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's just my preference, but players need not concern themselves with CR and encounter level. Meaning, I would just tell them a huge and truly horrific monstrosity with the features of a bear and owl is there, and it looks savage and deadly"

Quote from: Simlasa;757901There'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)

I like your Hermits of Warning.

I wish warnings worked all the time, but unfortunately they don't. There are the absolute clueless who just don't ever get it.

Another day, another Star Wars game. In order to hide some data the Players had retrieved from being found by the bad guys, they decided to make their R2 unit (a PC) look damaged and claim its memory was wiped. Jim, who was paying more attention to a game of MtG at the other end of the store suddenly perks up. The conversation went like this:

Jim: The droid needs to look damaged? I pull out my heavy blaster pistol and shoot it.

Me: Are you sure you want to do that?

Jim: Yes! We have to make the droid look damaged.

Me: You remember that a heavy blaster pistol does 5D in damage and an R2 unit only has 1D in Strength to resist damage, right?

(Mike, playing the R2 unit, is looking more angry and scared by the second during this exchange.)

Jim: I'll just wing him. It won't be that bad. Don't worry, Mike.

Mike: Please don't.

A few die rolls later, Mike's R2 unit is blasted junk and Mike's really pissed off. The rest of us aren't too happy either. The damage was done and before the next game, the group had unaminously voted Jim out.

Well, I wouldn't have stopped my players attacking the owlbears. I think I'd have enjoyed running the fight and the likely TPK. I can't say I condemn mcbobbo for warning his group, though; it sounds like something that most players wouldn't mind, and much better than the usual bad-GM approach of fudging the combat rolls so the PCs somehow don't die.

Quote from: S'mon;757927Well, I wouldn't have stopped my players attacking the owlbears

Yeah, neither would I... in that particular example... with visible markers and a map.

Quote from: S'mon;757927I can't say I condemn mcbobbo for warning his group, though; it sounds like something that most players wouldn't mind, and much better than the usual bad-GM approach of fudging the combat rolls so the PCs somehow don't die.

Definitely. As a player I'm not going to mind that sort of intervention occasionally but I HATE feeling like the GM is pulling punches because he is afraid to smack us down or because it will gimp the 'story'.

Quote from: Brander;757902And don't tell me I'm stuffing clothes with straw.

I don't need to you're doing that yourself with such gems as "total failure", "99%+level", and claiming that a GM action I simply disagree with means I claim the entire game is "indelibly tarnished".  Stop listening to the voices in your head, or what you assume I am meaning, and just read, please.  Also, I am not Jibba.

What I find ridiculous is you claiming that the situation where the players...
1. Had a hard fight with a single Owlbear.
2. Aren't healed afterward.
3. Are confronted with... "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"
4. ...and decide to attack anyway as a 99% situation where only the professional rpg robots would evaluate and consider something other then frontal assault.

This is Bizarro world.  Someone who attacks in the "Owlbear Scenario" isn't thinking either from the PoV of their character, or from a tactical knowledge of the rules, they are operating solely from the "if it is there, we can kill it" mentality.  The only way you readjust that mentality is by playing things straight.  You can say "Dude, seriously, you're out of your mind." 100 times, and the players will still charge forward, knowing that if they are overmatched, you're going to jump in and save them with "Dude, seriously, you're out of your mind."

If you want your players to act like adults, not children, (or as Opa put it, Gong Show Contestants), you have to treat them like adults, cut the apron strings, let the dice fall where they may.

Who cares if one game session is ended and now we have to do chargen again?  What happened, happened.  The important thing is the campaign integrity, which provides much more enjoyment and satisfaction in the long run if everything is earned legitimately.

If you don't do anything more then cons or one-shots fine.
If your players are just never gonna be into anything other then KoDT level antics, fine.
If you never try anything else, you'll never know if they'd like it or not.

Quote from: Brander;757902The 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).

Lets try this one more time to see if it gets through.  
If this pisses off players...
1. They have a hard fight with a single Owlbear.
2. Aren't healed afterward.
3. Are confronted with... "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 PCs, level three"
4. They decide to attack anyway and get killed as a result.
Then yeah, they're lousy players, sorry.  They should go back to playing Skyrim with the cheats enabled.

Quote from: Brander;757902All for and during a leisure activity you presumably do with friends and colleagues you supposedly respect.  Sorry, that's bullshit.

