Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Dannorn]

Players give their PCs consistent personalities without (at most tables) the GM having any authority to step in and override a player's conception of his/her PC. Likewise, at many tables, for cohorts and henchmen. Why are moral codes, and divinities, in a special category?

Because they're part of the world/setting which are represented by the GM. As I've said before alignment is not a condition on individual PCs and NPCs. It is, as far as D&D goes, part of the fundamental forces of the universe; Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. If a character's behaviour is Chaotic (from the perspective of the universe) then the character is Chaotic no matter how much they consider themselves Lawful.

A player is free to assign any moral code they wish to a character, but where that code falls in terms of alignment is the province of the GM. Players can provide input and justification for why a particular action should be one or the other but the final call is made by the GM.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pemerton, the problem i have is with the term itself (but that particular passage is one i always regarded as hyperbole for comedic effect). My understanding of the term Adversarial GMing is that it refers to the GM acting to challenge the players, not necessarily being a jerk about it or taunting the players, so i wasnt even thinking of the issues your passage raises. My gripe with it is its a highly loaded term, like magic tea party, and it essentializes and reduces old school play to one element. I am not saying challenging the player didmt exist in that style, but calling it Adversarial already paints it in a negative light as a problematic approach in need of a solution. And like I said. It wasnt the only thing going on in old school or gygaxian games.

 

[pemerton]

Because they're part of the world/setting which are represented by the GM. .

This does not answer the question I asked.

The post to which I replied stated that "For a consistent world, someone has to make the ultimate decision." But no reason was given why that cannot be the player of the character.

The GM doesn't represent all of the setting. For instance, s/he doesn't represent the PCs, who are part of the setting. At many table s/he doesn't represent henchmen, cohorts etc who are part of the setting. There is nothing inherent about moral codes that makes them be different.

There may be a D&D tradition in respect of these, but obviously those who are not using mechanical alignment are not part of that tradition.

 

[Hussar]

And, in addition to what Pemerton is bringing up here, I'd point out that some groups also allow players to create their own backstories. True, often it is subject to DM approval, which is fine, but, by and large, player in these types of groups can write their own backstories, including NPC's and various other elements, with the presumption that the DM will approve of whatever they bring to the table, so long as genre conventions are upheld.

IOW, if I decide that my character is part of a merchant house, and I hand the DM the family tree, back history and whatnot of that family house, IME, DM's will appreciate the effort and will go to some lengths to incorporate my ideas into the setting. So, it's not like setting is solely the job of the DM.

I'd also point out that there are many games out there where this is explicit. FATE comes immediately to mind where character generation is a mini-game in and of itself and the setting is expected to be drawn in some part at least, from chargen. In Dresden, this goes even further where the entire campaign's setting is generated along with the characters. Even going back into older games, games like Classic Traveler had random life path generation as part of chargen where all sorts of character resources were generated and backstory filled in during chargen and the GM was presumed to not interfere too much with that, so, it's not like this is some new fangled, hippy dippy, pass the story stick type gaming idea.

 

[Odhanan]

Pemerton, the problem i have is with the term itself (but that particular passage is one i always regarded as hyperbole for comedic effect). My understanding of the term Adversarial GMing is that it refers to the GM acting to challenge the players, not necessarily being a jerk about it or taunting the players, so i wasnt even thinking of the issues your passage raises. My gripe with it is its a highly loaded term, like magic tea party, and it essentializes and reduces old school play to one element. I am not saying challenging the player didmt exist in that style, but calling it Adversarial already paints it in a negative light as a problematic approach in need of a solution. And like I said. It wasnt the only thing going on in old school or gygaxian games.

The "antagonistic DM" is a caricature that is a compound of a bad selected reading of DMG advice and horror stories gathered around the hobby store campfires before the internet became "a thing".

Anyone who believes Gary Gygax was an "antagonistic DM" as depicted here is factually wrong. He wasn't like this, didn't run games like this, and the advice here is not proof in any way, shape or form of an "antagonistic" type of DMing when you put it in context, as a reaction to a type of behavior that might be deleterious to the game as a whole and stop it to a crawl. Basically what it advocates is the refereeing of the game in order to move things forward and make it interesting to the players.

