First of all let me share a story from Gygax. This is from Dragon Magazine 314.
[i]
Self-Destructing PCs: Unearned Levels are the PC's Worst Enemy
by Gary Gygax
Many DMs have asked me how I handle characters that are obviously overpowered "jumped-up" PCs that never really earned their high abilities and survive by massive hit-point total, super magic, and unearned ease in attacking with sword or spell. To such inquiries, I respond that in recognizing this sort of character I simply play the encounters a bit differently, mainly in the presentation of information, not in "fudging'* of the dice rolls for monsters. Inept players will destroy their characters without having to resort to such methods. Allow me to illustrate this with the following account:
While at a regional convention in upstate New York, I was asked to run adventures in my campaign's Castle Grey hawk Dungeons. An assembly of players gathered for what was billed a moderate-level excursion. One aggressive young chap came to the table with a 13th-levsI ranger, supposedly his least powerful character. Although the others in the group had PCs of about half that levei and were chary about including the lad with the ranger, I assured them all would work just fine, even with experience division given by shares according to level.
There followed some initial exploration and minor encounters as the team worked its way down into the dungeon maze. The first real test came when the party came into a large chamber with many pillars and several doors. As the main group discussed what strategy they would follow in this locale, a bold dwarf broke off and opened a nearby door. Rather than telling the player what he saw, I told the players this:
"The dwarf slams the door. He reels back and comes staggering toward the rest of you, stammering something that sounds like. *G-ga-get back! W-wuh ... Horrible! A bunch of them!" He is obviously fearful and thus incoherent"
The 13th level ranger hesitated not a moment. Without consulting with his fellows, the character ran to the door that the dwarf had slammed closed and opened it without concern. The four wights that were preparing to exit their lair confronted him, won initiative, and two succeeded in hitting. In the ensuing melee, these undead monsters managed to strike the rapger twice more, so at the end of the battle, the ranger was of a level more commensurate with the others, 9th as it were.
Much disturbed by that turn of events, bur clearly not chagrined by his rash behavior and the results, the ranger insisted on leading the way. Soon thereafter, they discovered a staircase down, and beside it lay an alcove wherein a great clay pot rested, radiating heat and billowing smoke. The other PCs advised leaving the strange vessel alone, but the ranger determined to attack it. As he did so, all the other characters fled the area. With a single blow the ranger shattered the pot, and thus a really angry fire elemental was freed, ft didn't take long for that monster to finish off the ranger, and thereafter it departed.
I took the character sheet from the fellow, suggesting that he should be more careful with such potent characters in the future, for surely he had spent a long time gaining 13th level with his now dead ranger PC. He left the table without comment, and the rest of the group went on to several exciting hours of dungeon delving.
This shows that unearned levels don't translate to playing ability. To the contrary, the power gained often makes the player overconfident. Any able DM can craft adventures that weed out unwise and inept players who think to bulldoze their way through problems by use of undeserved power. That's possible only in computer games where saved games and cheat codes serve to reward such play.[/i]
Now to me, whilst I'm not as harsh as Gygax. I can see this as the RPG equivalent of "chat shit, get banged." as chavs used to say. A player came in with a high level character that they clearly fudged to beat Gary's game. So in the interests of fairness Gary gave this person challenges that a Ranger of that level would easily solve if they actually played up to that level. That player failed those challenges. And was humiliated because of their own stupidity. Not by Gary himself telling him off. But by simply playing the game with the expectations that player gave Gygax due to his high level character. It was just the natural consequences in game for a player's stupidity.
Now let's all make a huge mistake and go on over to Reddit. Specifically r/RPG
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/16sj06l/looking_for_an_old_article_by_gary_gygax/
The amount of people completely dismissing Gygax's legacy and using this story as proof he was an awful DM is depressing. Lots of the usual words thrown around. "Gatekeeping" "Exclusionary" that kind of thing. It really does show how entitled certain RPG players have gotten. They see the idea of challenge and failing challenge as a personal attack on them. Not their characters As if losing a few levels and handing your sheet to the GM means you can't even play RPGs anymore or the spectre of gross chud neckbeards will materialize to boot you out of the game shop. It's become a huge problem where RPG players just see their characters as avatars of themselves. And thus all consequences on their character are consequences and judgements on them in real life. Absolutely bizarre and foreign behaviour.
TTRPG players aren't more entitled, MOST PEOPLE are. Just the society we live in.
As usual it devolved into 'Gygax was a terrible person who liked genocide' because Redditors are unable to separate someone using a terrible thing as an example from that person advocating for said terrible thing. Add that to the people that simply didn't understand how D&D was played by Gary and Dave's original groups and you have a recipe for hilarity.
I had someone try to pull a "Just so we are clear here: are you defending Gygax's actions?" on me. Why yes, yes I am.
I have to say though, that I'm starting to get the feeling that things might be swinging back the other way in the realm of public opinion.
Quote from: King Tyranno on September 27, 2023, 09:24:16 AM
First of all let me share a story from Gygax. This is from Dragon Magazine 314.
[i]
Self-Destructing PCs: Unearned Levels are the PC's Worst Enemy
by Gary Gygax
Many DMs have asked me how I handle characters that are obviously overpowered "jumped-up" PCs that never really earned their high abilities and survive by massive hit-point total, super magic, and unearned ease in attacking with sword or spell. To such inquiries, I respond that in recognizing this sort of character I simply play the encounters a bit differently, mainly in the presentation of information, not in "fudging'* of the dice rolls for monsters. Inept players will destroy their characters without having to resort to such methods. Allow me to illustrate this with the following account:
While at a regional convention in upstate New York, I was asked to run adventures in my campaign's Castle Grey hawk Dungeons. An assembly of players gathered for what was billed a moderate-level excursion. One aggressive young chap came to the table with a 13th-levsI ranger, supposedly his least powerful character. Although the others in the group had PCs of about half that levei and were chary about including the lad with the ranger, I assured them all would work just fine, even with experience division given by shares according to level.
There followed some initial exploration and minor encounters as the team worked its way down into the dungeon maze. The first real test came when the party came into a large chamber with many pillars and several doors. As the main group discussed what strategy they would follow in this locale, a bold dwarf broke off and opened a nearby door. Rather than telling the player what he saw, I told the players this:
"The dwarf slams the door. He reels back and comes staggering toward the rest of you, stammering something that sounds like. *G-ga-get back! W-wuh ... Horrible! A bunch of them!" He is obviously fearful and thus incoherent"
The 13th level ranger hesitated not a moment. Without consulting with his fellows, the character ran to the door that the dwarf had slammed closed and opened it without concern. The four wights that were preparing to exit their lair confronted him, won initiative, and two succeeded in hitting. In the ensuing melee, these undead monsters managed to strike the rapger twice more, so at the end of the battle, the ranger was of a level more commensurate with the others, 9th as it were.
Much disturbed by that turn of events, bur clearly not chagrined by his rash behavior and the results, the ranger insisted on leading the way. Soon thereafter, they discovered a staircase down, and beside it lay an alcove wherein a great clay pot rested, radiating heat and billowing smoke. The other PCs advised leaving the strange vessel alone, but the ranger determined to attack it. As he did so, all the other characters fled the area. With a single blow the ranger shattered the pot, and thus a really angry fire elemental was freed, ft didn't take long for that monster to finish off the ranger, and thereafter it departed.
I took the character sheet from the fellow, suggesting that he should be more careful with such potent characters in the future, for surely he had spent a long time gaining 13th level with his now dead ranger PC. He left the table without comment, and the rest of the group went on to several exciting hours of dungeon delving.
