GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[aramis erak]

Not with chess specifically, because I don't generally play that game, but with other board and video games, absolutely, and we all, myself included, had much more fun than we would have otherwise.

You've never played a boardgame with me, nor most of my players. If I find a person sandbagging, I lose interest in the game session. And generally won't play with them again.

When I do sandbag, I announce it ahead of time, so that players know I am teaching the game, not competing. Second game? full up, play to win.

Winning is only fun when it feels earned. Finding out it wasn't earned robs it of some to all its sweetness.

 

[GrahamWills]

It's interesting that you claim to be both using techniques normally associated with Illusionism, but also playing with the curtain raised so that the players can see you are adjusting on the fly. I've sat at a lot of tables but I have no direct experience with that style of play.

The techniques I have suggested to use:

1. If a fight is effectively over, stop running it.
2. If a fight is not as challenging as you thought it should be, add in a few monsters
3. When it gets late at night, end the encounter when people start yawning
4. If a character has a nemesis, make minor scene adjustments to give them a chance of facing their nemesis.

Are these really examples of techniques "normally associated with Illusionism"? Specifically you feel these are technics that remove the player's agency -- not just a little bit, but completely? I think you're grasping at straws here just to keep your argument going. Everything a GM does changes a player's agency, and these examples certainly do, but stating they are techniques that people associate with illusionism seems like a bit of a stretch.

As for "I have no direct experience with that style of play" I'm guessing you've never played living campaigns or at conventions or time-constrained games. If you had you would have seen regular examples of the GM telling the players straight up that they were shorting fights, skipping encounters, allowing players to succeed where they normally wouldn't -- all so they could get to a final scene or finish in time for lunch or whatever. Ask anyone active in the LC, LG, LFR, LF or current D&D living communities and they'll set you straight.

I would argue that it's a necessary skill for a GM to have. Sometimes players spend more time in scenes more than expected and so you need to fix pacing. The "non-fudging" way to play is to keep going and then suddenly stop at the end, giving a poor experience for most players. The "fudging" way to play is to adjust the scenes to fix the pacing. I don't think I've met a GM who thinks the "non-fudging" way is better, and certainly those who are respected in the community and give advice on podcasts are pretty uniform in saying that managing pacing is important. And you do that by managing the pacing of scenes, and that means modifying encounters mid-flow.

 

[Xamnam]

You've never played a boardgame with me, nor most of my players. If I find a person sandbagging, I lose interest in the game session. And generally won't play with them again.

I mean, yes, you're correct for you. I know my friends, and I know the context in which we are playing games. I'm glad you know what works for you and yours. The idea that no one might feel differently than what I quoted is what I pushed back against.

Winning is only fun when it feels earned. Finding out it wasn't earned robs it of some to all its sweetness.

Likewise, I disagree. This is not a universal sentiment. Or, winning might not be the point at all of the game.

 

[pemerton]

@GrahamWills

When it comes to "straight up" telling the players what one is doing as GM:

In 4e D&D, if new opponents turn up it's obvious, in so far as the GM has to describe new people turning up in the scene. Whether the players think that was planned all along, or is a response to something that is happening at the table, will depend on their mental processes and also what questions they ask! I don't think it matters: the situation at the table is the situation at the table.

This relates to different ways that different RPGs work. In 4e, the idea of "scouting" and then defeating an opponent through superior intelligence is not, in general, a big part of play - not in the way that (say) Gygax describes it in his PHB. So brining extra antagonists onto the scene is simply a manipulation of difficulty, which affects pacing (as you say) and also feeds into XP and treasure parcel awards. But it doesn't particularly defeat anyone's agency.

The techniques for running, say, Tomb of Horrors of course are quite different.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@GrahamWills

When it comes to "straight up" telling the players what one is doing as GM:

In 4e D&D, if new opponents turn up it's obvious, in so far as the GM has to describe new people turning up in the scene. Whether the players think that was planned all along, or is a response to something that is happening at the table, will depend on their mental processes and also what questions they ask! I don't think it matters: the situation at the table is the situation at the table.

This relates to different ways that different RPGs work. In 4e, the idea of "scouting" and then defeating an opponent through superior intelligence is not, in general, a big part of play - not in the way that (say) Gygax describes it in his PHB. So brining extra antagonists onto the scene is simply a manipulation of difficulty, which affects pacing (as you say) and also feeds into XP and treasure parcel awards. But it doesn't particularly defeat anyone's agency.

The techniques for running, say, Tomb of Horrors of course are quite different.

