In which case, it becomes "Guys, I think we should try our best to help you. We could transport the artifact for you. But I can't promise anything before I've talked to the collective. I'm sure they'll agree, though." Same underlying principle, once you cut through the obfuscation.fusangite said:
Am I a cruel DM?
- Thread starter Ambrus
- Start date
Berandor
lunatic
Which would still make it a somehow strcutured organzisation.fusangite said:
"Well, we sure agree that we could and should transport your artifact to safety, but we'll have to vote on it, of course. Still, a majority vote should be no problem, since your arguments are really sound."
"I will help you. First thing in our next meeting - no, I'll specifically call in a meeting so that we can vote on it. Promised."
Do you want to run me through all examples of possible hierarchies/structures where the gnomes have no say, enjoying to remain as unflexible and unrelenting as possible, or do you actually read and listen to arguments?
I mean, as soon as the gnomes in question cannot decide alone on the transport, some sort of hierarchy is implied, because the gnomes are not on top of it. And it's only sensible that they would comment on that.
Berandor, if you're working with the idea that structure=hierarchy, that's fine. I just couldn't tell what was going on here. All hierarchies are structures. Not all structures are hierarchies. Now that I know where you are coming from, I think we can let this point rest.
swrushing,
I think it is unfortunate that while you are willing to continue this debate you will not actually respond to the central issue here. In previous posts, you seemed to articulate the view that if a player blamed his GM for not having a good time at the game, that this blame must have been reasonably applied. In two iterations of messages, I attempted to get you to confirm that this was your position. It seemed to me that you did indeed confirm this. It now appears, in part due to some imprecise language on my part, for which I happily accept blame, that this is not, in fact, your position.
Although I do not anticipate that we will reach full agreement, I continue to hold out the hope that we can, at least, determine the precise nature of our disagreement. I therefore appeal to you to answer two questions that I hope will offer some clarity:
1. Do you believe that a player who blames their GM for their non-enjoyment of a session is always correct in assessing blame? (I'm anticipating that you will answer "no" but I want to check.)
2. If you do indeed acknowledge that it is possible for a player to unreasonably or unjustifiably blame their GM for their non-enjoyment of a session, what are some reasonable tests for determining how reasonable the player's opinion is?
I think it is unfortunate that while you are willing to continue this debate you will not actually respond to the central issue here. In previous posts, you seemed to articulate the view that if a player blamed his GM for not having a good time at the game, that this blame must have been reasonably applied. In two iterations of messages, I attempted to get you to confirm that this was your position. It seemed to me that you did indeed confirm this. It now appears, in part due to some imprecise language on my part, for which I happily accept blame, that this is not, in fact, your position.
Although I do not anticipate that we will reach full agreement, I continue to hold out the hope that we can, at least, determine the precise nature of our disagreement. I therefore appeal to you to answer two questions that I hope will offer some clarity:
1. Do you believe that a player who blames their GM for their non-enjoyment of a session is always correct in assessing blame? (I'm anticipating that you will answer "no" but I want to check.)
2. If you do indeed acknowledge that it is possible for a player to unreasonably or unjustifiably blame their GM for their non-enjoyment of a session, what are some reasonable tests for determining how reasonable the player's opinion is?
Raven Crowking
First Post
fusangite said:
First off, I am absolutely with you on the "The DM must have fun running the game" bandwagon. I DM, almost exclusively, and have done so for about 25 years. I put a lot more effort, and money, into my game than any one of my players, or even than all of them combined at any given time. (Through the years, the sheer volume of players means that they probably spent more altogether on books, by this point, though!) You hardly have to convince me of this.
Ambrus was clear that his players (plural) were feeling down at the end of the session, and that some of them (again, plural) felt a bit strongly about this. Upon reflection, some of those players decided that they weren't going to let this prevent them from enjoying Ambrus' game. Indeed, they felt that they needed to defend him from the deconstruction going on in this thread.