There was a lot of humor, and back-and-forths between players and DM taunting each other, joking with each other while playing the game. Rob Kuntz (co-DM of the original Greyhawk campaign, co-author of Supplement I Greyhawk, Gods Demi-Gods and Heroes, Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, The Bottle City, City of Brass, etc) actually wrote a column about this entitled "Humor in the original campaign" which you can read here: http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.ca/2009/03/up-on-tree-stump-2.html

It tangentially addresses the misconception I am talking about here:

Facet One, Disarming the Opponent: One must remember that EGG's grounding was in table-top and miniature wargames. Imagine a gathering of us nere-do-wells in his basement, squared off against each other on separate sides of a 6 x 10 sand table. Now imagine the interchanges as we, the generals of one side of the table, quipped with the other side's commanders. Provocation? Most definitely! It may well have been the same thing that the Scots and Edwardian Englishmen could have traded squared off as they were, awaiting the outcome of an upcoming battle. A summoning of courage? Most certainly! The superior force responds on all levels of emotional output, and this was no different in our games, whether staged or instinctual, or where-ever such "harmless" chiding bore from. As the battle wore on, as the field changed hands, and as the final victory was in view, the other side crushed and in rout, well, you can imagine that we didn't just sit there wringing our hands and noting it in a perfunctory manner. And although some were calmer in their expressions, EGG was most expressive in victory (especially if it had been a very hard-fought battle hinging on last minute shifts and on the fly changes), so it is not to say that he didn't sound like a Confederate soldier on occasion, perhaps imagining himself pursuing the blue-bellies amidst howls and hoots after the Union's rout at the First Battle of Bull Run!

Now transfer this particular part of his mindset into the D&D game with him as DM. His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand...

I actually asked Rob directly about antagonistic DMing, whether Gary was an a-hole DM basically, knowing that this myth would resurface on some forum or other, sooner or later, and the question actually totally flabbergasted him:

Does Facet One mean that Gary had a "DM versus Players" competitive mentality? I'm asking as a sort of preemptive strike against quotes from people who would then conclude that he "had to be an abusive DMs and that's why the old editions suck".

The actual thought that someone might summarize my commentary as suggesting that either EGG or myself were abusive DMing actually made me laugh real hard, thanks!

This is where the true division lies between what people perceive through rules and by implementing them on different levels and at different times.

The condensed version is stated:

"His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand..."

This is to make it utterly clear that this is how we (players and DMs) perceived this. The fairness of DMs is never a question, for in doing so you must honor the neutrality of the station maintained. That's part of the game, just as any other games has rules sets; and we are definitely dealing with many Masters here of not only games design, history, game theory and so forth, but mature adults (wel,, I as on my way with all the guys coaxing/coaching, and at a frenetic pace and speed). We are here talking about some of the best game designers of the time--Gygax, Mike Carr, Arneson, Don Lowry, Mike Reese, Leon Tucker, Jeff Perren, and the list goes on.

So, No, there was no abuse, but the idea that we were still opponents, well, that is consistent in all games, and was no different then. I really do not see where the other line of thought ever entered into the picture, really, as a DM, though not adversarial, still role-plays adversarial NPCs/Monsters (and if good, to their fullest), and that through the conduit of his or her mind, as he or she, fortunately, can't afford a brain transplant, let's say, to that of an ORC, at mid-point of the adventure... Gary being a mighty fine opponent only transferred his toughness into those encounters and they were played smartly and without reserve, just as he had done on the tabletop or sand table

The exchange continues thus, with me:

I'm sure the criticism will show up sooner or later on some board. Back at the end of the 80's, when I started playing the game and visited my first local game stores, I remember that there was this attitude that considering the Tomb of Horros as some sort of epitomy of DMing to keep "these pesky players in their place" was something of a "cool" factor, like some inside joke that proved that you were a "real DM".

I never understood that mentality, personally.

I sure wanted to play the Tomb of Horrors (and never did), but I'd have expected the DM to show the kind of challenging qualities you speak of when talking about Lake Geneva, not some kind of ego-trip gone awry.

Then Rob Kuntz goes on and concludes:

I don't "get" (as Ghanian's say)adversarial DMs, either. Heck. You have all sorts of chances to battle and win and lose as a DM through the advent of endless encounters, no need to make the odds uneven. I guess it has to do with ego, or perhaps insecurity, who knows?

I've experienced flawed DMing in that style and thereafter never again played in that gaming environment; and I suppose that is the best advice, and to let the DM, and other players if there are any, know exactly why you're quitting the game. I must add that many of these "cheated" players have, in my recollection, gone on to be very good, if not only fair-minded, DMs; so there can always be a silver lining to a dark-DM's tale.

