A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Manbearcat]

I think this is one of those areas where everyone has a harder or easier time running games using certain methods.

This is probably true, but I would suggest the same thing I've always suggested to this.

Everyone play different kinds of games. Its just like anything else (from food to exercises). It will broaden a person's perspective/skill-set, help them recognize and push back against cognitive blind-spots, make them appreciate their preferred playstyle more, and it will sharpen their skill-set (by distilling and clarifying the differences) in their preferred playstyle.

 

[darkbard]

If Pemerton is getting 100 plus sessions, then he is getting 100+ sessions using the style. I think this is one of those areas where everyone has a harder or easier time running games using certain methods. I know some GMs who can only do a long term campaign using adventure paths (that structure just works for them, even though I really don't enjoy them myself). I will say, I game with some folks who do go more toward the dramatic angle, and they seem to prefer shorter campaigns (simply because a good story can be told in a 6-10 session campaign). I think that is just a preference on their part though. And obviously it depends on how you do it. For me, I find the approach I've talked about (the dramatic sandbox) works well for me, over the long term (and running long term campaigns is important to me when I run a system or choose my campaign approach). Personally, I think most of the problems on this thread, tend to come down to people being overly skeptical of what other people are saying about their experience at the table. You can pull out a word a person says, an assertion they make while trying to defend a style, and dissect it until it seems like you've disproven their experience. But again I think really most of this just boils down people on these threads are very good at making arguments: that doesn't make them right.

This is probably true, but I would suggest the same thing I've always suggested to this.

Everyone play different kinds of games. Its just like anything else (from food to exercises). It will broaden a person's perspective/skill-set, help them recognize and push back against cognitive blind-spots, make them appreciate their preferred playstyle more, and it will sharpen their skill-set (by distilling and clarifying the differences) in their preferred playstyle.

I agree 100% with what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] writes above, and I think this also addresses [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s impicit critique of threads like this (a critique that, at times, has become explicit). Honest discussion of these issues isn't navel gazing; and it isn't dissection with the aim of proving oneself "right" or scoring points. Such discussion is an attempt to clarify one's own reasons for holding certain preferences and (potentially) illuminate for others cognitive biases they seem to hold that prevent them from seeing others' viewpoints.

This is also why I find "debate styles" that are intellectually dishonest so infuriating: these become an attempt to grasp ever harder to an ever-less-tenuous argument rather than cede ground in a game of one-upsmanship and point scoring, which defeats the purpose of dialogue as a means of explaining why one holds the views one does.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is probably true, but I would suggest the same thing I've always suggested to this.

Everyone play different kinds of games. Its just like anything else (from food to exercises). It will broaden a person's perspective/skill-set, help them recognize and push back against cognitive blind-spots, make them appreciate their preferred playstyle more, and it will sharpen their skill-set (by distilling and clarifying the differences) in their preferred playstyle.

I think playing different games is fine. I do it myself. But not everyone wants to try everything under the sun. Knowing what you like is fine too, and not everyone wants the kinds of experiences being offered by all varieties. It is like going to a restaurant. Some people like to try everything new they can, some people want reliable experiences with the meals they know they like. I have been doing that myself. But I think a lot of people feel like they've found the gaming grail, and don't understand why others don't always change their tastes after experiencing said grail. Sure people should play games of all kinds. These are just games. I don't think it is necessarily for us to approach them any differently than we approach food or movies.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree 100% with what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] writes above, and I think this also addresses [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s impicit critique of threads like this (a critique that, at times, has become explicit). Honest discussion of these issues isn't navel gazing; and it isn't dissection with the aim of proving oneself "right" or scoring points. Such discussion is an attempt to clarify one's own reasons for holding certain preferences and (potentially) illuminate for others cognitive biases they seem to hold that prevent them from seeing others' viewpoints.

This is also why I find "debate styles" that are intellectually dishonest so infuriating: these become an attempt to grasp ever harder to an ever-less-tenuous argument rather than cede ground in a game of one-upsmanship and point scoring, which defeats the purpose of dialogue as a means of explaining why one holds the views one does.

Just because someone makes a point that is hard to refute, I don't think you should automatically cede the ground. I've had so many experiences where I couldn't refute something a person said in a discussion, but felt deep down, what they said wasn't true. And it would often take me several weeks to figure out why and find the appropriate counter point (or to figure out the faulty assumption in the person's argument). Discussion is fine. But frankly I think there is too much confidence sometimes about the process and how it ought to play out. This is why I think being smarmy or arrogant in this kind of discussion is such a turn off. People may think they've found the path. But a lot of times, they've just found an eloquent way to describe a subjective play preference, that isn't any better or worse than many other approaches out there.

