Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8749689" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Gygax I suspect was a very nuanced GM, and nuance is a very hard thing to capture. Sometimes nuance sounds like two contradictory claims at once. The sort of writing you are talking about is the Gygaxian principle: "Never give the players an inch." Gygax says, "The players will regularly wheedle you and try to take advantage of you. Don't let them." </p><p></p><p>There is a tension here that I think Gygax recognizes between wanting to have something and actually feeling validation on receiving it. I don't think Gygax or indeed most GMs that manage to keep tables for a considerable period are in any way adverse to the PC's succeeding and doing awesome things. Indeed, the PC's succeeding and doing awesome things is much of the fun of GMing. It's the pay off for most successful GMs. (There are GMs with other less salubrious pay offs, but let's not go there yet.) </p><p></p><p>Gygax in his terms put this as the tension between a Monte Haul campaign where the players get instant gratification and full validation of everything that they do, and a Death Dungeon campaign where the players are ground down by the GM's unwillingness to let the players succeed. Gygax suggests the way of the Skilled GM is the middle way. </p><p></p><p>I think awesome aversion is a cultivated response to being a good GM. Even good players are looking for a loophole and a shortcut, because ultimately all the players want is to win. And "The Rule of Cool" is a terrible rule in practice, because you haven't DMed for very long if you don't have a point where you deeply regretted saying "Yes" and had to go, "Ok, I know I said "Yes" that once but now I have to take it back because otherwise this is going to ruin the game for everyone." </p><p></p><p>The problems with "The Rule of Cool" are numerous, but one of the problems is that typically from the players perspective is some movie stunt that they watched one time where the protagonist or antagonist did that thing that worked and they want to replicate that. But things that happen in the movies according to movie logic worked in the movie because of movie logic. It's very hard to translate movie logic into a long running RPG because movies aren't simulating anything and they are usually over in about two hours. Movies don't have to deal with the implications of an individual scene. They can just forget about it because while it worked in that one scene for something to work, the writer just did that to be entertaining and they know that repeating it in a second scene would be boring. </p><p></p><p>Players though on the other hand if they find a tactic that works will naturally and quite reasonably want to repeat it over and over again. This creates a problem, because "it worked in that one scene" doesn't take into account that it might have been a desperation tactic used in that one scene knowing that it had a low probability of success and therefore only done out of desperation and that's why the protagonist doesn't do it again. So as GM you often in a very uncomfortable situation when the player wants to perform a stunt. If you treat that stunt as a desperation tactic that had a low probability of success, then the players says you are stifling his creativity. But if you don't treat it as a desperation tactic, then you are saying, "This is a world where this is extremely effective and relatively easy to do." and that will be setting changing.</p><p></p><p>Usually I have players that have a high trust in my GMing ability. They know that if something is in their characters ability to do that I will let them pull off the crazy stunt with a reasonable chance of success and reasonable advantages gained. But if I got situation where I'm stuck between the players belief that my ruling was harshing up the game and stifling creativity and my desire to keep the game sane and with a certain heroic feel to it, the way I address that distrust is to openly and honestly bring that player into my rules adjudication process and explain why I'm ruling like I'm ruling. </p><p></p><p>And generally I find that players back down over this point: "Whatever I rule in your favor, I will also rule in the favor of the NPCs. Whatever you open up for yourself, you will also open up as something the NPCs do back to you. Everyone is using the same rules here. The NPCs don't get to have it easy as a way to challenge or beat you. I'm not favoring them or disfavoring you. If you think that your ruling is fair, then realize that it will be used against you." </p><p></p><p>To hitch a ride on someone else's earlier comment, if the PC wants to throw sand in the eyes of the bad guy to blind them and thinks that ought to be a low risk and high reward tactic with a reasonable chance of success, then we exist in a universe where throwing sand to blind people is a low risk, high reward tactic with a high chance of success. And the PC wasn't the first person to discover that in the world's ten thousand year history, so if it is true then all the bad guys know about it too. If it is true that works, every goblin in the dungeon and all the world's armies just added a bag of sand to their inventory, and we live in a world where combat looks like people throwing dirt at each other. </p><p></p><p>"The Rule of Cool" is actually giving terrible advice here in the sand throwing situation. If you listen to it, you'll end up with a situation that isn't cool for anyone. </p><p></p><p>Now of course there is a counter-argument to what I just outlined. What if the whole table just enjoys a Monte Haul campaign? What's wrong with that? Why can't you just validate the player no matter what? What is wrong with being a little inconsistent and having NPCs just not be awesome enough to do the things that the PCs do? And I suppose at some level the answer is nothing. It's a stylistic choice to have no real difficulty in the game and let everything come easy. And there are parallels in the larger gaming world. We've seen trends of games that back off the difficulty so much that you basically don't need to develop any skill at playing the game to easily progress through it. And there isn't anything wrong with that, and certainly there are games where I just wanted to play them casually. But we've also seen that aesthetic create a deep hunger for more meaningful challenges, creating a wave of "Dark Souls" inspired games that are unapologetic about requiring skillful play if you want to progress. </p><p></p><p>I think Gygax's middle way with it's high dose of "awesomeness aversion" is