What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?

[Micah Sweet]

GMs and players are expected users, and GMs may buy more games than player, but the number who do that who are not serving their players well are, I'm willing to bet, not a big part of their market.

Again, the GMs job is not to "serve their players" IMO, it is instead to create an environment where everyone can have fun playing the game. That obviously includes the players, but it also includes the GM. Again, I'm getting the impression that you see GMing as a service industry, where the players are employing the GM to run a game for them. That's not my experience, and folks seem to enjoy my games just fine.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You seem to think the players are more important than the GM, so their desires should be prioritized.

As a group, I think they're absolutely at least as important. This shouldn't be controversial; even people I've disagreed with about the appropriate power relationship between players and GMs willingly admit that without players, you aren't a GM. You're just a person who'd like to be one.

A lot of people seem to feel this way (I've met many on this board who seem to resent the existence of a GM with desires for their game are not completely shared by the players), but that doesn't make it a better way to game. When you say, "it really only matters to the GM" I read that as, "and who cares what they want? Their job is to service player desires".

No, I mean that if its entirely one sided, you're essentially just using your players for your entertainment. I don't think even you believe that because things you've said in the past indicate to the contrary.

You're right. I do have a sim bias, and any game I run is going to have one too, to one degree or another, because that is how I enjoy the hobby most. When I play, I prefer games that I can play through a sim lens as well, though I will abide by the style of the GM if I want to stay in the campaign. I won't apologize or be ashamed of any of that.

But remember, that's not the argument. The question is "To what extent should I make the game I'm running more difficult or unpleastant to my players (not some abstract group you may never play with, but that actual group of people you're playing with) to support my desires?" Is there a way to read "I'm going to do it anyway" as anything but profoundly selfish in that case? Shouldn't you either be fixing that to the degree you can (remember the two qualifications I made on this at the start: no meaningful difference in degree of output nor player facing input--the lack of those should not be necessary even with a simulationist-centric game; in fact I'm not sure having that actually supports a sim agenda optimally) or finding people who are more compatible with what you're trying to do? If not, why not?

I'd ask another question here about the apparent position of the players in what you seem to be arguing for, but I find its opposite hyperbolic as usually expressed and I can't think of better way to frame it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again, the GMs job is not to "serve their players" IMO, it is instead to create an environment where everyone can have fun playing the game. That obviously includes the players, but it also includes the GM. Again, I'm getting the impression that you see GMing as a service industry, where the players are employing the GM to run a game for them. That's not my experience, and folks seem to enjoy my games just fine.

I'll just tell you that's incorrect, but see my response above. If I read yours the same way I'd say you didn't think your players mattered. As I said, I don't believe you believe that, but I don't think you're seeing what you seem to be arguing points in that direction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a group, I think they're absolutely at least as important. This shouldn't be controversial; even people I've disagreed with about the appropriate power relationship between players and GMs willingly admit that without players, you aren't a GM. You're just a person who'd like to be one.



No, I mean that if its entirely one sided, you're essentially just using your players for your entertainment. I don't think even you believe that because things you've said in the past indicate to the contrary.



But remember, that's not the argument. The question is "To what extent should I make the game I'm running more difficult or unpleastant to my players (not some abstract group you may never play with, but that actual group of people you're playing with) to support my desires?" Is there a way to read "I'm going to do it anyway" as anything but profoundly selfish in that case? Shouldn't you either be fixing that to the degree you can (remember the two qualifications I made on this at the start: no meaningful difference in degree of output nor player facing input--the lack of those should not be necessary even with a simulationist-centric game; in fact I'm not sure having that actually supports a sim agenda optimally) or finding people who are more compatible with what you're trying to do? If not, why not?

I'd ask another question here about the apparent position of the players in what you seem to be arguing for, but I find its opposite hyperbolic as usually expressed and I can't think of better way to frame it.

My players are willing to work with my interest in sim play (my wife in particular tends to prefer it, in the context of "making sense". They know I want that in my gaming, and in return I try not to make it too annoying on their end. A lot of sim stuff appears on the GM side anyway, so I don't see why the players should have a say in stuff like that. For the stuff that does fall on the player side, I run as much sim as the players will let me, with a minimum needed for me to enjoy running the game.

Also, what game are you thinking of that meets my sim needs without any "meaningful difference in degree of output nor player-facing input"? I'm not even sure I know what that means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll just tell you that's incorrect, but see my response above. If I read yours the same way I'd say you didn't think your players mattered. As I said, I don't believe you believe that, but I don't think you're seeing what you seem to be arguing points in that direction.