 

[Numidius]

I have to admit that the whole "you can't have exciting play without boring play" argument to be really odd. I don't think that's remotely true, even with long running campaigns. I don't expect every session to be super meaningful, but every session should move things forward. Bookkeeping and maintenance are not why I roleplay, so that stuff has no appeal to me, and is certainly not necessary.

And while I think every game should have some free play type scenes, I can't help but wince at [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]'s description above where free play went on for four sessions. I'd make it about halfway through the second one before I started smashing my face into the table.

My goal when I GM, regardless of system, is to keep things interesting, and to keep things moving toward points of interest, where exciting things can happen, and the players will have meaningful decisions to make for their characters.

Yes, there may be times where we fail to achieve this. But I would have to expect that those times are fewer than such times in a game that seems to expect, or even embrace, such lulls.

Yeah. It helped me that I had already split my pc from the main party before the thermal baths (a dead end investigation, btw)
Then I wanted to offer my effort in-game by rolling a new pc, a guide to... guide the party thru the haunted forest, but just didn't click.

Anyway I was expecting something along the lines, the style of play, of [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], that I would have really enjoyed, since the setting was rich, intense, full of tensions between factions.

This Gm style was instead a continous improvisation responding at player's declarations, with the occasional look at the setting book for notions/inspiration. Extremely neutral. On his behalf I admit he is good at describing, secure of his ability, high self esteem, believable in depicting Npcs and ambience. So twice a shame he did not want to frame a bit scenes or impose a bit of pacing in the events. He was overly obsessed by encumbrance, btw, and a sense of neutral realism.
He said: "Situations, adventures, are not gonna curiously happen to you only because you are in town. Deal with it. I'm not gonna make things happen for you"
My answer: "But I'm an Inquisitor inbued with the magic of the one&only Sun god of the setting wearing a sacred Mask all the time to conceal my identity (as per RAW), and I already offered my services to the local Church, and to the travellers guild! What else am I supposed to do?"

He: "Go the library; start a trade..." (sic. For real, I'm not making it up)

Me: "I'm gonna burn down that library!"

----
There were moments of intense Role play, between us players. Once this bunch of bad guys conspirators were attacking us. We killed one, took one prisoner, the rest fleed. The WitchHunter Pc started interrogating, then torturing the unfortunate Npc: nothing. then I entered giving my word to let him live if he spoke. He did. After that the WH wanted to kill him anyway. The situation became tense. we argued: his caution vs my honor as a truthful priest; then he prepared the sword to stab him, but I rolled better, and with my knife cutted the Npc tongue. With blood on my hands (a young and newly ordained inquisitor) I said: "This poor devil is not going to talk about us anymore. I'll take him to the local Church and follow the trail of this apparent conspiracy".

Was an intense scene for everyone at the table, and the Gm didn't interfere. I wish he had the will to do it in those later stagnant moments, tho.
We were nearly "There" with this group, it's a missed opportunity.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah. It helped me that I had already split my pc from the main party before the thermal baths (a dead end investigation, btw)
Then I wanted to offer my effort in-game by rolling a new pc, a guide to... guide the party thru the haunted forest, but just didn't click.

Anyway I was expecting something along the lines, the style of play, of [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], that I would have really enjoyed, since the setting was rich, intense, full of tensions between factions.

This Gm style was instead a continous improvisation responding at player's declarations, with the occasional look at the setting book for notions/inspiration. Extremely neutral. On his behalf I admit he is good at describing, secure of his ability, high self esteem, believable in depicting Npcs and ambience. So twice a shame he did not want to frame a bit scenes or impose a bit of pacing in the events. He was overly obsessed by encumbrance, btw, and a sense of neutral realism.
He said: "Situations, adventures, are not gonna curiously happen to you only because you are in town. Deal with it. I'm not gonna make things happen for you"
My answer: "But I'm an Inquisitor inbued with the magic of the one&only Sun god of the setting wearing a sacred Mask all the time to conceal my identity (as per RAW), and I already offered my services to the local Church, and to the travellers guild! What else am I supposed to do?"

He: "Go the library; start a trade..." (sic. For real, I'm not making it up)

Me: "I'm gonna burn down that library!"

----
There were moments of intense Role play, between us players. Once this bunch of bad guys conspirators were attacking us. We killed one, took one prisoner, the rest fleed. The WitchHunter Pc started interrogating, then torturing the unfortunate Npc: nothing. then I entered giving my word to let him live if he spoke. He did. After that the WH wanted to kill him anyway. The situation became tense. we argued: his caution vs my honor as a truthful priest; then he prepared the sword to stab him, but I rolled better, and with my knife cutted the Npc tongue. With blood on my hands (a young and newly ordained inquisitor) I said: "This poor devil is not going to talk about us anymore. I'll take him to the local Church and follow the trail of this apparent conspiracy".

Was an intense scene for everyone at the table, and the Gm didn't interfere. I wish he had the will to do it in those later stagnant moments, tho.
We were nearly "There" with this group, it's a missed opportunity.