The only bullshit here is you being so bitter for having to deal with players that expect you to bail them out to keep them alive all the time, that you refuse to believe that other people can be friends, have fun, enjoy a game, and have characters stay alive without a GM bailing them out, because they don't act like idiots.

You're right, I'm sure my friends and I are all deluding ourselves.  One of us has a severe case of rationalization and cognitive dissonance.  I wonder who... :hmm:

Quote from: CRKrueger;757907All I can say is, try it, you might like it.

Been there, done that, bought the tshirt and lost it to an ex girlfriend who is now fat with ten kids.

You may feel your way is best, and that's fine, but let's not make presumptions about each other's level of experience.

Quote from: CRKrueger;7579334. They decide to attack anyway and get killed as a result.
Then yeah, they're lousy players, sorry.  They should go back to playing Skyrim with the cheats enabled.

I pride myself on being able to adapt my game for a variety of player skill levels.   It's a skill.  An art.  And there's no one true way of doing it right.

Your opinion sounds like you can only have fun playing a game ran in a single style, even when you can see how that style would result in less fun for anyone who isn't emotional about how elf games are played.

To your point, that TPK may well have sent them back to their video games.  It may have made you happy, but not them, nor I - none of the people actually involved.

So to rephrase,  if you want to avoid a TPK in favor of conducting a fun game, there are tools for that.

My favorite is to kill off an NPC in front of the party, like an important, part of the party GM PC type NPC; that oughta frighten them.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757965I pride myself on being able to adapt my game for a variety of player skill levels.   It's a skill.  An art.  And there's no one true way of doing it right.

Cool.  I pride myself on collecting players that enjoy a more immersive roleplaying experience with a "100% freedom-GM hands off" table and can both handle that and thrive with it.  I don't give two shits about my skill at being Chuck Barris.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757965Your opinion sounds like you can only have fun playing a game ran in a single style, even when you can see how that style would result in less fun for anyone who isn't emotional about how elf games are played.

Nope, I can do gonzo with Paranoia, Gamma World, DCC.  I can do less than perfect characters who do shit wrong, like a group of teenage gangers in Shadowrun (didn't accomplish a damn thing, but was hella fun.)  What I don't like is the GM pulling me OOC, so he can save me from myself.  BTW, you do realize that getting snarky and personal about this disagreement as you just did qualifies you as one of those people, right?

Quote from: mcbobbo;757965To your point, that TPK may well have sent them back to their video games.  It may have made you happy, but not them, nor I - none of the people actually involved.

It may very well have, which could have been the best thing to happen.  Table culture is table culture.  Some players will adjust and stay, others will leave never to return and that's good for them.  I've had more people stay then leave, YMMV.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757965So to rephrase,  if you want to avoid a TPK in favor of conducting a fun game, there are tools for that.

Also realize that for other players, the possibility of a TPK occurring without GM interference,  makes all successes they have more fun then otherwise.

So, this became longer than I expected.
Besides myself on a bad day, the worst gamemaster I ever met was utterly convinced that her role was to "make the players feel as awesome as humanly possible". This translated to cheating whenever any opponent seemed halfway challenging, so that the PCs could not possibly lose ever,  making sure that every asinine plan of the players succeeded and sucking any challenge whatsoever from the game. In her words, a good game was basically an exercise in wish fulfillment. Because, as we all know, everything but instant gratification was "masochistic gaming" in her opinion.

At the same time, she railroaded the hell out of the game. There was a story, that story had to happen no matter what, and on the way, the player characters could defeat whoever faced them - as long as they played along. When I tried to do something that did not fit in the plot (by refusing some sort of extra-powerful gimmick, I didn't want or need, namely the transformation into some sort of half-angel),  the scene turned into some sort of groundhog day scenario, where literally the time stood still until I agreed to the transformation. Apparently, that was "the gods giving me a second chance." That was the point when I started to dread the playing sessions, but still did come out of some sort of responsibility for the other players (and because she literally told me -under tears- that I could not leave the campaign just now, I would "ruin the game for everyone"). I was young and naive, and so I stayed. Big mistake.

