TheRPGSite

At tonight's Pathfinder game our GM got called away for a lengthy phone call and we players got to talking...
One guy started telling us newer players, in hushed tones, how our GM is a 'quintessential killer GM'... 'no matter what you try he'll find a way to screw you with it'.
This player happens to be the whiniest player at the table... the one most likely to use OOC knowledge or throw a rules lawyerish tantrum. He's the most into 'optimization' and got on my case for not using charisma as a 'dump stat' and for taking the 'wrong' skills.

His complaints about the GM just haven't been my experience so far... not at all... and I said as much. I might describe him as 'deadly but fair'... meaning that if we do dumb things there WILL be consequences... but really, I don't have the mindset that the GM is our adversary and the sessions I've been at haven't played that way.
He told us at the start that it's a sandbox and that not everything is balanced to our power level. The dangerous stuff is out there, so beware. Fine by me!
We've had a few TPKs and I've laughed about it, but I've played with a really bad GM or two and this guy is NOT one of them. If anything I think he's one of the better GMs I've played under in quite a while. (I also get the impression that the other players and I have very different ideas about what 'sandbox' implies).

The whole episode just reinforced my thinking that a lot of these stories of 'killer GMs' are just whiny bullshit from players who can't stand being told 'No!'

That's pretty much been my experience. I had to talk down a problem player twice in a D6 Star Wars campaign I ran years ago. The first time was when his character got stunned repeatedly. He whined that GM X, who was a player in my campaign, ruled in the past that multiple stun blasts can kill. It took me the better part of ten minutes trying to get through to him that I wasn't GM X and I didn't have that house rule...

The other tantrum came when I overruled his suggestion to build "lightclaws" and a weapon similar to the glaive in Krull. In the end, I talked him down from that ledge as well... Looking back, I should have just let him jump and watched as he ragequit my game...

But, hindsight's always 20/20...


Later!

Harl

Depends what you mean by killer DM though.

I have met Railroady DMs who will threaten players with death if they step outside the bounds of the railroad, I have met DMs, usually of a similar stripe who make every bouncer or bar tender in a 10th dan bullet proof ubermensch, because they wanted the players to all be nice good guys although they never stated that explicitly, I have met DMs that interpret some rules very differently and never make that explicit until its too late, so an arrow trap that has save vs death as opposed to you getting hit with an arrow which at 6th level can have a major impact on how you approach the thing.

So I don't think its all whiney players.

Now I have to admit there might be a negative feedback loop here. I have been guilty in my younger days of driving away players that came across as whiney, self obsessed munchkins. I have occasionally employed rules in detail that I woudl normally handwave due to annoyance to rid myself of these guys, emcumbrance, rations, head attacks all being the sort of thing I am talking about. This has been rare becuase I have rarely played through clubs and have most often played with just my mates and it has been 20 years or so but mea culpa.

Quote from: Simlasa;729602The whole episode just reinforced my thinking that a lot of these stories of 'killer GMs' are just whiny bullshit from players who can't stand being told 'No!'

Do these same whiny players also play video games using cheat codes and/or "god mode"?

Quote from: ggroy;729613Do these same whiny players also play video games using cheat codes and/or "god mode"?

Typically no, that's for people who just want to look at the game's design without wasting time and effort. Because the whiners can't browbeat the computer they either accept the challenge put before them or write a scathing review. Cheat codes is a bridge too far for their cognitive dissonance to handle.

Some 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.

Welcome Dogbert!

