General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
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.
Well, let me bring a hated word here:
What I, as the DM want, is "fun". I want fun. I have fun when my players are having fun.
If my players enjoy total "realismn" or "verisimilitude" with Pirates jumping on-top of them due to the random likelihood* of them arriving there and killing the entire crew, I will do that. But if they don't, I just won't. There will be a way out.
If a TPK can lead to an interesting situation in game, I am okay with it. If it just feels pointless, I'd rather avoid it.
*) I like random tables in a way - especially because they provide me with ideas for stuff that can happen/be found etc. But in another way - they don't explain why stuff happens.
If I roll my 5 % chance that the party will encounter the Dragon in the forest, the table doesn't tell me _why_ he does that exactly at this moment. And if I figure that the PCs won't survive any combat encounter against him, why shouldn't I make up a story that makes the combat option less likely - and dependent on the PCs actions?
Of course, I also could make up a random table giving the Dragons motivation. But at some point; I think I as the DM should take _direct_ control of the game. Everything relying on chance just don't work. Players usually don't roll the dice to determine whether they help the mayor or rather explore the dungeon of carnage. Why should I, as the DM, be differently?
---
In a general "sandbox" context. I tend to think I would be willing and able to run a "tailored" sandbox. Of course, there are certain fixed points in a campaign. A dragon that is known to be of adult age won't change to an Ancient Wyrm or Young dragon just because of the PCs level. But the challenge that would involve him would change. 1st level PCs don't go hunting adult Dragos, and 20th level PCs will probably not find much challenge in fighting them. So a 1st level challenge might be a social challgene or an escape challenge (the PCs try to avoid getting eaten). At 20th level, the Pcs might want to make the dragon an ally so he helps them convincing other dragons of help. (Another social challenge). Or they try to trick him into attacking another foe and buying them some time.
The unique and intersting thing about a sandbox to me is that the PCs do have a lot of of decisions to make what goals they choose for themselves and which hooks they follow - and that these decisions impact the game world. The hooks they don't follow don't get forgotten, they grow. If they didn't deal with the Goblin attacks at 1st level, the Goblins might grow bold and attack a village, gaining new (more powerful) allies - allies that the 5th level PCs could choose to engage. A wizard hiding himself in his tower might, at 1st level, ask the PCs for some aid in his research, at 10th level, he might have invented a powerful necromantic ritual that gives him power over the dead, and at 20th level, he might be an influential member of an undead army trying to conquer the world.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
This came up earlier… and I apologize if it's a forked thread… but I thought it bears some discussion.
The DM is not here to entertain.
I don't know where this fallacy started. I'm sure early gamers assumed the GM was enjoying the game the most and therefore was responsible for doing ALL the work ahead of time AND making sure everyone was entertained at peak level.
It's the sort of antiquated approach to RPGs that pushes people away from mainstream gaming and further into the hobbyist market with games that cater more closely to how they want to play. Zero-prep games are becoming more and more popular and games without GMs are popular for just this reason.
Wish-lists are a symptom of the thinking that I deserve to be entertained, not that the game needs to be fun (this is not 100% overlaps on the venn diagram). If the game needs to be fun, for everyone (equally, at all times), then more players would take on an active role and not leave so much work in the GMs hands. When this kink in gaming is more adequately addressed, notions of adversarialism (GM vs. PC) and wish-fulfillment start to dissolve.
ASIDE:
Jack7… check out James Maliszewski's blog and his post on Gygaxian Naturalism. You might enjoy some of his insight on this topic. GROGNARDIA: Gygaxian "Naturalism"
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 have both hands on the wheel at all times. However, I'm driving blindfold down a road I've only seen once on a badly-drawn map (my storyboard) and I've got 3 or 4 or 5 player-navigators each telling both me and each other where to go; rarely agreeing and even less often bothering to look out the front windshield for the brick walls.
I've never totalled the whole car, but there's been lots and lots and *lots* of avatar-navigators (characters) that have either jumped, fallen, or been thrown out the windows and never seen again.
And to jim pinto, I heartily disagree: the DM *is* there to entertain. However, the players are also there to entertain the DM; and this often seems to be forgotten in the equation.