She also could not stand any sort of conflict between the characters. As pretty much everything but the interaction with the other players was already a foregone conclusion, the social interaction was pretty much the only part of the game where we had at least a bit freedom of choice and actual consequences to our actions. So, one of the other players and me, we started some sort of friendly rivalry and competition, argued about a few minor issues... while it was pretty obvious that we as players had no argument with each other whatsoever, we just played our characters as people at odds. Deliberately. It was the most fun the campaign ever created, at least for me. In the consequence my character (at this point a demi-angelic harbinger of RRRrrrightousness) was "sanctioned by the heavens" because i was "disturbing the harmony" and that I, as a semi-angelic creature of everything suggar-coated and righteous could not argue with an ally, that would be "anathema to my very being" and, I couldn't disagree. Or at least my character couldn't.

At that point, I was annoyed enough to write a long-winded mail about what I didn't like about the current state of the campaign, what could be better (nothing as radical as "let's make all dice rolls in the open", just a few minor details) and how I felt marginalized by that decision. The other players mostly agreed, but she never responded to it.

What she did though, was inviting all the other players but me to a "serious talk" (the others told me, so I came, but she made clear that they went "behind her back" by inviting me as well), where she read a speech she had prepared beforehand about how awesome the game was, how epic and so on, and how ungrateful our criticism was (especially me, because I was "ungrateful" and "opposed to epic storytelling") and threatened to quit the game, if we wouldn't accept her style, and how much she would "sacrifice" of her time and engagement and so on for this campaign, and that  we would make it unnecessarily complicated and she would feel " like facing a burnout". I suggested that i could run a quick oneshot in her stead for a session or two, so that she could have a little break. She agreed.

Then, during my brief intermission as a gamemaster, I tried to do something different, and we played a very basic, sci-fi dungeon crawl. Not very sophisticated, just exploring (and plundering) a derelict spaceship. That sort of game is not exactly one of my strong points, but I deliberately tried to do something *very* different from her campaign. During character creation, she had a minor hissy fit over the very idea of pregenerated characters (which we then did not use because of her), and then basically refused to participate in the game, was almost completely passive, and later complained how boring the whole game was (it probably wasn't my best game, but she certainly did not contribute to it, either) and, that "the game had no greater  plot" (which as the whole point of the idea), and worst of all, because one of the characters died in a fire fight he started, I was supposedly "a killer GM who likes to see other people suffer." Apparently, it was "one of the worst games she had ever seen."

We relaunched her campaign, it was just crap, I (and the other players) had more fun when I ran the game, the others said so, and so we basically split the group. I left, and the others (all except her) played both with her and with me.
The next week or so, one of the fellow players later me that my character in her campaign then "fell from grace", became some sort of demon and had to be killed by the other PCs before spending the rest of eternity in torment, and she threatened her then boyfriend to leave him if he would continue to participate in my group (which he did).

But honestly: I should be thankful. This was one of the most poignant learning experiences I ever had when it comes on how to run a game. And especially on how not to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757933I don't need to you're doing that yourself with such gems as "total failure", "99%+level", and claiming that a GM action I simply disagree with means I claim the entire game is "indelibly tarnished".  Stop listening to the voices in your head, or what you assume I am meaning, and just read, please.  Also, I am not Jibba.

No you aren't but you two seemed to be speaking the same language, you are as into "unforgivable" on this topic as Jibba it seems.  Though part of me thinks Jibba might have been hyperbolic.   I somewhat thought you were, until the conversation continued and I realized you appeared not to be.  I'm happy to be wrong on this part.

And don't confuse you going all "no true scotsman" by calling anyone not into your style "sucky" with claiming I'm some kind of straw manufacturer, if anything I'm steelmaning your views by taking them even somewhat legitimately and commenting upon them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757933...

This is Bizarro world.  Someone who attacks in the "Owlbear Scenario" isn't thinking either from the PoV of their character, or from a tactical knowledge of the rules, they are operating solely from the "if it is there, we can kill it" mentality.  The only way you readjust that mentality is by playing things straight.  You can say "Dude, seriously, you're out of your mind." 100 times, and the players will still charge forward, knowing that if they are overmatched, you're going to jump in and save them with "Dude, seriously, you're out of your mind."

Don't be ridiculous.  I've never had a player continue on the very few occasions I've had to break into the game as the GM.  On the other hand the times I've been in that situation and let it run the players have gotten pissed because whether through their ignorance, experience, misunderstanding, moment of distraction, or any other reason, they thought it was a legitimate thing to do.  Yes, a very few players like to just be stupid and ruin things for everyone, but I find actually talking to them instead of wiping out their characters often (but not always) brings them back into the game as what can be good players from then on.  And if it doesn't then I can tell them not to return, or if they are otherwise a friend (with an admittedly bad habit), do other things with them.  If I'm going to have a TPK I'd rather have a quality hard fought one than a wholesale slaughter that's fun for no one.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757933If you want your players to act like adults, not children, (or as Opa put it, Gong Show Contestants), you have to treat them like adults, cut the apron strings, let the dice fall where they may.