Funny some what on topic bit posted elsewhere (not mind, credit to the OP) that I ran across looking for info on Ice-T's D and D audiobook

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;17607325Killer DM, yeah

I got my DMG out
I got my dungeon out
I got my dee-twenty out
This shits gone South

I got my figures dusted off
I got my traps going off
I'm 'bout to bust some shots off
I'm 'bout to dust some PCs off

I'm a killer DM, better you than me
Killer DM, fuck player agency
Killer DM, I know your player's grieving
(Fuck 'em)
Killer DM, but tonight we get even, ha ha

I'm gonna kill you all
This ain't no Monty Haul
I got this +3 knife
And your character looks just right

My adrenalines pumpin'
I got my dice all bumpin'
I'm 'bout to kill me somethin'
The PCs won't get nuthin'

I'm a killer DM, better you than me
Killer DM, fuck player agency
Killer DM, I know your player's grieving
(Fuck 'em)
Killer DM, but tonight we get even, yeah

Die, die, die PC, die

Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs

Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs, yeah

I'm a killer DM, better you than me
Killer DM, fuck player agency
Killer DM, I know your player's grieving
(Fuck 'em)
Killer DM, but tonight we get even, ha ha ha ha, yeah

Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs

Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs
Fuck the PCs, break it down

Fuck the PCs, yeah
Fuck the PCs, for Acererak
Fuck the PCs, for Tiamat
Fuck the PCs, for my dead monsters

Fuck the PCs, for your freedom
Fuck the PCs, don't be a pussy
Fuck the PCs, have some muthafuckin' courage
Fuck the PCs, sing along

Killer DM
Killer DM
Killer DM
Killer DM

Killer DM, whaddyou wanna be when you grow up?
Killer DM, good choice
Killer DM, I'm a muthafuckin'
Killer DM

I'm a killer DM, better you than me
Killer DM, fuck player agency
Killer DM, I know your player's grieving
(Fuck 'em)
Killer DM, but tonight we get even

Why is that player in the game?

Quote from: Simlasa;729602At tonight's Pathfinder game our GM got called away for a lengthy phone call and we players got to talking...
One guy started telling us newer players, in hushed tones, how our GM is a 'quintessential killer GM'... 'no matter what you try he'll find a way to screw you with it'.
This player happens to be the whiniest player at the table... the one most likely to use OOC knowledge or throw a rules lawyerish tantrum. He's the most into 'optimization' and got on my case for not using charisma as a 'dump stat' and for taking the 'wrong' skills.

His complaints about the GM just haven't been my experience so far... not at all... and I said as much. I might describe him as 'deadly but fair'... meaning that if we do dumb things there WILL be consequences... but really, I don't have the mindset that the GM is our adversary and the sessions I've been at haven't played that way.
He told us at the start that it's a sandbox and that not everything is balanced to our power level. The dangerous stuff is out there, so beware. Fine by me!
We've had a few TPKs and I've laughed about it, but I've played with a really bad GM or two and this guy is NOT one of them. If anything I think he's one of the better GMs I've played under in quite a while. (I also get the impression that the other players and I have very different ideas about what 'sandbox' implies).

The whole episode just reinforced my thinking that a lot of these stories of 'killer GMs' are just whiny bullshit from players who can't stand being told 'No!'

My experience is similar. A small number of players hate for even the tiniest bad things to happen to their character, and 'blame' the gm.

I can think of two 'ruthless but fair' gm's I have played with, but I can't think of any 'ruthless and unfair' gm's. Presumably they are also 'Bad' gm's, and bad gm's lose their players.

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 have some sympathy for character death, but I also have seen a few players that are averse to being scratched.

Like a Dwarven warrior that was  a bucket of hp and high AC running from battle because he took a few points of damage. This was the player, not roleplay of a cowardly warrior.

You make an interesting point that some people may interpret realistic results for ones actions as 'mean gm'

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;729615Because the whiners can't browbeat the computer they either accept the challenge put before them or write a scathing review.

Wonder 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.

Quote from: Simlasa;729602At tonight's Pathfinder game our GM got called away for a lengthy phone call and we players got to talking...
One guy started telling us newer players, in hushed tones, how our GM is a 'quintessential killer GM'... 'no matter what you try he'll find a way to screw you with it'.
This player happens to be the whiniest player at the table... the one most likely to use OOC knowledge or throw a rules lawyerish tantrum. He's the most into 'optimization' and got on my case for not using charisma as a 'dump stat' and for taking the 'wrong' skills.

