Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

In no way would I consider this "standard" exploratory play. This is adversarial play with a lack of trust on the part of the player (possibly understandable if the GM is an ass, or not).

Agreed. Labeling the examples as 1 and 2 suggests a false dichotomy, and I suspect most actual play is neither of the above.

Not that they aren't interesting examples.

More realistically, though, I think there's a lot of the following.

*Player describes intent to use a certain tactic, and DM tailors challenges to engage the player. For example, players start looking for traps, and the DM essentially throws the players a bone by throwing in a few relatively solvable traps even though that wasn't part of the plan.

*Player describes a tactic, and DM adds in a new challenge that forces them to switch tactics.

*Player describes a goal, and the DM suggests a strategy that might be more obvious to the character than the player, helping the player achieve the goal.

*Player declares an intent, and the DM has no axe to grind regarding it and simply sits back, rolls some dice, and discovers where the course of action leads at the same time as everyone else.

And probably more. Adversarial DMing can be a blast, but is hardly the norm.

 

[Hussar]

*Player describes a tactic, and DM adds in a new challenge that forces them to switch tactics.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6235673&noquote=1#ixzz2o5AMM8a0

This is precisely what Manbearcat was elucidating though. The player hides his ultimate goals because he knows that the DM will add in challenges that force them to switch plans. IOW, the player knows that the DM will potentially veto any plan if the DM doesn't feel that the player has "earned" his victory.

So, the player pins down the DM's details, making sure that the DM can't simply Deus Ex Machina change the situation so that the player automatically fails, or, otherwise negates his success. The player asks about the presence of other wizards at the court before trying to cast charm, because he knows that if he doesn't ask, those wizards will suddenly be present because he knows that the DM will feel that the win is too cheap.

If the wizards are there and that's established beforehand, then he adjusts his strategy accordingly.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is precisely what Manbearcat was elucidating though. The player hides his ultimate goals because he knows that the DM will add in challenges that force them to switch plans. IOW, the player knows that the DM will potentially veto any plan if the DM doesn't feel that the player has "earned" his victory.

So, the player pins down the DM's details, making sure that the DM can't simply Deus Ex Machina change the situation so that the player automatically fails, or, otherwise negates his success. The player asks about the presence of other wizards at the court before trying to cast charm, because he knows that if he doesn't ask, those wizards will suddenly be present because he knows that the DM will feel that the win is too cheap.

If the wizards are there and that's established beforehand, then he adjusts his strategy accordingly.

I don't understand this. If a player doesn't explain his strategy beforehand, there's nothing preventing wizards from suddenly popping up to negate it. If the player asks about wizards, there's no reason to think that any answer he gets holds any water; how could someone know whether or not a person is a wizard just by looking? Never mind that one could be right nearby, but unseen, for a variety of magical or nonmagical reasons.

If the player keeps his cards close to the vest, the only thing that really accomplishes is that it forces the DM to think faster whenever they are ultimately revealed.

 

[TwoSix]

If the player keeps his cards close to the vest, the only thing that really accomplishes is that it forces the DM to think faster whenever they are ultimately revealed.

Which is a pretty effective way to get what you want, if the DM can't think fast enough to derail the player's plan while maintaining campaign consistency. Not every DM is great at improv, and even better ones can get tripped up.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is a pretty effective way to get what you want, if the DM can't think fast enough to derail the player's plan while maintaining campaign consistency. Not every DM is great at improv, and even better ones can get tripped up.

I guess if your goal is to fool the DM into not doing something he otherwise would have done. Which was not implied in any of the scenarios I was discussing. Again, adversarial DMing is not assumed.

 

[ImperatorK]

A DM is playing both with and against his players. Adversity is unavoidable and a part of the game since the old days.

 

[Campbell]

First, let me say that what works for one group may not necessarily work for another group.

With that out of the way I'll say that my objections to illusionism have nothing to do with how adversarial the GM is. My issue is that it sets up a situation wherein the decisions that players make ultimately serve as mere color and players and GMs find themselves at cross purposes when it comes to driving play. No meaningful decisions can be made if the rules, setting, and description gets contorted based on a player's declaration of intent. It encourages players to play the GM and not the game and muddles the separate responsibilities of the GM.

When I'm running a game and have to make a rules call, I want to consider the overall impact it will have on the game. I don't want to be using that role to amp up adversity. In fact I don't want players who feel they need to avoid adversity. I want a game that will encourage them to seek it out. I want our goals to be aligned. I want players to feel like their decisions matter, and I don't want to drive play to any particular outcome.

I understand that my tastes are rather avant garde with respect to the D&D community, particularly within this particular subset of it. They are not within the wider field of RPG games.

 

[Aenghus]

Referees are fallible, even good referees, (and I believe most referees are average). They have foibles, idiosyncacies, even prejudices. They will have tendencies to favour certain approaches and disfavour certain others. They may or may not be aware of the above.

Over time players learn their DM's opinions and probably adjust their play to better match it. Avoiding making a DM tetchy or angry sounds like a good idea. Using approaches that are more likely to succeed is understandable. Some of this just goes under the heading of "creating an enjoyable game for everyone". Pushed a little harder it slides into "playing the DM". IMO the more the game depends on the DM's rulings alone the more likely the players will try to play the DM.

We are all flawed humans and creating an enjoyable game for everyone involved in a game requires some tolerance of those flaws and making allowances, within limits.

 

[Abraxas]

A DM is playing both with and against his players. Adversity is unavoidable and a part of the game since the old days.

You are correct, however, there's a difference between playing the NPCs/World to challenge the players and changing things on the fly to screw over the players. Manbearcat's post seemed (IMO) to suggest that the latter was standard. If the GM is going to screw over the players it doesn't matter if it's exploratory play or indie play - and nothing in his second example couldn't happen in exploratory play.

 

[Abraxas]

When I'm running a game and have to make a rules call, I want to consider the overall impact it will have on the game. I don't want to be using that role to amp up adversity. In fact I don't want players who feel they need to avoid adversity. I want a game that will encourage them to seek it out. I want our goals to be aligned. I want players to feel like their decisions matter, and I don't want to drive play to any particular outcome.

I understand that my tastes are rather avant garde with respect to the D&D community, particularly within this particular subset of it. They are not within the wider field of RPG games.

I don't think your preferred method of running a game is that far out - it's how I've always run my games and how the games I play in are run.