Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5652976" data-attributes="member: 8835">This thread is a tangent from topics on Is D&D art, Is   D&D a game, and something ExploderWizard said in Kzach's thread about optimizing.In the Is it a game, thread, i learned I was wrong, and that the definition of Game is so broad, that the dictionary basically says it covers any entertaining pasttime.  You could tack on a clause of " and has rules" and still cover just D&D no matter how you play it.EW made a comment that if the D&D used illusionism (in this case, regarding your ability to fail) then it wasn't a game (to him?).  Technically, the dictionary says it's a game, but that's not what this thread is about.this thread is about whether what the GM decides to do in the game is all illusion or not.  barring the fact that this is a game of pretend and its all in our head.I posit, that a game of nethack is a decent example of true unbiased GMing, everything is ultimately decided by randomizers and logic statements.  The computer shows no mercy.  if you die, your PC is dead (and your next PC may even find his body).  The computer has no vested interest in plot protection, fudging, or the outcome.  Everything is codified, so if the same die rolls came up in the generation and playing of the game, the exact same outcome would occur.Humans are less biased than this, despite their best attempts.  I've seen a number of threads (especially about sandbox play), as humans defend their honor.Now none of this thread should impune the way you play your game.  The ultimate point I'm making is that once you truly consider the impact of the vast level of decisions big and small that you make as a GM, you are exerting your will in the game space.Now, as a baseline, I suspect we all mostly agree that declaring "Rocks fall, everybody dies" is a case of the GM exerting his will over the game space in an extreme way.  Or making the next harmless looking room the PCs enter be a trap that seals and the dragon that far outclasses the party lies in wait to kill them.But technically a GM can do that.  I assume a non-biased GM (as best as they can be) has a sense of fair play.Thus, in the situation of sandboxes which can have wildly varying challenge levels, the GM tries to ensure the PCs have fair warning where the really hard stuff is, thus it is the PCs choice to tackle it.  As compared to GMs who try to have level appropriate challenges.  Where basically, the difficulties may vary, but according to the math, the party has a chance of victory.As EW was responding, what happens if the PCs fail a given encounter?  Do you kill them?  Do you reveal an escape route?  Do you make another path available?  Do you choose the worst possible outcome?  Do you choose an outcome that mimizes the impact of that failure?This is where the same situation in the hands of 100 different GMs could net you 100 different outcomes.In the other thread, there was a group of people who felt that failure has to be possible.  I'm not sure, but it seems like they interpret failure to be game ending.  whereas in real life, many failures set you back, and you can recover and try anew or abort and do something else.If I run the encounter and decide the failure is a setback, have I negated your failure?Am I obligated to choose the worst possible outcome when you mess up a social encounter?Since I decide where all the monsters and NPCs are, and their disposition any any given time, and their reaction to the PCs, I have a lot of control.as such, what happens next, unless I follow some strict tables (like nethack effectively does), I'm winging it.  if I'm winging it, i'm relying on my opinion on what should happen next.Thus, while a good GM is certainly trying to make fair decisions, the total unbiased nature of the game is still an illusion.Here's a test:tell a situation to a fellow GM.  He can be inclined to ask "why did you let them get away with that?" or "Why did you come down so hard on them?" you have evidence that your opinion made the decision, not an arbitrary unbiased mechanism.</blockquote>

Verification