Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Bedrockgames]

I'll ask again, how do you define antagonistic DM? As I said, what you quoted sure sounds like antagonistic play.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I don't see this at all. I think much of the traditional style of play Gary promoted certainly promoted the fun of players being challenged by the GM, and there being a clear line between what a player's role is and what the Refs role is, but I don't think you can use the laid back conversational tone of the first DMG as evidence Gary was belligerent and antagonistic towards players, especially when people who knew him and played in his games say otherwise. You are basically leap frogging from him accepting the "game" aspect of RPG as part of the full package to saying it was all about antagonizing the players. I think that is quite misleading. And when I see people throw around the term adversarial GM it seems like there is an agenda at work where folks are trying to say there is something inherently flawed about traditional styles of play (that the game itself is built around the Gm being a jerk). Again a lot of this boils down to language. You guys are choosing terms that are by their nature insulting to people who play differently from you (much like Magic Tea Party is used).

 

[Bedrockgames]

[D][/D]

There have been 40 years since D&D was invented to come up with better solutions. Does anyone know how Torchbearer handles the issue?

Is that what this really about pemerton?

i don't know, to me it feels like you are drawing on an exagerated caricature of early D&D to promote a game like torchbearer and its approach over a more traditional style of play. Adversarial is not a neutral word. It is not a mere synonym in this case.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why?

Tolkien did not have someone standing over him to decide what counted as consistent or inconsistent with Aragorn's, or Gandalf's, or Frodo's, or Elrond's moral code. Why does a D&D player?

Because, for one thing, the D&D PC player does not sit in anything resembling the same position as Tolkien. The RPG player in the closest analogous position to the author's is the GM.

JRRT constructed everything- the world, the divinities, the magic system, the civilizations, the races and even personalities- the way the world works' from top to bottom.

The GM does all of this excepting the process of deciding the background, internal motivations, etc. of player characters, which, by design, is reserved to the players.

This is mere assertion. What evidence is there to think that the GM will do a better job of producing a consistent account of a particular god, or religion, or chivalric order, than a player will?

The GM is a fallable human, no doubt, but at least he has all of the campaign design notes to guide him, for one.

Players give their PCs consistent personalities without (at most tables) the GM having any authority to step in and override a player's conception of his/her PC. Likewise, at many tables, for cohorts and henchmen. Why are moral codes, and divinities, in a special category?

Because they're part of the world/setting which are represented by the GM. As I've said before alignment is not a condition on individual PCs and NPCs. It is, as far as D&D goes, part of the fundamental forces of the universe; Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. If a character's behaviour is Chaotic (from the perspective of the universe) then the character is Chaotic no matter how much they consider themselves Lawful.

A player is free to assign any moral code they wish to a character, but where that code falls in terms of alignment is the province of the GM. Players can provide input and justification for why a particular action should be one or the other but the final call is made by the GM.

This does not answer the question I asked.

The post to which I replied stated that "For a consistent world, someone has to make the ultimate decision." But no reason was given why that cannot be the player of the character.

The GM doesn't represent all of the setting. For instance, s/he doesn't represent the PCs, who are part of the setting. At many table s/he doesn't represent henchmen, cohorts etc who are part of the setting. There is nothing inherent about moral codes that makes them be different.

There may be a D&D tradition in respect of these, but obviously those who are not using mechanical alignment are not part of that tradition.

I believe Dannorn's response is right on target.

 

[pemerton]

I think much of the traditional style of play Gary promoted certainly promoted the fun of players being challenged by the GM, and there being a clear line between what a player's role is and what the Refs role is

I think that is clear, and as far as I can tell not in dispute.

I don't think you can use the laid back conversational tone of the first DMG as evidence Gary was belligerent and antagonistic towards players

I don't see anyone in this thread making assertions about how Gygax ran his games (other than you and [MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION]). I am talking about elements of his GMing advice.

My best guess is that, in fact, at Gygax's table various sorts of "gentlemen's agreements" were arrived at, organically, through play. But nowhere does his DMG discuss this as a possibility, nor how it might be achieved systematically.