This shows that unearned levels don't translate to playing ability. To the contrary, the power gained often makes the player overconfident. Any able DM can craft adventures that weed out unwise and inept players who think to bulldoze their way through problems by use of undeserved power. That's possible only in computer games where saved games and cheat codes serve to reward such play.[/i]
Now to me, whilst I'm not as harsh as Gygax. I can see this as the RPG equivalent of "chat shit, get banged." as chavs used to say. A player came in with a high level character that they clearly fudged to beat Gary's game. So in the interests of fairness Gary gave this person challenges that a Ranger of that level would easily solve if they actually played up to that level. That player failed those challenges. And was humiliated because of their own stupidity. Not by Gary himself telling him off. But by simply playing the game with the expectations that player gave Gygax due to his high level character. It was just the natural consequences in game for a player's stupidity.
While I agree that players should play smart, I think Gary's own examples in that article are kind of dumb. The kind of dumb were it's like: why go adventuring? It's dangerous. The smart move for any adventurer is to stay home and farm gong. There has to be some amount of leniency for players adventuring and sticking their noses into things and generally getting into trouble. Because that's where the fun is at.
QuoteNow let's all make a huge mistake and go on over to Reddit. Specifically r/RPG
Nice try, Gary! ;)
When I was young, I learned some hard lessons like the player with the 13th level ranger. You just gotta take your lumps and do better next time.
As for Reddit, I just default to assuming that everyone is a teenager, unless they demonstrate otherwise.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 11:07:25 AM
While I agree that players should play smart, I think Gary's own examples in that article are kind of dumb. The kind of dumb were it's like: why go adventuring? It's dangerous. The smart move for any adventurer is to stay home and farm gong. There has to be some amount of leniency for players adventuring and sticking their noses into things and generally getting into trouble. Because that's where the fun is at.
I don't have a problem with it under the context of Gary clearly knowing the player was basically cheating and breaking an unwritten code of honor in the community. Gary decided to make an example of the guy.
Quote from: shoplifter on September 27, 2023, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 11:07:25 AM
While I agree that players should play smart, I think Gary's own examples in that article are kind of dumb. The kind of dumb were it's like: why go adventuring? It's dangerous. The smart move for any adventurer is to stay home and farm gong. There has to be some amount of leniency for players adventuring and sticking their noses into things and generally getting into trouble. Because that's where the fun is at.
I don't have a problem with it under the context of Gary clearly knowing the player was basically cheating and breaking an unwritten code of honor in the community. Gary decided to make an example of the guy.
And even if he wasn't a cheater / Timmy Powergamer type, he was so rock stupid he deserved what he got. Good grief.
Giving someone enough rope to hang himself was a thing long before RPGs. Doing it in an RPG is a rather benign application of the principle.
My only question about the story as presented in the OP: Was the dwarf a PC? :)
Was taking the killed pc's sheet as a trophy the norm? I hope it was... Imagine having a sheet cemetery, separations for the worthy and for the unwise, etc...
It just other gamers on another forum not expecting any negative consequences for their actions as opposed to attacking Gary. He is more of an excuse to attack that kind of DMing style.
Quote from: shoplifter on September 27, 2023, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 11:07:25 AM
While I agree that players should play smart, I think Gary's own examples in that article are kind of dumb. The kind of dumb were it's like: why go adventuring? It's dangerous. The smart move for any adventurer is to stay home and farm gong. There has to be some amount of leniency for players adventuring and sticking their noses into things and generally getting into trouble. Because that's where the fun is at.
I don't have a problem with it under the context of Gary clearly knowing the player was basically cheating and breaking an unwritten code of honor in the community. Gary decided to make an example of the guy.
I agree with Ratman_tf, it sounds like this was Gary actively gunning to take down this player, rather than just running the intended adventure. He says he didn't fudge dice rolls - but it seems to me that the encounters were intended to take down the player in question.
If the ranger hadn't been there, what was the party supposed to do about the four wights? In general, if an NPC is scared and runs away from what's inside a dungeon, what should the players do? Is the idea that because the NPC dwarf was scared, the PCs should just back away and not fight what is down there?
Regardless of the ranger's player, how the GM presents things is how the rest of the players understand the world to be. So after the ranger's player dies, what are they going to do if there's a scared NPC?
Quote from: Abraxus on September 27, 2023, 12:03:40 PM
He is more of an excuse to attack that kind of DMing style.
That RPG style is characterized heavilly by principles inherent to the nature of RPG and of 'life' (choices mattering, autonomy therefor responsability for action, you dont control the world and its machinations, etc). It is an indirect attack on reality, also because it is a hierarchization of skills and forms of play. GMless "rpgs" and the like are an externalization of that disregard (and untimately disgust) for order (bc the GM is God, and if God requires some virtue, diminishing your freedom, it is oppressive - that is literally the basis of humanism btw).
Gary did good. In each case there was sufficient information for the player to make a decision, but the player was dumb and his character paid the price. In fact in each case there were many things the player could have done to get a positive income, and he chose the only bad one.
The part of the story that jumped out at me more was some of the curious practices of the day. All of the con games I've played used pre-gens. And taking a dead character's sheet ... I've never done that even in a home game.
Quote from: King Tyranno on September 27, 2023, 09:24:16 AM
First of all let me share a story from Gygax. This is from Dragon Magazine 314.
[i]
Self-Destructing PCs: Unearned Levels are the PC's Worst Enemy
by Gary Gygax
This was my first time reading this article, so that's pretty cool. I've actually had conversations with Gary about how to deal with cheaters, and based on those conversations, this article is 100% what I would have expected from Gary.
QuoteNow to me, whilst I'm not as harsh as Gygax. I can see this as the RPG equivalent of "chat shit, get banged." as chavs used to say. A player came in with a high level character that they clearly fudged to beat Gary's game. So in the interests of fairness Gary gave this person challenges that a Ranger of that level would easily solve if they actually played up to that level. That player failed those challenges. And was humiliated because of their own stupidity. Not by Gary himself telling him off. But by simply playing the game with the expectations that player gave Gygax due to his high level character. It was just the natural consequences in game for a player's stupidity.
Obviously I can't speak for Gary, but my takeaway from the conversations I had with him is not that he's ratcheting up the challenge because he thinks he sees a cheater. And that's not what I'm seeing in this example. If it's a 6th-7th level game, I'm not necessarily reading into this that he decided to up the number of wights to account for the 13th level ranger. It looks to me like it just is what it is. It was an encounter planned for 6th-7th level characters, and the people who earned their levels played more wisely than the guy who didn't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 11:07:25 AM
While I agree that players should play smart, I think Gary's own examples in that article are kind of dumb. The kind of dumb were it's like: why go adventuring? It's dangerous. The smart move for any adventurer is to stay home and farm gong. There has to be some amount of leniency for players adventuring and sticking their noses into things and generally getting into trouble. Because that's where the fun is at.
Eh, I don't think that's a fair or accurate assessment.
The proto Leeroy Jenkins dwarf charged through the doors. But the dwarf didn't lose 4 levels. It doesn't sound like Gary even rolled any dice. He just took control of the dwarf for a moment, had him step out, and give the party a warning. This not only showed the dwarf's player leniency, it also gave the party fair warning. So when the Ranger went through the door after being fairly warned, he had it coming to him.
In Gary's later modules, he including notes on these sorts of leniency considerations. In Hall of Many Panes, he used the example of a barbarian acting brashly, and the dwarf in this example sounds exactly like what he was writing about.
Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 12:11:49 PM
If the ranger hadn't been there, what was the party supposed to do about the four wights? In general, if an NPC is scared and runs away from what's inside a dungeon, what should the players do? Is the idea that because the NPC dwarf was scared, the PCs should just back away and not fight what is down there?
