I don't know what just happend, but it seems that Ayn Rand corrupted my player!

[Janx]

In the world of Alternate Reality Games they started out with the referee/ co-ordinator as the Puppetmaster. This has now been change to the Architect. If ARGs can do that in five years how come RPGs can't go from Gamesmaster or Dungeonmaster to Architect in closer to 50 years?

Probably because of the scope of play. A GM has 1-8 players to plan and prepare material for, and to react to player actions. He can instantly react to individual player responses accordingly.

An ARG-master has to prepare material for potentially thousands of players. He has to prep it in such a way that it can survive contact with the players and not require any intervention on an individual basis.

 

[nedjer]

Probably because of the scope of play. A GM has 1-8 players to plan and prepare material for, and to react to player actions. He can instantly react to individual player responses accordingly.

An ARG-master has to prepare material for potentially thousands of players. He has to prep it in such a way that it can survive contact with the players and not require any intervention on an individual basis.

Yeah, there are differences - certainly in the current typical form of both media. However, there are ARGs designed and run specifically for niche/ small groups; and when a Monte Cook or a Mike Mearls designs a campaign setting they're sometimes preparing material for tens of thousands of players.

GM may seem familiar and Architect a bit grand; but everybody's building and playing worlds

 

[jimmifett]

I read Atlas frequently, and I can't follow how it applies to the situation described at all.

Trying to apply it...

Desired Product: an enjoyable game.

All players involved are the participants in the venture.

The mediums of exchange are time, skill, participation and fun.

Players invest time into thier characters.
DM invests time, and possibly money, into the story, props, and preparation.

Everyone exchanges thier time and participation with each other for shares of Fun. If there is not an equal exchange of value between players, then negotiation begins to adjust expected outcomes to meet the demands of all involved. If a deal is reached, exchange resumes. Otherwise, exchange stops, and potentially players leave the market until an acceptable price of exchange is negotiated and agreed upon. If this cannot be met, the market disbands completely, the players having consumed whatever Fun thier time and participation bought them, and they can re-invest in another reformed market.

No Player or DM is required to give thier time and participation to others as self sacrifice. Rules acceptance is part of the base agreement of all parties to establish the fair market value of Fun. This agreement can change, such as with house rules, but all investors involved must agree to exchange in a market with these new rules before trading can resume.

Unilateral change of the rules of exchange or rules regulation without consent of all parties involved leads to a broken exchange where the price of Fun goes up as more time or effort is required to purchase it from others. This is gaurenteed to cause artificial Fun inflation to the point that no player wishes to exchange thier time for Fun, thus collapsing the market.



Bottom line: My time has value. Your time has value. We exchange it for Fun until satisfied or find the Fun is too expensive a comodity for our time.

 

[The Aberrantion]

This is, to me, where you're blindingly wrong. I've completely dismissed player requests before precisely because I care about their enjoyment.

You see, as the guy running the game, it's our responsibility to take everything into account that isn't one of the PCs (though we take them into account, too). We run everything going on behind the screens. This means that, sometimes, you dismiss the idea the player had if it clashes with the setting, genre, or theme of the game. Let's look at a couple examples (off the top of my head... the first is real, the second is fictitious):

(1) I had a player who wanted to invent gunpowder with a character he was considering making. He never made the character, as I told him no, he couldn't invent gunpowder. Why? Because this was the type of world that would latch onto that technology. The people of the world were generally highly proficient, and they would unlock the mystery of how the PC created gunpowder by acquiring it through any means necessary. Once this was done, it would only be a matter of time before the technology spread across the countries and continents.

This would do two things to make the idea less enjoyable for the players: (1) they wanted to play in a standard fantasy setting, and adding gunpowder would quickly destroy that, and (2) the player wanted only his character to have it, and this likely wouldn't be the case once enough kings sent their best warriors, mages, assassins, and thieves to get the equipment from him. Saying no saved the player from playing a character that wouldn't pan out the way he wanted it to, and it saved all the players from the setting irrevocably progressing. (Before it comes up, this was an established sandbox campaign, and I would not have fudged events once gunpowder was used to keep it out of the hands of those who wanted it.)

This is bad and you should feel bad for doing this to your players. "Oh hello, I'm King Ronald. I live in a world where Wizards use sulfurous powder to literally make globs of fire shoot out of their hands, and their muttering magical nonsense makes even the strongest castle wall collapse within moments. What's this? Someone has a rare and expensive magic power that smokes and explodes when set to flame? Drop everything, I must have this at once! Send my finest assassins! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to visit the court priest and have him literally ask God how I'm doing as king. See you later."