More broadly, I would say that the whole presentation of AD&D suffers from putting forward particular results of play (achieved by Gygax and his friends) as procedures for play by others. It almost has a cargo-cultish dimension, as if by aping Gygax's outcomes you'll get the same play experience, even if the actual procedures that Gygax used are not adopted. A very simple example is all the verbiage in the AD&D PHB about fireball, and what it does and doesn't melt and so on. Contrast this with original D&D or Moldvay Basic, which clearly leaves this as a matter of GM adjudication. (It also fits rather uncomfortably with the Item Saving Throw table - which personally I think is a better procedure than the fireball spell text, if only because it brings into play the overall strengths of saving throws as a mechanica.)

The issue of arms race escalation in dungeoneering - pit traps! 10' poles! pit traps which trigger only when you poke the floor 10' or so in front of them! - is a well-known phenomenon. The passage that I quoted is an expression of it. However exactly it was solved at Gygax's table, I doubt that it was solved using the crappy procedure that he recommends in his DMG. (As I have already said, I am guessing that the solution was some form of gentlemen's agreement.)

when I see people throw around the term adversarial GM it seems like there is an agenda at work where folks are trying to say there is something inherently flawed about traditional styles of play

Perhaps you are needlessly projecting. I am talking about a particular passage from Gygax's DMG, and the GMing style that they advocate. (There are others I could also produce if you want.)

If you think this is good GMing advice, by all means explain why - perhaps with examples of how it has worked for you. If you think that Gygax didn't really mean it and didn't follow it himself, then it seems that you are agreeing with me that it is not good advice.

If you are trying to tell me, though, that no one ever followed it, I can tell you from personal experience that that is not true.

i don't know, to me it feels like you are drawing on an exagerated caricature of early D&D to promote a game like torchbearer and its approach over a more traditional style of play. Adversarial is not a neutral word. It is not a mere synonym in this case.

I explained in my post how "adversarial" goes beyond being a synonym for "GM as opponent" - in particular, it refers to a particular way of using the ingame fiction to try and discipline the players for their choices.

As for Torchbearer, I'm not trying to promote it. I don't own it, have never read it and currently don't intend ever to play it. (I gather encumbrance rules are very central to it.) But I am guessing that it deals with the listening-at-doors issue, and I am guessing it has beter advice than the advice that Gygax gives.

As I said, either Gygax's advice is good or not. If you think it's good, explain how. If you agree that it's not - which is the impression I'm getting - then why are you objecting to me taking the same view? And if you think that it's not good advice, why do you think that? I think it's not good advice because - in actual application - I think it sets no boundaries on what the GM will do to block player information-gathering options. (After the rooms full of silent enemies, what happens when the PCs gain access to X-Ray vision? ESP at will?)

The real issue is that the game play encourages the players to take steps to gather information - and Gygax expressly encourages them to do so in his PHB - but that the procedures for resolving that tend to make the game unfun. The obvious solution to this issue is to change the incentives - in which case you move away from old-style play, which probably isn't desirable in this case - or change the procedures. The most obvious way to change the procedures is some form of rationing. The only rationing device that Gygax puts forward is wandering monsters - which make ingame time itself a commodity for the players - but he is clearly aware that this on its own may not, even will not, do the job. I'm sure other and better rationing options could be thought of by those who like this sort of play.

Or have I misunderstood you, and you really are defending rooms full of silent monsters, and other gotcha techniques, as the best way to deal with the issue that Gygax is talking about?

 

[Hussar]

It is the choice of words. It feels like there is an agenda at work. Adversarial has connotations that go beyond just trying to challenge the players (and people who speak of Adversarial GMs usually do so in a light that that is highly unfavorable). It is like the term Magic Tea Party, it is condescending and insulting to people who like RP heavy interaction in games. It is dismissive. And like I said, it reduces a style of play to a single thing, when it is so much more than that.

Again, the dismissive part is mostly on the listener. It's dismissive in the sense that it's not something I want to play. I have no interest anymore in this style of play where the DM sees the players as opponents. But, then again, considering the dismissive and condescending tones that are directed to anyone who doesn't like traditional D&D, I'm thinking that I don't really care that much.

To me, the RBDM is adversarial. Again, it's not something I want to play at all. I do not enjoy it and I find it very detrimental to gaming. It advocates a style of play where players are forced to constantly play paranoid because any mistake will result in death or serious consequences for the character. When I get new players at the table from these types of tables, it takes forever to deprogram them into a much looser style where mistakes are considered a good thing.