Our information available to decide whether or not the behavior (re: gnomes) was justifiable or not remains fairly scanty. Several questions asked of Ambrus remain unanswered. One of my own, ie, why the PCs could not go to the Church for help in shipping the artifact, seems to me to be relevant. The fact is that, although I asked this question several times, and though other questions were answered around this time, this question was not answered. Now, maybe this is because some upcoming plot thread hinges on the answer, and therefore Ambrus cannot answer. Or it may be that he is simply not answering on the grounds that it may incriminate him.
Ambrus' question was, "Am I a cruel DM?" The answer is, clearly, "No." If the question was, "Am I a good DM?" I would argue that, based upon what I have read here, the answer is clearly "Yes." I would enjoy playing in Ambrus' campaign.
Equally true, though, it is clear that the answer would be "No" if the question was "Did I handle this gnome betrayal thing in the best possible way?" Moreover, I would contend that there is enough evidence to conclude that Ambrus' DMing would be improved by working more on his NPC skills. It is my contention that the "simulationist" view that NPCs are "self-interested" fails to understand real human interactions, and by doing so fails to actually simulate human behavior.
In general, people like to believe that they are doing the right thing. This is true of nearly everybody, irregardless of their "alignment". Some people, though, believing that they have done things which can never be forgiven, try to do as many bad things as possible, to "prove" that it was "in their nature" and therefore not their fault. Gods help you if your Sense Motive check doesn't differentiate between the two.
Real people who screw over people they like feel badly about it, and usually try to make it up in some way. Real people who need the approval of their superiors to make a plan stick usually know this. In order to make screwing people over palatable, most people rely on either an "us vs. them" mentality or simply dehumanize their victims. I.e., among some D&D groups, "They're only NPCs" is the mantra of so-called CN PCs.
As to the specifics of Ambrus' game, we only have details about two PC/NPC interactions. In one, the gnomes who couldn't make a decision clearly thought they could make the decision, and the PCs were tricked into giving them the artifact. In the other, the PCs made a deal with the Church, but the supposedly LG Abbess who Geased them was under a vow of silence, and therefore (despite writing out a charter...quills and parchment presumably being handy) didn't tell them that little detail.
In both cases, the DM had a front man (or party of gnomes) who dealt with the party. In both cases, the DM declared that the front man (or party of gnomes) was sincere, but didn't know what was going to happen. In both cases, the decision maker is conveniently unable to interact with the party, even though in one case the party is in the same room with her. To my mind, this suggests a pattern. Moreover, this suggests a pattern specifically designed to counteract the high Diplomacy and Sense Motive skills of the party.
In my experience, few groups contain as many high-Charisma characters as Ambrus'. Few groups contain as many players who have chosen to purchase as many ranks of social skills. This indicates that Ambrus' players, having gamed with Ambrus before, knew that they were going to need these skills. And, having paid for these skills, they do have some reasonable expectation that they are going to be useful in the game.
Despite this, Ambrus has a player who feels special for having his character Geased...something that I would consider requisite of a DC 30 Diplomacy check in and of itself. From Ambrus' posts we have seen the level of work he has put into his campaign world to make it interesting and internally consistant. At least one player specifically mentions this as his strength as a DM.
So, clearly, there is a lot of really, really good stuff going on in Ambrus' game. Ambrus is a good DM. He is not a flawless DM, though, and this is one area that the evidence suggests he could improve in.
The question is not black and white.
RC
Berandor
lunatic
1. Nofusangite said:
2. If he blames me, then I will examine what I think about my performanbce. Was I tired/hectic/etc.? Do I think he's right? If yes, then I try to improve. Of no, then I think about the other players' reactions. What I know of the angry player. Is he easily upset? Does he like to whine or critisize? Is he going through a phase of stress or something similar that I know of?
If I can determine a plausible source for his discomfort after I ruled out myself, then I'm fine. If not, then it has to be either something I don't know of, or I really did wrong but didn't notice. I can only find out by talking to him and the other players, if necessary.