ASIDE:
Jack7… check out James Maliszewski's blog and his post on Gygaxian Naturalism. You might enjoy some of his insight on this topic.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
Jim, I thought the article on Gygaxian Naturalism was very well considered. I also liked the complimentary/competing article on The Dungeon as Mythic Underworld.
Personally in my milieu or setting there are two worlds: our "Real World" historically set in Constantinople circa 800 AD, and another world that is the home of Elves and Dwarves, etc, though they do not call themselves that.
Our real world is a physical world of pragmatic physics and sconce and technology (for the time period explored), and the other world is a more supernatural/mythic world populated by other creatures, like Elves, Giants, Monsters, and so forth though that world is geographically identical to ours.
Creatures and monsters from that "Other World" visit our world from time to time to "adventure" and men from our world visit the other world from time to time to "adventure." And these are always interesting scenarios and missions.
But I have found that when these two different worlds overlap (the world of men, and the world of non-men) then that is when the bets adventures really occur. When these two different worlds overlap they create a Third World, a sort of Underground World, or Over-World, or you might even say a Hyper-World, depending on how you want to classify and define it.
When that happens very interesting things take place because in that world the rules of how things operate are constantly "in-flux," that is, the Underworld does not have to operate exactly like the Real World, our world, nor does it have to operate exactly like the Other World. In the Underworld psychical laws and supernatural paradigms and even psychological and perceptual viewpoints don't have to necessarily act like they would in either of the other two worlds. And this creates very interesting "adventures" because in the Underworld both of the other worlds are endangered, and because outcomes are not always easy to predict as to what effect they will have on anyone.
But regardless of what world the players are adventuring in, it seems to me that each world in an RPG has to have its own "Reality." And the reason is simple to see. A character could never become anything more than a hollow "Sheet," a sort of blank cipher if his world lacks all reality. Anymore than a real man can become anything "real" if his environment lacks "reality." For instance imagine that the world was merely what you wanted it to be. That you could arise any given morning, or every morning, or you could even create when morning was or was not, and reshape the world into any form you wished? What then at the end of the day is the value of our work? Your family? Your nation? Your community? Your accomplishments? Your world? If the world is about accomplishments then you need a stable base of operations in which to act, one in which you can rely upon the reality of outcomes. If RPGs are about role play then one has to be able to role play, and how can one role play if the world is insubstantial?
Such a world is like an Earth made of Vapors. There is nothing solid, substantial, or lasting to push against. There is no atmosphere, no terra firma, nothing of real reliability, no force of gravity against which to push to leave a mark. It really is a video game world, as they currently exist. Cut it off and the whole world falls to zero once again. You can program it to be anything you want it to be at any point. (Though even modern video and computer games have at least learned this very vital lesson, a "Save Function" makes for a much, much more interesting game than one in which you really have to restart from the beginning every time you play. That adds significantly to the "realism" of the video game world. Why then if video games understand the sales-value of more realism would RPGs want to seek the dubious value of less realism in this sense?) You can be a doctor one second, a policeman the next, but nothing lasts beyond the immediate desire. You can have a Holy Avenger one second, then "sell that off" because your desire flags and get a really cool nuclear fusion gun the next. In a world dominated by pure gamism nothing has any lasting value, certainly not heroism. How can characters have any gravitas if the world has no gravity?
On the front of the Player's Handbook it says plainly Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes. That is the point of most heroic fantasy games, "Heroism." But if heroism has a history and a consistency that lasts only until the next "reboot," until the next re-programming, then it has absolutely no reality, not even an imaginary one. Heroism must have consistency, it must have a history, it must have a world and a reality to "push against," it must have a "Center of Gravity." This is indeed the very reason for the development of Milieus and Worlds in the first place. If there were no need of realities beyond the character then the player could simply invent any world he desired for each different game he played. He'd have the excitement of the fight he scripted in any environment he choose, but does that create heroic characters? Or just cartoon ones?
Without a world with its own reality all you have is a collection of Powers, not a Character. Without struggle and lasting accomplishment all you have are video game personas with no reality outside the time the power button turns on, and the time it turns off again. In fiction a character without a real and viable world in which to play his part is no more real or substantial than a man would be in our world if it dissolved every day and then reformed as something else every night. You'd have no development in the man because you'd have no environment in which to develop. All developments in such a world would be of short momentary value at best. Nothing could really move him because he world be aware that nothing is "substantial," everything is shadow. How long could a man really invest himself in such a world without absolute boredom being the inevitable result, and to what end would his investment pay any dividend other than immediate diversion?
