Why the World Exists

[Ariosto]

double post

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

This is the sort of thing that I thought you meant.

CR and EL are tools to give the DM some ability to predict the outcome of a particular encounter or series of encounters, and thus to achieve a desired outcome. Perforce, the CR guidelines are not perfect, and make assumptions about how encounters are handled, and perforce, the CR guidelines will sometimes fail because the encounter is handled in a way not foreseen by the creator of the guidelines (thus seemingly "too easy" or "too hard").

Ok sure, we'll go that route. Thats fine. Those who write the rules have a desired outcome of their rules. Right on.

In this case not fudging also plays towards th desired outcome. You have x percentage chance to defeat an encounter of y level. Fudging invalidates that, so not fudging works towards a desired outcome.

But what I said isn't invalidated. If the CR indicates in X circumstance Y should occur, and then G7 occurs instead because the author of said rules screwed up? My expectations of what the implied desired outcome was are now invalidated. That annoys Scribble. It's like if someone secretly replaced the 20 on your die with another 1. Now my understanding of the die has been undermined. The game says I have a 5% chance to roll a 20 and I no longer can.

However, "too easy" and "too hard" both strongly imply (I would go so far as to say have no intrinsic meaning without the existance of) a desired outcome. The entire CR system, as well as things like wish lists, etc., are a move to encourage desired outcome play. Because random elements exist within the game, though, this desired outcome does not always occur.

It is the random elements, not the rules, that are adjusted when the CR 5 creature outperforms (or underperforms) your expectations. Random elements like encounter design, player choices, and die rolls.

Fudging eliminates these random elements, thus reinforcing the desired (predicted by CR guidlelines) outcome. It is, after all, meaningless to say that you intentionally chose a CR 5 creature without also agreeing that you chose that CR because it seemed to support the encounter outcome you wanted.

And what outcome was expected or wanted?

If it's simply that the game run as designed then sure I agree.

If it's simply that X character has an x percentage chance to survive a head to head fight? Then yes again I agree.

If it's that a character not die or the "plot not be ruined" in a particular encouunter then I dissagree.

In either case choosing a particular CR vrs not choosing a particular CR are both done with a "desired outcome" in a way. In one case it's the outcome that PCs have a chance mathwise to effect the encounter should they choose to. In the other it's sometimes they just don't and have to avoid the encounter.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

But, while CR does a poor job of predicting actual difficulty, it is advertised as working so well that the entire encounter design and XP rules are based around using CR.

This we agree on.

So, it sometimes requires a bit of correction on the DMs part.

Only if there is a "desired result". I suppose, otherwise, you might need to adjust XP awards, but the vagarities of the CR system are liable to even out on this score without any adjustement at all. Certainly, unless there is a "desired result" that a die roll undoes, there is no need to adjust die rolls.

However, I agree that using CRs to plan encounters DOES imply a desired result.

We agree here.

For much the same reasons that using CRs to plan encounters implies a desired result (strongly), so does fudging a die roll. If there is no desired result, why use CRs? If there is no desired result, why fudge the roll?


RC

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Scribble

If the CR indicates in X circumstance Y should occur, and then G7 occurs instead because the author of said rules screwed up? My expectations of what the implied desired outcome was are now invalidated. That annoys Scribble. It's like if someone secretly replaced the 20 on your die with another 1. Now my understanding of the die has been undermined. The game says I have a 5% chance to roll a 20 and I no longer can.

LOL.

Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5?

The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions. I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed.

But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model. The predictive model predicted a given outcome. The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging. I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System. I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging.

It is also true, as you say, that not fudging the dice is also in service of a desired outcome. The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins. Close enough to be related, but not the same animal.


RC

[Ariosto]

My initial impression is that 4E does a good job of yielding predictability. However, any probabilistic element -- even the probability of players choosing a given mix of character types -- means that an encounter is sometimes easier and sometimes harder than average.

So, I am skeptical when I see a claim, based on a single run, that an encounter is poorly designed. A small sample is not a sound basis, and just one instance is as small as they come.

[ryryguy]

Originally Posted by The Shaman

The bloodthirstyness of the privateers is going to be determined by reaction roll, so assuming the adventurers allow them to board or are forced to yield, the crew may not necessarily end up dead with a wave of my hand. I might impose a -1 or -2 modifier to the reaction roll, but if the roll is high they could simply end up marooned instead.

That said, I would have no problem with the privateers killing off the crew if that's how it shakes out. Remember that we're talking about a perfect storm of bad luck for the adventurers: wrong place wrong time, facing overwhelming force, bad reaction. The chances of this encounter are about the same as the ancient red wyrm in a fit of pique discussed earlier.I agree that keeping meaningful options on the table is a worthy goal, but I also think that an occasional foregone conclusion, whether it's murderous privateers in space or a coup de grâce of a captive adventurer by an orc chieftain, can be a part of an enjoyable game, if the players and the referee know this is a possibility from the outset and accept that shared mental space of the game-world.

