Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[Umbran]

Sure, but we certainly mean something by them. When you or I say "RPG" we generally know we don't mean Monopoly and know also that the hearer won't understand us to mean Monopoly. So while an inclusive definition might be useful, a definition that is so inclusive as to be meaningless isn't useful.

In this case, "inclusive" isn't about allowing Monopoly in. It is about the nature of the definition.

In an exclusive definition, the heuristic is of the form, "If you do not meet some litmus test(s), you are OUT, no matter what your other characteristics might be."

In an inclusive definition, the heuristic is of the form, "If you have enough of these characteristics, you are IN, no matter what your other characteristics might be."

 

[Celebrim]

In this case, "inclusive" isn't about allowing Monopoly in. It is about the nature of the definition.

In an exclusive definition, the heuristic is of the form, "If you do not meet some litmus test(s), you are OUT, no matter what your other characteristics might be."

In an inclusive definition, the heuristic is of the form, "If you have enough of these characteristics, you are IN, no matter what your other characteristics might be."

I can't evaluate the utility of that until I see your definition. I can imagine for any given concept both exclusive and inclusive definitions that are poorly designed because they miss the central character of the thing and thus allow counter-examples to be made that take advantage of the weakness of the definition. For example a poor exclusive definition of a table my exclude a drafting table while poor inclusive definition of a table might include a stool and a thumbtack.

Definitions are not easy to produce, and quite often people use words without a clear understanding of what the word means - producing them perhaps by similar algorithms by which a LLM produces speech that seems to have clarity but without understanding what it means.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Are random tables considered prep???

 

[clearstream]

Are random tables considered prep???

Yes, if you prepared them before the session of play in which they are used.

However, they are prep of elements appropriate to ludonarrative, which inform stories without scripting them. In very general terms, they curate signifiers that will be surfaced and modified or riffed off in play.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

the case of Nethack, long years of refinement by the developers means that not only does the game not break when you do something "creative" but the developers typically have already anticipated it and coded the most appropriate response within the games conceit.

Getting a little esoteric here, but this is just not right. I worked in software dev for many years and read through the Nethack code maybe 20 years ago, but I’m pretty sure it hasn’t changed that much. Nethack does not usually have code to anticipate actions given a context — it has general rules for how things work and when they are combined the result is an emergent property of the system, not anticipated or planned for.

So when you dig a hole and fall into a shop, there is no code — no anticipation — that handles that scenario. The game combines what it knows about levels and digging with what it knows about shops and creates a result that fits those rules. This is no different form the way modern CRPGs behave — they don’t have specific code for each scenario, they create a result on the fly by balancing all the rules that apply to a given state. Karlach is casting a lightning bolt against a demon in plate armor in a pool of water? This is not specifically planned for — the rules for each element are combined and modify each other, with a dash of randomness added, to create a plausible result.

Which is pretty much the way I improvise.

Computers have a more limited imagination, and so can only improved within a smallish domain, but, tbh, that has also been true of some GMs I have played with.

 

[Celebrim]

Getting a little esoteric here, but this is just not right. I worked in software dev for many years and read through the Nethack code maybe 20 years ago, but I’m pretty sure it hasn’t changed that much. Nethack does not usually have code to anticipate actions given a context — it has general rules for how things work and when they are combined the result is an emergent property of the system, not anticipated or planned for.

Well, also a software Dev, and also have read the Nethack code, but don't agree with you here. You seem to have a very different idea of what it means to have special handling.

For example, you can try to 'eat' everything in your inventory, and yes there are specific categories, but think how much special cases there are just in eating things and how much needs to be checked by the code. Is the object vegan? Are you a metalvore? Is the object your same species and thus violates the provision on cannibalism? Is the object a cockatrice part? Does it cause poison? Disease? Confusion? Blindness?