(2) Let's say a player wants to take a class that slowly begins transforming him into a dragon, half-dragon, dragonkin, or the like, after having multiple meetings with a "dragon cult" that had ritualistically infused themselves with dragon blood (the PC wants to copy the ritual). The players know that dragons haven't been seen in about a hundred years since the last Great War, and think it would be cool to see this progress. On the surface, this looks fine. It would be cool to see, so no problems.

Now, let's add the facts of what only the GM knows: the dragons were not eliminated, but were forcibly controlled (through artifacts) by the Dragon Masters and herded over the mountains to the north. Then, artifacts were created (using dragon magic and blood) to drive all of dragonkind insane, unless controlled. This keeps dragons in a state of perpetual control, else they lose all sanity. So, they have the choice: do they lose all sanity but become free, or do they willingly serve malicious masters but keep their minds intact? With these two options, the dragons mostly serve, waiting for the ritual to be undone.

Now, your player wants to infuse himself with dragon blood. Do you let him do so, knowing he'll drive himself insane (or, at best, controlled by the bad guys)? Or, do you say no, and save the PC so the player can keep having fun? As of this point, the "dragon cult" is deeply woven into your campaign, so while you could retcon it out, it would not be nearly as fulfilling to the players once they uncovered what it really was (assume it would be fulfilling to them as players to uncover it, like it would be for mine). And, if you retcon it out, you'll be denying them the enjoyment of that deeply fulfilling feeling.

I would actually probably allow the PC to begin to transform, honestly. He'd just have made a bad decision by performing the ritual that made him dragon-blooded, and should have looked further into it. The PC, however, will now go insane or be controlled, which is probably a massive problem for player enjoyment (for some groups, like in the OP). If you wanted to keep the player's enjoyment in mind, you might want to say, "no, you can't become dragon-blooded." It definitely doesn't mean you don't care.

At any rate, when I hear you say...

... I just can't help but heartily disagree. Sometimes, you dismiss player requests because you care about their enjoyment. It's not me out to screw my players. It's me out to make it fun. Our play style is just different. As always, play what you like

I started getting physically angry reading that. Alter your ing plot so that the player can do what he wants. Your stupid derivative made-up setting is not a real place with it's own rules and regulations, it literally exists only to be interacted with by the player characters.

God damn. How do you start thinking like this? How do you start thinking that your amateur-grade fictional place is more important than your buddies having fun?


Hell, you wouldn't even have to alter it that much to accommodate said player. Just realize that there are other options besides "mind controlled forever" and "insane". Maybe the players don't change all the way. Maybe they realize what's happening as they slowly transform (or learn The Truth some other way), and decide to do something about the artifacts and the people who own them. For more dramatic tension you can set it up that once the ritual is complete, you slowly change over a long period of time, so the PCs have to race the clock before they become mind slaves.

See, that would be a fun campaign. And it only took me like 20 seconds to come up with it.

Mod Note: Please see my post below. ~Umbran

 

[JamesonCourage]

This is bad and you should feel bad for doing this to your players. "Oh hello, I'm King Ronald. I live in a world where Wizards use sulfurous powder to literally make globs of fire shoot out of their hands, and their muttering magical nonsense makes even the strongest castle wall collapse within moments. What's this? Someone has a rare and expensive magic power that smokes and explodes when set to flame? Drop everything, I must have this at once! Send my finest assassins! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to visit the court priest and have him literally ask God how I'm doing as king. See you later."

You know I don't play D&D, right? So, these assumptions you're making? Yeah, they don't apply. There's no clerics talking to their god, and no wizards burning down walls. So, sorry if I don't "feel bad" after reading your reply.

I started getting physically angry reading that. Alter your ing plot so that the player can do what he wants. Your stupid derivative made-up setting is not a real place with it's own rules and regulations, it literally exists only to be interacted with by the player characters.

God damn. How do you start thinking like this? How do you start thinking that your amateur-grade fictional place is more important than your buddies having fun?