As opposed to treating them like human beings with flaws that we can discuss and work through to see if this is going to be a mutually agreeable situation to continue?  Gods forbid we step out of character and deal with a player like a real person for a few seconds or minutes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757933Who cares if one game session is ended and now we have to do chargen again?  What happened, happened.  The important thing is the campaign integrity, which provides much more enjoyment and satisfaction in the long run if everything is earned legitimately.

The simple fact that you consider "campaign integrity" a thing to be protected is utterly nuts to me.  Fuck campaign integrity if it's going to ruin an evenings fun.  Hell, fuck campaign integrity.  It's a dumbass concept in the first place.  That sounds like some pretentious World of Darkness storyteller bitching about the poor story you are ruining.  It's a fictional world for playing games in, not a fucking Shakespeare play. Even Shakespeare didn't take his shit that seriously.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757933If you don't do anything more then cons or one-shots fine.
If your players are just never gonna be into anything other then KoDT level antics, fine.
If you never try anything else, you'll never know if they'd like it or not.

I did a decade running con games "semi-professionally" (I was paid in product, but I was paid, though I would have done it for fun).  I ended up getting players showing up year after year to my games.  I've had TPKs and PvP at those games and gotten compliments after.  I met a lot of my long-term players at some of those cons.  Treat the PLAYER like a person and explain things when things seem stupid and 99% of the time you find out that they are indeed acting under a misconception.  That's the new thing I recommend you try.  The vast majority of the time, the only players who act like KotDT are actual young players who don't know any better (though a lot of younger players are surprisingly good in my experience as well).

I didn't get to my view through some artistic integrity bullshit, I came to it from 30+ years of GMing all kinds of people and lots of practice.  Sure I made mistakes, but I try not to make the same ones (like some things you are recommending) twice or more.

Sure some players and GMs just don't work together, but if you are finding yourself regularly not working well with players the problem isn't the players.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757933...
The only bullshit here is you being so bitter for having to deal with players that expect you to bail them out to keep them alive all the time, that you refuse to believe that other people can be friends, have fun, enjoy a game, and have characters stay alive without a GM bailing them out, because they don't act like idiots.

What bitterness, I'm seeing bad recommendations for GMing on a public board and explaining why my experiences are that they are bad  I'm feeling great that I get a chance to share my experiences and views as to why. Not that the recommendations are bad, and they are in fact a good place to start, but very much bad to take it to such an extent as you seem to be describing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757933You're right, I'm sure my friends and I are all deluding ourselves.  One of us has a severe case of rationalization and cognitive dissonance.  I wonder who... :hmm:

Frankly, I'm still hoping you were being hyperbolic, since I recall you do have opinions in other threads I have enjoyed and/or agreed with.  And despite as vehemently as we disagree here, if you are having fun, then keep on doing whatever works for ya.  If what you are doing works for you and yours, then fine, but it flat out wouldn't for me and mine and it's absolutely NOT because my friends and associates who are players are somehow not up to par overall.

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.

Want to show them a dragon is dangerous. Take the captain of the guard that they just saw take out 4 bandits and you are roleplaying as hte toughest guy on the street and have the dragon bite him in half. The players and the PCs now both know dragons are dangerous. If they choose to charge the dragon then more power to them.

I do a combination of the above. Plus I hand out to each player a little list of "common knowledge" bits that they would know. Not all of which are necessarily true.

If no one locally has ever heard of a dragon nor any news ever reached the area of dragons. (Unlikely, but one campaign started out that way.) then it is up to me to describe the dragon in a very impressive way so the players get the idea that this is not something they want to annoy right now if it isnt just doing a flyby and on its way elsewhere.

Everything is situational. Sometimes just stating upfront before play is the best approach. Sometimes learning in game is the best approach. But it helps to lay down some basic expectations beforehand so the players know your playstyle. And try and get a handle on what the players expect or have experienced before.

Ive had to GM two groups whos only experiences were with the classic "Killer GM" and had to work to get them out of that totally defensive mindset.

