Inherent PC Superiority?

[Kobold Boots]

On player wish-lists and players first situations:

I don't see this as "player bias" in terms of game mechanics. I see this as the game designers maturing and realizing that players are the blood of any given gaming group. The point is that in exchange for coming to a table and gaming you should be able to more or less ensure that what you want out of gaming is being addressed.

Seems pretty simple to me and fundamentally sound considering many of us game for extended periods of time with the same people and there's always the next hobby clamoring for time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's probably very experience-based, I am guessing.

In my neck of the woods (and, by that, I mean anywhere I have ever been, for any length of time, regardless of population density), players are easy to find. Game Masters, and especially good Game Masters, are another story.

Rather than seeing this as game designers maturing, I see this very strongly as marketting departments maturing, and realizing that, for each Game Master, there is a potential pool of 20+ players. Even if the game isn't fun enough to last a long time before the next edition pumps out, it is better to sell everything to those 20+ people than to sell a few products to a more selective Game Master. Moreover, if you design the game so that "everything's core", you might be able to get those Game Masters to buy into it, and also buy everything....further encouraging those 20+ people per GM to buy everything. Then, you can offer a subscription model to keep track of that mass of information and all the changes that come down the pike.....

This may be a good business model.

I am very far from convinced that it is good for the game.

IMHO, maturity includes the ability to accept adversity, to not throw a tantrum when a ruling goes against you/in an unexpected way, to accept that you cannot play a Warforged Ninja in this particular game with good grace, to accept that you still haven't found that Staff of the Archmagi that you've been hinting you'd like to acquire.

The "Say Yes" philosophy, when applied to anything else, is called "Pampering" or "Spoiling". Frankly, I believe that it should be called the same when applied to gaming. Rather than seeing this as "maturing", I find it quite the opposite.

YMMV, though.


RC

 

[Mallus]

The "Say Yes" philosophy, when applied to anything else, is called "Pampering" or "Spoiling".

When applied to gaming, or to other creative endeavors, it's frequently called "collaborating". The "Say, Yes" approach doesn't --or at least shouldn't-- imply an absence of adversity and challenge.

Frankly, I believe that it should be called the same when applied to gaming.

I'm wary of using language closely associated with child-rearing to describe what goes on between the DM and players.

YMMV, though.

As always!

To use a concrete example... I have no problem w/a player deciding which magic sword they'll find (sometimes). There's nothing particularly mature or heroic about random treasure generation. It's just a time-honored D&D-ism.

 

[pemerton]

maturity includes the ability to accept adversity

<snip>

The "Say Yes" philosophy, when applied to anything else, is called "Pampering" or "Spoiling". Frankly, I believe that it should be called the same when applied to gaming.

I don't agree with this at all.

Of course mature people can accept adversity. But adversity, in the context of gaming, is having to cancel a session because someone is sick, or I have to go to work on a Sunday, or whatever else. When I do turn up to play, I don't expect to endure the adversity of a crappy session, anymore than when I turn up to a film I'm looking forward to I expect to endure the adversity of a bad film.

Of course if the film turns out to be worse than I expected I cope. Likewise if the game session wasn't as good as I hoped. But this doesn't make such crappiness a virtue of the game session.

Now a good session will include adversity for my PC. Which is to say, adversity for my PC is not adversity for me. But the "say yes" philosophy doesn't mean there is no adversity for my PC. It does mean that my ideas about how my PC might respond to that adversity, and how the immediate gameworld environment might respond to that response, are taken seriously. It means that, in certain respects, my PC is closer to my conception of him/her than to the GM's conception. I don't think there's anything "pampered" or "spoiled" about my PC being closer to my conception of him/her. The GM is not my parent. The purpose of the game isn't to teach me about alternatives to pleasure or about coping without pleasure or about having my creative inclinations usurped by others. The purpose of the game is to be a source of pleasure.

