

Hell, I'd settle for people even bothering to show the other side in a nearly-neutral fashion.

To be cynical, I think there's often a reason why certain people take to the internet for their complaints, where they *know* they can control what information people have available to them...

Quote from: Ravenswing;729718Exactly.  I'm firmly in the camp of that gamers are less whiny assholes than astonishingly unwilling to articulate in advance their styles of play and expectations.  I've never gotten my head around how in a hobby where everything is based around communication people are just plain so bad at it

I imagine that's a big part of it... everyone at the table making assumptions that the game is going to be just like they're used to... or something.
The thing is, in this case, I was there when the GM described for us noobies how he runs his games. Sandbox, harsh but fair, the world is NOT balanced to suit so you should be careful out there.
Nonetheless part of our discussion last night was about how 'He keeps throwing monsters at us that we can't handle'... which is just not true. There have been 'plot hooks' that we've chosen to follow that have lead to situations obviously over our heads... that my PC has lobbied against pursuing without backup/hirelings/nuclear weapons. This other player, though, continues to assume that if he charges in the GM is obligated to pull his punches... or something.
He also tried to tell me that we needed to 'follow the story that the GM laid out for us'... which just kind of boggles me, since the GM himself keeps pointing out that there is no 'story' and we are free to wander.
His assumption that any/every plot hook MUST be followed up on may be why he's so surprised when the giant rabbit eats him.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;729706In 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.

It can be funny, sometimes they would see a little opposition and run off, so I could tease them python-esque "they bravely ran away". But yeah, every roll of the dice, even randomly, elicited a suspenseful response.

Quote from: Simlasa;729740I imagine that's a big part of it... everyone at the table making assumptions that the game is going to be just like they're used to... or something.
The thing is, in this case, I was there when the GM described for us noobies how he runs his games. Sandbox, harsh but fair, the world is NOT balanced to suit so you should be careful out there.
Nonetheless part of our discussion last night was about how 'He keeps throwing monsters at us that we can't handle'... which is just not true. There have been 'plot hooks' that we've chosen to follow that have lead to situations obviously over our heads... that my PC has lobbied against pursuing without backup/hirelings/nuclear weapons. This other player, though, continues to assume that if he charges in the GM is obligated to pull his punches... or something.
He also tried to tell me that we needed to 'follow the story that the GM laid out for us'... which just kind of boggles me, since the GM himself keeps pointing out that there is no 'story' and we are free to wander.
His assumption that any/every plot hook MUST be followed up on may be why he's so surprised when the giant rabbit eats him.

Does he play a lot of computer RPGs or MMOs?

Quote from: Old Geezer;729753Does he play a lot of computer RPGs or MMOs?

I'm not sure... not that I know of.
There is a story this group tells of a guy who left before I started playing. This guy did have a video game background and was massively upset when his PC died in the game and he was not allowed to 'reset'.

The fellow I've been referring to reminds me of the guys you meet, at game stores or wherever, who want to yammer endlessly about their amazing PC... his great equipment and how he shut down the Big Bad with some gamey trick.
I think he's been playing for decades and is just accustomed to that sort of play, where everyone gets to be awesome and is quite happy about it. How he ended up with this current GM and why he has stayed around... I have no clue.
Other GMs I know locally wouldn't have put up with him.

Quote from: Bill;729634You make an interesting point that some people may interpret realistic results for ones actions as 'mean gm'

Actually my point is that different tables have different definitions of what´s "realistic." In a hack&slash table, their definition of "realistic" is kicking at the bad guy´s door and charging everything head-on, and a hack&slasher GM has ways of punishing anyone who doesn't do that at the table, from docking their XP (or just giving other hack&slashers more XP than you, same result) to taking in-game punitive measures like placing a landmine under the cautious player´s feet.

Quote from: Old Geezer;729753Does he play a lot of computer RPGs or MMOs?

Mm, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case.  We all know how confirmation bias works, where gaming's concerned: people get these notions in their heads How The Game Is Supposed To Be Played (generally based on the first campaign in which they played or the first person who explained the rules to them), that then becomes The Only Way It's Possible To Play, and the more clueless of the lot will defend that POV against all comers.