Hong,
Let's try to see if we can, at least, identify the substance of our disagreement. There seem to be several issues at play. So, I'm going to try and identify them thematically:
1. Campaign Narrative Structure
Whenever I have used the term "climax," I have been applying it to the campaign as a whole. When you have used the term, you have variously applied it to individual episodes, perceived story arcs within the campaign, the campaign as a whole up to the current moment and the entire campaign. First, let me define campaign as I am using it here. If you wish to substitute another term you like better, feel free to do so. Just tell me what it is.
When I say "campaign," I am referring to the period beginning with the characters agreeing to go on the quest and ending when the artifact has been repaired and returned to the gods. While there are, within this, climactic moments, the actual campaign only has one climax. To compare this to Lord of the Rings, while people can identify the victory at Helm's Deep as a climactic moment, it is not, itself, the climax. The climax of the story is when the ring is destroyed.
So, when I use the word "climax," I am referring to a unique event in the campaign that has not yet taken place. Where we are right now is at a setback following a climactic scene. Let me again draw your attention to the Two Towers by way of comparison:
Just before the end of the book, there is an exciting climactic battle in which Shelob is defeated. This is immediately followed by a significant setback, Frodo, naked, nearly dead and in the hands of the orcs. The book then ends. The term people typically apply to a setback situated as it is, right at the end of the narrative, is "cliffhanger."
Is it your position
(a) that what the GM has done somehow is not a cliffhanger?
(b) that cliffhangers are inappropriate in RPGs and that therefore if setbacks are to take place, they cannot happen during the finale of an episode?
(c) that cliffhangers are only appropriate in RPGs if they have no emotional effect on the players?
Footnote: When I say "episode" I mean a single gaming session.
If you feel that my omission of the "story arc" term from this discussion has harmed it, please let me know.
You have also used the term "episodic campaign structure"; in the particular episodic campaign structure that I prefer, there are a lot of setbacks and cliffhangers.
2. Dramatic Tension
You and swrushing have taken the position that to wait for "several months" for a cliffhanger to be resolved is demoralizing. There are two essential problems with this position: (a) it does not describe the campaign we are discussing, (b) it is not true for most people.
First of all, let's establish that this game runs weekly. That means that in a week, the process of recovering from the setback will begin. This is roughly the equivalent of a cliffhanger in a TV series where the viewer waits one week, two weeks and sometimes the whole summer to see how the protagonists are going to extricate themselves from this situation. So, what you are actually saying here is that while a week of fretting builds the dramatic tension for those of us wondering what Ethan has done to Claire and Charlie on Lost, this tension is a veritable cancer for D&D players. I just don't buy it. I don't have the highest opinion of people in our hobby but I do think that they have a more sophisticate relationship with stories than the average prime time ABC viewer.
Of course, there are situations where after a terrible setback and ensuing cliffhanger, people wait as much as a year to see how it works out. Of course I'm thinking of the Lord of the Rings movies -- you know where people had to wait over 300 days to see what happened after Gimli declared, "the fellowship has failed" and the put Boromir's corpse in the Anduin. Most of the people who endured that year were young kids -- many older kids and adults who had not read the book went out and purchased it to deal with the tension. But the little kids waited a whole year.
Of course there wasn't a book I could even read to discover what was going to happen after Han Solo was frozen in carbonite but I patiently waited for three whole years for Return of the Jedi to come out -- from when I was 8 until I was 11. Did I feel sombre or discouraged when I walked out of the theatre at the age of 8? Of course. Did this make Empire a bad movie? No. In my eight year old mind, it was the greatest movie anyone had ever made in the history of the human race.
So, why is it Hong, that children watching movie serials can handle emotionally sombre cliffhangers and gamers can't? Why do you assume that because the players felt sombre right after the episode that this made them all want to quit the campaign?
3. DM Prescience
You have finally conceded that perhaps it is reasonable for the characters to lose the object of their quest under certain circumstances. But you argue that those circumstance occur only when the DM has thought through "all the possible consequences." I have to disagree -- it is only incumbent upon the DM to think through probable consequences. Perhaps you are unaware of all the choices your players can theoretically make and all of the emotional states that each and every one of them could experience at any moment of the game. I would suggest that if you truly understood how enormous (nigh infinite) a range of possibilities this is, you would revise your statement to be the same as mine: it is incumbent upon the DM to think thought probably outcomes.
