D&D General The Power of Creation

[bloodtide]

The DM can do whatever he wants, as long as its in good faith.

There's only 1 thing that is a big no for me: Fudging. You do it, you a bad DM. Respect the dice, if you dont want a probability of success, don't ask for a roll.

I agree here: Let the Dice Roll Where they May. Though I hold this to the players too...a couple bad rolls and your character dies. If I want or don't want something to happen...it just does or does not, no roll needed.

I get lost in all the Forgey Jargon...

But I HATE monster knowledge checks, and don't use them in my game. But, sure, I always let players waste their time making them. No monster in D&D has some special "win button", so the players knowing the monster is immune to fire is very much pointless as the monster kills the characters. And does the monster have a template, magic item, spell, special ability that your "know everything" roll does not know....well, too bad for you.

 

[kenada]

Yeah, but that sort of thing could happen in any system where you had permanent negative consequences as a potential outcome to the character's story. Even in games without explicit permadeath, it's very hard for me to see how you get around having outcomes the player does not want unless the player is the sole storyteller. Even Indy games are typically rigged to put characters in negative outcome "death spirals" wear the math tends to favor the narrative ultimately being tragic. I don't know that your story proves that the problem is anything other than a dysfunctional player, as there is a class of player going back as long as the game has been around whose aesthetic of play is self-affirmation and what they really only want from the game is the GM repeatedly telling them, "Yes, you win. You are so cool." That isn't necessarily functional play in any system.

I would call that player dysfunctional only in the sense he was in a group that wanted to play differently than how he did. But a whole group like that? It seems like it would be perfectly functionality even if what they are likely to be doing is nothing like how I’d want to play the game.

Yes, that's true, but that's not literally what "system matters" means in Forge Speak so maybe let's just avoid jargon. The plain meaning of "system matters" tends to be "rules matter", and so that's why I countered with Celebrim's Second Law which in essence says that no matter the game system, if you prepare and think about playing it as if it were D&D it will play much like D&D. That is if you prepare a keyed map filled with monsters and traps and treasure and expect the focus of play to be skilled and potent adventurers exploring that, you can fully play D&D using CoC rules. Conversely, you can play CoC using D&D rules. I think people tend to underestimate how completely flexible game systems are. I'm not a particular person and I have certain sensibilities as a GM, and the one time I tried to run Paranoia it came out as a highly disturbing Horror RPG.

Does it have to be good play? We had one session of Scum and Villainy where the GM ran us through prep before a mission. Because the facts of what happened were locked in place, there were no good places to use flashbacks. The result was a boring session in spite of a cool premise (terraforming a planet to commit insurance fraud). I’d expect map and key play would go about as well.

It wouldn't be a terrible idea, and certainly you should set out the standard that the game is intended to be cooperative. PC vs. PC violence is 99% of the time player dysfunction and it should be strongly discouraged. The only reason I don't ban it is that protection from retribution only tends to encourage the dysfunctional troublemakers who would otherwise be afraid the rest of the players would band against them.

I actually meant the GM would need permission from the player to kill their PC in an encounter. That’s not how I’d want to do things, but it’s something I’ve seen expressed by those who have a preference for what that Six Cultures essay would call OC/neo-trad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I actually meant the GM would need permission from the player to kill their PC in an encounter. That’s not how I’d want to do things, but it’s something I’ve seen expressed by those who have a preference for what that Six Cultures essay would call OC/neo-trad.

It's also a super useful tool to keep characters around who feature in the GM's plot plans, so it suits Trad as well.

 

[Celebrim]

I would call that player dysfunctional only in the sense he was in a group that wanted to play differently than how he did. But a whole group like that? It seems like it would be perfectly functionality even if what they are likely to be doing is nothing like how I’d want to play the game.

Well, maybe. I've been around the block a lot and I've played in full consensus games where no one really had the authority to impose a negative outcome on a player without their consent. But nothing like that stops those games from being dysfunctional. Typically, players that are dysfunctional in other sorts of play end up being dysfunctional when you change the premise as well. For example, the motive of the extreme self-affirmation types tends to make them spotlight hogs who always want to be cooler than all the other characters, and so even in situations where the GM is actually willing to run a game where the players triumph over every obstacle with ease (and I have seen that even in systems that in theory do have random death) the table isn't necessarily enjoying it because one or more players aren't just about winning but being seen to win more than everyone else. What I'm trying to say is that there is no guarantee at all this guy would be happy at another table with a different style of play. The more demanding the player is that everyone accommodate to him, the less likely I think that anything will really make him happy.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree here: Let the Dice Roll Where they May. Though I hold this to the players too...a couple bad rolls and your character dies. If I want or don't want something to happen...it just does or does not, no roll needed.