My three top choices would be
1) Scout. Listen at the door or use magic to determine what's on the other side.
2) Go another way.
3) Set up first. Two armored characters in front. Casters and and archers at a short distance behind. Preferably use knock to open the door without anyone too close. That way the whole party gets to fight immediately and not just the one fool.
I'd go with #3. Anyway, the guy was dumb, and his foolishness not only hurt him it endangered the rest of the party. He deserved what happened, even if his character was legit.
I have no idea what Gary was like as a GM but I know from watching his interview on 60 Minutes that he was terrible at communicating his ideas. Also, over the years, he made many contradictory statements that have caused no end of arguments between RPG hobbyists. I'm at a point where I will read his stuff on running games but I take it into careful consideration and with a small pinch of salt.
Aside from the specific example and my opinions on how well this is for game play, I think RPGs are all about making decisions and dealing with the consequences. If that's not what's happening, then it's not an RPG. (I will die on this hill.)
Quote from: Lunamancer on September 27, 2023, 12:18:52 PM
The proto Leeroy Jenkins dwarf charged through the doors. But the dwarf didn't lose 4 levels. It doesn't sound like Gary even rolled any dice. He just took control of the dwarf for a moment, had him step out, and give the party a warning. This not only showed the dwarf's player leniency, it also gave the party fair warning. So when the Ranger went through the door after being fairly warned, he had it coming to him.
I had thought that the dwarf was an NPC, since the GM was controlling him. If the dwarf was a PC, then on what grounds does the GM get to snatch the PC away from player control and decide what the PC dwarf says and does? The GM plays the world, he doesn't get to decide what the PCs do.
Wights don't have a
Fear effect. The dwarf player should be able to decide for himself what he does when he sees the wights, and what he tells the other players.
Quote from: Lunamancer on September 27, 2023, 12:18:52 PM
In Gary's later modules, he including notes on these sorts of leniency considerations. In Hall of Many Panes, he used the example of a barbarian acting brashly, and the dwarf in this example sounds exactly like what he was writing about.
I'm not familiar with Hall of Many Panes. What is the example of a barbarian acting brashly?
Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 12:31:22 PM
I had thought that the dwarf was an NPC, since the GM was controlling him. If the dwarf was a PC, then on what grounds does the GM get to snatch the PC away from player control and decide what the PC dwarf says and does? The GM plays the world, he doesn't get to decide what the PCs do.
Wights don't have a Fear effect. The dwarf player should be able to decide for himself what he does when he sees the wights, and what he tells the other players.
That seems really unjustifiable. Also, it was not necessary for the effect he wanted to give. The ranger would roast himself sooner or later... Don't tell me he did this kind of thing regularly or argued for its usage
Using the 'Brave Sir Robin' strategy is often the best one in dungeons - e.g. in the old giants module G1, where avoiding the hill giants and their giant mates all congregated in the chief's hall and making alliances with the orc slaves to do the fighting for you is the path to success. Taking on every fight will just make your character the worgs' meat very quickly.
Seems to me that Gary was using a common referee hint ('the fleeing NPC trope') to tell the players that hack and slash was not the best course of action in the next encounter. Given such a hint, most players (at least the ones I have played with) would understand they were being told to avoid a full frontal assault. They would do more investigating, like using ESP or Wizard Eye to case the room, or getting a thief to hide in shadows and open the door to see what is inside from a distance. Then the players could use missile weapons/magic/cleric turning in more safety by hanging back from the frontal encounter. Or, depending on the room, they could have avoided the encounter altogether.
If anything, by having the dwarf telegraph a difficult encounter, Gary was being more merciful than many of the old crew used to be.
Quote from: shoplifter on September 27, 2023, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 11:07:25 AM
While I agree that players should play smart, I think Gary's own examples in that article are kind of dumb. The kind of dumb were it's like: why go adventuring? It's dangerous. The smart move for any adventurer is to stay home and farm gong. There has to be some amount of leniency for players adventuring and sticking their noses into things and generally getting into trouble. Because that's where the fun is at.
I don't have a problem with it under the context of Gary clearly knowing the player was basically cheating and breaking an unwritten code of honor in the community. Gary decided to make an example of the guy.
Exactly. Instead of acting like an Adult, Gary wanted to make an example of him by acting all passive aggressive, pretending everything was OK, and then whipping out his DM dong.
He should have just told the guy his character was too high level compared to the rest of the group. Assuming the story wasn't creatively embellished for Dragon Magazine in the first place.
There are many different ways to have fun. I'm not going to sit here and pretend there's a "right way" to play, or that'd make me no different than the emotionally-stunted children on reddit. If people want fluffy little games where the world's reality bends to the players' whims, fine. I don't want to be in those games, and I don't want those players in my games. I'm perfectly fine with giving them their own little corner at the kid's table.
I will say this, though. Going back to its war-gaming roots, table top gaming has been about strategy and wits. It's a "game" in the same sense that chess is a game. There are rules, and stupid mistakes have consequences. You won't enter a chess tournament and expect your opponent to hand you a win. You need to outsmart him. That was the point of the article; that the 13th-lvl ranger didn't earn those levels through merit. They were "unearned" levels. It's like saying you won a thousand chess games when all of your opponents let you win.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 01:02:43 PM
Exactly. Instead of acting like an Adult, Gary wanted to make an example of him by acting all passive aggressive, pretending everything was OK, and then whipping out his DM dong.
He should have just told the guy his character was too high level compared to the rest of the group. Assuming the story wasn't creatively embellished for Dragon Magazine in the first place.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/035/410/Screen_Shot_2020-10-05_at_11.51.58_AM.png)
Quote from: El-V on September 27, 2023, 12:51:05 PM
Using the 'Brave Sir Robin' strategy is often the best one in dungeons - e.g. in the old giants module G1, where avoiding the hill giants and their giant mates all congregated in the chief's hall and making alliances with the orc slaves to do the fighting for you is the path to success. Taking on every fight will just make your character the worgs' meat very quickly.
Seems to me that Gary was using a common referee hint ('the fleeing NPC trope') to tell the players that hack and slash was not the best course of action in the next encounter. Given such a hint, most players (at least the ones I have played with) would understand they were being told to avoid a full frontal assault.
I understand that it was common back in the day, but I also strongly dislike this trope. As a GM, I play the NPCs as NPCs. NPCs are frequently wrong or misinformed or gave bad advice, because they are just people in the world -- not a mouthpiece for the GM.
NPC mouthpieces make for shitty gaming, because it messes with the believability of NPCs. It's important that NPCs act correctly, because then players can make correct conclusions based on the logic of the world -- rather than reading "what does the GM want us to do".
If a dwarf acted bravely and then suddenly scared, as a player, I might question what he was up to. Maybe the dwarf is genuine, but maybe he is a traitor trying to lead us into a trap by scaring us away from the unguarded entrance. Or maybe he was mistaken in what he thought he saw.
---
Quote from: Effete on September 27, 2023, 01:03:06 PM
There are many different ways to have fun. I'm not going to sit here and pretend there's a "right way" to play, or that'd make me no different than the emotionally-stunted children on reddit. If people want fluffy little games where the world's reality bends to the players' whims, fine. I don't want to be in those games, and I don't want those players in my games. I'm perfectly fine with giving them their own little corner at the kid's table.
I will say this, though. Going back to its war-gaming roots, table top gaming has been about strategy and wits. It's a "game" in the same sense that chess is a game. There are rules, and stupid mistakes have consequences. You won't enter a chess tournament and expect your opponent to hand you a win. You need to outsmart him. That was the point of the article; that the 13th-lvl ranger didn't earn those levels through merit. They were "unearned" levels. It's like saying you won a thousand chess games when all of your opponents let you win.