As we have already established, the DM did not expect his fiancee to react in this way. Having a high opinion of Ambrus and anyone he might choose to marry, I am inclined to think that this surprise was reasonable.
4. "It really sucks"
This part of the argument belongs under the dramatic tension header but I thought I'd make a special section for it by way of emphasis. I think the question is what sucks. It sucks that "Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy." But that does not mean that the Two Towers sucked or that the chapter "The Choices of Master Samwise" sucked. It sucked that Han Solo was frozen in carbonite; this did not make the Empire Strikes Back suck.
5. Testing Player Reactions
I am pleased that you have kindly provided (along with everyone but swrushing who steadfastly refuses) a reasonable set of criteria for evaluating whether a player's reactions are reasonable. Through no fault of yours, your criteria cannot, by themselves, deliver us a verdict on whether Noelani's reactions were reasonable. There are two main reasons for this:
(a) None of your criteria are directly linked to the DM's performance; all simply measure player reactions without reference to what the DM has done. I might have included such things as: was there a deus ex machina or were rules misapplied? You have chosen not to take that approach.
(b) Most of the questions you ask cannot be answered with the information posted to the thread. But here's a brief survey of what we can answer:
1. By looking at the reactions of the other people around the table: This seems like a reasonable standard. We have the reactions all but one of the players. They indicate that the DM did not behave unreasonably.
2. By reexamining what emotional kicks (to use Robin Laws' terminology) that player likes (or says they like), and whether I'm providing them: Unknown.
3. By talking to them, between sessions. Very often, just giving someone the chance to express their concerns is enough to take the heat out of the immediate situation: This is what precipitated the thread. By this standard, the DM did behave unreasonably.
4. By going over past events in the time we've gamed together, how much they've complained before, and the outcomes in each instance: Unknown.
5. By looking at whether that person tends to be a stubborn, argumentative type in the first place. Some people are naturally more high-maintenance than others, although they may be a stellar player in most other respects: Unknown.
So, we have 3 unknowns, 1 yes and 1 no. Based on your own test, how can you possibly conclude that Ambrus behaved unreasonably?
Let's try to see if we can, at least, identify the substance of our disagreement. There seem to be several issues at play. So, I'm going to try and identify them thematically:
1. Campaign Narrative Structure
Whenever I have used the term "climax," I have been applying it to the campaign as a whole. When you have used the term, you have variously applied it to individual episodes, perceived story arcs within the campaign, the campaign as a whole up to the current moment and the entire campaign. First, let me define campaign as I am using it here. If you wish to substitute another term you like better, feel free to do so. Just tell me what it is.
When I say "campaign," I am referring to the period beginning with the characters agreeing to go on the quest and ending when the artifact has been repaired and returned to the gods. While there are, within this, climactic moments, the actual campaign only has one climax. To compare this to Lord of the Rings, while people can identify the victory at Helm's Deep as a climactic moment, it is not, itself, the climax. The climax of the story is when the ring is destroyed.
So, when I use the word "climax," I am referring to a unique event in the campaign that has not yet taken place. Where we are right now is at a setback following a climactic scene. Let me again draw your attention to the Two Towers by way of comparison:
Just before the end of the book, there is an exciting climactic battle in which Shelob is defeated. This is immediately followed by a significant setback, Frodo, naked, nearly dead and in the hands of the orcs. The book then ends. The term people typically apply to a setback situated as it is, right at the end of the narrative, is "cliffhanger."
Is it your position
(a) that what the GM has done somehow is not a cliffhanger?
(b) that cliffhangers are inappropriate in RPGs and that therefore if setbacks are to take place, they cannot happen during the finale of an episode?
(c) that cliffhangers are only appropriate in RPGs if they have no emotional effect on the players?
Footnote: When I say "episode" I mean a single gaming session.
If you feel that my omission of the "story arc" term from this discussion has harmed it, please let me know.