Now if some people get pleasure by having their PC in part built by the GM, that's their prerogative - they can play AD&D. If they get pleasure by having thir PC in part built by random dice rolls, that's their prerogative also - they can play non-points buy D&D, or Runequest, or Traveller. But the notion that such people are more virtuous than those who like to build their PC entirely themselves - because better able to cope with adversity - I find spurious. They just have a different conception of what it is to place the game, and hence take pleasure in different ways of playing the game.

As far as I'm concerned, if I want to know what it's like to have my creative inclinations randomly usurped, and to have irritating and in some cases unhelpful editorial interference, I have other outlets - namely, my job rather than my hobby.

EDIT:

To use a concrete example... I have no problem w/a player deciding which magic sword they'll find (sometimes). There's nothing particularly mature or heroic about random treasure generation. It's just a time-honored D&D-ism.

This.

 

[Fifth Element]

As far as I'm concerned, if I want to know what it's like to have my creative inclinations randomly usurped, and to have irritating and in some cases unhelpful editorial interference, I have other outlets - namely, my job rather than my hobby.

Once again, can't XP you but a great post.

 

[chaochou]

This may be a good business model.

I am very far from convinced that it is good for the game.

I agree with the gist of this - that profitability and playability may well serious conflict with each other in the RPG industry.

In my experience, GMs and players who have felt like this have drifted into smaller games without the hype and advertising and constant flow of supplements and 'core material'. Just a book with everything you need.

There are an absolute ton of such games out there, including free systems. I just found Danger Patrol the other day... Danger Patrol - Action/Adventure Roleplaying in the World of Tomorrow which looks like a blast. There's a new version on its way.

But anyway, such a discussion looks like a whole seperate thread to me, so apologies for the derail.

 

[Mallus]

And another thing...

Thinking about it more, it's not that I always want heroic characters embroiled in epic struggles --that certainly doesn't describe a lot of the campaigns I've played in.

I want swashbuckling PC's who operate in worlds where swinging from chandeliers and chasing bad guys across the tops of a speeding trains are the most reasonable courses of action. Which is to say I want a certain lack of realism. Which, in some systems implies a certain level of power/exceptional ability. I want outlandish and cinematic actions to be viable options.

The relative size of my fish to the overall pond isn't important. I'm as happy playing Short Round (who I kinda resemble) as I am playing Indy (who I do not). The salient fact is both of them faffed around in the Tempe of Doom and came out okay.

 

[Fifth Element]

The "Say Yes" philosophy, when applied to anything else, is called "Pampering" or "Spoiling". Frankly, I believe that it should be called the same when applied to gaming.

This is, I believe, at least partly based on your misunderstanding of what "Say Yes" is supposed to accomplish, which you have demonstrated at times in the past.

I also agree that casting the DM as parent and the players as children is more than a bit misguided. It may not be what you meant to say, but it's very strongly implied by the way you said it.

 

[chaochou]

The "Say Yes" philosophy, when applied to anything else, is called "Pampering" or "Spoiling". Frankly, I believe that it should be called the same when applied to gaming.

As Pemerton noted above (sorry can't XP at the moment), the 'Say Yes' philosophy is not about 'pampering'. It's about choosing conflict.

"Say yes or roll the dice" is advice for a GM to look at whether failure of the specific task or idea being pursued by the player is narratively interesting. My character is looking for a plough. Do I find a plough? It depends on whether not finding a plough can take the game into a fun new place.

Have I agreed to plough someone's land in return for their agreement that they'll drop their boundary dispute on my land? Might be interesting if I can't get a plough. Or is it just something I did for a bit of colour and characterisation, where failure doesn't take us anywhere?

This is the root of 'Say yes or roll the dice'. It's a shorthand reminder to go with the players until the story reaches a point where conflict will produce drama and interesting new possibilities, whether I succeed or fail. It's not shorthand for pampering or a sense of entitlement, in my experience.

Ymmv and all that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hey guys, let's get the bickering to, you know, all the other threads that it's usually kept in, please. I know I can only ask nicely, but I'd really appreciate it if we kept the arguments all in [all but this one] place. Thank you.