Consider the specificity of the following code just to determine if you can eat something:

is_edible(obj)
register struct obj *obj;
{
	/* protect invocation tools but not Rider corpses (handled elsewhere)*/
/* if (obj->oclass != FOOD_CLASS && obj_resists(obj, 0, 0)) */
	if (objects[obj->otyp].oc_unique)
		return FALSE;
	/* above also prevents the Amulet from being eaten, so we must never
	   allow fake amulets to be eaten either [which is already the case] */

	if (metallivorous(youmonst.data) && is_metallic(obj) &&
	    (youmonst.data != &mons[PM_RUST_MONSTER] || is_rustprone(obj)))
		return TRUE;
Rust monsters can only eat metallic items if the item is also rustable. Other metallivorous monsters (rock moles, xorn) can eat any metallic item.

	if (u.umonnum == PM_GELATINOUS_CUBE && is_organic(obj) &&
		/* [g.cubes can eat containers and retain all contents
		    as engulfed items, but poly'd player can't do that] */
	    !Has_contents(obj))
		return TRUE;
Gelatinous cubes can eat any organic object except containers.

/* return((boolean)(!!index(comestibles, obj->oclass))); */
	return (boolean)(obj->oclass == FOOD_CLASS);
Otherwise, the player can only eat food objects.

}

This is testing for the specific case of a player being polymorphed into specific monsters. Without teaching the program how to handle that, a rust monster couldn't eat a dagger.

If you fall down the stairs the code checks what is in your inventory to see if something breaks or if you put your hand on a cockatrice part.

And then there are the scores of special messages that the code provides for when you die in unusual ways.

Which is pretty much the way I improvise.

Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about rules improvisation. I wouldn't require an RPG to support rules improvisation. There are 'move' based systems where there is never a need to improvise rules per se, as everything maps to a definable move much like in nethack. I was thinking rather than Nethack can't suddenly provide hew regions to explore that it hasn't been programmed to provide, or suddenly decide that the shop keeper is going to give the player a quest unless it's been taught how to do that.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm recombining this strange fisking...

Yeah, rereading it sounds toxic. But my thought is really, we've all seen players like this. I have played with several of them, and, while I prefer players that are much more prepped, these players do play. Therefore, there really isn't a need to dismiss them, just like the video dismisses DMs that do a lot of prep.

That is the point I was trying to make. We've seen no-prep DMs, and we've seen prep DMs, and we've seen high-prep DMs. They are all legitimate DMs. There is a chance we've had fun with all of them. There is an even greater chance we've had more fun with the DMs who prepped - especially in a longer campaign.

We've all seen no-prep players, prep players, and high-prep players. They are all legitimate players. We have probably had fun with all of them at one point in time at a table we've DMed or played at. There is a much greater chance we've had fun with the ones that prep or high-prep.

Not at all. Unrealistic expectation placed on a GM are not real. They are either placed there by the GM themselves, or they are playing with the wrong players, or they aren't capable (or willing) of doing the work needed to be a good GM.

Note - Wrong players meaning they just aren't a right fit for that GM.

Why would you fisk a reply to the single post #30 into two separate individual posts across post#31 & post#32 because the original here [royal] we are now entertain [royal] us toxically-entitled playstyle you described depends pretty strongly on blaming the GM for both feeling like they need to meet unrealistic expectations & failing to meet them while basking in the last decade of the industry leading ttrpg endlessly lowering the bar for "legitimate" play. That bar for players has been lowered so far that should the GM ever fail at or refuse to meet those unrealistic expectations it only requires a personal definition to be inserted for an unassailable position like a "properly run" game. It's really not reasonable to blame GM's for feeling like they need to meet an unrealistic bar set with so much force that the one video put out by the industry leading ttrpg company about their next upcoming GM book is practically the lead for that book being slapped by that bar & having to repeatedly push back against the last decade of badly set expectations.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's hard for me to evaluate a video such as this because I don't think it is really meant for someone like myself... who has many years (if not decades) of running games. This information within the video is very surface level stuff-- just as surface level as the Mercer and Ginny Di videos he clipped... all of them giving baseline information for people who have no real knowledge going in of what they know about what they are doing. So I do not by any means want to say the videographer is wrong (because he isn't)... but I do get a very strong feeling of "Yes, but..." in response after watching it.