Very interesting... I think I can appreciate a some of the fun I'd have playing in a game where there was a lot of uncertainty and risk, where I felt like I had to stay on my toes at all times or risk catastrophe. I have played in a few games like that. However...

I can't help but wonder how I would react to the above scenario as a player. I'm pretty sure that I would not find it enjoyable. Even assuming I did know and buy into the idea that this was possible from the outset, I don't think I'd say, "Wow, that was an amazing, perfect storm of bad luck! What fun! I really feel like I am there, experiencing the game world in all its coherence and verisimilitude!"

Please note, I'm not trying to say your game style is bad or that you and your group can't possibly be having fun. I'm just trying to imagine putting myself in the shoes of a player in a game where this happened. Have you actually had this sort of thing happen at your table, and if so, how do your players react?

I remember reading something several years ago (sorry, no idea of the source), where a DM recounted a game session. First, the group completed a long, dramatic arc successfully. I think they may have lost a PC or two in the process, but they won out over great odds and achieved a victory that was important to them. The group was estatic. But, there were still a couple of hours left in the session. So as they journeyed through the woods back to town, he rolled for a random encounter. A wolf attacked, and in the ensuing combat there was a perfect storm of bad luck. One of the PCs was killed by the wolf.

According to the DM, the players immediately deflated, becoming quiet and obviously depressed. He asked them why. "She just died for nothing. It seems pointless."

Again - I'm not trying to say all groups would react this way. Maybe the random wolf encounter was a bad choice for his group because they weren't expecting that style of play - they weren't bought into it ahead of time.

But the DM who wrote up this story clearly took a lesson from it, and it resonates with me. As a player, I don't want to win all the time and I expect to lose. But I want it to matter. I want to have a chance not to lose because of my efforts. More than that, if I do end up losing, I want to have at least a little bit of choice regarding how and why I lose. I don't want it to be because of mere randomness, even if it's the randomness built into a meticulously crafted, coherent and logical game world.

If I'm dealt a zero-point bridge hand and the opponents have a laydown grand slam, I can laugh it off due to bad luck. If my fantasy football team's entire starting lineup suffers season-ending injuries in the first week of the season, I might even get a perverse enjoyment out of such spectacular misfortune.

But when I play D&D or other RPGs, I'm looking for something else. I'm not sure I even know exactly what it is. Maybe it's just wanting to be challenged? Like, on the flip side, if a perfect storm of good luck on the encounter tables led to the discovery of an abandoned starship packed with gold and the deed to a paradise planet - it'd be different, but I don't think I'd actually enjoy that either.

Please note, by challenge I don't mean "always a level-appropriate" challenge. Figuring out something is not "level-appropriate" and backing off could in itself be an enjoyable challenge. Screwing up and stepping into the "non-level-appropriate" challenge might just open a new challenge of how to survive or to recover from getting my butt handed to me.

I understand as well that we're talking about a continuum here, that even DMs who are very committed to a sandbox style are still generally going to have ways for players to figure out when they might be getting in over their heads and to escape when they inevitably do; and PC's are gonna die sometimes in most any style of game. But the Shaman's comments were pretty striking to me as one of the purest expressions of the one end of the continuum. In that pure form at least, I don't think it would be the game for me.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

LOL.

Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5?

Not sure.

The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions. I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed.

Sure I agree, but I'm not saying the game as a whole. Just a particular element... Which is why I said it wasn't a routine thing, and my example was a broad example.

Really I don't need "perfect" predictability... That would be boring. I just want it to be roughly on track. Little swings here and there don't bother me. It's the odd out of no where OOPS moments that get to me because they throw EVERYTHING off.

But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model. The predictive model predicted a given outcome. The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging. I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System. I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging.

Sort of: But what I was saying can be looked at from the standpoint of someone picking a CR and using that or someone randomly having a CR pop up.

If the CR indicates that a creature is X powerfull (roughly) then I can use that in my judgement of how to describe the situation to the PCs without having to go throuhg the entire stat block.

If it's a CR much higher then theis I can give them clues (usually through skill checks) as to their level of perceived danger.

But if something is wildly off, it tricks me. I give them a level of perception that's WAY off.

Those are the moments that annoy me. It's not that I WANTED them to survive, I just wanted their choice to do what they do to be somewhat informed.

It is also true, as you say, that not fudging the dice is also in service of a desired outcome. The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins. Close enough to be related, but not the same animal.RC

My point really was that the game is essentially desired outcome + random = fun. (Otherwise why have things like BaB or AC bonus, or levels of anything really.)

The amount of either side of the equation equaling fun to a particular group is open to debate.

