Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2180296" data-attributes="member: 27012">The issue is not always "game", per se.  It's more complicated than that.  For example, I do fudge, but more for realism or balance concerns than story concerns.  What I don't want is a game that reacts noticably to the PCs in a way that does not come from the setting.  There was a thread on rec.games.frp.advocacy years ago about "GM Biases".  The gist of the thread was GM techniques that really annoy players when they notice them.  In most cases, they were either techniques that some GMs consider golden or they could be good techniques used sparingly.  The problem is that once the players notice them, they stop playing the setting or story and start playing the GM.Examples given included "Fair Play" (as long as the players try hard, they'll succeed), "Creativity Rewards" (the more innovative and complex a plan is, the more likely it is to succeed), "Favorite NPC's" (interesting or plot-critical NPCs get protected by the GM), "Interesting Times" (nothing is ever easy and plans never work out as expected), "No Free Lunch" (the PCs never get anything good that they didn't pay for or earn), "Appropriate Challenge" (whatever the PCs fight will be just the right power level to challenge them), "Speed is Life" (quick action is always preferable to investigation and planning), and "Cruel to be Kind" (you can get a better game by making the players unhappy).I'm sure there are more than a few GMs reading that list thinking, "Hey!  That's ME!"  And for certain groups, all of those techniques can be good ones.  But they can also change the way the players play in unintentional ways.  An example given was a game with a GM that believed that "no plan ever survives contact with the enemy" (i.e., "Interesting Times").  The player eventually realized that when she discussed her plans with the GM, the plans would never work.  When she didn't discuss her plans with the GM and presented them as improvised decision making, they would usually work.  So guess what the player did?Basically, each time a GM fudges a decision to replace either what would naturally happen in the game setting if it were a real place or what the rules say, they are introducing a bias into the game.  If that bias is used with a heavy hand or repeatedly, the players can (and often will) notice the bias and stop playing the setting or scenario and start playing to the GM's biases.  In some cases, that's genre appropriate or what everyone wants.  In other cases, it isn't and it just becomes players and GMs playing games with each other.  Or, worse, it can destroy the suspension of disbelief for the player or rob them of any feeling of achievement when they succeed in the game. I think that ultimately (and Ryan Dancey claimed that WotC polling data suggests this) that everyone wants it all.  People want to play in games that have believable settings, challenging encounters, are fast and fun, and make for good stories afterward.  The problem comes from trying to reliably reproduce those elements and the more a GM or the players do to reliably produce a certain type of experience, the more artificial the whole experience can become.  It's like swimming in a swimming pool instead of the ocean, driving on a road instead of off-road, or going on a tour rather than exploring a place yourself.  Yes, you get an acceptably predictable result but it's not going to be the same.  Depending on what you value the most will depend on what you are willing to sacrifice.  If you value a good story the most, you might be able to sacrifice player freedom and the rules.  If you value player freedom and surprise, you might settle for a game that doesn't make for a good story.  If you want a good tactical experience, maybe some realism has to suffer.  And where I think it really runs off the rails is when a GM stops trying to have it all and simply steps all over any other concern for the element that matters most to them.</blockquote>

Verification