Yeah, that sounds rough. Seems a shame that the GM was so good at certain parts of the game, but the end result was not one you found fun. I mean, if that's how they want to play, cool for them, but it sounds totally superfluous to me....just goofing around and using the game as a source to make jokes. Which I think is likely a part of most games....my players and I regularly joke about the game....but it's not the goal of play.

 

[Numidius]

Just because someone makes a point that is hard to refute, I don't think you should automatically cede the ground. I've had so many experiences where I couldn't refute something a person said in a discussion, but felt deep down, what they said wasn't true. And it would often take me several weeks to figure out why and find the appropriate counter point (or to figure out the faulty assumption in the person's argument). Discussion is fine. But frankly I think there is too much confidence sometimes about the process and how it ought to play out. This is why I think being smarmy or arrogant in this kind of discussion is such a turn off. People may think they've found the path. But a lot of times, they've just found an eloquent way to describe a subjective play preference, that isn't any better or worse than many other approaches out there.

From an outsider perspective, now barely aware of these years long disputes of you people, I appreciate the way you all debate, even argue, and stimulate each other, bringing MEAT to the table, so to speak

 

[Numidius]

Yeah, that sounds rough. Seems a shame that the GM was so good at certain parts of the game, but the end result was not one you found fun. I mean, if that's how they want to play, cool for them, but it sounds totally superfluous to me....just goofing around and using the game as a source to make jokes. Which I think is likely a part of most games....my players and I regularly joke about the game....but it's not the goal of play.

I'm pretty sure the other players would have really appreciated a more guiding Gm touch, also.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think playing different games is fine. I do it myself. But not everyone wants to try everything under the sun. Knowing what you like is fine too, and not everyone wants the kinds of experiences being offered by all varieties. It is like going to a restaurant. Some people like to try everything new they can, some people want reliable experiences with the meals they know they like. I have been doing that myself. But I think a lot of people feel like they've found the gaming grail, and don't understand why others don't always change their tastes after experiencing said grail. Sure people should play games of all kinds. These are just games. I don't think it is necessarily for us to approach them any differently than we approach food or movies.

To run with the metaphor, let's say you're at a restaurant and you're wondering what to get. You're with two friends who've been there before. One gets the same thing every time he's there, and he loves it, but has never tried anything else. The other friend has tried a lot of what's on the menu, and has a few suggestions for you.

Who are you more likely to listen to?

Ultimately, I do think that such choices are a matter of taste and preference. Some people will never like ribs, for example, even if they're at the best rib joint in the world. But, setting aside taste and preference, there's something to be said about the advice or insight that can be offered by someone who eats the same thing every time, and someone who's tried more than one thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To run with the metaphor, let's say you're at a restaurant and you're wondering what to get. You're with two friends who've been there before. One gets the same thing every time he's there, and he loves it, but has never tried anything else. The other friend has tried a lot of what's on the menu, and has a few suggestions for you.

Who are you more likely to listen to?

Ultimately, I do think that such choices are a matter of taste and preference. Some people will never like ribs, for example, even if they're at the best rib joint in the world. But, setting aside taste and preference, there's something to be said about the advice or insight that can be offered by someone who eats the same thing every time, and someone who's tried more than one thing.

I think it depends though. I've often found people who seem to like everything, are not a very good way of gauging what I'd like. To me it would boil down to the individual. If it is someone who has preferences closer to mine, and I want to ensure I have a good dining experience, I'd go with that individual's recommendation. If I am feeling adventurous I might go with the person who has had everything on the menu. Either way, I'd get information from both of them, treat them both like human beings and wouldn't sneer at either one of them for the kind of food they like to eat. The latter is really what I am talking about here. It is fine to be worldly. It is fine to try lots of RPGs. I think people can get so into that though, they lose sight of what interests people who like more standard faire.

To use another metaphor: film. Growing up my dad liked to watch all kinds of movies. There is something good about that, but it has its downsides. When we went to video store he'd always get recommendations from the people working there. We saw a lot of movies, but I can honestly say one result of this approach is most of the movies were not that enjoyable (and if we had stuck with more mainstream blockbuster hits, more of the movies we saw, we'd probably have enjoyed). For every cool, quirky movie we saw, we had to sit through two films like Wizard of Speed and Time and The Peanut Butter Solution. Again, I am not knocking having wide ranging taste and trying many things (I do try to play as many RPGs as I can when I have the time). I just think people are not seeing that there is no grail here. Every approach is going to have downsides and upsides.

I like to try lots of things still. But it is definitely not for everyone. And you can be just as much of a jerk advocating for the latest quirky thing you've found, as you can be stubbornly refusing to engage anything outside your experience. And I've learned to respect that other people might have more straightforward tastes and be put off by things that are less in that zone.