[Ariosto]

Sure, an obviously "pointless" death may elicit more grief than one seen as "serving a purpose." A game with an emotional range encompassing that may appeal more to some people than one with a more limited range.

If that's not a feature but a flaw, then why incorporate it into your game rules? Why make it so that the DM feels obliged to hide "fudging" of rolls?

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Scribble

Sort of: But what I was saying can be looked at from the standpoint of someone picking a CR and using that or someone randomly having a CR pop up.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this one, because I am a very, very long way from convinced that a person using a random CR (i.e., a person who does not have a vested interest in what CR is used) is going to modify rolls because the listed CR is off.

Colour me skeptical, but I find the science in Star Trek more believable than that.

My point really was that the game is essentially desired outcome + random = fun. (Otherwise why have things like BaB or AC bonus, or levels of anything really.)

The amount of either side of the equation equaling fun to a particular group is open to debate.

Ah. But, let me suggest that the players can and should have a vested interest in the desired outcome of an encounter regardless of the type of campaign, but the interest in a desired outcome on the part of the DM fundamentally and obviously changes the nature of the game by the degree of its presence or absence.

(I.e., the point I first made.)


RC

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by ryryguy

I can't help but wonder how I would react to the above scenario as a player. I'm pretty sure that I would not find it enjoyable. Even assuming I did know and buy into the idea that this was possible from the outset, I don't think I'd say, "Wow, that was an amazing, perfect storm of bad luck! What fun! I really feel like I am there, experiencing the game world in all its coherence and verisimilitude!"

I don't for a second expect the players to be singing hosannas to my ability as a referee when their characters get offed.

On the other hand, I don't expect them to sulk about it either.

(No, ryryguy, I'm not suggesting you, or anyone one else posting to this thread, is a sulker, a pouter, a whiner, or a tantrum thrower. I just thought one extreme deserved another defining extreme, so that we can perhaps find a meaningful middle.)

Originally Posted by ryryguy

Please note, I'm not trying to say your game style is bad or that you and your group can't possibly be having fun. I'm just trying to imagine putting myself in the shoes of a player in a game where this happened. Have you actually had this sort of thing happen at your table, and if so, how do your players react?

I've experienced a number of TPKs over the years, almost always predicated by the players rolling aces and me with a white-hot hand.

However, the closest example I can think of to the raiders scenario was two adventurers in a 1e AD&D getting separated from the rest of the party by a block descending from the ceiling, sealing a passageway. The two adventurers were promptly attacked by hobgoblins; both were reduced to negative hit points, and I ruled that the hobgoblins finished off the downed characters and ate them for tea.

There were a couple of factors in play here. First, it was part of what I planned for the hobgoblins; the adventurers hadn't discovered their lair yet, complete with corpses hanging in the larder, but there were numerous indications that humans and demihumans were a regular part of the goblinoids' diet scattered around the dungeon: gnawed bones in cooking pots, a dwarf's mail-covered leg in a hobgoblin's pack (aka goblinonid 'iron' rations), et cetera.

Second, I made the judgment that getting the players of the adventurers-turned-Lunchables back into play quickly was preferable. One player took over a henchman as a character, the other opted to wait a little bit and re-enter the game with a whole new character a little while later as a recently captured prisoner of another group of hobgoblins encountered by the party (an instance of swinging toward the other end of the continuum in my own time behind the screen).

In this instance both players took it in stride as a hazard of the game. Both players were also dungeon masters in our group, and they were each familiar with the dungeon crawl sample narrative on pages 97-100 in the 1e AD&D DMG, specifically the fate of the gnome at the hands (and teeth) of the ghouls. Being eaten by monsters was not unexpected.

I think many referees might opt instead to make the characters prisoners instead of Happy Meals, to facilitate some sort of rescue or escape adventure. I have done that as well, but in the context in which this particular encounter took place, I opted against it, for the reasons outlined above.

Originally Posted by ryryguy

As a player, I don't want to win all the time and I expect to lose. But I want it to matter. I want to have a chance not to lose because of my efforts. More than that, if I do end up losing, I want to have at least a little bit of choice regarding how and why I lose. I don't want it to be because of mere randomness, even if it's the randomness built into a meticulously crafted, coherent and logical game world.

I’m going to address the latter points first, then come back to the section I bolded in the quote.

So, first, let’s revisit the privateers example I offered earlier.

The actions of the privateers will be determined by two things: first, their mission, which is to destroy enemy shipping, and second, the reaction roll which guides me on how severely the raiders will treat their victims. There's a third factor to consider, which is the nature of starship combat in Traveller. For those of you not familiar with the game, starship combat is terrifically destructive, but not in a Star Wars disappear-in-a-flash-of-sparkles way. It’s more like combat between a pair of frigates or ships-of-the-line in the Age of Sail, pounding each other until they’re disabled hulks. A starship exploding in Traveller is the result of a very rare critical hit.