You have also used the term "episodic campaign structure"; in the particular episodic campaign structure that I prefer, there are a lot of setbacks and cliffhangers.
2. Dramatic Tension
You and swrushing have taken the position that to wait for "several months" for a cliffhanger to be resolved is demoralizing. There are two essential problems with this position: (a) it does not describe the campaign we are discussing, (b) it is not true for most people.
First of all, let's establish that this game runs weekly. That means that in a week, the process of recovering from the setback will begin. This is roughly the equivalent of a cliffhanger in a TV series where the viewer waits one week, two weeks and sometimes the whole summer to see how the protagonists are going to extricate themselves from this situation. So, what you are actually saying here is that while a week of fretting builds the dramatic tension for those of us wondering what Ethan has done to Claire and Charlie on Lost, this tension is a veritable cancer for D&D players. I just don't buy it. I don't have the highest opinion of people in our hobby but I do think that they have a more sophisticate relationship with stories than the average prime time ABC viewer.
Of course, there are situations where after a terrible setback and ensuing cliffhanger, people wait as much as a year to see how it works out. Of course I'm thinking of the Lord of the Rings movies -- you know where people had to wait over 300 days to see what happened after Gimli declared, "the fellowship has failed" and the put Boromir's corpse in the Anduin. Most of the people who endured that year were young kids -- many older kids and adults who had not read the book went out and purchased it to deal with the tension. But the little kids waited a whole year.
Of course there wasn't a book I could even read to discover what was going to happen after Han Solo was frozen in carbonite but I patiently waited for three whole years for Return of the Jedi to come out -- from when I was 8 until I was 11. Did I feel sombre or discouraged when I walked out of the theatre at the age of 8? Of course. Did this make Empire a bad movie? No. In my eight year old mind, it was the greatest movie anyone had ever made in the history of the human race.
So, why is it Hong, that children watching movie serials can handle emotionally sombre cliffhangers and gamers can't? Why do you assume that because the players felt sombre right after the episode that this made them all want to quit the campaign?
3. DM Prescience
You have finally conceded that perhaps it is reasonable for the characters to lose the object of their quest under certain circumstances. But you argue that those circumstance occur only when the DM has thought through "all the possible consequences." I have to disagree -- it is only incumbent upon the DM to think through probable consequences. Perhaps you are unaware of all the choices your players can theoretically make and all of the emotional states that each and every one of them could experience at any moment of the game. I would suggest that if you truly understood how enormous (nigh infinite) a range of possibilities this is, you would revise your statement to be the same as mine: it is incumbent upon the DM to think thought probably outcomes.
As we have already established, the DM did not expect his fiancee to react in this way. Having a high opinion of Ambrus and anyone he might choose to marry, I am inclined to think that this surprise was reasonable.
4. "It really sucks"
This part of the argument belongs under the dramatic tension header but I thought I'd make a special section for it by way of emphasis. I think the question is what sucks. It sucks that "Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy." But that does not mean that the Two Towers sucked or that the chapter "The Choices of Master Samwise" sucked. It sucked that Han Solo was frozen in carbonite; this did not make the Empire Strikes Back suck.
5. Testing Player Reactions
I am pleased that you have kindly provided (along with everyone but swrushing who steadfastly refuses) a reasonable set of criteria for evaluating whether a player's reactions are reasonable. Through no fault of yours, your criteria cannot, by themselves, deliver us a verdict on whether Noelani's reactions were reasonable. There are two main reasons for this:
(a) None of your criteria are directly linked to the DM's performance; all simply measure player reactions without reference to what the DM has done. I might have included such things as: was there a deus ex machina or were rules misapplied? You have chosen not to take that approach.
(b) Most of the questions you ask cannot be answered with the information posted to the thread. But here's a brief survey of what we can answer:
1. By looking at the reactions of the other people around the table: This seems like a reasonable standard. We have the reactions all but one of the players. They indicate that the DM did not behave unreasonably.
