Quote from: jibbajibba;757838...doing it really loudly as they are about to charge a dragon and saying "No you don't do that" is Unforgiveable. ...

Unforgiveable?  Really?  A less than perfect action during a game of make-believe is somehow a mortal sin or something???

Quote from: Brander;757843Unforgiveable?  Really?  A less than perfect action during a game of make-believe is somehow a mortal sin or something???

Nope, hence I raise my eyebrow so the smart or experienced ones understand Johanna is about to drop the hammer....we better rethink this. The thing is gaming isn't about winning it's about fun because in the end the DM can ALWAYS win.

Quote from: Brander;757842The so-called "adults" you are describing don't exist as far as my experiences go.

Sorry to hear that.    

Quote from: Brander;757842At a minimum everyone has bad nights.  From my perspective you are saying:  "No gaming is better than less than perfect gaming."

Nope, surprising I know, but I am using the words I wish to.  I'm saying no gaming is better than bad gaming.  If I have to tell players dragons are deadly, or that they shouldn't goose the Queen of England, or shouldn't tell a Mob Boss to go fuck himself in his own headquarters, then those players are so poor, then that is bad gaming.

A player forgetting something because it's been a long week or it's getting late is one thing.  Charging a platoon of orcs when you're three low level characters isn't even in the same city, let alone ballpark.

Quote from: Brander;757842I've never met players that would fit your criteria consistently.

Since my actual criteria is something very different from the voice in your head, I doubt it, but if you're correct, again, sorry to hear it, sucks to be you.

Quote from: Brander;757842I play with fallible human beings not super gaming robots.

If having the thought cross into your head that "Hmm, since one Owlbear almost killed us all, maybe we want to heal before we risk running into another one by entering its lair." qualifies as a "super gaming robot" to you, then maybe the problem wasn't your players after all.

Quote from: Brander;757842I'm also willing to overlook/tolerate the quirks of my friends.

That's really what this whole show is about, you have friends who just suck as players, but you decided to adjust the game to them because they're friends.  Cool, we all make sacrifices for friends.

Not sure why you can't just man up and admit it though, and had to start this whole bullshit pretense about "so-called players", "gaming robots" and insinuations that I don't play with friends.

I do play with friends and they're not spastic rampaging idiots when they play.  They're not professional gamers, or robots, and they have a lot of fun, they just don't choose to do it by being a Monty Python character on LSD.  Sorry.

Quote from: Marleycat;757845Nope, hence I raise my eyebrow so the smart or experienced ones understand Johanna is about to drop the hammer....we better rethink this. The thing is gaming isn't about winning it's about fun because in the end the DM can ALWAYS win.

Agreed, although absolutely NOONE in this thread ever mentioned the DM winning.  It is about fun, and I have players who like to roleplay, which means God doesn't stop time to tell them they're being idiots.  They find that out the same way we do, by fucking up and learning.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757848Agreed, although absolutely NOONE in this thread ever mentioned the DM winning.  It is about fun, and I have players who like to roleplay, which means God doesn't stop time to tell them they're being idiots.  They find that out the same way we do, by fucking up and learning.

We have different methods for the same end results is all. Not actual disagreement about  the actual issue as far as I see.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757792Total and complete strawman.  One owlbear almost tears a party a new one, it's "guess the DM's thinking" to consider that maybe going into it's lair you might find another one or more and that might not be the best idea since the party is messed up?  That's called not being a total idiot.

Reading comprehension: The GM stopped play because the GM judged that was a breach of paladinhood to willfully engage another high lethality battle with such a crippled party. Considering it is rather reckless and arguably more passionate than logical, thus perhaps chaotic in the GM's eyes, to charge right in knowing what the character would know, it is completely and totally relevant. Surprising people with a stripped class is something that breeds "swine" level of player resentment — and the world can do without another sharing-the-speaking-stick heartbreaker for awhile.

That requires informing the player that his act would be a notable and obvious breach from the character's POV. Thus the player should be informed instead of guessing the defined moral boundaries of his class, as per GM conception. So no, you are absolutely and completely wrong, as you are focused on the combat, not the real clarification and confirmation challenge here, the risk to class status itself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757792Who the heck do you play with on a regular basis, whoever rolls into the FLGS on game day?

I believe your own example was something like charge forward and attempt to sodomize the queen with a trout at court.  If someone is actually ignorant of that contextual state, you're GMing in an asylum.

Again, do you mostly play with one-offs?

No gaming is better than bad gaming, just get yourself some adults to regularly play with, christ.

I do play in FLGSes, and yes I do accommodate new players who want to join in. Normally I start them off with an NPC to see how they blend with my GM style and their fellow players. That said people in general, even regular people you feel you already know, get into 'moods'.

Further, a lot of 3e/PF-isms (especially RPGA/PFS), with their requisite "I broke the game, hur hur," are a lingering miasma upon the land. You are right, the queen v. trout example should be obviously suicidal and dumb. With a high enough bluff, diplo, WTF 3e/PF-ism, and the manacles of Organized Play, even the dumb and impossible is passed as allowable "wacky, zany hijinks!" as long as your char-op build can survive an audit. The current community environment is like GMing in an asylum; you learn to be selective over time as you never know which ones are the most sane just from looks. The power creep has all gone to everyone's head, as it were.

