The excellent Icar free rpg has a funny little webcomic which goes with it. That was one that caught my attention. It's something I really hate in game sessions, the GM vs players vs players. "Aha! You have figured out a way to deal with this challenge! I shall make the challenge BIGGER! Mwahaha!" Don't we ever get to just win?

Some people blame D&D, but the truth is that even GMs who've never played or liked D&D do this. And it creates the sort of play you see above. "The NPC is not being reasonable, won't compromise. Oh well let's just kill him." And then of course there's the thing where the players make a plan and actually conceal that plan from the GM until they're ready to launch it - why? So the GM can't counter that plan, they'll be caught by surprise.

I've seen this a lot over the years, and I've always hated it. The GM presents you with overwhelming force - say, a small army with a base. The PCs respond by a cunning plan - get a helicopter working, make fertiliser keg bombs, and bomb the ammo dump at the base. The GM responds by upping the power level - "Aha! Actually they have a helicopter gunship, they remove the tarpaulin from the back of a truck and there it is! The rotors start to turn..."

Sometimes this leads to the players going against each-other, too. If the GM is stingy and always upping the power level of the opponents, then the players naturally become stingy with in-game resources. So for example if another PC is asleep, well then he misses out on the treasure, doesn't he?

And then everything becomes stupid and boring. I hate this kind of play, even though I'm good at it (because I come up with the ideas that make up for the lack of PC power). I just think computer games do this much better. The whole point of doing roleplaying games is that you get people with human inteligence. A computer just ups the power level of opponents because it's too stupid to do anything else. A person should be able to come up with something smarter. How about, say - raising complications, not raising higher obstacles?

I don't know, really, I'm just thinking aloud here. What do you lot reckon?

Edit: corrected Icar link

I live for my players to be clever and outwit their opponents, unfortunately that doesn't happen often enough for me.

What you are describing sounds like "dickhead" gming to me Kyle.

Regards,
David R

Got to agree with David. A game should be challenging. But the players need to be able to succeed. Especially when they come up with something you dont expect.

(By the way the Icar link doesnt work for me.)

A competition where one side has an overwhelming advantage in power and position?  Yeah, that sounds like a tricky thing to get right.

It's really bad when the advantaged side uses that advantage ruthlessly, so that the competition turns into a continual low-level slaughter.

It's much better when the advantaged side deliberately holds back ... applying a sort of "handicap" to their power so as to make a level playing field.  Personally, as a GM, I find managing that handicap to be a bit of a strain ("How much challenge is too much?  If I let the players win now will they feel that they've earned it?") but with a skillful GM the experience for the players is identical to an actually fair contest, and that's cool.

I like actually fair contests, where the GM doesn't have to handicap himself, but that's a fairly narrow niche that only a few people seem turned on by.  :idunno:

Hey Kyle, thanks for the enormous plug! I'm glad you like Icar (you have to putt http:// on the front of your links). The cartoon, of course, is a homage to Richard Burlew's excellent Order of the Stick (very highly recommended).

I too hate the player vs GM play where it goes beyond banter. Often I find that my players want to do something completely insane and they might say in the spirit of banter and good nature: "A ha! Bet you didn't expect that!". Reg (the bald one) is taking a slightly more sinister approach, something that I know happens in some gaming groups where the players and GMs are brought together not because they are mates but because there are scarcely enough players to run a regular game. It's a sure sign that the group really shouldn't be together.

QuoteSo for example if another PC is asleep, well then he misses out on the treasure, doesn't he?

If the players are playing a set of run-of-the-mill characters, I can see this as being madness. I once ran a group of entirely devious and scheming bastards. They stole from each other and worked around each other all the time. It was different then, though, because it was characters doing that to each other rather than the players metagaming.

Oddly enough, the next strip I have half completed runs a similar theme to this. I like the idea that the characters might be cynical about their place in what they don't realise is a fictional universe!

Many thanks again!

Quote from: TonyLBIt's really bad when the advantaged side uses that advantage ruthlessly, so that the competition turns into a continual low-level slaughter.

I know - I lose more cool NPCs that way. Dang players!

-clash

Quote from: David RWhat you are describing sounds like "dickhead" gming to me Kyle.

Regards,
David R

Been in that situation more than a few times myself. Most memorable one was a game where everything we did the GM turned into an epic level challenge, for no apparent game reason.
"I buy a newspaper"
"The Newsagent refuses to sell you a newspaper unless you can answer the following riddles, whilst playing a harmonica and standing on your head."
".....Fine. I go to another newsagent."
"Ha! The doors lock and ten thousand ninja security guards appear and refuse to let you leave!"
"Ooookay. I put on my sunglasses, smile and reach into my jacket -"
"HA!! The entire Police Cyberswat division rappel in through the skylight and tell you it's illegal to wear sunglasses, smile or have a cool looking jacket in this part of the city!!"

My response to these GMs is "You win." and walk away from the game.

I think that if you're going to do your damnedest to thwart the players, it's best to be fair about it. That means not introducing deus ex machina, ad hoc reinforcements, improbable self-favouring events or otherwise abusing your demiurgic ability as GM. I think it's fair to use elements that have been introduced already or foreshadowed, even if the PCs don't expect them, to use plausible reinforcements and twists, and even to occasionally assume the villain has prepared for their actions. The boundaries of what things are what should be worked out by each individual group, depending on the players, the game and the mood, and the style.

On a similar line, the latest strip...

I despise that paradigm of gaming.  Oddly enough, one of my old favourites -- Cyberpunk 2020 -- was particularly encouraging of it, especially if you read the Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads sourcebook.

KoOS