I get lost in all the Forgey Jargon...

But I HATE monster knowledge checks, and don't use them in my game. But, sure, I always let players waste their time making them. No monster in D&D has some special "win button", so the players knowing the monster is immune to fire is very much pointless as the monster kills the characters. And does the monster have a template, magic item, spell, special ability that your "know everything" roll does not know....well, too bad for you.

What, lots of monsters have "win" buttons. Medusas, Mind Flayers, and Bodaks come to mind right off the top of my head.

 

[kenada]

Well, maybe. I've been around the block a lot and I've played in full consensus games where no one really had the authority to impose a negative outcome on a player without their consent. But nothing like that stops those games from being dysfunctional. Typically, players that are dysfunctional in other sorts of play end up being dysfunctional when you change the premise as well. For example, the motive of the extreme self-affirmation types tends to make them spotlight hogs who always want to be cooler than all the other characters, and so even in situations where the GM is actually willing to run a game where the players triumph over every obstacle with ease (and I have seen that even in systems that in theory do have random death) the table isn't necessarily enjoying it because one or more players aren't just about winning but being seen to win more than everyone else. What I'm trying to say is that there is no guarantee at all this guy would be happy at another table with a different style of play. The more demanding the player is that everyone accommodate to him, the less likely I think that anything will really make him happy.

Maybe he would be, or maybe wouldn’t. I don’t know, but I do know he had another longtime group, and they seem to get along fine. I played with them a few times, but it was just so-so. We did L5R 4e and Shadowrun 4e. The L5R game was fun but didn’t last more than a few sessions. Shadowrun was run way too seriously. I’m used to its being a bit silly and chaotic, but this wasn’t that.

Anyway, the point was the thought exercise, but I don’t think we’re going to agree regarding different types of players, so maybe it’s best just to drop it. Compared to another player I had who was dysfunctional (if not toxic), he was just a guy who wanted something other than what I was doing. That doesn’t make him (or players like him) bad or dysfunctional. Just different.

 

[Celebrim]

@kenada I can imagine myself enjoying all sorts of different games with all sorts of different aesthetics of play.

What I can't imagine is playing at someone else's table and being upset that their aesthetic of play was slightly different than mine and then quitting in some fashion that could be called "rage quitting". Once or twice I've been invited to a game that wasn't for me for various reasons, and I thanked them for the game at the end and then politely declined further invitations as best as I could. To me seeing different ways to play the game is a lot of the fun. The game grinds through a stack of xeroxed PCs. Could be fun. The game is mostly low melodrama as we deeply explore character using thespian techniques. That could be fun too.

 

[kenada]

What I can't imagine is playing at someone else's table and being upset that their aesthetic of play was slightly different than mine and then quitting in some fashion that could be called "rage quitting". Once or twice I've been invited to a game that wasn't for me for various reasons, and I thanked them for the game at the end and then politely declined further invitations as best as I could. To me seeing different ways to play the game is a lot of the fun. The game grinds through a stack of xeroxed PCs. Could be fun. The game is mostly low melodrama as we deeply explore character using thespian techniques. That could be fun too.

Like I said, it happened when his character died. We had our disagreements (I like randomization way more than he did, and I was much less concerned about build viability per se), but that was the thing that pushed him over the edge. In particular, he was particularly upset about my policy for new characters, which Pathfinder leaves unspecified, and I had clarified prior to that session. He felt that sort of thing had to be approved by the players, which was not how I did things at the time.

With a decade of hindsight, there are things I wish I had done differently in that situation. I don’t know how much of a difference it would have made. Maybe the separation would have been less acrimonious.

 

[Celebrim]

With a decade of hindsight, there are things I wish I had done differently in that situation. I don’t know how much of a difference it would have made. Maybe the separation would have been less acrimonious.

Maybe so, but as a GM, I can't imagine going to another GM's table and telling him how to run his game. I don't get a chance to play very often, and I am always grateful when anyone runs a game for me. I understand just how challenging running a game is, and how much effort it takes. I do not in any fashion want to be a difficult player. Maybe the GM doesn't run a game I really enjoy, but I would never want to disrespect another GM like that.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I won't fudge if you don't mind a tpk.