Blaming the System for Player/GM actions

[prosfilaes]

In the context of this discussion, "broken" is a subjective term. If the rules are "broken" because they don't do what you want them to do, fixing them means that the rules would be "broken" for someone else, who liked them better the other way. Just as you want your playstyle made easy, others want their playstyle kept easy. You speak as if it is, in general, easy to satisfy everyone. That is not the case.

Yes, broken is subjective. But there's a point that people should be looking at the system instead of blaming the players, and I think that's a lot quicker than many of the people in this thread.

 

[Crothian]

I dont believe I mentioned fighting with people at the gaming table at any point. Not entirely sure where you come up with such an idea. Does the idea of not liking to lose personally offend you or something?

I fight to win, and my characters fight to win. I like winning. My characters like winning. My characters and I can be dramatically different, save in our desire to survive, and win. In that, they are all like me.

I'm trying to figure out who you are winning against. You never mentioned fighting with people, I brought it up as an hypothosis and it is rhetorical. You keep saying you do the winning and you beat the monsters, but I'm pretty sure it's you character that is doing that. For you to win, someone at your table must lose, who is that?

Edit: I wouldn't worry about it though. I think our little tangent has gone far enough.

 

[Seeten]

Your definition of "Win" is vastly different than mine, and you havent defined it, until now, save by claiming I must be punching out people at my gaming table. If you feel winning means making a loser out of someone you like and respect, I am sorry to hear it.

Why cant everyone at the table win? My group all wins when we have a great time together.

My D&D groups characters are winning against every challenge in front of them. I win when my character wins. I win when I have fun. Winning is fun. Having fun is winning. I don't find this overly complicated. The enemies/monsters/challenges lose.

In our last session, the giant ogre lost, and we won. The session before that, the traps lost, and we won. We win often, and sometimes we should lose, but the DM cheats, because we're underpowered for our CR.

If I had minmaxed during character creation, and put effort into winning, we'd be able to win without needing the DM to cheat on our behalf.

For me to win, no one needs to lose that sits at the gaming table. We dont play against each other, we play with each other. We play against the challenges the DM sets against us, and regularly win against those, as a team, together.

 

[Crothian]

Your definition of "Win" is vastly different than mine, and you havent defined it, until now, save by claiming I must be punching out people at my gaming table. If you feel winning means making a loser out of someone you like and respect, I am sorry to hear it.

We are obviously not understanding each other, and I'm just going to drop it here. Thanks.

 

[Hussar]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

In my view, DND is a zero sum game. (Sit down in the back, let me explain!) However, the conventional model of 2 groups at the table is flawed IMO.

There are not two groups at the table, players and DM, there are three: Players, DM, and Challenges. Each group is fundamentally playing to different win conditions so that, even though someone is going to lose, it is very possible for two groups to win.

For players to win, they overcome challenges. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. It is very rare that individual players overcome challenges rather than the party as a group. Granted, individual players can fail to overcome a challenge (ie. die), but, generally, parties work as a group.

For DM's to win, its a little more subtle. In my view, DM's win best when the players fully engage his creation and treat it as "real". The more the players engage in what the DM sets forth, the more the DM wins.

The third group is the challenges. Now, challenges are created by the DM, that's true, and, to some extent, controlled by the DM. However, the DM has no vested interest in seeing the challenges win. And, the DM has (or should have) no ability to ensure that the challenges foil the party. While the DM can certainly have that troll attack that PC, he cannot dictate the results of that attack. To a fair degree, the challenges have autonomy separate from the DM.

However, when all is said and done, it's the challenges that most frequently lose. But, since the challenges have no existence, we don't care. We don't pause and wonder if Joe Orc is truly enjoying the ass whupping he's receiving from the party. Why would we?

Everyone plays to win. That's true in any game on the planet. All games, by their very nature are competitive. However, the mistake in this case is trying to say that the players are competing with eachother or the DM. They aren't. They are competing against the challenges. If they defeat the challenge, they have fun. If they fail to defeat the challenge, their fun is less. Fail to defeat any challenges and the players have no fun at all.

DM fun is a lot more slippery to pin down. I liken it to the fun a referee has during a game. While the ref certainly isn't playing, that doesn't mean that he's not having a good time.