meant to satisfy as many different player aesthetics as possible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8749689, member: 4937"] Gygax I suspect was a very nuanced GM, and nuance is a very hard thing to capture. Sometimes nuance sounds like two contradictory claims at once. The sort of writing you are talking about is the Gygaxian principle: "Never give the players an inch." Gygax says, "The players will regularly wheedle you and try to take advantage of you. Don't let them." There is a tension here that I think Gygax recognizes between wanting to have something and actually feeling validation on receiving it. I don't think Gygax or indeed most GMs that manage to keep tables for a considerable period are in any way adverse to the PC's succeeding and doing awesome things. Indeed, the PC's succeeding and doing awesome things is much of the fun of GMing. It's the pay off for most successful GMs. (There are GMs with other less salubrious pay offs, but let's not go there yet.) Gygax in his terms put this as the tension between a Monte Haul campaign where the players get instant gratification and full validation of everything that they do, and a Death Dungeon campaign where the players are ground down by the GM's unwillingness to let the players succeed. Gygax suggests the way of the Skilled GM is the middle way. I think awesome aversion is a cultivated response to being a good GM. Even good players are looking for a loophole and a shortcut, because ultimately all the players want is to win. And "The Rule of Cool" is a terrible rule in practice, because you haven't DMed for very long if you don't have a point where you deeply regretted saying "Yes" and had to go, "Ok, I know I said "Yes" that once but now I have to take it back because otherwise this is going to ruin the game for everyone." The problems with "The Rule of Cool" are numerous, but one of the problems is that typically from the players perspective is some movie stunt that they watched one time where the protagonist or antagonist did that thing that worked and they want to replicate that. But things that happen in the movies according to movie logic worked in the movie because of movie logic. It's very hard to translate movie logic into a long running RPG because movies aren't simulating anything and they are usually over in about two hours. Movies don't have to deal with the implications of an individual scene. They can just forget about it because while it worked in that one scene for something to work, the writer just did that to be entertaining and they know that repeating it in a second scene would be boring. Players though on the other hand if they find a tactic that works will naturally and quite reasonably want to repeat it over and over again. This creates a problem, because "it worked in that one scene" doesn't take into account that it might have been a desperation tactic used in that one scene knowing that it had a low probability of success and therefore only done out of desperation and that's why the protagonist doesn't do it again. So as GM you often in a very uncomfortable situation when the player wants to perform a stunt. If you treat that stunt as a desperation tactic that had a low probability of success, then the players says you are stifling his creativity. But if you don't treat it as a desperation tactic, then you are saying, "This is a world where this is extremely effective and relatively easy to do." and that will be setting changing. Usually I have players that have a high trust in my GMing ability. They know that if something is in their characters ability to do that I will let them pull off the crazy stunt with a reasonable chance of success and reasonable advantages gained. But if I got situation where I'm stuck between the players belief that my ruling was harshing up the game and stifling creativity and my desire to keep the game sane and with a certain heroic feel to it, the way I address that distrust is to openly and honestly bring that player into my rules adjudication process and explain why I'm ruling like I'm ruling. And generally I find that players back down over this point: "Whatever I rule in your favor, I will also rule in the favor of the NPCs. Whatever you open up for yourself, you will also open up as something the NPCs do back to you. Everyone is using the same rules here. The NPCs don't get to have it easy as a way to challenge or beat you. I'm not favoring them or disfavoring you. If you think that your ruling is fair, then realize that it will be used against you." To hitch a ride on someone else's earlier comment, if the PC wants to throw sand in the eyes of the bad guy to blind them and thinks that ought to be a low risk and high reward tactic with a reasonable chance of success, then we exist in a universe where throwing sand to blind people is a low risk, high reward tactic with a high chance of success. And the PC wasn't the first person to discover that in the world's ten thousand year history, so if it is true then all the bad guys know about it too. If it is true that works, every goblin in the dungeon and all the world's armies just added a bag of sand to their inventory, and we live in a world where combat looks like people throwing dirt at each other. "The Rule of Cool" is actually giving terrible advice here in the sand throwing situation. If you listen to it, you'll end up with a situation that isn't cool for anyone. Now of course there is a counter-argument to what I just outlined. What if the whole table just enjoys a Monte Haul campaign? What's wrong with that? Why can't you just validate the player no matter what? What is wrong with being a little inconsistent and having NPCs just not be awesome enough to do the things that the PCs do? And I suppose at some level the answer is nothing. It's a stylistic choice to have no real difficulty in the game and let everything come easy. And there are parallels in the larger gaming world. We've seen trends of games that back off the difficulty so much that you basically don't need to develop any skill at playing the game to easily progress through it. And there isn't anything wrong with that, and certainly there are games where I just wanted to play them casually. But we've also seen that aesthetic create a deep hunger for more meaningful challenges, creating a wave of "Dark Souls" inspired games that are unapologetic about requiring skillful play if you want to progress. I think Gygax's middle way with it's high dose of "awesomeness aversion" is meant to satisfy as many different player aesthetics as possible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate
Top