What's your style?

[GMMichael]

My style: force multipliers.

A rough translation for those of you who don't speak Lieutenant: a force multiplier is any asset that makes your manpower greater than the number of men you have. For example, a machine gun, or night vision. Dug-in positions. (Mind you, I'm not fluent in Lieutenant...)

In RPGs, a force multiplier might be anything that makes the game bigger and better, without requiring more players or rulebooks. So I like DIY stuff, flexible rules, and have a special place in my heart for PDA-readable stuff. PDFs.

 

[innerdude]

I've come to realize I'm very much a "traditionalist" in my RPG play, in that I generally expect a game to provide a level of verisimilitude, as much as possible support "associated" mechanics, and that as much as possible the in-game fiction should have at least the appearance of being a fully functional, "living" world.

That said, I'm also becoming much more open to mechanics and playstyles that break away from "traditional" play to serve the purpose of player fun. The whole "fail forward" thread actually re-iterated to me just how "traditional" most of my RPG sensitivities are, but that the means to mesh "traditional" play with "fail forward" doesn't necessarily require a complete abandonment of what I already know, but to redirect certain variables and attributes toward that goal.

As a player, I'm almost always more interested in intrigue, mystery, and exploration than I am in combat. One of the things that led me away from D&D was the required 6-8 encounter pacing hard baked into the rules. I played a lot of games with pointless, meaningless combats in the early 2000s, and I just got sick of that kind of play. D&D always seemed to constantly fight against my desire to get inside the story, because of the assumed pacing of encounters, which was only exacerbated by the amount of time it took to resolve individual encounters generally.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Just about any low-level creature works well as a "Mook" in that it goes down in a single round's worth of attack (often a single attack), and just about any area effect wipes them out in droves.

I don't see much point in that either.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So tell me, how is a GM'd game acceptable at all? After all the single biggest strength any character can possibly have is someone advocating for them - and PCs get one player per PC while NPCs have to split the time of the GM.

The GM is a neutral arbiter, who treats all characters fairly. It doesn't matter who the players are advocating for, because this isn't a democracy and they don't get a vote in what happens.

 

[Balesir]

Yes, me too. Unfortunately, too many games, not enough time.

Oh, I hear that!

 

[Balesir]

The GM is a neutral arbiter, who treats all characters fairly. It doesn't matter who the players are advocating for, because this isn't a democracy and they don't get a vote in what happens.

Why do they bother to turn up, then? As opposed to, say, reading a book or watching a movie?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why do they bother to turn up, then? As opposed to, say, reading a book or watching a movie?

They players? They show up so they can pretend to be cool heroes who slay monsters and whatnot. Because they know that their choices actually matter, since the GM isn't just going to hand them victory on a silver platter out of some misguided notion that they should win just because they're PCs.

Edit: The players should also know that the GM isn't just being adversarial in trying to kill off the PCs. I didn't mean to suggest that a biased GM is always going to make things easy for the PCs, just that the outcome is more meaningful when the arbiter is unbiased. Much of the appeal in playing this sort of game is derived from trust that the GM is playing fairly.

 

[Balesir]

They players? They show up so they can pretend to be cool heroes who slay monsters and whatnot. Because they know that their choices actually matter, since the GM isn't just going to hand them victory on a silver platter out of some misguided notion that they should win just because they're PCs.

Edit: The players should also know that the GM isn't just being adversarial in trying to kill off the PCs. I didn't mean to suggest that a biased GM is always going to make things easy for the PCs, just that the outcome is more meaningful when the arbiter is unbiased. Much of the appeal in playing this sort of game is derived from trust that the GM is playing fairly.

I'm getting confused. The players have no vote in what happens, but their choices matter?? The GM should not be adversarial, but should not make things easy...

So... the GM decides what happens, but should make it not too good or too bad (according to what yardstick?) - they should not be "biased" (compared to what? what is the 'neutral position'? do they get to decide what that is, too? how can they be unbiased, then??)

This all seems like an "impossible thing before breakfast"...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm getting confused. The players have no vote in what happens, but their choices matter?? The GM should not be adversarial, but should not make things easy...

Advocacy doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the players think something should or should not happen, because the only thing they can control is the decisions their characters make. That is, as the saying goes, "the heart of role-playing".

It doesn't matter whether a character is a PC or an NPC, because the world simply does not care, and it shouldn't inform any rulings that the GM makes. The players decide what their characters do, and the GM arbitrates the result. The GM decides what the NPCs do, and the GM arbitrates the result. The GM rules based on the action being attempted and the in-game reality (skill, circumstances, etc) around the attempt, without bias from outside factors that cannot possibly matter (like whether it's a player or the GM who decided the character should attempt the action). It's the simplest thing in the world, and I have no idea why anyone is confused on this point.

 

[Balesir]

The players decide what their characters do, and the GM arbitrates the result.

OK - I much prefer if rules do that, but whatever.

The GM decides what the NPCs do, and the GM arbitrates the result.

This cannot possibly be anything but biased - not because of any favouritism on the part of the GM, but because the person making the decision (the GM) is privy to the mecanisms and values being used to adjudicate the results in a way that the players can never be (unless the GM and the players are all the same person).

The GM rules based on the action being attempted and the in-game reality (skill, circumstances, etc) around the attempt, without bias from outside factors that cannot possibly matter (like whether it's a player or the GM who decided the character should attempt the action).

There is no "in-game reality" except as exists in the minds of the GM and players. By giving the GM's mind primacy, you rob the players of any useful model with which to perceive that world. What factors are "relevant"? The GM decides. Who decided upon the action taken should, I agree, not be a factor - but it will in itself profoundly affect the construal of the situation by the person making the decision. The NPCs (via the mind of the GM) will always construe the situation one way - the way the GM construes it, because they are facets of the GM's mind - while the PCs may very well construe it another (because they construe it the way the player does). The NPCs will be priviledged to construe it the "correct" way, or the way the world "really is", because they have the immense advantage of sharing the perceptions and world-model of the individual who is actually deciding how the game world "really is".

It's the simplest thing in the world, and I have no idea why anyone is confused on this point.

Seeing the colour red is the simplest thing in the world - except that upon examination it turns out to be exceedingly complex, since there is no such thing as "the colour red" except as a construct of our imaginations...

Similar deal here.