Yeah, my GMing is definitely entirely open in terms of everyone figuring out and knowing what the consequences of anything are. If I'm going to bring in more monsters, its going to be "hey, this seems a bit easy, maybe the guards down the hall heard that big crash when you broke the door down, 3 or 4 of them might show up, what do you all think? Or at least give a hint!

 

[Lanefan]

The techniques I have suggested to use:

1. If a fight is effectively over, stop running it.
2. If a fight is not as challenging as you thought it should be, add in a few monsters
3. When it gets late at night, end the encounter when people start yawning
4. If a character has a nemesis, make minor scene adjustments to give them a chance of facing their nemesis.

Are these really examples of techniques "normally associated with Illusionism"?

All four are techniques that I'd associate with GM metagaming (yes, GMs can metagame too); and all of them IMO violate the integrity of the game being played.

1. A fight that might seem "effectively over" can still pack a surprise or two and thus really ought to be run out to its conclusion.
2. Bad-faith GMing, that. Very poor form, especially if the combat's not challenging because the players/PCs specifically took in-fiction steps to make it that way,
3. If-when it gets late enough that people start yawning yet the encounter isn't finished, end the session in mid-encounter and pick up at that same point next session.
4. If a character has a nemesis and that nemesis is or could be in the scene it's on the character and its player to find and face the nemesis, not on the GM to present it to them.

As for "I have no direct experience with that style of play" I'm guessing you've never played living campaigns or at conventions or time-constrained games. If you had you would have seen regular examples of the GM telling the players straight up that they were shorting fights, skipping encounters, allowing players to succeed where they normally wouldn't -- all so they could get to a final scene or finish in time for lunch or whatever. Ask anyone active in the LC, LG, LFR, LF or current D&D living communities and they'll set you straight.

Convention games and the like are odd ducks, and IMO really aren't a viable template on which to base ongoing home campaigns. Not familiar with what makes a "living" campaign different from any other.

I would argue that it's a necessary skill for a GM to have. Sometimes players spend more time in scenes more than expected and so you need to fix pacing. The "non-fudging" way to play is to keep going and then suddenly stop at the end, giving a poor experience for most players. The "fudging" way to play is to adjust the scenes to fix the pacing. I don't think I've met a GM who thinks the "non-fudging" way is better, and certainly those who are respected in the community and give advice on podcasts are pretty uniform in saying that managing pacing is important. And you do that by managing the pacing of scenes, and that means modifying encounters mid-flow.

Most typical home campaigns aren't on a hard-coded schedule where x-amount of plot must be played through before y-amount of real-world time goes by. There's always next session for what doesn't get done in this one.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, my GMing is definitely entirely open in terms of everyone figuring out and knowing what the consequences of anything are. If I'm going to bring in more monsters, its going to be "hey, this seems a bit easy, maybe the guards down the hall heard that big crash when you broke the door down, 3 or 4 of them might show up, what do you all think? Or at least give a hint!

Normally I would taunt or tease. Hinting is a bit subtle!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Normally I would taunt or tease. Hinting is a bit subtle!

Well, something like "Good job Mr. Halfling, that amazing example of stealth gets you an extra 3 orcs!" hahahaha. Yeah, well, I have definitely been through my rat bastard DM phase.

 

[GrahamWills]

All four are techniques that I'd associate with GM metagaming (yes, GMs can metagame too); and all of them IMO violate the integrity of the game being played.

Please read the thread before commenting. This was not the point in question -- the point in question is not "is this metagaming?" but "is this a classic example of illusionism".

2. Bad-faith GMing, that. Very poor form, especially if the combat's not challenging because the players/PCs specifically took in-fiction steps to make it that way,

Please read the thread before commenting. I specifically stated that was not the case. As an aside, it can only be bad faith if there is a table contract that the GM will not do that. If there is no such contract, it cannot be in bad faith. And, if you read my comments on my style in this thread, it should be obvious that I have no such contract to break faith with.

Convention games and the like are odd ducks, and IMO really aren't a viable template on which to base ongoing home campaigns. Not familiar with what makes a "living" campaign different from any other.

Please read the thread before commenting. This was in response to a poster saying they had "never experienced this style of play". Not "never had an ongoing home campaign using this style" or the like. They said they had decades of play, were a good GM and had NEVER experienced this style of play. They did not put conditions on the "never". I was expressing surprise that they hadn't seen this style of play, not advocating it as a template for them.

 

[Fenris-77]

So just to toss out a hot take, I don't think it's useful to talk about metagaming and GMs the same way we might about players. Up to a certain point GMs are supposed to metagame, assuming we understand that term without the negative connotations sometimes attached to it.. Anyway, using the same yardstick there seems like the wrong approach.