His complaints about the GM just haven't been my experience so far... not at all... and I said as much. I might describe him as 'deadly but fair'... meaning that if we do dumb things there WILL be consequences... but really, I don't have the mindset that the GM is our adversary and the sessions I've been at haven't played that way.
He told us at the start that it's a sandbox and that not everything is balanced to our power level. The dangerous stuff is out there, so beware. Fine by me!
We've had a few TPKs and I've laughed about it, but I've played with a really bad GM or two and this guy is NOT one of them. If anything I think he's one of the better GMs I've played under in quite a while. (I also get the impression that the other players and I have very different ideas about what 'sandbox' implies).

The whole episode just reinforced my thinking that a lot of these stories of 'killer GMs' are just whiny bullshit from players who can't stand being told 'No!'

Looking 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.

Quote from: Simlasa;729602The whole episode just reinforced my thinking that a lot of these stories of 'killer GMs' are just whiny bullshit from players who can't stand being told 'No!'

In 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.

Quote from: Simlasa;729602At tonight's Pathfinder game our GM got called away for a lengthy phone call and we players got to talking...
One guy started telling us newer players, in hushed tones, how our GM is a 'quintessential killer GM'... 'no matter what you try he'll find a way to screw you with it'.
This player happens to be the whiniest player at the table... the one most likely to use OOC knowledge or throw a rules lawyerish tantrum. He's the most into 'optimization' and got on my case for not using charisma as a 'dump stat' and for taking the 'wrong' skills.

His complaints about the GM just haven't been my experience so far... not at all... and I said as much. I might describe him as 'deadly but fair'... meaning that if we do dumb things there WILL be consequences... but really, I don't have the mindset that the GM is our adversary and the sessions I've been at haven't played that way.
He told us at the start that it's a sandbox and that not everything is balanced to our power level. The dangerous stuff is out there, so beware. Fine by me!
We've had a few TPKs and I've laughed about it, but I've played with a really bad GM or two and this guy is NOT one of them. If anything I think he's one of the better GMs I've played under in quite a while. (I also get the impression that the other players and I have very different ideas about what 'sandbox' implies).

The whole episode just reinforced my thinking that a lot of these stories of 'killer GMs' are just whiny bullshit from players who can't stand being told 'No!'

Cool beans. I'm sure quite a few of the popular "killer DM" stories are in fact accounts of failed communication or indeed completely one-sided arguments to the effect of "I couldn't get what I want so of course the DM sucks".

There are actually terrible DMs out there, but they aren't nearly as common as the stories on the internet would have us believe. Hence the really dumb move IMO to "fix" the games via their rules and set the bar at the lowest common denominator of game design thinking these types of people are actually common place. That's the internet echo chamber at work right here.

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 :D.

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 :P) 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 :P) 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. :D

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. :D

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. :D

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.

Quote from: Ravenswing;729773It 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.

Two words:  Cluster B.

Quote from: Dogbert;729759In 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.

I don't think I've ever seen a "hack & slash" GM be quite that controlling. IME, what hack & slash GMs do is:

- have a lot of fights
- encounters are set to kill first, ask questions never
- encounters fight to the death
- occasionally you get people who make fights as hard as possible and you get the "zombie Navy SEALS syndrome", but at least as often it's a meatgrinder for the monsters

How you go about surviving all that is not usually much of a concern. The exception would be the hack & slash GM who also has everything happening at a hectic pace, you have to stop the evil sorcerer NOW NOW NOW, that sort of thing.

Quote from: Nexus;729791That's something Virtual Lynch Mobs tend to forget. There's one guys, 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, just an aspect of human nature. We're all the hero of our story.

Yep.  Come to that, I've seen a few thread over the years running along the lines of "Hi, I am OP's GM/play in OP's game, and a friend tipped me off to this discussion.  I'd like to set the record straight."  

I've yet to see one of those where the OP didn't dissolve into inarticulacy or abandon the thread without further ado.

Quote from: CRKrueger;729850In 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.

A GM can create challenges ahead of time that don't come across as neutral, such as trapping doors that are an escape from a larger threat.