But D&D levels aren't actually a measure of tactical measure, because there is a huge variance in how difficult an individual DM makes it to earn levels. They are earned according to gold pieces found and monsters defeated, but the difficulty of a given monster varies massively with how the DM sets up the circumstances. Back in the day, it was common knowledge that DMs varied from the "Killer DM" (where even making it to 3rd level is a triumph) to the "Monty Haul DM" (who gives away easy prizes).
Further, D&D is a team game -- so you don't know if a given player was the weakest player on his team (and earned points based on his teammates skill) or whether he was the leader.
Between these, it's entirely possible for a player to get to 13th level without being tactically skilled.
As a shorter summation:
In a team game, the referee should never twist his calls to try to target an unskilled or dumb member of a team, and make play hard for them.
If he thinks that a player is cheating - then skilled or not - he should call out that player out of game and deal with it.
Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 02:04:28 PM
I understand that it was common back in the day, but I also strongly dislike this trope. As a GM, I play the NPCs as NPCs. NPCs are frequently wrong or misinformed or gave bad advice, because they are just people in the world -- not a mouthpiece for the GM.
NPC mouthpieces make for shitty gaming, because it messes with the believability of NPCs. It's important that NPCs act correctly, because then players can make correct conclusions based on the logic of the world -- rather than reading "what does the GM want us to do".
If a dwarf acted bravely and then suddenly scared, as a player, I might question what he was up to. Maybe the dwarf is genuine, but maybe he is a traitor trying to lead us into a trap by scaring us away from the unguarded entrance. Or maybe he was mistaken in what he thought he saw.
That's gold advice I haven't specifically heard being brought much to attention
Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 02:17:55 PM
As a shorter summation:
In a team game, the referee should never twist his calls to try to target an unskilled or dumb member of a team, and make play hard for them.
If he thinks that a player is cheating - then skilled or not - he should call out that player out of game and deal with it.
I don't really see any evidence in the story that Gary did that. The encounters could have been there along, and the dumb player just muffed them
Quote from: Mishihari on September 27, 2023, 02:33:23 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 02:17:55 PM
In a team game, the referee should never twist his calls to try to target an unskilled or dumb member of a team, and make play hard for them.
If he thinks that a player is cheating - then skilled or not - he should call out that player out of game and deal with it.
I don't really see any evidence in the story that Gary did that. The encounters could have been there along, and the dumb player just muffed them
He specifically says that he would "play the encounter differently" because the PC is overpowered, though he does qualify that he still wouldn't fudge the dice rolls. From the intro:
Quote from: Gary GygaxMany DMs have asked me how I handle characters that are obviously overpowered "jumped-up" PCs that never really earned their high abilities and survive by massive hit-point total, super magic, and unearned ease in attacking with sword or spell. To such inquiries, I respond that in recognizing this sort of character I simply play the encounters a bit differently, mainly in the presentation of information, not in "fudging'* of the dice rolls for monsters. Inept players will destroy their characters without having to resort to such methods.
(emphasis mine) It's unclear to me how the play would have gone if that 13th-level PC hadn't been there. But that's on him as author. Since he's giving the advice, he should have made clear what he was doing differently.
I think the handful of you asking if Gary would've played the module differently is missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, no shit he would've played differently. He absolutely constructed a scenario to humilate that player. And that's a good thing, frankly. Bear in mind, there's very little mention of the other players or what the game was really about. This is a story of how Gygax dealt with a power-gamer. It focuses on the events of the story and not the entire game. Someone who came in with a high level character they didn't actually know how to play properly. This guy could've trolled or munchkined their way into completely destroying Gygax's campaign. I'd be annoyed at that too. The thing is, you can't just accuse people of things with no evidence. Sure Gygax could've just said "I think you cheated and fudged this character's stats" but he would've just looked like a fool with no way to prove this. Better to give that player just enough leeway to damn themselves and vindicate Gygax. If that player just knew and played their character properly nothing would've happened. This was Gary's tournament style open MMO-ish games. Multiple groups. Possibly as many as 50 players spread across different groups as a suggestion if the DMG is to be believed. All of these games happen in a shared world where players compete for glory and riches. So if someone messes that up. The whole thing can crumble. If he's letting a high level character in they better be competitive and honest. Or the hard work Gygax put into that is tarnished and his game would've been made a mockery of. It wasn't just for the sake of that player. It was a message to not cheat the DM. Earn your place. Earn your levels. Play fair or the GM won't be.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 27, 2023, 11:30:24 AM
And even if he wasn't a cheater / Timmy Powergamer type, he was so rock stupid he deserved what he got. Good grief.
Hence my signature line.
Gary did nothing wrong. I think it was a bit meta to take control of the dwarf...but he clearly did it to warn anyone listening. Ranger kid was not listening. The clay pot....cast spells on it use some detection, etc. But if you walk up to it and hit it....you failed the test (a very easy intelligence test). I do not see 4 wights as some insurmountable threat to a party of 6 level characters and likely only became a big problem when the ranger charged in solo and opened himself up to being in close quarters and surrounded by level draining undead.
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:34:15 PM
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
That was a common practice back in the day.
Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:34:15 PM
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
That was a common practice back in the day.
I know for your day to day DM. To take a stranger's sheet seemed heavy handed, but I never played in a con game back then.
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:40:22 PM
Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:34:15 PM
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
That was a common practice back in the day.
I know for your day to day DM. To take a stranger's sheet seemed heavy handed, but I never played in a con game back then.
For any GM. It was viewed as a bit of cheating to bring a dead PC into a game without clearing it with the GM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:34:15 PM
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
Taking a PC sheet has been normal up until the past 5 or 6 years. Your PC dies, the GM gets the sheet. In the original Star Wars game, it's actually written into the rules that when a PC turns to the dark side the GM takes the sheet.
Quote from: BadApple on September 27, 2023, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:34:15 PM
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
Taking a PC sheet has been normal up until the past 5 or 6 years. Your PC dies, the GM gets the sheet. In the original Star Wars game, it's actually written into the rules that when a PC turns to the dark side the GM takes the sheet.
Most newbies don't know this
And DCC has the death stamp, which is a neat take on it.
Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 05:45:13 PM
Quote from: BadApple on September 27, 2023, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:34:15 PM
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
Taking a PC sheet has been normal up until the past 5 or 6 years. Your PC dies, the GM gets the sheet. In the original Star Wars game, it's actually written into the rules that when a PC turns to the dark side the GM takes the sheet.
Most newbies don't know this
Heck, I've been playing since the 70s and had never heard of this.
Quote from: Tod13 on September 27, 2023, 06:46:36 PM
Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 05:45:13 PM
Quote from: BadApple on September 27, 2023, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 27, 2023, 04:34:15 PM
I do not in any way see where he used his supreme DM powers to do anything wrong to the kid....other than taking his sheet....that seems a little strong.
Taking a PC sheet has been normal up until the past 5 or 6 years. Your PC dies, the GM gets the sheet. In the original Star Wars game, it's actually written into the rules that when a PC turns to the dark side the GM takes the sheet.
Most newbies don't know this
Heck, I've been playing since the 70s and had never heard of this.
I run into conventions I've seen my entire life in RPGs being questioned by other long term veterans. I think there's been a lot of geographic cultural differences in how house rules have developed.
I remember that handing the character sheet back when you died was a thing at UK conventions in the early 1980s, but that was during tournament style play where each player's character sheet was given out by the referee at the start of the session - and he was likely going to use it again the next day with a different group. Never heard of a person's own character sheet being taken away by the ref.