And in such a game all you have is a gamey-game, where nothing exists except for the sake of play, but even the play has no value beyond the moment of play. So how could a Character possibly develop? He could gain bonuses, but not a true nature. He could gain levels, but he could gain little else worth mentioning. Certainly not even an imaginary approximation of heroism. For nothing lasts. Not even his own achievements.
You can't have a hero who is made of nothing, with no consistency, and you can't have a hero operating in a world of no substance that lacks all history.
Even imaginary heroes need to be made of "firmer stuff" than that.
And to jim pinto, I heartily disagree: the DM *is* there to entertain. However, the players are also there to entertain the DM; and this often seems to be forgotten in the equation.
Lanefan... i respect your right to disagree, although I'd be curious to know more than just "jim is wrong." Why do you perceive the "entertainment" avenue of RPGs to be the path to fun, rather than the zero-prep, everyone has to work it path to fun that many indie game prescribe to?
In other words, why is it okay to put 75-100% of the work on the GM's shoulders in the traditional gaming model? Do you think the "work" that PCs do during games equates in any way with the work a GM does to prep a game?
Assuming Jack7 is correct in his original analysis, don't you see a corrolation between how PC's expectations are fed by this somewhat archaic methodology of [world prep, adventure prep, game prep] vs. [stat prep]. I'm being a little curt in my analysis, because I don't want to type all day, but I think it gets to the meat of it, at least from my perspective.
I realize this entire GM-work discussion is a tangent of the original post, but I think if you tackle this conjectured thinking about RPGs you start to open up the gaming vista before you to a myriad more possibilities when it comes to gaming.
Lanefan... i respect your right to disagree, although I'd be curious to know more than just "jim is wrong." Why do you perceive the "entertainment" avenue of RPGs to be the path to fun, rather than the zero-prep, everyone has to work it path to fun that many indie game prescribe to?
In other words, why is it okay to put 75-100% of the work on the GM's shoulders in the traditional gaming model? Do you think the "work" that PCs do during games equates in any way with the work a GM does to prep a game?
Assuming Jack7 is correct in his original analysis, don't you see a corrolation between how PC's expectations are fed by this somewhat archaic methodology of [world prep, adventure prep, game prep] vs. [stat prep]. I'm being a little curt in my analysis, because I don't want to type all day, but I think it gets to the meat of it, at least from my perspective.
I realize this entire GM-work discussion is a tangent of the original post, but I think if you tackle this conjectured thinking about RPGs you start to open up the gaming vista before you to a myriad more possibilities when it comes to gaming.
Here's a couple questions about the basis of your opinion for you to consider: If the people participating in the game are not being entertained, what exactly is it that they are doing? Also, why are you of the view that being entertained requires preparation and work?
Entertainment is watching or taking part in activities which give you enjoyment. That is what a game is. To have fun is to be entertained, and you play games to have fun. The source of the entertainment is another question, but that's the root of the thing.
Have you ever been entertained by an improv comedian? If you say yes, as most people would, that is admitting that entertainment does not require preparation. D&D is little different; DMs who want to put all that prep in will, whether or not you agree that they should. DMs who want to improvise and fly without preparation will, whether or not you agree they should. Different people derive enjoyment from different aspects of the game.
TV and Movies "entertain" actively while keeping the audience passive and disengaged from the action on the screen. They don't provide TOOLS for me to entertain myself, they entertain me, so I can passively sit back and "enjoy the show." Books engage and force me to think and are a different category.
i didn't make the TV show, or the characters, and their certainly not saying the things i would have made them say. in a traditional rpg, the GM in in charge of 99% of the world logic and the components of that world. what other calculation can one draw from this?
in an ideal state, the GM would be nonexistent; barring that, the GM would provide the sandbox for people to have fun in, without being expected to put on a clown nose and entertain the kiddies with antics and special effects.
now, getting rid of the GM is so far removed from what D&D players have come to expect about RPGs, i don't even dare suggest that today on here. but it does open the door for other problems. but at that point, the problems are the responsibility of everyone at the table to solve, not a single GM.
case in point, i was running a fantasy game some six years ago for friends. in addition to building a world bustling with "stuff", i made NPCs, adventures, a campaign story, and finally i had to manage four other personalities at the table who all wanted something else out of the game (socialization, story, character, combat). eventually the players decided that one of the other players wasn't fitting in any longer, and after a long meeting out of game without that player (talk about drama), it became my responsibility as GM to ask that player not to show up any longer, despite the fact that i didn't have any of the issues the other players had.