2. By reexamining what emotional kicks (to use Robin Laws' terminology) that player likes (or says they like), and whether I'm providing them: Unknown.
3. By talking to them, between sessions. Very often, just giving someone the chance to express their concerns is enough to take the heat out of the immediate situation: This is what precipitated the thread. By this standard, the DM did behave unreasonably.
4. By going over past events in the time we've gamed together, how much they've complained before, and the outcomes in each instance: Unknown.
5. By looking at whether that person tends to be a stubborn, argumentative type in the first place. Some people are naturally more high-maintenance than others, although they may be a stellar player in most other respects: Unknown.
So, we have 3 unknowns, 1 yes and 1 no. Based on your own test, how can you possibly conclude that Ambrus behaved unreasonably?
Swrushing,
I'm not going to repeat stuff that I've put in the thread responding to hong. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that I respond to some of the points you make about LOTR in the post immediately preceding this one and the comments I make here follow on from those.
But before I get to that, I realize that there is a third question you are refusing to answer that I thought I'd remind you of: if Ambrus had done exactly what you recommended and Noelani had still reacted the way she did, would that then make your recommended course of action a mistake?
You state that there should not be emotionally sombre cliffhangers in RPGs because
This seems to be a problematic position for two reasons:
(a) you seem to be arguing that because players are more invested in their characters than they are in characters in novels, it is only appropriate to put sombre cliffhangers in novels and not in RPGs;
(b) you seem to have reversed your position on whose fault the failure of the party was. I have been arguing with you for at least five pages concerning your assertion that what happened to the PCs was completely out of their control.
(I anticipate you are now going to use your rhetorical tactic of refusing to respond to this essentially true statement because I have lost some of the nuance of your various wordings of this position as you did when I trapped you regarding the reasonableness of player disapproval.)
I really hope that this isn't true of gamers. I really hope that the emotional maturity of the average gamer is sufficient to tolerate their character suffering an unresolved setback for a whole week.
I'm not going to repeat stuff that I've put in the thread responding to hong. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that I respond to some of the points you make about LOTR in the post immediately preceding this one and the comments I make here follow on from those.
But before I get to that, I realize that there is a third question you are refusing to answer that I thought I'd remind you of: if Ambrus had done exactly what you recommended and Noelani had still reacted the way she did, would that then make your recommended course of action a mistake?
You state that there should not be emotionally sombre cliffhangers in RPGs because
swrushing said:
This seems to be a problematic position for two reasons:
(a) you seem to be arguing that because players are more invested in their characters than they are in characters in novels, it is only appropriate to put sombre cliffhangers in novels and not in RPGs;
(b) you seem to have reversed your position on whose fault the failure of the party was. I have been arguing with you for at least five pages concerning your assertion that what happened to the PCs was completely out of their control.
(I anticipate you are now going to use your rhetorical tactic of refusing to respond to this essentially true statement because I have lost some of the nuance of your various wordings of this position as you did when I trapped you regarding the reasonableness of player disapproval.)
I really hope that this isn't true of gamers. I really hope that the emotional maturity of the average gamer is sufficient to tolerate their character suffering an unresolved setback for a whole week.
Last edited:
FireLance
Legend
And that's the crux of the matter. My players and I are friends first, gamers second, and storytellers third (a way distant third). Our games would be considered videogamey hack and slash by many. After the Big Boss Fight, Evil has been thwarted for another session, and everyone goes home happy.fusangite said:
As a DM, I could, if I wanted to, pit them against a horde of opponents much too powerful for them, have them all captured, and end the session with them in chains and heading for slavery. However, my players wouldn't like that, and they wouldn't like it so much that it might ruin the game. And that's why FireLance's big idea for today is: Know your players.
Ending a session on a sombre note is tricky, and I'm not sure that I will be able to pull it off. Yeah, there's all that dramatic tension, but you have to mix in a bit of hope, too, or your players may not bother to show up for the next session, or get frustrated, as one or two of the OP's players did. Even in the example you brought up,
Frodo was captured by Orcs, but the One Ring was still in Sam's possession
Similar Threads