I did know this guy who used to play Chivalry and Sorcery wherever he could find a game and insisted on using his own character in each game he found. He learned I was running a C&S game with some friends and begged me to let him join so he could get treasure for his character's projected domain play. I never understood why he didn't just play solo, or just cheat and give his character a castle and be done with it, but I guess he was dedicated to the journey.
Quote from: shoplifter on September 27, 2023, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 01:02:43 PM
Exactly. Instead of acting like an Adult, Gary wanted to make an example of him by acting all passive aggressive, pretending everything was OK, and then whipping out his DM dong.
He should have just told the guy his character was too high level compared to the rest of the group. Assuming the story wasn't creatively embellished for Dragon Magazine in the first place.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/035/410/Screen_Shot_2020-10-05_at_11.51.58_AM.png)
Nothing at you personally. I'm sorry if you got that impression.
Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 02:04:28 PM
If a dwarf acted bravely and then suddenly scared, as a player, I might question what he was up to. Maybe the dwarf is genuine, but maybe he is a traitor trying to lead us into a trap by scaring us away from the unguarded entrance. Or maybe he was mistaken in what he thought he saw.
Yep. Every door in a dungeon is potentially dangerous. Either in what's on the other side, or even the door itself. The Dungeon (TM) is a perilous place by design. Someone being scared of what's behind it is far too vague. It might be he's afraid of rats and saw a mouse turd.
A boiling pot? Man, everything in a Gygax dungeon is a trap of some kind. Better off staying home and farming gong.
That's why my advice would be to simply talk to the player like an adult. His game got twisted and adversarial and I wouldn't trust the DM in that situation to be fair or impartial.
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 27, 2023, 06:31:44 PM
And DCC has the death stamp, which is a neat take on it.
I always took that as a joke. But probably a joke with a kernal of truth, in that old school killer DM vein.
Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 12:31:22 PM
I had thought that the dwarf was an NPC, since the GM was controlling him.
I don't know. I've never read the article before. I'm just going by what's posted here. There could be an error due to the scan-to-text. I see a couple of errors for sure in the OP. Fudging, in quotes, has an apostrophe asterisk instead of the close quote. Towards the end, a word that's clearly supposed to be 'it' shows up as 'ft'.
On first read, I thought it was an NPC dwarf also. But before I replied, I double checked to make sure I wasn't just assuming. The line is: "a bold dwarf broke off and opened a nearby door. Rather than telling the
player what he saw, I told the players this:" Emphasis mine.
If the dwarf is an NPC, why would Gary have to tell the dwarf's player what he saw? This is pretty clearly saying the dwarf was a PC.
If the scan-to-text dropped an s and the word should really be players, then, sure, I could interpret that line as "Rather than [as the dwarf] telling the players what he saw. . ." But I could also interpret the plural as Gary telling the whole table, rather than slipping a note or taking that one player aside. With the s, it's ambiguous. Without the s, I'm not seeing how this is an NPC.
QuoteIf the dwarf was a PC, then on what grounds does the GM get to snatch the PC away from player control and decide what the PC dwarf says and does? The GM plays the world, he doesn't get to decide what the PCs do. Wights don't have a Fear effect. The dwarf player should be able to decide for himself what he does when he sees the wights, and what he tells the other players.
In actual authentic old school play, the GM can do anything, period. Whether the GM should is a different question. The fact is there doesn't need to be any special grounds. That's more of a modern theory-wank conceit that we draw lines so neatly and without exception.
I would point out, though, that if what happened to the ranger happened to the dwarf, who was mid-level (say 6th), being drained of 4 levels, leaving him with the hit points of a 2nd level character, then applying the actual damage of the Wight attack might have killed the dwarf. And there's no expectation that the players get to control dead characters. Nor is it rare that a GM might rule a less-harsh outcome, softening what would have killed the character to merely forcing the character to flee. And why not? The game does have subdual damage. Characters and creatures can attack with an intent other than to kill.
QuoteI'm not familiar with Hall of Many Panes. What is the example of a barbarian acting brashly?
There's not much more to it than what I described. The main idea is that sometimes a player might choose something that is tactically foolish in the interest of role-playing the character, such as one playing a barbarian who chooses to charge brashly because that's what the character would do. And if that's the case, he advises the GM to take it easy on the character.
He also had written right into the module mechanisms for bringing characters back. In Hall of Many Panes, there is a prankster god that's pulling the strings behind the scenes, and so in the event of a TPK, he'll bring the entire party back to life. He gives them a bit of a lecture, calls them foolish, but says that foolishness has amused him, and making it clear next time he won't be so nice.
You can like this stuff or not. The point is not in any of the minutia. I was refuting the claim that he's harsh in how he ran the game.
Quote from: King Tyranno on September 27, 2023, 09:24:16 AM
Now let's all make a huge mistake and go on over to Reddit. Specifically r/RPG
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/16sj06l/looking_for_an_old_article_by_gary_gygax/
The amount of people completely dismissing Gygax's legacy and using this story as proof he was an awful DM is depressing. Lots of the usual words thrown around. "Gatekeeping" "Exclusionary" that kind of thing. It really does show how entitled certain RPG players have gotten. They see the idea of challenge and failing challenge as a personal attack on them. Not their characters As if losing a few levels and handing your sheet to the GM means you can't even play RPGs anymore or the spectre of gross chud neckbeards will materialize to boot you out of the game shop. It's become a huge problem where RPG players just see their characters as avatars of themselves. And thus all consequences on their character are consequences and judgements on them in real life. Absolutely bizarre and foreign behaviour.
I rarely even glance at Reddit unless someone points me at something or it turns up in a search.
Overall the people on say r/DnD are overall reasonable. With the occasional flare-ups of ruthless stupid.
There is a woke faction lingering there that despises Gygax and loves to cherry pick anything they can to "prove" what a horrible "-ist" he was for things like daring to have rules where women are not as strong starting off as men. GASP!
And so on ad nausium.
Theres also a hate group on Reddit that just makes up alot of the worst stories and will go after about anything D&D when they arent being passive/aggressive pathetic.
The SJWhiners are fading away. Slowly but surely they're realizing nobody cares about their BS worldview.
r/rpg is for all intents and purposes completely irrelevant in the hobby.
While it seems to be a huge community (1.5 millions of subscribers) the actual active contributors are at most...... 1.5 thousands, mainly from the USA (active users spike up from around 12:00 - 13:00 UTC, early morning in the US East coast) and plummets to about 3 or 4 hundreds before that (morning and early noon in Europe and Africa).
Moreover, that place is practically brigaded by forgies, storygamers and math-challenged people that consider second grade arithmetic "too crunchy". The shilling for PbtA, FitD and generally rules light player-facing crap that goes on there is absolutely staggering.
TL;DR: the probability that whatever's coming up on r/rpg is crap is near 100%.
Hmmm. First time I've ever seen that Gygax story, but in all honesty...fuck that kid. I used to see people like that all the time when I was in high school and college. They'd show up to games with obviously fake ass characters and act like they were totally legit. Yes, you absolutely rolled 6 straight 18s, totally believe you. I do remember one instance where one of those clowns had some sort of fighter with a 19 STR (UA elf maybe?) and a whole bunch of other nonsense, the DM just rolled with it even though he knew the truth. Guy got killed in the first encounter because he was a complete moron and did some really dumb stuff. He never showed up to any of the games after that.
Alternative story...I was running AD&D, one of my buddies rolled up a fighter with an 18/XX STR legitimately when we were generating characters. Overall, some of the best stats I've ever seen. Party finds a sarcophagus and he just opens it willy-nilly, level drained by a wight and dies. He wasn't even playing stupidly, it was just a bit of carelessness on his part, but lesson learned. In the 15+ years since, he never opens up coffins without a cleric nearby.