I think mixing it up overall but following a consistent pattern is the most neutral, for example:
Goblin entrances are almost always trapped
Human entrances are sometimes trapped
Orc entrances are rarely trapped

If players expect a pattern, then it no longer matters if it is ahead of time or not since they can prepare for the pattern. Mixing it up a bit means that traps are a thing, but the GM isn't trying to kill the players with them intentionally.

Quote from: CRKrueger;729850Hmm... If you're suggesting the "Punish" thing is normal, and everyone does it based on table culture, I'd say that's incorrect.

Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

Quote from: Imp;729901I don't think I've ever seen a "hack & slash" GM be quite that controlling.

It's okay, you're still young, you'll have your chance as you get around more tables.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

I'm not sure that you're aware of the definition of meritocracy.  You do know the word itself doesn't assume a subjective biased ranking of achievement, right?

As I said before, with the world adequately prepared, and/or significant level of improvisational skill the GM plays the world, the characters reward or punish themselves through their choices and the roll of the dice.  If two thugs decide to rob a bar without legwork and find out when they walk in with ski masks on that it is a cop bar, or belongs to the mafia, it's not the GM who is punishing them.   I'm sorry you never achieved or participated in that kind of campaign, but be assured, many have.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986You establish a privileged class.

Here we go. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

They live in denial here, DB.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

I reward those who play by actually thinking and "role playing" vs mechanical roll playing from their character sheet like a play book. That is in fact the nice thing about being a killer GM, that privileged class are those that live.

I honestly think I've never heard pseudo Marxist sensibilities applied to RPGs in a nonironic manner before.

I need that animated GIF of Orson Welles doing a slow clap.  But I'm too fucking lazy to look for it.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

Quote from: CRKrueger;730006Here we go. :rolleyes:

What is it with everything being pseudo-political bullshit these days? That's like Monte Cook playing OD&D with Tweet, Heinsoo, Reynolds, Cordell and crew (http://www.montecook.com/celebrating-40-years-of-dd/) and starting the game by modifying the baseline of HP per hit dice because "drawbacks in races are bad," everybody gets a trophy, switching to ascending armor class and nuking Cure Light Wounds because "choices are hard" to switch to healing bursts instead, or my personal favorite, "fighting men are needlessly genderized and 'quaint' in OD&D but that's problematic".

What the fuck is up with people these days?

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.



It's okay, you're still young, you'll have your chance as you get around more tables.

You poor thing. Have lie down on ze couch and relax. Now, tell me about your mother?

Quote from: Benoist;730110What the fuck is up with people these days?

American Universities are very good at political indoctrination. They make our British ones look hilariously inept.

Quote from: S'mon;730115American Universities are very good at political indoctrination. They make our British ones look hilariously inept.

In some majors, it was possible to minimize (or even completely avoid) exposure to such indoctrination type courses..

For example in engineering and the hard sciences, it was possible to satisfy some liberal arts or general ed type requirements by taking relatively "neutral" courses like "symbolic logic", "mathematical methods in economics", etc ....  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730113You poor thing. Have lie down on ze couch and relax. Now, tell me about your mother?

* slow clap *  Well done, that lad.

Quote from: Benoist;730110What is it with everything being pseudo-political bullshit these days? That's like Monte Cook playing OD&D with Tweet, Heinsoo, Reynolds, Cordell and crew (http://www.montecook.com/celebrating-40-years-of-dd/) and starting the game by modifying the baseline of HP per hit dice because "drawbacks in races are bad," everybody gets a trophy, switching to ascending armor class and nuking Cure Light Wounds because "choices are hard" to switch to healing bursts instead, or my personal favorite, "fighting men are needlessly genderized and 'quaint' in OD&D but that's problematic".

What the fuck is up with people these days?

A combination of "wanting to sound smart" and "if you say ANYTHING, somewhere, SOMEBODY will jump on your ass," combined with an unwillingness to tell somebody they're being an idiot.

And we've been calling "fighting-men" "fighters" since 1972 because it has less letters.  Ooo, we're progressive!

Although for a while any female PC fighter was called a 'fighting-man' and any male PC fighter was called a 'fighting-woman' but we dropped that in about ten minutes because it was too many syllables and the joke got old.