Now let’s make this a worst-case scenario: the merchant ship has no weaponry other than small arms for the crew, they’ve emerged from jump without fuel to make another jump, they don’t know they’ve just jumped into a war zone, and they are immediately engaged by privateers aboard a mercenary cruiser armed with lasers and missiles. The goal of the cruiser is destruction of shipping: if they can recover the cargo, fine, but it’s not the first priority, and the cruiser captain will offer no quarter to prisoners (reaction roll 2, adjusted to 1). This is about as bad as it can get for the crew of the free trader, our intrepid adventurers.

The adventurers should recognize at least two things immediately: this is not routine behavior for a pirate in this corner of the Imperium, and they are hopelessly outmatched both in weaponry and maneuver. Their options are limited. To start, the crew may try to maneuver as best they can, evading missiles and laser beams until the free trader’s power plant, maneuver drive, or computer is disabled or destroyed, which will put off the inevitable for a short while at best. They may elect to abandon ship, to take their chances in vacuum suits. They can dump their cargo, and perhaps try to hide in or amongst the drifting containers, again in vacuum suits. They may attempt to hide themselves aboard the free trader, like Han and friends in the Falcon’s secret holds. They may attempt to dump decoys to improve their chances of hiding aboard the ship, such as taking passengers out of the low berths, putting them in vacuum suits, and pushing them out the airlock before hiding aboard the ship. (Yes, it’s cruel.)

This is just a sampling of the tactics the players might employ on behalf of their characters. None of them are particularly good, but if the players can keep their characters out of the hands of the privateers, they have a (very tiny) chance of survival. If they survive the onslaught against their ship and are caught by the privateers, I’d consider offering them a second chance at a reaction roll if they can give the raiders a good reason to keep themselves alive: someone wealthy who can pay a ransom might work, or offering them information on the location of something of value. Overcoming the extremely negative reaction roll is unlikely unless you have a character with several levels in Liaison skill, but at least it’s something that the adventurers may attempt. If they can’t mod the roll out of the hostile range, then they’re spaced, or otherwise summarily executed. Grab a blank character sheet.

So there are some options with respect to how your character might face this situation. The why of it I can’t really help you with: I doubt you would consider this a death that “matters,” and as the referee it’s not something I worry about. Your character may die in a blaze of glorious fusing plasma while facing down some alien menace, or get killed by a random animal encounter while wilderness refueling your ship. It’s a hazardous and indifferent universe, and that’s the way I run it. Skill and luck alone determine your character’s destiny.

That may not be your cup of tea, in which case we must simply agree that our play styles diverge on this point.

Originally Posted by ryryguy

But when I play D&D or other RPGs, I'm looking for something else. I'm not sure I even know exactly what it is. Maybe it's just wanting to be challenged? Like, on the flip side, if a perfect storm of good luck on the encounter tables led to the discovery of an abandoned starship packed with gold and the deed to a paradise planet - it'd be different, but I don't think I'd actually enjoy that either.

As I mentioned earlier, starships in Traveller only blow up with a rare critical hit. My character, Captain Hauser, was skipper of the far trader Skadi when we were confronted by a patrol cruiser which demanded we allow a team aboard for an inspection. The referee announced that the cruiser wasn’t moving to match vectors, but rather maneuvering to a position behind our ship, presumably for a clear shot at our engineering space. Conscious of the face that our hold was filled with gems and computer parts we’d purchased on spec, representing all of our capital, I ordered the gunners to fire, and a miracle hit on one of the cruiser’s turret caused a massive explosion that destroyed what we later learned was a Sword Worlder privateer masquerading as a planetary navy vessel.

We shoulda been space toast. Instead we were very lucky.

I’ll take my good luck with my bad.

Originally Posted by ryryguy

Please note, by challenge I don't mean "always a level-appropriate" challenge. Figuring out something is not "level-appropriate" and backing off could in itself be an enjoyable challenge. Screwing up and stepping into the "non-level-appropriate" challenge might just open a new challenge of how to survive or to recover from getting my butt handed to me.

Understood.

Obviously it’s a sentiment I share, on both sides of the screen.

Originally Posted by ryryguy

I understand as well that we're talking about a continuum here, that even DMs who are very committed to a sandbox style are still generally going to have ways for players to figure out when they might be getting in over their heads and to escape when they inevitably do; and PC's are gonna die sometimes in most any style of game. But the Shaman's comments were pretty striking to me as one of the purest expressions of the one end of the continuum. In that pure form at least, I don't think it would be the game for me.

Now here’s my question to you: would an encounter with the privateers as I described it above, an encounter in which despite your best efforts your character is caught and later spaced by the raiders, would this be a deal breaker for you? Would this unlikely but deadly encounter make the rest of the campaign unplayable for you? Or is even the possibility of such an encounter happening in the game grounds enough not to play at all?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by The Shaman

I don't for a second expect the players to be singing hosannas to my ability as a referee when their characters get offed.