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
The only thing Gygax did that I would not have is the bit with the dwarf. Unless there is an in game reason such as magical hokey pokey, the hard and fast rule is the DM gets the whole world. The PC is strictly for the player. Other than that I think letting a player bring about the the demise of their PC through sheer stupidity is a fine practice with a glorious history.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 09:17:47 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 27, 2023, 06:31:44 PM
And DCC has the death stamp, which is a neat take on it.
I always took that as a joke. But probably a joke with a kernal of truth, in that old school killer DM vein.
Joke or not, I've had sheets stamped and I done the stamping. Remarkably, it does bring some closure. Plus writing in the cause of death is fun, reminds me of Nethack and other games with tombstones.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 09:05:32 PM
Nothing at you personally. I'm sorry if you got that impression.
Ha, no. I realized after the fact my intent would have been more clear if I had shopped Gary's head on there!
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 28, 2023, 07:42:46 AM
The only thing Gygax did that I would not have is the bit with the dwarf. Unless there is an in game reason such as magical hokey pokey,
Agreed. Unless there is magical compulsion the player controls the PC.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 28, 2023, 07:42:46 AM
The only thing Gygax did that I would not have is the bit with the dwarf. Unless there is an in game reason such as magical hokey pokey, the hard and fast rule is the DM gets the whole world. The PC is strictly for the player. Other than that I think letting a player bring about the the demise of their PC through sheer stupidity is a fine practice with a glorious history.
There's no telling how Gygax actually handled the situation at the time (if it happened, he could be making it up) but there are ways to make it work without stomping on player agency. I like to slip a player a note. I find that players love to go along with secrets or building up big events.
>:( Actions having Consequences is Systemic Oppression! Also fire should be shamed for repeatedly burning me when I touch it! :'(
Honestly, yeah I'm not surprised. Forget it, Jake, it's RedditTown. Like Mainstream Media and Controversy, Social Media substitutes Hyperventilation for Breathing. It's not real people discussing real ideas, it's paid performers desperate to distract your attention.
I think most people willing to game won't give much care to Gygax not hand-holding a likely cheater as they make repeated bad choices into a Game Over. The kids these days nearly rejoice at that consequence with the rejoinder, "Get Good, Noob." This sounds like the extremely negligible populace of terminally poutraged running low on their shame-spiral dopamine hit.
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 28, 2023, 08:46:12 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 27, 2023, 09:17:47 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 27, 2023, 06:31:44 PM
And DCC has the death stamp, which is a neat take on it.
I always took that as a joke. But probably a joke with a kernal of truth, in that old school killer DM vein.
Joke or not, I've had sheets stamped and I done the stamping. Remarkably, it does bring some closure. Plus writing in the cause of death is fun, reminds me of Nethack and other games with tombstones.
Hopefully none of your PCs ever died from dysentery :)
Quote from: Yitzhak Marxx on September 27, 2023, 11:59:05 AM
Was taking the killed pc's sheet as a trophy the norm? I hope it was... Imagine having a sheet cemetery, separations for the worthy and for the unwise, etc...
It was common, and moreover, it made sense.
Let me explain.
In those days you had multiple DMs, and multiple games, and you as a player would take your character between them -- these different games would all be canon to your character; what you win in one game you can take along with your character. In a sense they all take place in one overarching world.
So naturally if you die, you take that too -- the character is dead for good. They take the sheet so you can't just continue on.
To my mind, the big question isn't what happens to the one player. It's about what kind of game it is for everyone else. What has the DM conveyed about what the game is?
For me as GM, if I don't want the player bringing in his 13th level ranger, I'll just say "I don't want you bringing in that 13th level ranger". Boom. Done. I'm not going to waste everyone's time - and snatch control of other PCs - just to kill off that one PC.
If I was another player at that table, it sounds un-fun to watch the DM dragging it out when he obviously has it out to kill that PC.
---
Quote from: King Tyranno on September 27, 2023, 03:36:17 PM
I think the handful of you asking if Gary would've played the module differently is missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, no shit he would've played differently. pb[He absolutely constructed a scenario to humilate that player.[/b] And that's a good thing, frankly. Bear in mind, there's very little mention of the other players or what the game was really about. This is a story of how Gygax dealt with a power-gamer. Someone who came in with a high level character they didn't actually know how to play properly. This guy could've trolled or munchkined their way into completely destroying Gygax's campaign.
First of all, if this is true, I think your title for the thread is inaccurate. If as a DM, I construct a scenario specifically to humiliate a player, then the result isn't "natural consequences". It's what I chose to do to him.
Quote from: King Tyranno on September 27, 2023, 03:36:17 PM
The thing is, you can't just accuse people of things with no evidence. Sure Gygax could've just said "I think you cheated and fudged this character's stats" but he would've just looked like a fool with no way to prove this. Better to give that player just enough leeway to damn themselves and vindicate Gygax. If that player just knew and played their character properly nothing would've happened.
As DM, I can do whatever I fucking like. I don't have to say that the player cheated -- I can just not allow that PC in.
I started playing in my pre-teens in the late 1970s, but I only started going to convention tournaments in the mid-1980s. By that time, all the tournaments I played had pregenerated characters. To my mind, it makes no fucking sense to let in whatever a player has written on their sheet.
I am curious. What if the player had been moderately skilled? i.e. Not grossly dumb, but roughly average compared to the other players. Do you think Gygax should then have let him had a 13th level ranger, and treated him the same as the others?
Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2023, 07:04:43 PM
To my mind, the big question isn't what happens to the one player. It's about what kind of game it is for everyone else. What has the DM conveyed about what the game is?
For me as GM, if I don't want the player bringing in his 13th level ranger, I'll just say "I don't want you bringing in that 13th level ranger". Boom. Done. I'm not going to waste everyone's time - and snatch control of other PCs - just to kill off that one PC.
If I was another player at that table, it sounds un-fun to watch the DM dragging it out when he obviously has it out to kill that PC.
But if you said that, while allowing others, the natural outcome would be the player protesting your decision and asking why you're excluding him for no reason.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on September 28, 2023, 06:00:20 PM
In those days you had multiple DMs, and multiple games, and you as a player would take your character between them -- these different games would all be canon to your character; what you win in one game you can take along with your character. In a sense they all take place in one overarching world.
.
No, most DMs didn't allow that as power levels and magic items levels were different. Mostly a DM would edit a PC that came from elsewhere.
I've got mixed feelings about it. I'd have told the player to level down to seventh for the adventure or make a new seventh level character entirely. What would he have done if the player had been "competent" or at least really good at using the rules to do things? As it is, I think he alienated a player and comes off looking a bit like a dick. That's okay, being a bit of a dick is part of his reputation. People sitting at his table should be a bit offended if he ain't. After all, he's Gary Gygax and I'm not.
One of the reasons I love Rolemaster Standard System is that broken characters can die as easily as the next guy. You really have to treat any threat as potentially life threatening. I had some players think I was a killer GM because my wife's character took an arrow to the femoral artery this one time and I didn't fudge it. A friendly necromancer arrived to heal her after the fight, to me that's still a bit fudgy even if the fudge had some strings attatched. There was also this time a Paladin tried to hunt a moose with a War Mattock and wound up with broken ribs through his lungs. A kindly druid showed up and healed him but it created a rift in his relationship with the paladin's own patron diety.
I guess I'm saying I wouldn't have killed off the character but I might have done the rest of it, I think, maybe.