A perfect example of the inequality of labor associated with the notion of GM as "entertainer."
This does not mean games can't be fun and that people can't be entertained by their gaming experience. But unless a gaming session is going to cost money or be interrupted by commercials for snacks, players probably shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labors without bringing something to the table.
It really is as simple as that. The key of course is more games with zero-prep that bring the players into the design of the "environment." Enough indie games are doing this, so I'm not sure how much weight this carries on this website. Most gamers looking for "more" already know that waiting for the mission to be revealed is no where near as fun as making the mission yourself. And players looking to be "entertained" already have the myriad of D&D adventures the provide exactly that outlet for gameplay.
Here's a couple questions about the basis of your opinion for you to consider: If the people participating in the game are not being entertained, what exactly is it that they are doing? Also, why are you of the view that being entertained requires preparation and work?
The majority of what has been so far has been about world creation, realities, wish lists, and so on. A lot of that is prep work for someone. Even if it's fun for him to do, it's still work and requires time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Sessadore
Entertainment is watching or taking part in activities which give you enjoyment. That is what a game is. To have fun is to be entertained, and you play games to have fun. The source of the entertainment is another question, but that's the root of the thing.
Yes. Excellent point. Entertainment is those things. But watching is passive and taking part in an activity is active. There's a huge difference here in expectation. If someone (and many players do this) shows up to a game and half-asses his way through the session, making poor decisions, triggering traps just to do it, opening doors and getting monsters to chase him, and so on, without any thought to how cause and effect might unhinge the fun of the game for others, it becomes the JOB of the GM to fix it.
Usually. Right?
And I think you are using FUN and ENTERTAINMENT as synonyms and I am being very careful to split the hairs between the too. I think gaming should be fun. No doubt. But I also think the work load should be egalitarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Sessadore
Have you ever been entertained by an improv comedian? If you say yes, as most people would, that is admitting that entertainment does not require preparation. D&D is little different; DMs who want to put all that prep in will, whether or not you agree that they should. DMs who want to improvise and fly without preparation will, whether or not you agree they should. Different people derive enjoyment from different aspects of the game.
I also PAY the comedian to entertain me. A very important distinction. The comedian you get for free, usually isn't funny.
As for the rest of your point, I'm not taking away FUN from the GM, I'm trying to lighten his workload, so he can enjoy the fun with everyone else, instead of feeling like an underpaid and underappreciated actor. What else is a wishlist, but another way for the PCs to tell the GM that he's not living up to their expectations.
What about a consideration of what activities make a character Heroic. Instead of gauging the world on alignment, but rather acts of courage, you (in effect) create a new game or a new way of playing an old game.
One of the things I've written about before is that D&D doesn't let me choose to join the lich or ally with the orcs or otherwise find a way past the adversaries without "defeating" them. In this, D&D assumes I always want to kill/trick everything that is "bad," regardless of my alignment.
How we approach the game, in essence, is the flaws we find in it. D&D (from 2nd edition on) was never designed to do what you are talking about. And 1st edition didn't care if you were a hero. Plundering tombs and pilfering the dead are not heroic activities. Killing orcs because they look different than you isn't either.
When we begin to examine a lot of the questions that you are bringing up, we can see the tropes and misconceptions of D&D have perpetuated its design to this day, and vice versa. I mean, when was the last time you really read any good GMing advice in a TSR/WOTC book? You only really know how to run D&D because… well… you've always known.
As for the rest of your point, I'm not taking away FUN from the GM, I'm trying to lighten his workload, so he can enjoy the fun with everyone else, instead of feeling like an underpaid and underappreciated actor. What else is a wishlist, but another way for the PCs to tell the GM that he's not living up to their expectations.