On the other hand, I don't expect them to sulk about it either.

I don't know. I expect people to sulk when they get killed off unfairly. I've certainly sulked before when it's happened to me. I've had players do it when it happened in my games. That's partially why I stopped doing it.

Originally Posted by The Shaman

We shoulda been space toast. Instead we were very lucky.

I’ll take my good luck with my bad.

I guess, but in that scenario, if the GM didn't put the overwhelming ship in combat with you, you wouldn't need the luck. Instead it would have been a fair test of your combat ability that might have ended up with your death, but would actually require luck going badly for that to happen.

Originally Posted by The Shaman

Obviously it’s a sentiment I share, on both sides of the screen.Now here’s my question to you: would an encounter with the privateers as I described it above, an encounter in which despite your best efforts your character is caught and later spaced by the raiders, would this be a deal breaker for you? Would this unlikely but deadly encounter make the rest of the campaign unplayable for you? Or is even the possibility of such an encounter happening in the game grounds enough not to play at all?

I'm not him, but I'd like to answer this anyway. I don't think I'd want to play in that campaign. In all the games I've played in there has been an unspoken(and sometimes spoken) agreement between the players and the DM that both of them want the same things out of the game. The most important one is that the game keeps going and doesn't result in the pointless deaths of all the PCs.

Everyone I know is willing to accept that bad luck happens, bad strategy happens and sometimes there IS going to be a TPK. But as long as we knew we had a fair chance and that our PCs were working towards something they considered worthwhile when they died, we are good with it.

Because everyone understands one thing: Everything that happens in the game happens because the DM wants it to happen. We understand that the DM has the power to overrule any random tables he's rolling on, the ability to fudge dice, and so on. Beyond that, he has the ability to decide what items go on that random table and whether or not he rolls on it at all.

Given these powers, if we end up in a combat with very few to no options that is going to result in our guaranteed death, we can only assume that the DM wanted us to die. If they didn't want us to die, they would have made sure we were capable of handling anything on the random enemy tables. Or they would have fudge the die roll to get a different enemy that we could handle. Or they would have decided that the captain of this ship was in a good mood and decided not to kill us. Or they would have come up with a way for us to survive in some form. Suddenly saved by unexpected allies, sudden weapon's malfunction on the enemy ship that lasts just long enough for us to run away, and so on. But, since none of this has happened, we can simply assume that the DM wanted us dead.

And that breaks the unspoken agreement that they DON'T want us to die. I think this fits into the conversation about fudging and CRs. Both of those suggest the DM is looking for a desired result. I don't see a problem with this because I think DMs SHOULD have a desired result. Even if the desired result is as simple as not ending the game in a TPK.

When I play a game, I expect that the DM has at least one hand on the wheel at all times and at least makes minor adjustments to make sure the game doesn't crash into a brick wall. The idea that a DM would simply let "realism", random tables, or "logic" cause a TPK never really enters into my head.

[Ariosto]

When we bring "fudging" into the game is when a character death indicates that the GM wanted that character dead. Otherwise, the GM could have "fudged" the death away.

In such a game (if one can call it that), it is as Majoru Oakheart wrote: "Everything that happens in the game happens because the DM wants it to happen."

I'm pretty fond of the view that "the GM is the rules," but there are limits. I'll leave it to each to impose those limits on himself, but I think that a certain amount of honesty from all parties is essential to fairness.

If something is unacceptable, then I think the wisest course is to state that plainly and make a rule against it. There's no more need for furtive fudging behind the screen: the referee can openly apply the rules of the game by which everyone has agreed to be bound.

That leaves the course of the game again in the hands of players no longer dependent on the GM's breaking of rules.

It might be a game in which the outcome is foreordained, but there can be interest in choosing how to get there. It seems essential that the players be willing to accept some less than optimal results, a range of somehow "better" and "worse" possibilities selected at least in part by their own meaningful choices.

At least it can be a genuine game of some sort!


Back to the game of D & D as it was formerly known:

To the extent that we DMs are concerned with verisimilitude, we're likely to consider that the world -- and other people -- existed before the PCs came along. If an environment is too dangerous for the PCs, then it is too dangerous for normal folks. So, some "straw dragon" scenarios may be too improbable for consideration.

At the same time, we cannot neglect to provide the necessities for such as "a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandaled feet."

In a game in which one hit has a 50% chance of killing an average 1st-level PC (yea, even in one a bit less harsh), no particular freshly-minted adventurer's life is likely to be a great saga. But each one must have the opportunity, so that eventually such worthies are forged.

That means treasures worth the getting, and toils and perils enough to have kept them from having been gotten already. As we have set them in the world to the end that doughty souls might seek them, so we have hardly made their legends so obscure as never to be learned! Indeed, we have so shaped the world that there is adventure aplenty to be found by any who would but quest for it.