Quote from: Scooter on September 28, 2023, 07:09:26 PM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on September 28, 2023, 06:00:20 PM
In those days you had multiple DMs, and multiple games, and you as a player would take your character between them -- these different games would all be canon to your character; what you win in one game you can take along with your character. In a sense they all take place in one overarching world.
.
No, most DMs didn't allow that as power levels and magic items levels were different. Mostly a DM would edit a PC that came from elsewhere.
Then why didn't Gygax just do that?
Quote from: David Johansen on September 28, 2023, 07:40:04 PM
I guess I'm saying I wouldn't have killed off the character but I might have done the rest of it, I think, maybe.
Gary didn't kill off the character. I don't know why people on this thread keep saying that.
Quote from: Brad on September 28, 2023, 06:36:16 AM
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
Pfft. No. I've had a raging tall-tale-er and a min/maxxer in my play group. (School chums from back in the day.)
One day the tall-tale-er came to a new campaign with a character he rolled up away from the table. He got straight 18's! We all laughed and I said "If you can roll straight 18's, you can do it again while I'm looking." And then he made a real character and we got on with the game.
Min/maxxers are a bit harder to deal wtih. They usually play honestly, but squeeze the game for every fractional percentage of power. I did appreciate the guy because he was also into the RP aspect, and wasn't an ass about powergaming. Dude put some of my homebrews through the paces. Dealing with that player was where I learned not to try and out-game the powergamer. That just leads to an arms race of tactics and strategy that leaves the other players in the dust. That kind of attitude is best left to the wargames and board games and not an RPG.
I've dealt with my share of powergamers and problem gamers and gamers who have a bad night and act like jackasses. The best reaction is, like I've been saying, act like a flippin adult, tell them what the problem is, and either help them correct it, or have them take a game off.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2023, 08:57:48 PM
Quote from: Brad on September 28, 2023, 06:36:16 AM
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
Pfft. No. I've had a raging tall-tale-er and a min/maxxer in my play group. (School chums from back in the day.)
One day the tall-tale-er came to a new campaign with a character he rolled up away from the table. He got straight 18's! We all laughed and I said "If you can roll straight 18's, you can do it again while I'm looking." And then he made a real character and we got on with the game.
Min/maxxers are a bit harder to deal wtih. They usually play honestly, but squeeze the game for every fractional percentage of power. I did appreciate the guy because he was also into the RP aspect, and wasn't an ass about powergaming. Dude put some of my homebrews through the paces. Dealing with that player was where I learned not to try and out-game the powergamer. That just leads to an arms race of tactics and strategy that leaves the other players in the dust. That kind of attitude is best left to the wargames and board games and not an RPG.
I've dealt with my share of powergamers and problem gamers and gamers who have a bad night and act like jackasses. The best reaction is, like I've been saying, act like a flippin adult, tell them what the problem is, and either help them correct it, or have them take a game off.
How did you deal with the powergamer instead of arms racing? Did you just tell them to dial it back?
Quote from: David Johansen on September 28, 2023, 07:40:04 PM
I've got mixed feelings about it. I'd have told the player to level down to seventh for the adventure or make a new seventh level character entirely. What would he have done if the player had been "competent" or at least really good at using the rules to do things? As it is, I think he alienated a player and comes off looking a bit like a dick. That's okay, being a bit of a dick is part of his reputation. People sitting at his table should be a bit offended if he ain't. After all, he's Gary Gygax and I'm not.
One of the reasons I love Rolemaster Standard System is that broken characters can die as easily as the next guy. You really have to treat any threat as potentially life threatening. I had some players think I was a killer GM because my wife's character took an arrow to the femoral artery this one time and I didn't fudge it. A friendly necromancer arrived to heal her after the fight, to me that's still a bit fudgy even if the fudge had some strings attatched. There was also this time a Paladin tried to hunt a moose with a War Mattock and wound up with broken ribs through his lungs. A kindly druid showed up and healed him but it created a rift in his relationship with the paladin's own patron diety.
I guess I'm saying I wouldn't have killed off the character but I might have done the rest of it, I think, maybe.
The player killed his own character out of sheer stupidity. All Gary did here was hand the player some rope. It was the player who hanged himself. As far as Rolemaster goes, it is hard for playing skill to make as much of a difference when getting killed can happen at the whim of a table at any moment. In a D&D combat, using good tactics and being able to withdraw from a battle when things are not looking so good help with character survival. In Rolemaster the players can use good tactics, be winning the battle and out of the blue a random PC is shot through both ears, killed instantly and earwax removed. Heckin the Rolemaster universe I am surprised that there are any sentient beings on the planet left as deadly as it is to just to go outside. Regular kids would never get old enough to reproduce. Little Timmy was out back playing with the dog. He tried jumping over a small dry creek bed, tripped over an invisible deceased turtle, crushed his skull and died. Poor Timmy. Now I know that classic D&D is very lethal at low levels as well, but at the very least you can generate a new character in 15 minutes and get back in the game.
I don't know what you're talking about, the imaginary deceased turtle isn't even on the moving maneuver table. :D
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on September 28, 2023, 08:59:19 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2023, 08:57:48 PM
Quote from: Brad on September 28, 2023, 06:36:16 AM
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
Pfft. No. I've had a raging tall-tale-er and a min/maxxer in my play group. (School chums from back in the day.)
One day the tall-tale-er came to a new campaign with a character he rolled up away from the table. He got straight 18's! We all laughed and I said "If you can roll straight 18's, you can do it again while I'm looking." And then he made a real character and we got on with the game.
Min/maxxers are a bit harder to deal wtih. They usually play honestly, but squeeze the game for every fractional percentage of power. I did appreciate the guy because he was also into the RP aspect, and wasn't an ass about powergaming. Dude put some of my homebrews through the paces. Dealing with that player was where I learned not to try and out-game the powergamer. That just leads to an arms race of tactics and strategy that leaves the other players in the dust. That kind of attitude is best left to the wargames and board games and not an RPG.
I've dealt with my share of powergamers and problem gamers and gamers who have a bad night and act like jackasses. The best reaction is, like I've been saying, act like a flippin adult, tell them what the problem is, and either help them correct it, or have them take a game off.
How did you deal with the powergamer instead of arms racing? Did you just tell them to dial it back?
He was an ok guy. I could say "This campaign is X and Y, please don't make uber characters that break things." And he would smile and understand, and be good.
But I also like to meet the powergamers halfway. Like having The Mandalorian in a party. The competent character who kicks butt and has the appropriate weapon for every occasion. Give them their victories. It's just a damn game. :)
I have absolutely no problem with a min/maxer if they own the whole character. If they are willing to do so, I'll lean into it. RPGs are a team game, combat isn't the whole game, and even Green Berets aren't bullet proof. If you're going to play the tough guy, you're always the tough guy. You do not get to pull cowardly shit at the expense of your teammates.
I always throw things at the players that are way stronger than the PCs. (I tell players this before the campaign starts.) It's up to them to solve the issue. Diplomacy, retreat, subterfuge, and guile are always encouraged. This often times means that the min/maxer is the distraction or bait while the rest of the party drops a boulder from the cliff onto the giant's head. (If they play smart, otherwise they are all just meat flavored jelly.)
Now this post and it's subsequent replies is why I should come here more. Just sitting here trapped at work and this post just BOOM in my mind as in my younger days, I was sometimes that player that the DM asked, are you sure you wanna do that?
Infinitely based Gygax, making redditors seethe years after his passing.
Quote from: reddit soyjacksnnnnooooo that cheater should have gotten away with it nnnnnnooooo
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2023, 08:57:48 PM
Quote from: Brad on September 28, 2023, 06:36:16 AM
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
Pfft. No. I've had a raging tall-tale-er and a min/maxxer in my play group. (School chums from back in the day.)