The example that sticks out most in my memory was in our giant combat fantasy LARP.  A newbie had screwed up with a Raise Dead spell, which required a 40-word incantation.  He was convinced, heaven knows how, that it required no incantation.  Happily, the event had several very experienced "magic marshals" who were all on the council who adjudicated rules - myself included - who had all been in the game since the beginning, and one who was the author of the magic system then in use.  It not only didn't matter that four of us were explaining to the newbie that he was wrong, he just Knew What He Knew ... and got so hot under the collar he even started swinging fists.

Quote from: Ravenswing;729718Exactly.  I'm firmly in the camp of that gamers are less whiny assholes than astonishingly unwilling to articulate in advance their styles of play and expectations.  I've never gotten my head around how in a hobby where everything is based around communication people are just plain so bad at it.

Beyond that, though, almost every complaint made to a bulletin board has one common factor: that we only hear the complainant's side.  It isn't often the case that the complainant makes himself out to be the bad guy.

That's something Virtual Lynch Mobs tend to forget. There's one guy's story, there's the other guy's story and there's what actually happened which is usually somewhere in the middle. It doesn't even have to be a conscious thing. Its just an aspect of human nature to make ourselves the hero of our own story.

Quote from: robiswrong;729719To be cynical, I think there's often a reason why certain people take to the internet for their complaints, where they *know* they can control what information people have available to them...

In principle, this can be done offline too.

People who are like this offline, can simply refuse to speak and socialize with anybody who does not support their viewpoint.  In a work type situation where someone has the power to hire and fire, it would involve hiring mostly "yes men".

With all that being said, I suspect it would be easier to find other like-minded individuals online these days, than offline.

Quote from: Dogbert;729759Actually my point is that different tables have different definitions of what´s "realistic." In a hack&slash table, their definition of "realistic" is kicking at the bad guy´s door and charging everything head-on, and a hack&slasher GM has ways of punishing anyone who doesn't do that at the table, from docking their XP (or just giving other hack&slashers more XP than you, same result) to taking in-game punitive measures like placing a landmine under the cautious player´s feet.

Planting a landmine sounds like a terrible gm

Quote from: Dogbert;729759Actually my point is that different tables have different definitions of what´s "realistic." In a hack&slash table, their definition of "realistic" is kicking at the bad guy´s door and charging everything head-on, and a hack&slasher GM has ways of punishing anyone who doesn't do that at the table, from docking their XP (or just giving other hack&slashers more XP than you, same result) to taking in-game punitive measures like placing a landmine under the cautious player´s feet.

All this time trying to reward players for clever thinking and suffering dissappointment much of the time.

Heck, just reward idiocy. It really cuts down on the letdown factor! :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dogbert;729759Actually my point is that different tables have different definitions of what´s "realistic." In a hack&slash table, their definition of "realistic" is kicking at the bad guy´s door and charging everything head-on, and a hack&slasher GM has ways of punishing anyone who doesn't do that at the table, from docking their XP (or just giving other hack&slashers more XP than you, same result) to taking in-game punitive measures like placing a landmine under the cautious player´s feet.

Hmm... If you're suggesting the "Punish" thing is normal, and everyone does it based on table culture, I'd say that's incorrect.  Any group that always selects one tactic to resolve all conflict whether that be "kick in the door" or "reasoned debate and time-consuming research" might be having fun so more power to 'em, but they're in effect playing a hyper-specialized genre-game of their own devising, not anywhere near typical or realistic.

Altering things on the fly in response to player's or character's actions, "grudge monsters", evolving trap design etc. is the hallmark of a "Killer GM", which is really just one type of jackass GM.

In the tables I play at or run, sometimes "kick in the door" works, sometimes "reasoned debate and time-consuming research" works, sometimes "buy 'em off and run like hell if they say no" works.  The characters, not having perfect GM knowledge, frequently pick a less optimal tactic, and succeed anyhow through wits, determination and luck.

One of the main keys to the "neutral GM" position is that the challenges are determined beforehand.  If the trapdoor is in the hallway, but triggered on a delay after the door opens, then "kick in the door" succeeds.  If the trap door is in the room, then "kick in the door fails".  The GM doesn't reward or punish.  The characters choose and act, the world responds with appropriate consequences.

Pretty much the only gaming drama I've encountered was due to GMs and/or players being unable to keep their real life emotional baggage away from the table. Or, like others have already said: shitty communication or unmet expectations.

But yeah, I've quit games rather than submit to a failed author's—err, I mean shitty GM's—awful railroads. Some people just don't want to change: "No gaming is better than bad gaming" and so on.