I don't always establish a privileged class. But when I establish it, I expect the players to use sabres and wear komtuszes.

QuoteA big bit of D&D wonkery that I don’t like is all the hullabaloo about clerics and their role. I’m referring to the role of healing and the weird social pressures that are unintentionally created.

Good God Monte, never play Game of Thrones board game.

In the Army, they say always be nice to the medic.

I never, EVER got that "hard to persuade people to be a cleric."

They don't get spell penalties for a low WIS, they fight almost as good as fighters, they can wear plate armor, they get healing spells, AND they can turn away undead.

PLUS they have the fastest advancement to Name Level, and get huge bonuses when they build their stronghold.

I'm playing Brother Odo in Ernie's game and I'm having a blast with him. And yeah, to me it actually is part of the pleasure to have to make tactical choices between going into melee or hanging back, who to heal and when, what to memorize in order to provide the most support for the day, etc. So when you nuke CLW in order to put in "healing bursts per day" because "choosing between who to heal and when is hard", I'm like "WTF! That's the point! That's what's fun about it for someone like me!"

Having to play a cleric is Problematic.  I'm literally shaking.

And people wonder why I started a thread about how much I hate gamers.

BTW, looks like Dogbert's webcomic currently has links or ads that go to flagged bad websites.  It didn't a few days ago, so watch the link.

Told ya.

Quote from: Benoist;730161I'm playing Brother Odo in Ernie's game and I'm having a blast with him. And yeah, to me it actually is part of the pleasure to have to make tactical choices between going into melee or hanging back, who to heal and when, what to memorize in order to provide the most support for the day, etc. So when you nuke CLW in order to put in "healing bursts per day" because "choosing between who to heal and when is hard", I'm like "WTF! That's the point! That's what's fun about it for someone like me!"

The only hard decision should be like in DnD 4e: Whether we play out this encounter, or scratch off 20 hp and continue.

Quote from: Benoist;730110What is it with everything being pseudo-political bullshit these days? That's like Monte Cook playing OD&D with Tweet, Heinsoo, Reynolds, Cordell and crew (http://www.montecook.com/celebrating-40-years-of-dd/) and starting the game by modifying the baseline of HP per hit dice because "drawbacks in races are bad," everybody gets a trophy, switching to ascending armor class and nuking Cure Light Wounds because "choices are hard" to switch to healing bursts instead, or my personal favorite, "fighting men are needlessly genderized and 'quaint' in OD&D but that's problematic".

What the fuck is up with people these days?

Oh, that.

Paraphrasing the great Joesky, when I read a blog entry and it makes a blah blah blah sound in my head, I tend to skip these parts and look for actual gaming content. That's why I skipped over the "fighting man OMG sexist" bit.

Other than that, well, I am super OK with everyone modding older versions of D&D because it's a testament to the system. That said, at my game table, "healing burst" would be a dumb houserule that glosses over a big resources management question, and I enjoy players confronting resources management issues (I think they do too; they keep coming back). But what to expect of the man who came up with 3.0e's "spontaneous healing" (trade in a memorized spell for 1d8/spell level healing)?

Monte is not and hasn't been an old school guy for a long time now. His idea of a fun D&D session won't always jive with mine, despite my enjoyment of quite a bit of his gaming material. It's nice that he wants to give OD&D a spin, even if it's a pity that he (unlike myself) wasn't willing to give the RAW a fair shake; it feels like the act of plopping down a copy of OD&D at the rules table was mostly symbolic, and the game he wanted to run on that occasion might be better served by the version of D&D he co-designer with one of his players at that session.

Part of the draw of OD&D for us is that we, as a group, explicitly wanted to try "hard mode D&D". Much like an old school enthusiast playing C&C and hand-inserting rules and subsystems from AD&D 1e, until he or she realizes "why am I not playing AD&D 1e?", I feel Monte would probably eventually switch over to his preferred version of D&D (we all know which one that is), if this wasn't a one-off thing.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730160I never, EVER got that "hard to persuade people to be a cleric."