Jim, I find it ironic that on the one hand, you complain that the GM has too much work to do, and on the other hand you complain about one of the tools that could lighten the GM's workload. If the DM and the players approach wishlists in the right spirit, they can save the DM the time that he would have otherwise spent on picking magic items for the PCs. Of course, the counter to this would be your broader point that the DM shouldn't be entertaining the players, and hence, he shouldn't be picking magic items with the PCs in mind in the first place.
Now, I do agree that the DM's job should be made as simple as possible, but I also believe that a pure sandbox-style campaign is only one of the possible solutions. A pre-made sandbox campaign product, among other things, relieves the DM of the need to create locations, monsters and NPCs, develop situations and adventures, and generate treasure and other rewards. If there is a sufficient level of comfort within the group, the DM could just as easily give the responsibility for any of the above to one or more of the players instead of relying on the sandbox product.
Taking turns to DM is another way to make the workload more egalitarian, at least within a gaming group (this is my own group's preferred solution, by the way). As a group, we do expect that whoever is in the DM chair for the session has the responsibility to entertain the players, not necessarily by putting on a clown nose, performing antics or producing special effects, but by coming up with interesting situations and challenges for the PCs to tackle. However, we also recognize that we should do the same when it's our turn to DM.
Thanks for the response Firelance. If even 1% of this…
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
Robin Laws Game Style Quiz Result: Tactician
Tactician 100%/Power Gamer 100%/Butt-Kicker 92%/Specialist 67%/Storyteller 67%/Casual Gamer 58%/Method Actor 50%
… is true, then I can only assume you and I come from very very very different schools of thought about gaming. I can't imagine we game the same way or for that matter, play the same games. If my assumption is false, I apologize, but I recognize there are styles of play that I just do not encounter anymore in my travels.
We're unlikely to agree on this point of GM-less games because,
a. I don't game like you
b. You are comfortable doing what you do and don't want to change
c. There's a misunderstanding (because I'm not explaining myself well) that I think you're doing it wrong
That's not an attack. That's a statement of fact. D&D isn't my game of choice anymore, so my opinion here is even less valid than it used to be.
Taking the workload off the GM is only a portion of my point. The mentality that "I didn't enjoy this game because of the GM" is so rampant in this hobby (and such a fallacy among gamers) to even bring it up as ludicrous causes people's heads to spin. If the GM was bad, what did you do as a player to fix it? Can you even imagine playing D&D without a GM? Can you imagine a game world without XP or treasure? Do players really sit down for Diablo because it captures High Fantasy Heroism or because the monsters puke out treasure?
I'm well-aware that 99% of gamers do not agree with me on this point of a GM free of the burden of being the entertainer. But I won't stop me from believing that enough symptoms of gaming exist because of the main fallacy/diseases that plague D&D:
1. GM is here to entertain
2. XP is the only way for me to develop my character
3. US vs. Them (the GM is also the enemy)
which leads to a subset disease, the GM stops me from winning
4. Cooperation vs. Competition (when did teamwork disappear)
5. Class/Skill systems are superior to Class/Skill systems
This tangent has gone on long enough for me to say, I should either drop it or bring it to a new thread. I don't read enworld all that much, and I'm not sure if this topic has ever come up before. But, if you want to make D&D more accessible and more viable as a product in the 21st century… find a way to make it zero-prep and GM-friendly and more people will be playing it. It's competing against the greatest zero-prep game of all time, WoW. And while that phrase may spark a riot, I'm trying to make a point, not inflame people that are already upset.
GnomeWorks[/b] ] 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.
Right, right. Except it really is you. Because the NPCs aren't real.
Quote:
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.
Let me not overstate myself. I am a HUGE (the only?) proponent of illusionism. I totally agree that you want the players to *feel* like the NPCs are real, living people, and like the NPCs actions are really derived from their very real decisions and motivations. I'm totally down with that.
But you can't believe your own propaganda, man. Obviously its you doing things to the characters, not "the NPCs" because you are the NPCs. You created them, you control their every action, you control the world they live in, you control... everything. Everything except the PCs, of course.