 

[LostSoul]

There are not two groups at the table, players and DM, there are three: Players, DM, and Challenges.

I had a thought - maybe a dumb one - but could you replace "Challenges" with "the System"?

 

[Hussar]

I had a thought - maybe a dumb one - but could you replace "Challenges" with "the System"?

Honestly? I'm not sure.

Both the players and the DM can use the system. That's not true. In order to play the game, both the DM and the players must use the system. If you change the system, those changes are equal for both the DM (or GM or Storyteller or whatever) and the players.

The challenges OTOH, are entirely under the umbrella of the DM. The DM sets the challenges, not the players. The system cannot win or lose. The challenges can though. If the dragon eats the entire party, the challenge wins. If the party whacks the dragon, the challenge loses. However, in both situations, the system neither wins nor loses.

The system is not changed by play in other words. No matter how many times I roll a d20, my attack is still BAB+bonuses. The only way I could change that is to rewrite the rules outside of the game.

It's more along the lines of the system being the equipment in a sports game. Change the system, change the equipment, and change the game, certainly. But, the bat and the ball are not changed by one side or the other hitting a home run. The system cannot win or lose based on play. The challenges, as envisaged as a non-real third party at the table, certainly can.

So, I guess in this ramble, I have decided. No, I don't think you can replace challenges with system as the third party at the table. The system is the table, not one of the playing groups.

 

[Felon]

"Is it fair to blame a game system for player and GM decisions?"

So basically, the poll is asking "is it fair to blame X for something that's not its fault?". Which of course it isn't; taken on face-value, voting "yes" on this poll makes one look pretty asanine. Sorry, Hussar, but this question has all the earmarks of a blatant shill, with the goal of offering the illusion of a choice that guarantees a landslide agreement with your point of view. Note how the question is structured to offer up opinion as incontravertible fact: oh, we can debate the fairness of blaming the system for what's really the sole fault of the players and GM, but certainly there is no room for discussing that crticism might legitimately be leveled at the system or its designers. Voting "yes" or "no" is relevant, because simply by voting a person is assenting to that notion.

Most of the follow-up comments builds on that foundation of sand by expressing the rather facile and quixotic notion that it's the GM job to be perfect--a flawless filter of anything poorly-designed or abuse-prone that might come out of a sourcebook. Thus, the system's design is completely absolved of all possible criticisims. Roll out your Radiant Servants of Pelor and Fists of Razael, WotC, do your worst; nobody can hold it against you. By this logic, if I work on the chocolate-chip cookie line at Keebler, I can take a dump in the batter with impunity. After all, there's some quality-control guy somewhere whose job it is to decide which cookies find their way into your local supermarket. Criticize his decision when you bit into a turdlet. I'm blameless.

Clearly this is a poor rationalization. The designers have an obligation to make sure material measures up with the baseblines that they established. The DM has an obligation to make sure that material is appropriate for his campaign. The players have an oblgation to steer clear of abusing the rules.

 

[carmachu]

Is it fair to blame a game system for player and GM decisions, such as the ever infamous min/maxing?

Personally, I feel it is part of the GM's job to prevent system abuses.

Yes. Several game systems are easier than others for loopholes and such. D&D and old chapmions are classic of this regard.

In the end, however, DM's should be able to reign it in. A simple "only X books allowed" usually solve that problem. Or careful review of other stuff.....

 

[buzz]

Hussar, I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter... BUT, I wanted to comment on this:

However, the mistake in this case is trying to say that the players are competing with eachother or the DM. They aren't. They are competing against the challenges.

To be nitpicky, the challenges have no "life" unless the DM is acting on their behalf. That orc your party is fighting isn't making his own decisions; the DM is making those decisions for him. The DM may have even specifically tailored that orc's abilities to those of the party members to make for a more challenging (or even easier) encoutner. Ideally, that orc is the "DM's PC" for that encounter, and he's playing that orc to win, just like the players.

So, I still see it as competing against the DM, but there is an intermediary layer there. It's not like the DM is hoping for TPKs all the time. "I won! I killed the party!" At least, not DMs you want to play with regularly. However, the DM is still obliged to throw curve balls and keep the game lively.