Risk is part of the game. If your notion of good role-playing is saying, "Dungeons and dragons are too dangerous, so I'll just stay in Town," then maybe the game is not for you. Initiative is the mark of the potential hero, the leader, not the follower. If for some reason you "don't know what to do" and waffle around waiting for someone to tell you instead of GOING OUT AND DOING SOMETHING, then maybe the game is not for you. It's a game of "swords & sorcery," for the love of Leiber! Adventure is an end in itself! When there's a shortage of trouble, swordsmen and sorcerers make some.

And more often than not, trouble leads them to an early grave. Then we pick up dice, paper, and pencil ... roll up a new persona ... and come back swinging into the game that has no end, no final defeat. Fight on!

[Jack7]

I've been really busy lately but there are a couple of comments people made earlier I'd like to respond to as I get the chance. I'm gonna try and avoid overly complex responses though as I sometimes have the bad habit of engaging in, and so I'm just gonna try and take comments I want to respond to one at a time.

You even manage to throw in a cheap "video game" quip that doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense (what kind of videogame even works like that?), so you have already hit on some of my biggest pet peeves.

Maybe I didn't explain this very well. I have a tendency in my mental analyses to see trends, and to just subsume the details thinking everyone else will just instinctively understand what I mean by implication. As my friends, associates, and family often remind me, not everyone looks at A and then can, or will, jump to J without having explained to them all of the letters or elements in-between. I often jump around things in my mind making connections that others might not immediately see without going through all of the other intermediate steps. But I often do that's just the way I think. So I often have the tendency to jump around, even in time. With casework for instance I often (not always but often) jump from my first examination of evidence to the right conclusion, but then I have to backtrack from the end all the way back to the beginning to explain to everyone else how I got there, even when I'm sure I'm right and am not even certain how I got there myself - I can't initially prove it. Whereas I've often seen a lot of other fellas who go from A to B to C to D and so forth before they feel comfortable drawing any kind of conclusion. I get that difference in approach and respect it, it's just not my normal way of thinking or making an analysis, analyzing clues, or making deductions.

So, that being said here is what I was actually implying. Not that, as I think you are thinking, that a certain way of playing D&D or a certain edition of D&D or any other game is WOWey, or video gamey, in the sense of modern video games and everything that implies. What I said was:

This way of looking at the world is far less like a video game full of self-imposed (auto-programmed) Easter Eggs and far more like the real world. Yes, you can create things at your own expense, but there is no Santa-Clause DM/GM to whom one can avail oneself for that special, bright, shiny toy one so desperately longs for in his secret heart of hearts. (And this toy may be an item, object, device, situation, ability, or power – anything that encompasses a possession of some kind.)

What I meant by that was: I am looking forwards (not as in hopefully, but I can easily foresee the time) to the day when video games and computer games are a type of Virtual reality in which the end user self-programs or programs the game himself to ignore the rules of the world and instead gives himself the power to shape the world as he sees fit. You do though already see that with Cheat Codes. Cheat Codes often allow the user to ignore certain "Game Rules and World Structures," in effect creating a totally user-advantaged world in which the player can ignore the effects everyone else would be subject to. For instance a cheat code might make you invulnerable to harm, give you so many "hit or health points" that you cannot in effect be killed, cause you to automatically regenerated if injured, or give you the perfect and unstoppable killing weapon.

So in addition to those types of things I am also looking forwards to the day when the challenge of any video game is like a Virtual World without the threat of real risk, and eventually of RPGs that are similarly able to be programmed by the user (I'll give the DM my Wish List of things I desire, which are in effect my individual and personal Cheat Code) being, in effect, the same. I am of course exaggerating the idea a bit to make a larger point about the Game World.

Why should my wish list not include eventually the ability to regenerate whenever I fall below a certain number of hit points, why not give me a suit of armor that makes me invulnerable, and while we are at it why not let me program the game world DM, it is after all made for me, the end-user? (I could easily create such devices and defend them on purely mechanical and gaming notions, if my only criteria is that the game should be about what the player really wants above all other considerations.) So my Wish List or my Cheat Code becomes my ability to re-program the game world so that if effect "I Nero" become the world, not the character interfacing with the world. Take the idea far enough and eventually why have the DM design the world at all or structure how it works? Just let me (the world exists for me anyway) do it and I'll skip straight to level 3000, make myself invulnerable, give myself the best weapons and armor and so forth and I can go straight to butchering the gods and remaking the world in my Own Image? That is more fun after all than facing any sort of limitation to my ultimate aim of ultimate power and bad-assery.

Now does that often happen as I've just described above? Probably very, very rarely? As I said I am exaggerating for implicational effect.

