Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Immortal Sun" data-source="post: 7599816">Gandalf is an example of a &quot;high-level&quot; character that is common throughout a number of books who does little.&nbsp; He is more or less a talking plot device, ensuring the games moves in certain directions when it needs to and doesn't go in others when it shouldn't.&nbsp; He is a literary device that translates well into RPGs, a way of guiding the players without negating their actions.&nbsp; I use it a lot.&nbsp; The &quot;wise old monk&quot;, the &quot;faithful cleric&quot;, the &quot;blind seer&quot;.&nbsp; Someone who directly participates very little but spends most of their time providing useful exposition to help the players better understand the world and make contextually appropriate decisions.Sure, I won't argue that.&nbsp; But to quote Futurama: &quot;If you do just enough, people won't know you've done anything at all.&quot; That's my perspective on DMPC involvment.&nbsp; It's not the DM saving you from danger you've foolishly walked into.&nbsp; It's the DM giving you guidance before the danger even comes up that it is indeed dangerous, from within the world that the characters exist in.And I don't disagree with her.&nbsp; Gandalf has a very heavy hand in the beginning, though arguably Aragon has this problem as well.&nbsp; But contextually, the hobbits are exceedingly out of their league.&nbsp; Gandalf &quot;does everything&quot; in part due to the vast contrast between his character and the hobbits.&nbsp; And even when he's gone, many of the things the hobbits accomplish are done via others.&nbsp; Merry and Pippin can't take credit for the sacking of Isengard, all they did was convince the Ents to help and largely by coincidence.This is one of those areas were stories don't translate well into games.Technically.&nbsp; The point is this encounter was designed to be fought by a &quot;player&quot; and it was.&nbsp; The Balrog wasn't, so it wasn't.&nbsp; Sure, the GMdalf could have just let the party try to fight it, and die, but then the game would be over, the bad guy would win and the players would be complaining about why the DM put such a powerful monster there and not telegraph that the party wasn't supposed to fight it.This is a perfect example of what I'm saying.&nbsp; The DM (Tolkein) in this context had a specific outcome in mind: the loss of a friend to help motivate the players to continue on in their fight against evil without depending on the powers of a high-level character to keep them alive.&nbsp; Now, granted this is a book and not a game.&nbsp; And I'll be the first to argue that while games can translate into stories, stories do not always translate into games.&nbsp; But there are certain structural elements that do.&nbsp; The Author wants to write a good story that is enjoyable for their readers just as the GM wants to create an enjoyable game that is enjoyable for their players.&nbsp; That enjoyment is predicated on certain outcomes happening and certain outcomes not happening.&nbsp; This is why, for example, DM's ban PvP.&nbsp; They understand that there are bad outcomes from this type of play and these bad outcomes result in a lack of enjoyment from their players.TLDR:&nbsp; No, the GM should not cheat the players of victory or failure with fiat.&nbsp; Yes, the GM should guide the players towards outcomes that would produce high enjoyment for everyone involved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Immortal Sun, post: 7599816"] Gandalf is an example of a "high-level" character that is common throughout a number of books who does little. He is more or less a talking plot device, ensuring the games moves in certain directions when it needs to and doesn't go in others when it shouldn't. He is a literary device that translates well into RPGs, a way of guiding the players without negating their actions. I use it a [I]lot[/I]. The "wise old monk", the "faithful cleric", the "blind seer". Someone who directly participates very little but spends most of their time providing useful exposition to help the players better understand the world and make contextually appropriate decisions. Sure, I won't argue that. But to quote Futurama: "If you do just enough, people won't know you've done anything at all." That's my perspective on DMPC involvment. It's not the DM saving you from danger you've foolishly walked into. It's the DM giving you guidance before the danger even comes up that it is indeed dangerous, from within the world that the characters exist in. And I don't disagree with her. Gandalf has a [I]very[/I] heavy hand in the beginning, though arguably Aragon has this problem as well. But contextually, the hobbits are [I]exceedingly[/I] out of their league. Gandalf "does everything" in part due to the vast contrast between his character and the hobbits. And even when he's gone, many of the things the hobbits accomplish are done via others. Merry and Pippin can't take credit for the sacking of Isengard, all they did was convince the Ents to help and largely by coincidence. This is one of those areas were stories [I]don't[/I] translate well into games. Technically. The point is this encounter was designed to be fought by a "player" and it was. The Balrog wasn't, so it wasn't. Sure, the GMdalf could have just let the party try to fight it, and die, but then the game would be over, the bad guy would win and the players would be complaining about why the DM put such a powerful monster there and not telegraph that the party [I]wasn't [/I]supposed to fight it. This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. The DM (Tolkein) in this context had a specific outcome in mind: the loss of a friend to help motivate the players to continue on in their fight against evil without depending on the powers of a high-level character to keep them alive. Now, granted this is a [I]book[/I] and not a [I]game.[/I] And I'll be the first to argue that while games can translate into stories, stories do not always translate into games. But there are certain structural elements that do. The Author wants to write a good story that is enjoyable for their readers just as the GM wants to create an enjoyable game that is enjoyable for their players. That enjoyment is predicated on certain outcomes happening and certain outcomes [I]not[/I] happening. This is why, for example, DM's ban PvP. They understand that there are [I]bad[/I] outcomes from this type of play and these bad outcomes result in a lack of enjoyment from their players. TLDR: No, the GM should not cheat the players of victory or failure with fiat. Yes, the GM should guide the players towards outcomes that would produce high enjoyment for everyone involved. [/QUOTE]

Verification