And I do have regular play — usually what I myself run. I also avoid 3e/PF/4e and its Organized Play like the plague as I have no time for National Lampoon setups and Bay/Bruckheimer plot immunity passed off as clever. Please, do note my sigs, they come from a very bitter heart. That said I have had some success in offering players an alternative, as seeming after so many years people are getting tired of the fighting for center stage limelight on the RPG equivalent of the Gong Show.

Quote from: jibbajibba;757838The key to settign expectations is to show not talk.

Telling the players a dragon is dangerous is fine I guess... doing it really loudly as they are about to charge a dragon and saying "No you don't do that" is Unforgiveable.

I agree, and believe that was the cardinal sin from that owlbear example. Some things are harder to show not tell, however. As a player of In Nomine, where there is a lot of subtle mental tricks, readings, and cues, let alone related stuff on other planes of existence, there comes a point where that handy-dandy nearby NPC just no longer works.

In D&D this is more prevalent during psionic tricks, ESP, Augury, divination in general, alignment, character history or professional knowledge, etc. These are from things hard to show in the Experiential Now; they are pasts not lived by players, skills or social structures not fully understood, effects not visibly obvious, etc. The corporeal world of a setting has actual limits where tell becomes easier.

Have you struggled with the joy of how to show the ecstatic agony of revelatory visions to players, while they are tenuously grasping the concept that their Seventh Seal PCs all start with visions of a kind to their chosen Archangel? LSD nightmares embedded with critical meaning can only go so far in the medium of the spoken word. Something's got to give, and I usually find myself responsible to reach out, as I am the players' conduit to the fictional world.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757795Best route for what?  Since when does the natural consequences of your own fucking choices count as a tool or a means of punishment or modifying behavior?  Jesus Wept.

I know you feel strongly about this topic, but you're overlooking a huge portion of real life.

Example:  I have a job.  I report to a boss who reports to a boss who reports to a VP.  If I fuck up royally, people put pressure on the VP to fire me, which would be a natural consequence for my action.  (And I actually have the opportunity to make tens of thousands of people stop working and have in fact done so at least once.)

Do I get fired?

No, because my boss steps in to shield me from those natural consequences of my own fucking actions.

Why?

Because I provide more value that the harm of a single mistake.

Is Christ still weeping?

Quote from: mcbobbo;757877I know you feel strongly about this topic, but you're overlooking a huge portion of real life.

Example:  I have a job.  I report to a boss who reports to a boss who reports to a VP.  If I fuck up royally, people put pressure on the VP to fire me, which would be a natural consequence for my action.  (And I actually have the opportunity to make tens of thousands of people stop working and have in fact done so at least once.)

Do I get fired?

No, because my boss steps in to shield me from those natural consequences of my own fucking actions.

Why?

Because I provide more value that the harm of a single mistake.

Is Christ still weeping?

Umm, in that case the natural consequence of your action is to have what really happened, your boss probably made sure you knew what mistake you made and kept you on because it made perfect sense to.  Logical and totally IC.  

You're missing the point that in a roleplaying game version of this example You=PC, Boss=NPC, God=GM.  God didn't come out of the sky and say "McBobbo, you sure you want to do that, you could get fired you know?" No.  You fucked up, your boss wanted to keep a good guy despite the office politics, so he kept you.  Not the same thing.

I know it's hard for people to remember we are talking about a Roleplaying game, but since so many seem to be forgetting that the reason we came together socially in this instance was to roleplay, Christ is still weeping that we seem not to be doing it much.  

Quote from: Opaopajr;757869Reading comprehension: The GM stopped play because the GM judged that was a breach of paladinhood to willfully engage another high lethality battle with such a crippled party.

Is that what happened?  Lets read McBobbo, whose campaign that was.

Quote from: McBobboIt wasn't a Paladin by the way, but a Cavalier. It's a bit like a Fighter riding a Druid's Animal Companion. Death probably was the only risk.  I think the problem was ignorance more than anything. They didn't realize that the odds were truly insurmountable.

So...

It seems like the rest of your argument is that player's should have some idea that this a "Paladinhood Breaking Moment".  Well, in many cases I would agree with you, it depends on the player in question.  If it was a new player, I would more lenient then an experienced one, but some actions are clear violations, I'm not going to remind a Paladin that slaying an unarmed woman because she won't tell him where her dead husband hid his coins is a no-no.  Personally I always take the rare Paladin player aside and give them the heads-up before play.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757869I do play in FLGSes, and yes I do accommodate new players who want to join in. Normally I start them off with an NPC to see how they blend with my GM style and their fellow players. That said people in general, even regular people you feel you already know, get into 'moods'.