But take the idea of wish lists and cheat codes and give-aways far enough and that would be the ultimate end, a Virtual Reality world in which the world is merely a plastic stage backdrop, worse yet it would be nothing more than a blue-screen that bears no virtual resemblance to anything other than a self-programmed and self-serving non-reality.

So that's what I meant even if that's not what I said.

By the way I think there is another good discussion about programming and role status in This Thread. I won't repeat here what I said, or what others said, there, but I think it is really a related discussion.

Because I think that certain forms of player-programming are good (within reason), even necessary to good games, such as when players program and reprogram their own characters to better interact with and interface with "their world." When they start programming and re-programming the World at Large, I personally see no value and nothing at all heroic in that. Because heroism is not programming the world to your best advantage, it is using the world as it is to create something better for everyone else. And that is definitely not programming, though it may subsume certain ideas about how you want the world to be, it is struggle. Heroism is not a wish for how the world will be, it is the hard work required to make it that way.

Anywho I gotta go. But I'm glad this thread kinda took off. (Though I wouldn't have imagined it before hand.)
Some of the comments have made me think about a lot of interesting ideas.
So, thanks for the comments.

[GnomeWorks]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

Because everyone understands one thing: Everything that happens in the game happens because the DM wants it to happen. We understand that the DM has the power to overrule any random tables he's rolling on, the ability to fudge dice, and so on. Beyond that, he has the ability to decide what items go on that random table and whether or not he rolls on it at all.

...

When I play a game, I expect that the DM has at least one hand on the wheel at all times and at least makes minor adjustments to make sure the game doesn't crash into a brick wall. The idea that a DM would simply let "realism", random tables, or "logic" cause a TPK never really enters into my head.

I am constantly telling my players that it is never me, the DM, doing X or Y to them; it is the setting and its inhabitants. I never seek to kill off characters; NPCs, on the other hand, may want to do so very much.

The distinction is, I feel, an important one, to the point that I try to make it very, very clear to new players that this is what is going on. The playstyle you're talking about here would seem to eventually lead to antagonistic DMing, because the players will interpret the DM's actions as antagonistic (whether intended as such or not). I'm not interested in a "DM vs. the players" set-up, because in such a thing, the DM always wins. The reverse, though - where it is silently understood that the DM and players are all working towards the same goal - doesn't interest me, either; there, players may get the sense that they are "unique and special snowflakes," or that they enjoy some sort of plot immunity.

In my mind, as the DM, my job is to set up the parameters of the setting, to determine reasonable chances of various events occuring, and to ensure that the setting remains interesting insofar as adventurers are concerned. Once the ball is set in motion, my job is purely as rules-adjudicator and as the players' means to access the world; an interface that enforces the physics of the world in question. My stance - as the DM - regarding the PCs is neutral and uncaring, just as the stance of the universe towards them is neutral and uncaring.

Do I necessarily enjoy it when the game ends in a TPK? No, not really. But at the point where it becomes a TPK, the situation is ideally out of my hands: the events that led to the party's death were predetermined (by which I mean that they were placed there without consideration of the party, specifically). If a situation would logically or sensibly end in a TPK, then it should do so.

[jim pinto]

I am still reading the entirety of this thread, so I'm not sure if this was said yet…

…but scavenging the dead for treasure, isn't very heroic to begin with. Handing a GM a registry of items he can pick up for the "treasure shower" fits right in with the mercenary manner of this gaming trope. 1st Edition wasn't about Heroism, so the fact that some of these metagaming conventions survived through the iterations is indicative of so many other problems with the game that your original post can't really be about D&D anymore. It can be about a host of smaller press games or some home-brew heartbreaker that allows players to build the exact archtype they want. But D&D is about growing into your pants, not buying the right pair of pants in the first place.

3.x and 4E are cannibalized retinue, left-over from designers who did not approach the gestalt of the product, but rather fine-tuned the game design to the way people would "probably" play it. In essence, making D&D the former of your arguments… the game is there for the players and as such should respond to their id and not their intellect. That wasn't a slam. Gaming is about fun for the majority of people doing it. It is not a noble exploration of morays and/or counter-culture storytelling methods. It's perhaps (another reason) why people flee the gaming table and join MMOs.

Jack7, your original post is excellently-written and well thought out. I think it's a disservice to your theoretic argument and anathema to the concept of game forums that people would take offense to your obvious extreme and academic approach to game theory. Obviously a new (and/or extreme) opinion is going to invite controversy. But I don't recall you writing anywhere that Gamer65109 is a jerk and is playing wrong. If people are happy scavenging the dead for +1 swords, let them. I'm just sorry that in 35 years we haven't invented a new way to give treasure and/or XP to PCs other than killing and looting.

Again. That's for the post. Extremely enjoyable read.

[jim pinto]

Originally Posted by The Shaman

With that out of the way, any player who comes to me with a wish list had also better be prepared to explain in some detail how she plans to come by these items. Consult with a sage or seek a divination to learn the whereabouts? Complete a quest on behalf of a powerful spellcaster in exchange for crafting it? Sneak into the guarded and warded armory of the king to steal it?