Its not unbounded control. In order to make a fun game, it has to be relatively believable. And that may mean that you have to do something that kind of sucks. Like hypothetically, if you've had the evil NPC scream at the Paladin, "I don't care if you kill me! I will eat your heart before I die!" then you might have to have the evil NPC coup de gras the unconscious paladin, even though the evil NPC is obviously losing his last chance at survival by spending his turn hacking apart a downed foe. Or if you declare that a particular lake is full of lava, expecting the party to avoid it, and instead they get into a fight in a rope bridge above the lava and fall in, well, they're probably gonna die because you said it was lava and that's what lava does.
But there's two major differences between my way of looking at these things, and the predominate view in this thread.
1. I acknowledge that ultimately it was me who did it. I invented the NPCs motivations knowing full well they might lead to a PC death. I put the lake of lava there. And so, when I do these things, I do so from the perspective of someone who's considered the repercussions that are likely to be felt by the players. Honestly, I expect most other people do this as well.
2. I have a little different threshold for what counts as affecting realism. Basically, if the players don't know about it, it isn't *real* yet. Because what matters isn't creating a world that feels real for me. It can't, because I know darn well that I made it up.
What matters is creating a world that feels real for the players. Lets say that I secretly plan on an orc strike team scouting for them and ambushing them after their fight with the minotaur. Its all quite logical, they're in a conflict with the orcs, the orcs have scouts, the orcs like to ambush people, everything's well and good. But the fight with the minotaur is particularly taxing, and I look at the orcs and realize that one or more PC deaths are likely if I continue with this plan.
If I alter the plan, maybe by reducing the strength of the orc's force, or changing the terrain to somewhere more favorable for the PCs, or adjusting the encounter so that the PCs have a chance to notice the orcs in advance and slip away in a non combat encounter, or even just plain reschedule the whole fight for another time, I'm not affecting the player's sense of realism. Because they don't know that anything was changed, because they don't know the original nature of my plans.
Obviously if you take this to extremes and envision a world in which I've covered all the sharp edges with foam, a player might eventually notice something. But there are a lot of ways to create a sense of danger that don't involve killing off PCs because you're concerned about changing a note you made before the session that no one other than you has ever read. Exactly what those techniques are is too big of an issue for this thread (they vary depending on your campaign's take on resurrection magic, your game's view on replacement characters, your player's attachment to their present characters, and so on), but there are plenty of them.
The sense I get from this conversation is that a lot of well meaning DMs have a lot invested in creating a sense of realism about their gameworld. I also suspect that those DMs care just as much as anyone else about creating a fun game for their players. In pursuit of that, they're very leery about ever admitting that the Great Oz is really just a man behind the curtain. Its become kind of a taboo issue for them, because its not something you can ever tell the players if you want them to keep believing (or suspending their disbelief) in Oz.
But you're online. Your players aren't reading. You can stop pretending. We're all DMs, and we all know we're the ones ultimately responsible for things like the personality of the Orc Overlord of the living quarters of the Evil Dragon.
Right, right. Except it really is you. Because the NPCs aren't real.
I am well aware that you like to attack the stance of those who attempt to interact with and portray the world as a thing in and of itself.
When an NPC takes an action, I attempt to remove myself - as much as is possible, given the situation and mechanics used - from the decisions made regarding that action. In an ideal world, an NPC's actions in a given situation would be resolvable as a function of the situation and the NPC's personality and abilities.
Quote:
Let me not overstate myself. I am a HUGE (the only?) proponent of illusionism. I totally agree that you want the players to *feel* like the NPCs are real, living people, and like the NPCs actions are really derived from their very real decisions and motivations. I'm totally down with that.
As a GM, such a game is meaningless for me. If the world which I am attempting to present to the players exists only at my whim, and I allow myself direct access to it without interacting with it only through mechanical channels of the system upon which it is built, then running a game is a futile exercise; it has no meaning.
Quote:
But you can't believe your own propaganda, man. Obviously its you doing things to the characters, not "the NPCs" because you are the NPCs. You created them, you control their every action, you control the world they live in, you control... everything. Everything except the PCs, of course.
No, I do not control their actions. I control the parameters of their creation and in which they operate. In an ideal set of game mechanics, I would be able to simply "turn a crank" in order to generate new NPCs (based upon previously existing NPCs) and determine their actions for a given situation.
