NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6194742" data-attributes="member: 42582">They imply that the GM gets to draw the map of the world, gets to decide who is living in what part of it (subject to player control over PC hometowns, which is something on which the players have had some say - like who else lives with them in their houses - in every game I've ever been involved in).They don't imply that the GM is entitled to disregard the opinions of the players on such matters. Nor do they imply it. This is up to the group.Nor do the imply that the GM is entitled to tell the players who they should oppose, or with whom they should seek alliances.That's true. It's true in D&D, it's true in Burning Wheel, it's true in HeroWars/Quest. But it would be misleading to say that players in BW or HW/Q have no say over who are the antagonists - that is what the relationship rule in those games are for (and the BW rules call out that the GM is obliged to incorporate those relationships into play).D&D has no general relationship rules. But a table who plays a ranger's favoured enemy in that way, or who plays a cleric's choice of deity in that way, is not deviating from the rules text. Because the rules text is silent on these matters.This depends. If you read Gygax's description of playing the game in his PHB, it is the players who bring monsters and NPCs into play by choosing where in the dungeon they go to. That is, the GM has predetermined the location and basic disposition of these beings; the players gather that information in various ways; and the players then launch expeditions. A GM who rearranges the map or the opposition simply to thwart the players' plans is cheating in that style of play.(Lewis Pulsipher in early White Dwarf is another strong advocate of this particular playstyle.)But in Gygaxian play must decide in advance (or perhaps via random roll). And the players get to choose where the PCs go. When I bought Oriental Adventures back in 1986, I discussed with my players starting an OA game. They agreed that we should do so (playes help decide basic campaign framing). They rolled up PCs, including using the family/ancestry charts - these dictated ancestral relationships and feuds (player-side mechanics helping with basic framing of antagonists). In one adventure, the PCs ventured into the mountains and met some ogres with whom they allied (action resolution, a mixture of AD&D reaction rolls and freeform roleplaying, helping determine who are and are not antagonists).None of this was prescribed by the rules. Nor was it proscribed. The rules were silent on how these things are to be done. Pointing that out, and pointing out that different people do it different ways, is not in my view unreasonable.I don't agree with this at all, but that's a side point (compare the explanation of the GM's role in the 4e PHB, for instance, compared to the Essentials rulebooks).Your quote from the PF rulebook - "the Game Master (or GM) who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face" - indicates that PF affirms what I had suspected upthread was the norm for PF play, namely, a very high degree of GM force in relation to matters of antagonism. The contrast with Gygax's PHB is quite marked, because that book is all about the players planning what threats their PCs will face.I don't think this is true in all versions of D&D. For instance, classic D&D has reaction rolls (modified by CHA) for this purpose. From Gygax's DMG, p 63:Any intelligent creature which can be conversed with will react in some way to the character that is speaking. Reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma and applicable loyalty adjustments . . .In AD&D the GM is allowed to suspend these rules - but if s/he doesn't, then once the dice are rolled the GM has to stick to the result. And there is definitely an assumption that these rules will be the general default.And I'm saying that, by contrast, D&D (except apparently PF) leaves the approach to this open - ie it doesn't have mechanics (though Gygaxian D&D comes close, with its random tables) and hence it is a table matter.Yes. This is an important part of my point.I basically agree with this except the douchebag part - that depends on the prior table understanding as to who is meant to do what. In my games it's understood that the players get to choose how they respond, although the players are also expected to have run up honest flags in PC building and in general discussion around planning for the campaign.Thanks - you've followed my point, yes. Also, there are different practices as to who gets to decide which encounters the PCs face: contrast Forge-style scene framing, for instance, to Gygaxian sandboxing, and contrast both of them to AP-style play. To pretend that these are all just the same way of playing the game will make it impossible to understand why some people have issues with caster/fighter balance and others don't. (These play differences may not be the only factor; but they're clearly one of them.)I'm not talking about those systems either. I'm saying that D&D doesn't tell us who is in charge of deciding what matters in the game. To the extent that PF does (as per the text you quoted) it is a departure from classic D&D, and from 4e, and I think from 3E. (I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar to 2nd ed AD&D.) But it does make good sense for a game whose purpose is to support the sale of APs.That can't be the whole point of having a GM. After all, 13th Age has a GM, but in 13th Age the pacing of rests is determined by quite strict rules text (which I quoted upthread).All "undesirable" means here is "undesired by you". There is no inherent flaw in the 13th Age approach - it's actually a clever solution to something that is a major problem for many D&D players, and I think 4e would have been a stronger game if it has included something similar as an option at least.And the idea that the 13th Age approach is incompatible with fluidity is a mistake. It's not more incompatible with fluidity then is an approach to combat adjudication which permits a PC to miss an attack even if the player describes it in the most florid and graphic terms imaginable.And once again we learn that anyone who has different experiences, and different priorities for play, is inept. I'm surprised that you can't see how judgemental that is, and how much it involves projecting from your own experience without even trying to reflect on how others might be playing the game.Your comment about story is not true of any game I've run since about 1985.What is my job, then, as GM? To frame scenes, to provide antagonism, to push the players, to adjudicate within the parameters of the rules.What you describe as the role of the GM is not even mentioned in the 4e PHB. (It is mentioned in the Essentials rules - in my view, a retrograde step, given that the 4e mechanics are predicated on the assumption that the GM will abide by them.)In saying that what you do, and how you see the GM, is "simply what the DM does", you are projecting your own practices and experiences onto others. I have been GMing for nearly 30 years, and I haven't been doing what you say I should be doing for over 25 of them. For instance, my monsters die when they reach 0 hp; my players choose whom they oppose; the rules for spellcasting and spell resistance tell us whether or not spells have an effect; the difficulty charts for the game tell us whether or not a given dice roll is good enough; etc.If you think you can reconcile the sort of GM force you describe with non-railroading, good luck to you. But unless your actual game is radically different from the impression you are giving of it, I'm fairly confident I would find it very railroady.</blockquote>

Verification