Does anyone remember Earthdawn? It had a system for putting XP into magic items to unlock future powers, so you kept the same weapon forever, but it just got more and more useful.

Is "finding" treasure such an enamored trope in gaming that we can't move away from it. Does it prohibits players and GMs from making more realistic game worlds? Or does every licensed product have to kowtow to the limitations and expectations of "treasure?"

[Insert Diablo which is essentially a dungeon-crawl simulation and hardly a game]

[Emirikol]

I play 4e in the WARHAMMER FANTASY world.

That means that my world exists because some guys play miniatures wargames.

jh

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Risk is part of the game. If your notion of good role-playing is saying, "Dungeons and dragons are too dangerous, so I'll just stay in Town," then maybe the game is not for you. Initiative is the mark of the potential hero, the leader, not the follower. If for some reason you "don't know what to do" and waffle around waiting for someone to tell you instead of GOING OUT AND DOING SOMETHING, then maybe the game is not for you. It's a game of "swords & sorcery," for the love of Leiber! Adventure is an end in itself! When there's a shortage of trouble, swordsmen and sorcerers make some.

And more often than not, trouble leads them to an early grave. Then we pick up dice, paper, and pencil ... roll up a new persona ... and come back swinging into the game that has no end, no final defeat. Fight on!

Whether risk is part of the game or not depends on how you define risk. As far as I'm concerned, for example - what risk? If the player can just roll up a new character, there's no risk to the player. Perhaps the risk of not getting to play a certain character as long as they wanted to, but that's a pretty minor risk in my book, especially since it will (depending on the player) be offset by the opportunity to run a number of fun characters, the chance to have a heroic and memorable character death, etc. One could argue that there's greater risk in a game of chess, since you might actually lose, whereas in D&D, as you note, there is "no end, no final defeat." There is, in my estimation, no genuine and fundamental risk in the game (mainly because it is a game), which is just fine by me. It just invalidates a lot of the assumptions made in this thread, including many of the OP's.

[Jack7]

Jack7, your original post is excellently-written and well thought out. I think it's a disservice to your theoretic argument and anathema to the concept of game forums that people would take offense to your obvious extreme and academic approach to game theory. Obviously a new (and/or extreme) opinion is going to invite controversy. But I don't recall you writing anywhere that Gamer65109 is a jerk and is playing wrong. If people are happy scavenging the dead for +1 swords, let them. I'm just sorry that in 35 years we haven't invented a new way to give treasure and/or XP to PCs other than killing and looting.

Again. That's for the post. Extremely enjoyable read.

I appreciate that point of view Jim, I really do.

I also hope that as time wears on here (on this site) and the edition wars die away that others will not automatically equate a criticism with a scree or a personal attack. (I don't understand feeling personally attacked by a discussion of gaming ideas anyways, but to each their own.)

You can't improve anything without carefully examining and analyzing it, and without criticizing it.

So, it doesn't bother me that people on the internet (after all I don't know them) automatically criticize my ideas or even me personally, but it does sort of amuse me every time automatic assumptions are made about my, or anyone else's "real intentions" in saying something.

So I get where you are coming from.

Nevertheless I am used to my ideas being sort of reflexively criticized, not just here, but in matters like casework, Intel analysis, inventing, experimentation, a whole host of things. (You should hear what my wife calls me.) That's just part of the game when you take a view which is "an extreme approach" as you would say. And I know what you mean by that.

Now I'm not saying the ideas I presented in the original post are new by any measure, but I kinda suspected some would object to them form the very beginning, and that's fine by me. That's the way life works.

I kinda wish sometimes that people would slow down a little and actually listen to what is being said before having a reflexive reaction sometimes, but, C'est la vie. I don't always explain things perfectly either. And sometimes better things happen in the meantime by the arguments that break out when people misunderstand each other. This thread has given me a lot of ideas simply by the arguments that have broken out over this or that, discussing stuff I had never originally intended or even thought about. And personally I like that kinda thing. To me personally it is far more important that some new or better discovery be made than that everybody like me or agree with me.

But I do appreciate people like you stepping back and carefully examining a thing before making automatic assumptions.

Anyways, see ya.

[Ariosto]

The "programming the world" aspect of play that Jack 7 brought up is indeed a part of many games. I would not call them "role-playing" games, though. "Narrative" and "story-telling" are terms currently in common use.

In such a game, the player's POV is not so much that of a character in a world as that of an author creating a fictional world.

Experience suggests to me that such a game calls for rules designed with that process in mind, not haphazardly hacked or "fudged" RPG rules. It can make good use of the Game Master role, but the assumption that a GM is necessary -- and that he or she ought to have all the powers customary in an RPG -- can really screw up the design.