Hell, you wouldn't even have to alter it that much to accommodate said player. Just realize that there are other options besides "mind controlled forever" and "insane". Maybe the players don't change all the way. Maybe they realize what's happening as they slowly transform (or learn The Truth some other way), and decide to do something about the artifacts and the people who own them. For more dramatic tension you can set it up that once the ritual is complete, you slowly change over a long period of time, so the PCs have to race the clock before they become mind slaves.

See, that would be a fun campaign. And it only took me like 20 seconds to come up with it.

Fun is subjective. If you did read my post (which I guess made you physically angry), you'd notice that my players quite enjoy unraveling the mysteries of a static world. If they think that I'm changing stuff to accommodate them, they feel like I'm fudging in their favor, and that takes away from their enjoyment, as they feel like they haven't accomplished as much. They want to immerse, and if the world isn't reliable enough in their eyes, it's hard for that to happen. To my group, these things help foster fun.

They aren't to your group. I'm not saying that you should play the way I do. But, when you come in here and you say, "you're doing it wrong!", I can't really take that too seriously. Calm down, stop getting angry and cursing, and stop assuming. If you don't like the way I play, that's cool. No hard feelings. I'm not doing it wrong. You're not doing it wrong. If both groups are having fun, I think that's the point, yeah? As always, play what you like

 

[innerdude]

This is bad and you should feel bad for doing this to your players......

I started getting physically angry reading that. Alter your ing plot so that the player can do what he wants. Your stupid derivative made-up setting is not a real place with it's own rules and regulations, it literally exists only to be interacted with by the player characters.

Wow, really? You're that emotionally invested in the campaign of someone you've never met, someone you're likely to NEVER meet in real life, someone whose group you've never seen play, and therefore have ZERO understanding of their likes and dislikes?

Wow. Just.....wow.

Even if JamesonCourage were inclined to take into consideration your insertion of Narrativist elements into his largely Simulationist campaign world, your notable lack of perspective and tact likely ruined your intent.

As a side note: I'm fine with the occasional use of profanity; as a student of language, it definitely has its rhetorical uses. But as someone who considers themselves fairly religious, I have a serious problem with your use of the name of deity in a profane context (G** damn). You are free, of course, to ignore my request, but I'd like to respectfully ask that you refrain from that particular usage in the future.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As a side note: I'm fine with the occasional use of profanity; as a student of language, it definitely has its rhetorical uses. But as someone who considers themselves fairly religious, I have a serious problem with your use of the name of deity in a profane context (G** damn). You are free, of course, to ignore my request, but I'd like to respectfully ask that you refrain from that particular usage in the future.

...and, FWIW, it may be considered a violation of ENWorld's terms of use.

Just sayin'.

 

[Umbran]

I started getting physically angry reading that.

You're a new user, so please allow me to give you a word of advice from the Moderators - don't post angry.

Alter your ing plot so that the player can do what he wants.

Watch your language, please.

Please review the Rules of EN World that you signed on to when you created your account. Rule #1 is, "Keep it civil." Use of profanity in that manner (even when it is caught by the filter) is decidedly non-civil, and runs against the goal of keeping this place family-friendly.

In addition, I strongly suggest you keep issues in perspective. It is only a game, and it isn't even your game. It does not merit your anger, or profanity. And, those are going to serve you very poorly as tool for convincing them you're right.

If this is somehow unclear, or you have any questions about our policies, please take it to e-mail or Private Message with one of the moderators. Thank you.

 

[S'mon]

Fun is subjective. If you did read my post (which I guess made you physically angry), you'd notice that my players quite enjoy unraveling the mysteries of a static world. If they think that I'm changing stuff to accommodate them, they feel like I'm fudging in their favor, and that takes away from their enjoyment, as they feel like they haven't accomplished as much.

IME pro-fudgers have a lot of trouble understanding the perspective of anti-fudgers, and vice versa I think. I know a pro-fudge DM who can't seem to understand what his anti-fudging players are saying, when they ask him to stop it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

IME pro-fudgers have a lot of trouble understanding the perspective of anti-fudgers, and vice versa I think. I know a pro-fudge DM who can't seem to understand what his anti-fudging players are saying, when they ask him to stop it.

I think it is pretty common for people to assume that their idea of fun is shared by all. And sometimes this assumption can lead people to characterize those with different play preferences as "crazy", "mean", "rude", etc. In my own case I used to be pretty harsh on powergamers/optimizers until I ran a campaign for a group of them. In the process I learned to appreciate their point of view and actually had fun optimizing encounters to keep up with them.