Something as simple as "You don't need to kill yourself doing game prep" is... true... but not very specific. Because what constitutes "prep" as they are using it? They mentioned DM monologues pre-written for NPCs-- sure, I can understand that and would agree that they aren't a requirement for anyone's game (but that some DMs are free to do so if they think it's useful to them). But how many DMs actually do that? Is this really more of a recommendation of a mostly white-room scenario of potential DM action?

Or the question of whether creating and balancing encounters is "prep" and thus unnecessary? How randomized or improvised are they talking? Are random tables "prep" by their definition? Do they think creating encounters beforehand and having them in your back pocket to be pulled out if necessary is a waste of time? I mean, sure... anyone can try and create encounters off the top of their head any time the players just decide to go places... but the practicality at the table means a DM having to not only figure out types and numbers of monsters at the spur of the moment, but also needs to try and keep their fingers on all the separate pages of the Monster Manual in order to reference all the statblocks and not slow the game down. Whereas a simple prep could just involve deciding on some pre-set encounters with monster statblocks copied/pasted into grouped sheets so all info was together in one place. Which to be honest might even be less painful and less work for a DM having these encounter pages already in hand when a fight occurs thus making running the combat so much easier than trying to run it straight out of a monster book because they just ended up randomly selecting creatures that the players encountered.

At the most foundational level, the video appears to me to be making a very specific point about two ends of a very large spectrum-- fully written stories by a controlling DM are bad, and completely open games with a "just show up and see what happens" DM is good. Which is a valid take... but just how useful is it to put into practice? Because there's so much middle ground between those two extremes that it's hard to take it as anything more than just a way of looking at things rather than actual practical advice you can actually put into use.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It's hard for me to evaluate a video such as this because I don't think it is really meant for someone like myself... who has many years (if not decades) of running games. This information within the video is very surface level stuff-- just as surface level as the Mercer and Ginny Di videos he clipped... all of them giving baseline information for people who have no real knowledge going in of what they know about what they are doing. So I do not by any means want to say the videographer is wrong (because he isn't)... but I do get a very strong feeling of "Yes, but..." in response after watching it.

Something as simple as "You don't need to kill yourself doing game prep" is... true... but not very specific. Because what constitutes "prep" as they are using it? They mentioned DM monologues pre-written for NPCs-- sure, I can understand that and would agree that they aren't a requirement for anyone's game (but that some DMs are free to do so if they think it's useful to them). But how many DMs actually do that? Is this really more of a recommendation of a mostly white-room scenario of potential DM action?

Or the question of whether creating and balancing encounters is "prep" and thus unnecessary? How randomized or improvised are they talking? Are random tables "prep" by their definition? Do they think creating encounters beforehand and having them in your back pocket to be pulled out if necessary is a waste of time? I mean, sure... anyone can try and create encounters off the top of their head any time the players just decide to go places... but the practicality at the table means a DM having to not only figure out types and numbers of monsters at the spur of the moment, but also needs to try and keep their fingers on all the separate pages of the Monster Manual in order to reference all the statblocks and not slow the game down. Whereas a simple prep could just involve deciding on some pre-set encounters with monster statblocks copied/pasted into grouped sheets so all info was together in one place. Which to be honest might even be less painful and less work for a DM having these encounter pages already in hand when a fight occurs thus making running the combat so much easier than trying to run it straight out of a monster book because they just ended up randomly selecting creatures that the players encountered.

At the most foundational level, the video appears to me to be making a very specific point about two ends of a very large spectrum-- fully written stories by a controlling DM are bad, and completely open games with a "just show up and see what happens" DM is good. Which is a valid take... but just how useful is it to put into practice? Because there's so much middle ground between those two extremes that it's hard to take it as anything more than just a way of looking at things rather than actual practical advice you can actually put into use.

I eagerly await your multi hour video detailing this spectrum. Or you could link to a video some one else did on it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I eagerly await your multi hour video detailing this spectrum. Or you could link to a video some one else did on it.

You can't teach experience.