Ok, if I have you wrong, how do you see the GM/Player relationship?

 

[gban007]

My players are willing to work with my interest in sim play (my wife in particular tends to prefer it, in the context of "making sense". They know I want that in my gaming, and in return I try not to make it too annoying on their end. A lot of sim stuff appears on the GM side anyway, so I don't see why the players should have a say in stuff like that. For the stuff that does fall on the player side, I run as much sim as the players will let me, with a minimum needed for me to enjoy running the game.

Also, what game are you thinking of that meets my sim needs without any "meaningful difference in degree of output nor player-facing input"? I'm not even sure I know what that means.

I dont know of an example directly, but hypothetical one to try and show my understanding is random encounter tables.

It could be roll a d100, on 1 to 10 there are different encounters that happen, and 11 to 100 no encounter.

Or it could be, roll a d20, if it is a populated region (see x for what constitutes populated), on 1 to 4 an encounter happens, else 1 to 2.

If an encounter happens, cross reference population density, terrain type, season, time of day and current weather to determine which table to roll on for encounter. If any of above unknown, roll on y tables to determine.

Roll on that given table for encounter.

Now second case for the Sim side of me quite likes, as gives detailed reasons for why get results given.

But may be case that first instance takes half a minute to determine and inform players, while other may take 5 to 10 minutes to inform players. Outcome may even be the same, but even if not, is that time for players essentially doing nothing fair to them for sake of DMs interest?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dont know of an example directly, but hypothetical one to try and show my understanding is random encounter tables.

It could be roll a d100, on 1 to 10 there are different encounters that happen, and 11 to 100 no encounter.

Or it could be, roll a d20, if it is a populated region (see x for what constitutes populated), on 1 to 4 an encounter happens, else 1 to 2.

If an encounter happens, cross reference population density, terrain type, season, time of day and current weather to determine which table to roll on for encounter. If any of above unknown, roll on y tables to determine.

Roll on that given table for encounter.

Now second case for the Sim side of me quite likes, as gives detailed reasons for why get results given.

But may be case that first instance takes half a minute to determine and inform players, while other may take 5 to 10 minutes to inform players. Outcome may even be the same, but even if not, is that time for players essentially doing nothing fair to them for sake of DMs interest?

Good example! The answer to that for me is to do as much rolling for random encounters ahead of time as possible. To make this work, you need to have a good idea of where the players are going to go in session, which is accomplished by talking to your players at the end of a session regarding their future plans. Once you have that, you fairly roll potential encounters as part of your prep and keep them on hand when needed. That way, you can present the encounter in play with no loss of time, and keep the game moving. I did exactly this in my Level Up game when the PCs were traveling cross country; rolled up several encounters based on the terrain I expected them to move through and used them as needed.

Using this system, the only time you have to roll encounters in-session is when the PCs do something completely unexpected, like decide to go to sea at the beginning of the session (preventing you from pushing the rolls until later). Pretty unlikely, and I can live with that happening occasionally.

 

[mamba]

GMs and players are expected users, and GMs may buy more games than player, but the number who do that who are not serving their players well are, I'm willing to bet, not a big part of their market.

About a third of sales is probably bought to be read and never played, and I assume that they are very much aware of that and factor this in, so no, the market is not just DMs that 'serve their players', whatever that even means

 

[Micah Sweet]

About a third of sales is probably bought to be read and never played, and I assume that they are very much aware of that and factor this in, so no, the market is not just DMs that 'serve their players', whatever that even means

I know I've bought many RPG with no real assumption I would definitely be using them in play in the "service" of my players, just for reading enjoyment, with the vague hope of putting them in a game, maybe.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Also, what game are you thinking of that meets my sim needs without any "meaningful difference in degree of output nor player-facing input"? I'm not even sure I know what that means.

It was a hypothetical, Micah. Though the "degree of output" can be as simple as "The result is always a binary yes-no that provides no matter of degree" (and no, this isn't some sort of narrative thing, the first games I saw that were games like Runequest that had special and critical results). It isn't hard to have a complex system that still does that. I could have probably named a three or four old FGU cames that were pretty complex but still had binary output. Also note in my definition of player input I specifically said "non -subjective" in the original; that's not uncommon at all once you get away from combat in any number of game systems, because they don't go into enough detail about resolution outside of that to provide it. There's a lot of potential decisions a player can make while climbing a cliff, but the number of games that actually give you any help with what effect those will have can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand (if that).