One day the tall-tale-er came to a new campaign with a character he rolled up away from the table. He got straight 18's! We all laughed and I said "If you can roll straight 18's, you can do it again while I'm looking." And then he made a real character and we got on with the game.
Min/maxxers are a bit harder to deal wtih. They usually play honestly, but squeeze the game for every fractional percentage of power. I did appreciate the guy because he was also into the RP aspect, and wasn't an ass about powergaming. Dude put some of my homebrews through the paces. Dealing with that player was where I learned not to try and out-game the powergamer. That just leads to an arms race of tactics and strategy that leaves the other players in the dust. That kind of attitude is best left to the wargames and board games and not an RPG.
I've dealt with my share of powergamers and problem gamers and gamers who have a bad night and act like jackasses. The best reaction is, like I've been saying, act like a flippin adult, tell them what the problem is, and either help them correct it, or have them take a game off.
You're talking about a reasonable person, then. Real Men and Loonies or whatever the hell that thing was...we all know what "munchkins" are and they deserve only death. A dude who games the system a bit but dials it back when asked is probably just someone with system mastery, which is a completely different thing.
Quote from: Brad on October 01, 2023, 08:26:13 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2023, 08:57:48 PM
Quote from: Brad on September 28, 2023, 06:36:16 AM
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
Pfft. No. I've had a raging tall-tale-er and a min/maxxer in my play group. (School chums from back in the day.)
One day the tall-tale-er came to a new campaign with a character he rolled up away from the table. He got straight 18's! We all laughed and I said "If you can roll straight 18's, you can do it again while I'm looking." And then he made a real character and we got on with the game.
Min/maxxers are a bit harder to deal wtih. They usually play honestly, but squeeze the game for every fractional percentage of power. I did appreciate the guy because he was also into the RP aspect, and wasn't an ass about powergaming. Dude put some of my homebrews through the paces. Dealing with that player was where I learned not to try and out-game the powergamer. That just leads to an arms race of tactics and strategy that leaves the other players in the dust. That kind of attitude is best left to the wargames and board games and not an RPG.
I've dealt with my share of powergamers and problem gamers and gamers who have a bad night and act like jackasses. The best reaction is, like I've been saying, act like a flippin adult, tell them what the problem is, and either help them correct it, or have them take a game off.
You're talking about a reasonable person, then. Real Men and Loonies or whatever the hell that thing was...we all know what "munchkins" are and they deserve only death. A dude who games the system a bit but dials it back when asked is probably just someone with system mastery, which is a completely different thing.
Completely different? They both spring from system mastery. Munchkins are simply system masters without the sense to not be obnoxious about it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:43:53 PM
Completely different? They both spring from system mastery. Munchkins are simply system masters without the sense to not be obnoxious about it.
Nahh, munchkins are vile demons who deserve to be cast into the deepest pit of Hell. Plenty of munchkins have no idea how to actually play the game, and thus cheat their asses off as needed.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:43:53 PM
Completely different? They both spring from system mastery. Munchkins are simply system masters without the sense to not be obnoxious about it.
This is why I like something like C&C. Nothing the player can really do to "game the system".
Quote from: Brad on October 01, 2023, 08:26:13 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2023, 08:57:48 PM
Quote from: Brad on September 28, 2023, 06:36:16 AM
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
Pfft. No. I've had a raging tall-tale-er and a min/maxxer in my play group. (School chums from back in the day.)
One day the tall-tale-er came to a new campaign with a character he rolled up away from the table. He got straight 18's! We all laughed and I said "If you can roll straight 18's, you can do it again while I'm looking." And then he made a real character and we got on with the game.
Min/maxxers are a bit harder to deal wtih. They usually play honestly, but squeeze the game for every fractional percentage of power. I did appreciate the guy because he was also into the RP aspect, and wasn't an ass about powergaming. Dude put some of my homebrews through the paces. Dealing with that player was where I learned not to try and out-game the powergamer. That just leads to an arms race of tactics and strategy that leaves the other players in the dust. That kind of attitude is best left to the wargames and board games and not an RPG.
I've dealt with my share of powergamers and problem gamers and gamers who have a bad night and act like jackasses. The best reaction is, like I've been saying, act like a flippin adult, tell them what the problem is, and either help them correct it, or have them take a game off.
You're talking about a reasonable person, then. Real Men and Loonies or whatever the hell that thing was...we all know what "munchkins" are and they deserve only death. A dude who games the system a bit but dials it back when asked is probably just someone with system mastery, which is a completely different thing.
You're thinking of 'Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins'.
The first three are manageable, though they may derail your game in different (albeit entertaining) ways. The last is someone to be kicked to the curb.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 02, 2023, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: Brad on October 01, 2023, 08:26:13 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2023, 08:57:48 PM
Quote from: Brad on September 28, 2023, 06:36:16 AM
Anyway, anyone complaining about how Gygax handled this has never actually played/run games with a munchkin/powergamer OR they are in fact that player themselves.
Pfft. No. I've had a raging tall-tale-er and a min/maxxer in my play group. (School chums from back in the day.)
One day the tall-tale-er came to a new campaign with a character he rolled up away from the table. He got straight 18's! We all laughed and I said "If you can roll straight 18's, you can do it again while I'm looking." And then he made a real character and we got on with the game.
Min/maxxers are a bit harder to deal wtih. They usually play honestly, but squeeze the game for every fractional percentage of power. I did appreciate the guy because he was also into the RP aspect, and wasn't an ass about powergaming. Dude put some of my homebrews through the paces. Dealing with that player was where I learned not to try and out-game the powergamer. That just leads to an arms race of tactics and strategy that leaves the other players in the dust. That kind of attitude is best left to the wargames and board games and not an RPG.
I've dealt with my share of powergamers and problem gamers and gamers who have a bad night and act like jackasses. The best reaction is, like I've been saying, act like a flippin adult, tell them what the problem is, and either help them correct it, or have them take a game off.
You're talking about a reasonable person, then. Real Men and Loonies or whatever the hell that thing was...we all know what "munchkins" are and they deserve only death. A dude who games the system a bit but dials it back when asked is probably just someone with system mastery, which is a completely different thing.
You're thinking of 'Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins'.
The first three are manageable, though they may derail your game in different (albeit entertaining) ways. The last is someone to be kicked to the curb.
Personally I've only ever seen people be Munchkins with crunchy systems heavy games like DnD 3.5, 4E and Pathfinder. You don't actually need all that much intelligence IRL to subvert those games. You're just taking advantage of the systems and it's oversights. If I'm playing something like B/X or other more rules light games Munchkin bullshit starts to decrease. You'll still see it in something like Star Wars D6 but you have more options to curtail it. Like banning Jedi or lowering the amount of points to spend in character generation. But Munchkin rubbish is a big reason why I run away from crunchy games. The most foolproof way to stop it is to do something along the lines of what Gary did. You're not actively harming the PCs. You're enabling them to create the natural consequences of their actions. I don't see why that's a bad thing that makes Gary Gygax into a heckin gross fascist.
Quote from: King Tyranno on October 08, 2023, 10:14:04 AM
Personally I've only ever seen people be Munchkins with crunchy systems heavy games like DnD 3.5, 4E and Pathfinder. You don't actually need all that much intelligence IRL to subvert those games. You're just taking advantage of the systems and it's oversights. If I'm playing something like B/X or other more rules light games Munchkin bullshit starts to decrease.
Totally agree. I have never seen it accomplished with the C&C games I've run. Probably because it is not crunchy and is designed towards roll playing and not "builds" and similar mechanics.