Is GM interaction necessary, at some points, in order to create a reasonable setting? At this point, yes, and it is probably highly unlikely that that requirement will cease to exist. But that intervention can be minimized, and I seek the most minimization possible.
Quote:
1. I acknowledge that ultimately it was me who did it. I invented the NPCs motivations knowing full well they might lead to a PC death. I put the lake of lava there. And so, when I do these things, I do so from the perspective of someone who's considered the repercussions that are likely to be felt by the players. Honestly, I expect most other people do this as well.
Ramifications towards the players are irrelevant; the world does not exist for their sake. If there is a lake of lava, perhaps the players should make a point of not joining a fight while over it, and - if such an event is unavoidable - seek to remove themselves from such peril at the earliest opportunity.
Did I construct the world? Yes. But its evolution over time is hopefully produced by a systematic "turn the crank" procedure in which I have little to no input. GM input is unavoidable, but it can be minimized, with the results of specific instances of GM intervention determined in manners that are sensible in regards to the mechanical foundation of the setting.
Quote:
2. I have a little different threshold for what counts as affecting realism. Basically, if the players don't know about it, it isn't *real* yet. Because what matters isn't creating a world that feels real for me. It can't, because I know darn well that I made it up.
No one, I think, is claiming that their settings have actual physical independent existence. They are not "real" in the sense that you are describing.
They are, however, "real" in the sense that they are mental constructs. A GM can very well, after creating his setting, seek to have as little meta-intervention into it as possible, instead working in the setting through predetermined systems for doing so - in our discussion, that would be game mechanics.
Through minimizing the amount of interaction that is completely and utterly meta, I make the setting a more "solid" mental construct; it ceases to be subject to my whims and instead "takes on a life of its own." While the system used to determine events inside that setting was decided upon arbitrarily by me, once the decision is made, it is not unmade, and I specifically do not modify or interact with the world directly.
Quote:
But the fight with the minotaur is particularly taxing, and I look at the orcs and realize that one or more PC deaths are likely if I continue with this plan.
If it makes sense, then the players will have to deal with this situation, either by attempting to fight or by running or by doing any number of other things.
Quote:
I'm not affecting the player's sense of realism. Because they don't know that anything was changed, because they don't know the original nature of my plans.
Sure, their sense of realism would not be challenged, in this case.
However, as a GM, this sort of thing would irk me, because I would know.
Quote:
But there are a lot of ways to create a sense of danger that don't involve killing off PCs because you're concerned about changing a note you made before the session that no one other than you has ever read.
Not every creature exists to be fought, not every chasm exists to be crossed.
Quote:
But you're online. Your players aren't reading. You can stop pretending. We're all DMs, and we all know we're the ones ultimately responsible for things like the personality of the Orc Overlord of the living quarters of the Evil Dragon.
And I'm telling you that, as a GM, I don't want to be.
__________________ While I play D&D, it is not my game of choice, regardless of edition.
"You're insane AND Jurassic, GW." - garyh
"The reverse side also has a reverse side." - Japanese proverb
----- Steamworks: A guide for introducing technology to a fantasy setting. (d20) Journey: The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath your feet... (Work in progress)
Last edited by GnomeWorks; 16th March 2009 at 09:57 AM..
Thanks for the response Firelance. If even 1% of this…
… is true, then I can only assume you and I come from very very very different schools of thought about gaming. I can't imagine we game the same way or for that matter, play the same games.
It's probably true. However, I was addressing the more general point that wishlists could actually result in less need for DM preparation, so it seems strange to me that you don't appear to like them. After all, in an earlier post, you mentioned that waiting for the mission to be revealed is no where near as fun as making the mission yourself. If the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for mission creation to the players, why not delegate the responsibility for reward assignment as well? And if the DM is willing to delegate the responsibility for reward assignment, how different is that from a wishlist?
I do think that you raise some very interesting points, though, and I wouldn't mind discussing them further. Perhaps, as you suggested, in a new thread?
Some initial thoughts, though:
Quote:
But, if you want to make D&D more accessible and more viable as a product in the 21st century… find a way to make it zero-prep and GM-friendly and more people will be playing it. It's competing against the greatest zero-prep game of all time, WoW. And while that phrase may spark a riot, I'm trying to make a point, not inflame people that are already upset.