Additionally, there is the constant battle to try to add in mechanics which support my style of gaming from those who are completely dismissive of any mechanics that don't fit in with their play styles.

 

[pemerton]

the D&D PC player does not sit in anything resembling the same position as Tolkien. The RPG player in the closest analogous position to the author's is the GM.

JRRT constructed everything- the world, the divinities, the magic system, the civilizations, the races and even personalities- the way the world works' from top to bottom.

The GM does all of this excepting the process of deciding the background, internal motivations, etc. of player characters, which, by design, is reserved to the players.

The GM is a fallable human, no doubt, but at least he has all of the campaign design notes to guide him, for one.

The thing is, none of this is necessary to an RPG. Nor is it even necessary to D&D.

Which is the point that I (and I think also [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) am making. The game will not suddenly collapse into incoherenece, or inconsistency, because the players get to decide what the requirements are for their PCs' gods and codes and everything else, and the GM does not exercise power over those particular elements of the game's backstory.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pemerton, please do not twist my words to make it sound like I am agreeing with you when iit should be clear as day I am not. And please do not twist my words to ascribe positions to me that i have never taken. I am saying you are pulling that one quote out of context to condemn all the advice in the DMG. Personally I think the 1E DMG has tons of great advice, and the reason is simple: when I have gone back and re-read, each time it adds to my game. A lot of it draws on obvious hyperbole for dealing with extreme situations (like the passage you posted) much of it is more practical advice. I happen to really like the 1E dmg. If you hasnt worked for you, or some of your GMs have used it in a way that didn't work at your table, that isn't my concern. For me it has worked. It is far from perfect but definitely the best DMG so far in my opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The thing is, none of this is necessary to an RPG. Nor is it even necessary to D&D.

Which is the point that I (and I think also @Hussar) am making. The game will not suddenly collapse into incoherenece, or inconsistency, because the players get to decide what the requirements are for their PCs' gods and codes and everything else, and the GM does not exercise power over those particular elements of the game's backstory.

I find that there is an unavoidable conflict of interest when one party decides his PC will adhere to a code of subservience/adherence to another being or ethical philosophy- as in a cleric or paladin to his faith & code- in exchange for powers within the campaign world AND is given the ability to adjudicate whether his PC has successfully met the terms of that pact.

(That is not to say that it is impossible to do so, just that there is an inherent quandary.)

Any other player or group of players is in a better position to make that decision.

And the GM, whose role is essentially (and ideally) that of neutral adjudicator, is the best position to make that assessment.

As I mentioned before, I am subject to an externally imposed ethical code as a condition of being granted all kinds of powers. While I might be a good person in the eyes of many, at no point will I be allowed to decide whether I have violated that code. Others will always have that authority over me.

And those who have that authority over me will never have the ability to adjudicate the quality of their own adherence to the code- someone else of like qualification will be given that job.

 

[pemerton]

I am saying you are pulling that one quote out of context to condemn all the advice in the DMG.

In that case you are saying something false. I have not asserted anything about all the advice in Gygax's DMG. And in fact, if you have followed my posts on other threads on these board over the years, you would see that I am a strong defender of Gygax's advice on the narration of hit point loss and saving throw success.

Furthermore, the only poster in this thread to set out the coherence of alignment within Ggyaxian D&D play has been me. (Somewhere in the neighbourhood of post 50 upthread, I believe.)

As I said in my earlier post, perhaps you are projecting, or in some other way seeing things that are not there.

Also, you have not answered my question - do you think the advice on how to deal with listen checks at doors is good advice, or not? I had assumed that you didn't, but given that you have said you disagree with me then perhaps you do. You could clear up the uncertainty by answering the question.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In that case you are saying something false. I have not asserted anything about all the advice in Gygax's

Also, you have not answered my question - do you think the advice on how to deal with listen checks at doors is good advice, or not? I had assumed that you didn't, but given that you have said you disagree with me then perhaps you do. You could clear up the uncertainty by answering the question.

I already answered that and explained my take in that passage. I think my position on it is pretty clear.