Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[Professor Phobos]

Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.

There isn't, not from my perspective or experience. The GM can't "win", so he's not participating in any kind of friendly competition.

 

[Henry]

There isn't, not from my perspective or experience. The GM can't "win", so he's not participating in any kind of friendly competition.

In my experience, the DM does have a "win" condition. If he can by hook or crook elicit the response he wants from the players, then he has succeeded, whether that is dread, elation, laughter, or a sense of accomplishment. If he challenges them to something, and they succeed, and they feel happy about that and have had a good time, then he's done his job, and he wins. That's the friendly competition in my group - the players look at me askance and call me a rat bastard when their characters are in a tough spot, they figure out how to beat the tough spot, and they tell me they had a good game, and I go away feeling like a million bucks.

It's like two roomies playing a video game to see who picks up the dinner tab this Friday night. You got me this time, but I'll get you next time.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I would call that success, but not "winning", since the players certainly don't lose.

 

[DonTadow]

Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.

The competition is not fun any longer when the DM cheats by setting the player agaisn't unreasonable challenges, or being too soft, etc...

Read my earlier post. Your style of play says that d and d is a competition. My style does not say this. My style says that d and d is a group activity with the DM as the moderator and facilitator, not the adversary.

Neither style is correct or incorrect. I am sure that just as many players will want to play with you as will want to play with me. Since fun is not quantitative pursuing this argument is moot.

Wotc should commend themselves on coming up with a living document, it is difficult to come up wit ha document so well written, that its interpretations can lead to great differences between factions, much similar to our constitution.

From my perspective i have no win condition. I don't care what the PCs do, only that i provide them adventure where it is. If my win condition depended on me trying to coax the right reaction out of the pCs, I'd be the Detroit Lions of Dungeons and Dragons. Instead, I'd say I earned my two titles as Iron DM because I was able to provide the PCs the most fun adventure no matter what their motivations were.

Recently my pcs went to a plane and needed to collect eight items to leave it. They decided that it was awful back home and they wanted to stay there. So I provided them adventures there. We all had fun. Of course I was not expecting this. Two of the PCs were soldiers in the war and I expected them to want to return to save family members. But it didn't matter what my expectations were because only they know their characters.

 

[marune]

Read my earlier post. Your style of play says that d and d is a competition. My style does not say this. My style says that d and d is a group activity with the DM as the moderator and facilitator, not the adversary.

Neither style is correct or incorrect. I am sure that just as many players will want to play with you as will want to play with me. Since fun is not quantitative pursuing this argument is moot.

That's not a question of personal style, that's how the game is built.

You can always do something else with it, but YMMV.

 

[buzz]

There isn't, not from my perspective or experience. The GM can't "win", so he's not participating in any kind of friendly competition.

Maybe, but the players can certainly "lose."

The most obvious situation being the default D&D setup: players outfit a team of adventurers who have a limited set of resources (abilities, items, points) that they pit against challenges posed to them by the DM, often in pursuit of an overarching goal, which may be as simple as "survive and level up in order to do it again." Assuming the DM is not rigging the game in order to insure any given outcome (be it a TPK or total Monty Haul PCs-can't-die play), they essentially serve the role of thwarting the PCs. Not accomplishing their goal, or more simply, death, is a very obvious "lose" condition. So is accomplishing the goal, yet paying a higher price than expected, e.g., too many resources spent, sacrifices made, etc.

Ergo, there can certainly be friendly competition. If anything, it's the most traditional mode of play. Look at any game where the players start to sweat when a combat goes south, or when the DM stares in dismay at a carefully planned encounter that PCs breeze through.

EDIT: I think it's important to note that "adversarial" doesn't necessarily map to "win"/"lose". In most RPG play, everyone at the table generally knows that yes, we will make it to the end of the module no matter what. The question is usually. "What's it going to take to get there?" The GM's role is generally not to just happily walk the players through to the end; there's no game then. The GM's job is to get in the players' way, i.e., serve as an adversary. Without conflict, you have neither challenge nor drama, i.e., "fun." Ergo, even if the sole end goal is "fun," that doesn't mean that the GM and players don't hammer on each other en route.

 

[marune]

Ergo, there can certainly be friendly competition. If anything, it's the most traditional mode of play. Look at any game where the players start to sweat when a combat goes south, or when the DM stares in dismay at a carefully planned encounter that PCs breeze through.

Yeah.

Players lose and "DM win" is the same, the players fail a reasonable challenge because the DM's strategies were better than the players' ones (or simply lucky).

That doesn't mean TPK, but probably no XP (at least less than if they had succeeded).

However, in a typical D&D campaign, the goal is to have more "players win" than "dm win", the right proportion is probably group specific.

 

[marune]

EDIT: I think it's important to note that "adversarial" doesn't necessarily map to "win"/"lose". In most RPG play, everyone at the table generally knows that yes, we will make it to the end of the module no matter what. The question is usually. "What's it going to take to get there?" The GM's role is generally not to just happily walk the players through to the end; there's no game then. The GM's job is to get in the players' way, i.e., serve as an adversary. Without conflict, you have neither challenge nor drama, i.e., "fun." Ergo, even if the sole end goal is "fun," that doesn't mean that the GM and players don't hammer on each other en route.

Right, if the end is already set, i.e. the choices made trough the way are not significant, you have neither challenge nor drama.

Sadly it's seem that many groups don't try to get better than this "enjoy the ride" playstyle.

Edit : BTW, the ride is often seen in the Realm of Fudging.

 

[buzz]

However, in a typical D&D campaign, the goal is to have more "players win" than "dm win", the right proportion is probably group specific.

Yep, I think the CR system (and previous "encounter grading") is pretty much built around this. Odds get stacked in the player's favor, but the DM is allowed to make them really earn that "win."

Granted, there are styles of play to which this adversary stuff doesn't always apply. Play focused on immersion obviously requires the GM to focus on maintaining the simulation, and challenge/conflict needs to take a back seat of it threatens that. I don't see this as a primary focus of D&D, though.

 

[marune]

Play focused on immersion obviously requires the GM to focus on maintaining the simulation, and challenge/conflict needs to take a back seat of it threatens that. I don't see this as a primary focus of D&D, though.

Well, first I have to say that I hate the "simulationist" playstyle, but I won't go in details here.

Second, D&D was always more challenge-based (or gamist) than simulationist over the editions (maybe less under 2E).

Third, 4E seems to go farther this way and it's of course IMHO a very good idea.

Finally, even if my favorite playstyle is a "story-driven" one, I like D&D for what it is and I don't want it to change is basic nature.