I am not sure that D&D can ever compete with WoW on the zero-prep front. Hence, D&D's competitive advantage has to be in something other than zero-prep. Zero-prep, or something close to it, may turn fewer people away from D&D, but it isn't going to sell D&D in itself. For now, we can still stress the key advantages that it has over the MMORPG medium: among other things, a DM that is responsive to player input (more so than a computer processer, anyway), the possibility of the PCs setting and achieving their own in-game goals instead of choosing from a laundry list of potential quests, and the possibility of the PCs making lasting changes to the campaign world. I just wonder how much longer table-top games will retain these advantages.
The mentality that "I didn't enjoy this game because of the GM" is so rampant in this hobby (and such a fallacy among gamers) to even bring it up as ludicrous causes people's heads to spin.
I agree with you, but I think that this can be "retrained" out of most players simply by running a good game where the DM expects the players to provide motive and fun.
I understand the distinction you are making between entertaining and providing a medium in which one can actively entertain oneself and others.
Nitpick: A lot of books, IMHO, are attempts at "entertainment" (and so less engaging), whereas some film media require more from the viewer and spur interesting/philosophical/entertaining after-viewing conversation (and are so both more engaging and providing a medium for self-entertainment).
Quote:
Sorry for the tangent.
Love the tangent!
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
When I DM, which is frequently, though not of late, I think of myself as entertainer, there to entertain, so to speak. This is no way implies that my players are merely a passive audience.
Quote:
Wish-lists are a symptom of the thinking that I deserve to be entertained, not that the game needs to be fun...
Is this opinion informed by anything other than a wish to ascribe less-than-flattering motives/mindsets to other people?
Quote:
If the game needs to be fun, for everyone (equally, at all times), then more players would take on an active role and not leave so much work in the GMs hands.
Sure. One way to facilitate this is for the DM to distribute some of the narrative authority. Item wish lists can be seen as an example of doing just that.
Quote:
... and wish-fulfillment start to dissolve.
Why would I want to dissolve the wish-fulfillment in my wish fulfillment fantasy? That sounds like nerd masochism .
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I am well aware that you like to attack the stance of those who attempt to interact with and portray the world as a thing in and of itself.
There's no sin in admitting the setting has a purpose.
Quote:
When an NPC takes an action, I attempt to remove myself - as much as is possible, given the situation and mechanics used - from the decisions made regarding that action.
Cad is right about this because, despite a DM's best intentions, that 'as much as possible' ain't much. It's a difficult thing to do. Many, many, successful, well-regarded authors can't do what you're suggesting.
Quote:
In an ideal world, an NPC's actions in a given situation would be resolvable as a function of the situation and the NPC's personality and abilities.
In an ideal world, it rains candy. This is why examples drawn from ideal worlds lack utility.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I agree with you, but I think that this can be "retrained" out of most players simply by running a good game where the DM expects the players to provide motive and fun.
When I use the term "entertaining DM", I don't talk about an DM that dances in front of me or juggles core rule books or whatever.
But he is an enabler. A DM has to provide some ideas of what to do. And if the players pick something to do - whether from his plot hooks or independent of it, he has to be able to react to that.
If the DM is just reading the adventure book linearly or merely rolling on random tables, he is most likely not providing me the kind of entertainment I would have expected. If he's using a module, he has to react to the wenches the players through at the implied plot. If the PCs decide to make something differently than the adventure expects, he better reacts to that.
If he's using a random table, he has to interpret the results in a way that leads to an interesting game. If he rolls for his "Dragon too tough for this level" on the forest wandering monster table, I fully expect him o interpret this result in a way that allows the players to react and interact with the encounter without leading to only one possible outcome.
That does not mean the players don't have their responsibilities, too. They have to find their own motivations. If they ignore every plot hook thrown at them, they better come up with one of their own and give the DM clues at what they'd like.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
If the DM and the players approach wishlists in the right spirit, they can save the DM the time that he would have otherwise spent on picking magic items for the PCs. Of course, the counter to this would be your broader point that the DM shouldn't be entertaining the players, and hence, he shouldn't be picking magic items with the PCs in mind in the first place. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