Having to deal with the aftermath of a suck DM is no fun either as a DM.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;756922For the three or four of you who haven't read this. It is the most hilarious takedown of an awful GM ever... In about 100 posts

http://irolledazero.blogspot.com/p/properly-ordered-posts.html?m=1

Seems appropriate.

Heh.  I remember when that thread started over at giantitp.com.  Awesome stuff.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;757346That seems to be at the heart of the argument here. Does the referee say "no!" Or does the referee let the players know in some other way that they're putting themselves in stupid danger?

I'm not a big fan of telling players "no" unless what they're doing is outside of the physics of the world.  What I'd probably do here is:

"Okay, let me get this straight.  You guys just barely managed to take out an owlbear and escape alive.  Since then, you've not rested or healed and are still hurting from that fight.  And now you're in front of the owlbear lair, which likely has at least one more owlbear in it.  That's the situation, right?  Okay, good.  So, you're charging in?  Just checking."

Quote from: CRKrueger;757472We just disagree.  If the integrity of the setting is more important then "wasting" a chargen session because a jackass caused a TPK, then so be it.  Everyone dies, Sauron gets the ring.  Ok, so make up new guys and join the resistance.

Fuck yeah.  Sometimes you just LOSE.  The "we always win" attitude needs to die in a fire.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;757481Hm. "Heroic" = "get away with stupid shit."

I'd argue that if you always get away with stupid shit, you're *not* heroic.  Being heroic is about risking for others, for making the sacrifices others won't.  If you *know* you're gonna win, what risks are you taking?  What sacrifices do you make?

Quote from: mcbobbo;757485As it was actually Pathfinder where character generation takes days (and for the 12 year old great gnashing of teeth), I took their free will away.

I think there's a pretty simple solution that suggests itself here, rhymes with "bon't glay Sathfinder."

Quote from: mcbobbo;757485Why did I not have the lair be empty?  Because that feels like illusionism to me.  I 'felt' like the owlbear was defending a nearby lair.  When they went to explore it, I put up what might have been read as a gigantic "dead end" sign, but they didn't take it that way.  Then I told them, but for whatever reason they thought I wasn't being honest.

Well, yeah, if they've been taught that 'encounter = we can kill it', they won't fear.  Playing with some friends that was something I had to learn the other way, that the GM wasn't really going to let us die.  Sucked the fun out of the game, but after a few encounters, I completely stopped having any kind of worry of character death.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757485Had I let them die it would have been my fault anyway, at least in a forum thread like this.   Half the folks will always say you did it wrong.

There's forums where letting the characters die would get you a lot of criticism - I really don't think that's what you'd have to worry about here.

Quote from: mcbobbo;757485As for the "don't put stuff you don't want the party to kill" concept...  how is that different from the gray fog?

Well, I'd say that you shouldn't put stuff in that you're not okay with the party killing.  But, the way I like to run games, it's the party that decides what they will or will not engage, not the GM.  That's not my job, and I don't want it to be.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757900Is that what happened?  Lets read McBobbo, whose campaign that was.


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.

I see, mea culpa. Though I am under the impression the cavalier is under similar alignment restrictions. Like I said, I disagree with the handling of the situation, but I do see the need for helping with the unseen and unknown aspects that divide PC and player.

I do talk about alignment and how I judge it beforehand. Just like I similarly talk about the play style expectations (PvP, party cohesion, linearity, etc.). However I am having to learn new skills in a dynamic environment, (edit: as I don't always have the time for new players who drop in covering an NPC, or store disruptions, and so on.)

It's not that I want to promote MY D&D, the Truest of Ways. But I want people to see there are options from Organized Play and its assumptions. It helps rebuild the player pool from what I've seen.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757900See 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.

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.

Yes, it is challenging, but rewarding in a way, too. I have had more people interrupt and reminisce about their good ol' days with AD&D than with most of the other games I played at a shop. There's a lot of happy 1e/2e memories out there, and I think people do sometimes forget that they too can bust out their old books and play.

It's like the dance floor, someone's gotta break the ice.

I agree that inviting quality players that mesh with your style, and then transporting them to a more controlled location, would be best for GM ease. Less distractions, less raw players, less curbing bad habits, less re-teaching the hobby's freedom, the list goes on. That said, only exposure and openness can re-oxygenate the hobby's lifeblood: more players. Selective insulation fosters better games on average, but someone has to offer a competing voice in the open fora.

It's also like a bar, someone's gotta bring the good-natured fun.