So no, Gary wasn't an antagonistic DM in the sense depicted in this thread, nor was this specific advice attempting to encourage that type of DMing either. The DMG is a strange beast really, a book that was written from DM to DM, in a conversational tone that makes the reader the true master of his own game. I find that it is much more productive to one's own DMing to read the book in context, throughout, to make sense of it all to one's own self, rather than cherry-pick soundbites to fit the agenda of the day.

 

[Hussar]

Since when does adversarial mean that the DM is an a-hole or is cheating? Kuntz' description here is exactly what I consider to be adversarial roles. The DM is trying to defeat the players. To me, that's adversarial.

I'm never trying to defeat the players. Not in many years anyway. I'm trying to be as fair and impartial as I can be while ensuring that everyone at the table has a good time.

I certainly don't envision my players as opponents. I play a cooperative game, not competitive.

Ohanan, I'm not sure how you define antagonistic DM, but, to me, the above epitomizes it.

 

[Odhanan]

Ohanan, I'm not sure how you define antagonistic DM, but, to me, the above epitomizes it.

Then you and I do not live in the same reality, because Gary Gygax was not an antagonistic DM, far from it. If you refuse to see that, and redefine words in order to fit your version of reality, I can't say I want a part in it. Facts are facts, and the fact is that to someone like Rob Kuntz, who was co-DM of the Greyhawk campaign with Gary Gygax, the notion that what was explained above in my previous post would constitute some sort of "epitome of antagonistic DMing" is a laughable idea.

Take that as you will.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION]

Your quote of yourself in your post upthread indicates that you started playing D&D in the late 80s. I started playing D&D in the early 80s. At the time, and over the 30+ years since, I read and have read a wide variety of discussions of GMing techniques, playstyles etc. I have also experienced a wide variety of playing and GMing styles.

Your own quotes frame the GM as the opponent of the players. A synonym for "opponent" is "adversary" - hence, in the literal sense, adversarial GMing. But "adversarial GMing" as I am using the term refers to a particular style of opposition between players and GM, which arises primarily from the GM using the ingame fiction, rather than metagame discussions and rules structures, as a way of resolving conflicts with the players over how the game should proceed.

In early D&D it manifested itself primarily through "gotcha" style arms races - eg listening at doors entails ear seekers entails ear trumpets with wire mesh; looting corpses entails rot grubs; the complexity of pit traps grows and grows; etc. You can see it, also, in the passage from the DMG that I quoted. Any player who read Gygax's advice in his PHB would think that listening at doors and checking for traps is skilled play; but then Gygax in his DMG complains about the (well-known) adverse effects of such play upon pace and excitement. But instead of suggesting either a gentlemen's agreement ("I, as GM, promise not to place traps on the doors if you, as players, promise not to have your PCs search them") or an overarching rules solution, the situation is to be resolved by the GM manipulating the ingame situation so as to thwart the PCs and hence the players (culminating in rooms full of silent monsters).

There have been 40 years since D&D was invented to come up with better solutions. Does anyone know how Torchbearer handles the issue?

 

[Hussar]

Then you and I do not live in the same reality, because Gary Gygax was not an antagonistic DM, far from it. If you refuse to see that, and redefine words in order to fit your version of reality, I can't say I want a part in it. Facts are facts, and the fact is that to someone like Rob Kuntz, who was co-DM of the Greyhawk campaign with Gary Gygax, the notion that what was explained above in my previous post would constitute some sort of "epitome of antagonistic DMing" is a laughable idea.

Take that as you will.

I'll ask again, how do you define antagonistic DM? As I said, what you quoted sure sounds like antagonistic play.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Since when does adversarial mean that the DM is an a-hole or is cheating? Kuntz' description here is exactly what I consider to be adversarial roles. The DM is trying to defeat the players. To me, that's adversarial.

.

It is the choice of words. It feels like there is an agenda at work. Adversarial has connotations that go beyond just trying to challenge the players (and people who speak of Adversarial GMs usually do so in a light that that is highly unfavorable). It is like the term Magic Tea Party, it is condescending and insulting to people who like RP heavy interaction in games. It is dismissive. And like I said, it reduces a style of play to a single thing, when it is so much more than that.