Further, a lot of 3e/PF-isms (especially RPGA/PFS), with their requisite "I broke the game, hur hur," are a lingering miasma upon the land. You are right, the queen v. trout example should be obviously suicidal and dumb. With a high enough bluff, diplo, WTF 3e/PF-ism, and the manacles of Organized Play, even the dumb and impossible is passed as allowable "wacky, zany hijinks!" as long as your char-op build can survive an audit. The current community environment is like GMing in an asylum; you learn to be selective over time as you never know which ones are the most sane just from looks. The power creep has all gone to everyone's head, as it were.

See here I totally see where you're coming from.  However, the only time I would wade into that sewer would be to try and save the few players I thought were worth something, but just needed a different table to play at.  I never GM at FLGS's, I only play, scouting for players for my campaigns.

Quote from: Opaopajr;757869And I do have regular play — usually what I myself run. I also avoid 3e/PF/4e and its Organized Play like the plague as I have no time for National Lampoon setups and Bay/Bruckheimer plot immunity passed off as clever. Please, do note my sigs, they come from a very bitter heart. That said I have had some success in offering players an alternative, as seeming after so many years people are getting tired of the fighting for center stage limelight on the RPG equivalent of the Gong Show.

I'd rather not GM at all then GM under that situation.  It sucks that you have no other options.

I find it works better to find the few players you want to invite to your table at the FLGS and then get them out of that environment and into a different social setting with other players that share your table culture, then you'll have a better chance of showing them a different attitude toward playing.

There's no 'one size fits all' solution.
I've never said, "No you don't!" but I've come close... when it was kids, brothers, arguing with each other and about to go PVP. I've never had to do that with adults... though now that I'm running a game online I can see where the body language/raised eyebrow stuff isn't going to work.
It's nice to have an NPC around to do the Mansplainin' but that's not always an option either... unless it's going to be some Hermit of Warning who suddenly jumps out of the bushes, "Don't you see all the Owlbear poo around here?!!! Don't go in that cave looking like a sack of drowned cats! Come rest up in my cozy hovel till you get another healing surge!" (because Hermits of Warning are rich in meta-knowledge and always use rules-speak)

Quote from: CRKrueger;757895...
I know it's hard for people to remember we are talking about a Roleplaying game, but since so many seem to be forgetting that the reason we came together socially in this instance was to roleplay.  Christ is still weeping that we seem not to be doing it much.  

This is exactly what I'm getting at with my supposed pretensions of "super players."  We are talking about a GM doing something that took up maybe 1% of the total game-time and you are saying it's somehow a total failure and that the players are sucky too because of it.  That's a ridiculous standard, if you are requiring play in the 99%+ level YOU are the ones being pretentious.  Even if it took up 10% of the game time you would be saying that a 90% otherwise good game is indelibly tarnished by it.  Sorry, that's ridiculous to me.

And don't tell me I'm stuffing clothes with straw.  This is all over a GM saying "lets get back to game reality" in a quick and less game-intrusive manner than any supposed in-game solution I've seen here.  The suck here is being willing to waste 100x+ more time on an in-game solution that in the vast majority of cases just pisses off players (yes, that is exactly what most of your proposed solutions do to normal players).  All for and during a leisure activity you presumably do with friends and colleagues you supposedly respect.  Sorry, that's bullshit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757895You're missing the point that in a roleplaying game version of this example You=PC, Boss=NPC, God=GM.  God didn't come out of the sky and say "McBobbo, you sure you want to do that, you could get fired you know?" No.  You fucked up, your boss wanted to keep a good guy despite the office politics, so he kept you.  Not the same thing.

Comparisons are seldom identical, I agree, but this is how you are missing the point.  The GM isn't 'just' god at my table.  The GM is also boss, when necessary.  It's a leadership thing where I do what I think is right for the game I want to run and if people don't like it there are alternatives.

That's the basis of the analogy.

As for "show don't tell", I drew the outline of the cave and dropped two Large Owlbear tokens and about a dozen Medium token bases (since I don't have a young Owlbear pawn).  There were four of them, level three (though cheesed), and the Encounter Level was somewhere in the area of 12 - "Overpowering".  Hell one Owlbear alone is CR 4.

I felt it was pretty overt.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757903Comparisons are seldom identical, I agree, but this is how you are missing the point.  The GM isn't 'just' god at my table.  The GM is also boss, when necessary.  It's a leadership thing where I do what I think is right for the game I want to run and if people don't like it there are alternatives.

That's the basis of the analogy.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757906As for "show don't tell", I drew the outline of the cave and dropped two Large Owlbear tokens and about a dozen Medium token bases (since I don't have a young Owlbear pawn).  There were four of them, level three (though cheesed), and the Encounter Level was somewhere in the area of 12 - "Overpowering".  Hell one Owlbear alone is CR 4.

I felt it was pretty overt.

It was overt.  You gave them IC all the tools they needed to make the logical and wise choice.  They failed to make that choice, so you decided to save the day by stopping the game and making an OOC correction.

My job as a GM isn't directing, leading or bossing anything.  The players decide what they do, where they go, how they do it, when they do it, and why.  I just provide the world they do it in.  This world is as consistent and verisimilar as I can make it.  It doesn't work against you and it doesn't work for you.  Your successes and failures are your own, only.

All I can say is, try it, you might like it.