They don't get spell penalties for a low WIS, they fight almost as good as fighters, they can wear plate armor, they get healing spells, AND they can turn away undead.

PLUS they have the fastest advancement to Name Level, and get huge bonuses when they build their stronghold.

Me neither. Clerics are badass in just about every edition of D&D.

But in any case, I always keep a pregenerated cleric NPC at hand, for PCs to hire as a henchman.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

You say that like it's a bad -- or at least, a suspect -- thing.

Don't we want players who'll buy into the styles we prefer, and prefer to discourage the players who won't buy into those styles?  (Okay, granted, this is something better done with a comprehensive "This is what my campaign is about, can you handle this?" speech at character creation, but.)

Quote from: The Butcher;730200Me neither. Clerics are badass in just about every edition of D&D.

But in any case, I always keep a pregenerated cleric NPC at hand, for PCs to hire as a henchman.

Exactly.  Plus Flame Strike.

I <3 Clerics.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.



It's okay, you're still young, you'll have your chance as you get around more tables.

Agreed, but I do think some gm's genuinely do not realize their bias.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Show me a GM who says he has never had six players of different styles each and rewarded better the one(s) with style(s) more appealing to him and I'll show you a liar. Once all is said and done, all GMs are meritocrats.

Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.



It's okay, you're still young, you'll have your chance as you get around more tables.

This is an extreme over simplification. In between the poles of perfect objectivity and unfair GM who rewards based on the players and style he likes most, you will find the majority of GMs who work toward fairness but understand they are human and make mistakes. It is like being a referee in any activity, it requires human judgement, and that is subjective. But good refs make fair calls most of the time.

If you expect perfect objectivity every time, you will be dissapointed.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.
.

Oh boy.

Quote from: Dogbert;729986Rewarding some people while leaving others hanging gives you the same result as punishing everyone but his favorites. You establish a privileged class.

This can certainly be true if the 'privilege' is based upon the individual and not the behavior.

Beyond that, it's only true if the following occur:

1) The players are somehow coerced into playing the game
2) The GM has an obligation to cater to all players equally, and his preferred style is irrelevant
3) The players are only capable of playing games in a certain way - that is, if they are incapable of learning
4) The players and GM are incapable of reasonable discussion
5) The 'privilege' impacts what other players receive out of the game

Personally, I don't buy that.  In a hypothetical hack'n'slash game with a more social-leaning player, that player is there because he wants to be.  The GM has no obligation to add social elements, and the player has no mandate to be there.

The enjoyment that the social player gets out of the game is not impacted in any way by the fact that other players, who are more hack'n'slash, enjoy the game more than the social-leaning player.

A healthy response from the social-leaning players is to a) talk to the GM and ask for more social elements, and if declined b) decide whether or not the enjoyment that they get out of the game is worth their time investment.

To put it in another context, it's much like saying that I'm inviting people over to my house to watch hockey.  Some people like hockey more than others.  If someone likes baseball more than hockey, they can come over to my house, but they know what they're getting into, and I'm under no obligation to put on a baseball game.

That doesn't make the people that like hockey a "privileged class".

Funny how "liking to play a certain way, and liking to play with people who like that too"

turned from

"liking to play with people who like the same thing"

into

"establishing a privileged class."

HINT:  When the card-carrying Socialist tells you your pseudo-Marxist rhetoric is laughably absurd, you've taken a wrong turn.

Quote from: Old Geezer;731012HINT:  When the card-carrying Socialist tells you your pseudo-Marxist rhetoric is laughably absurd, you've taken a wrong turn.

P.J. O'Rourke tells of being a "student radical" in college in 1970 because being a "student radical" meant easier access to pot, hippie sex and not having to give a damn about long hair.  He started having second thoughts when they got cornered at gunpoint one night by the campus Maoists who forced them to sit through a "people's tribunal" re-education session, complete with denouncements, vows to re-dedicate themselves to revolutionary ideals, and so on.  

If you go carryin' pictures of chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make with anyone anyhow.

Let's cut out the political discussion, please.