Why I don't GM by the nose

[Krensky]

Look at the title of the thread. Now look back at what you wrote. Now look at the title. Now back at your post.

Sadly, what you wrote isn't true. But it could be true if you hit the EDIT button and rewrote it.

Uh huh. The OP never said the statue had no meaning. Way to construct a cute dismissal of an inconvenient argument.

Look down. Now back up. Where are you? You're in a fantasy world that the players can explore without the GM telling them what to do.

What's in your hand? Now I have it. It's the box you're supposed to be thinking outside of. Now look again. The box is now diamonds -- the beautiful diamonds of, "What would you do?"

Look closer. It's cubic zirconia of what the heck are you talking about?

Anything is possible when the players control their characters and not the GM.

Uh huh. When, pray tell, did I suggest the players not control their characters? With quotes, please.

I'm in a sandbox.

And those aren't Lincoln Logs.

 

[Argyle King]

double post

 

[Argyle King]

Aren't those just different names for much the same things?

"Character advancement" - D+D uses levels, other systems might use other things, but underneath it's the same principle: the character somehow gets quantifyably and game-mechanically better at what it does as the game goes on.

"Character points" - still a reward thus equivalent to experience points, and even more in the DM's control if the reward is based on "playing the character"; the DM has to make sure to reward risk-taking.

Lanefan

It can be the same thing, but it need not necessarily be the same thing. XP is (normally) awarded for defeating foes and overcoming scenarios. CP can (and often are) awarded for playing the character and not necessarily for 'winning.' You can fail the quest, yet still get points; conversely, it's possible to overcome the villain/challenge/hurdle/etc yet not get CP due to not playing the character. XP and CP serve pretty much the same purpose; however, the mentality behind why they are rewarded -I feel- makes them different things.

Also, CP are a completely optional rule in some of the games I play. It's possible to play without CP at all and simply have character advancement be completely in the hands of the player by having their character spend time learning new skills, learning spells, making allies, or whatever it is that they're trying to advance.

 

[Lanefan]

Our characters take risks because it's fun, because we're playing characters in a batsh*t fantasy adventure story of our own mutual devising, who seek to profit from saving or wrecking the game world, sometimes both, not because a certain amount of metagame currency is being dangled in front of us like bait.

Fair enough; see below...

The idea that our PC's, without the inducement of experience points, would simply sit around a tavern, drinking and living off our investments is kinda absurd. Don't we play these games in order to do exciting (imaginary) things?

In theory, yes.

In practice, I've played with (and DMed) players who would quite happily have their PCs stand aside and let others do the "exciting things" involving risk and death and all sorts of other bad stuff; then roll in once the dust had settled, loot the corpses of both sides, and go back to town and bask in the fame and fortune. They then find some replacement PCs run by the players whose guys died in the previous adventure and hire 'em into the party; lather, rinse, repeat.

They get rich, I (or whoever took the risks) get dead.

So what's my incentive to keep taking risks and-or to keep things moving? Where's the reward for the player(s)/character(s) who actually get on with it vs. those who hang back and merely scoop the loot?

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Lanefan, that problem is solved by not playing with douche bags.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Except that it's a power relationship. No matter how much people argue otherwise and no matter how true the the GM has all the power at the table.

No. He doesn't.

Once your understand that, you will understand your error.

And I reject any gaming philosophy that dismisses the GM's responsibility to run their game and instead blames the players for every problem at the table, every mistake or misstep of the GM, or every weakness of the GM's preferred play style.

Well... one of your errors. Then you'll need to do a Google search for "excluded middle".

Although, now that I think about it, your inclination to exclude the middle is probably feeding into your first error, too.

Sandboxes, despite peoples claims, are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in.

IME, non-linear scenarios are easier to prep, easier to run, and are, in fact, resistant to the structural flaws inherent in plot-based prep.

Which isn't to say that you can't screw it up.

 

[Argyle King]

Sandboxes, despite peoples claims, are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in. Sandboxes, despite peoples claims, are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in. --"Sandboxes, despite peoples claims, are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in."--

I disagree.

I would say that it takes a little more pre-play planning. However, once the game gets rolling, I feel that a sandbox pretty much runs itself. In the game I'm running now, all that's left for me to do as the GM most of the time is to occasionally voice a NPC and be an arbiter of the rules.

 

[Hussar]

BOTE, what power, beyond their individual character, can a player exercise at a D&D table? The player has no power over the setting, no power over any of the NPC's (which is the majority of the population in a setting) and no power over any event no directly initiated by the player himself.

So, other than the power to follow a plot hook or not, what power does a player have to exercise during the game?

For example, I cannot declare that my character is the long lost son of the king and is now the crown prince. Or rather, I suppose I could declare that, but, it wouldn't be true in the setting unless the DM okays it. Conversely, I can declare that my character is the avatar of his diety and all churches should bow to his authority, but, again, unless the DM okays that, it's not true in the setting.

Heck, I can't even declare that the mail arrives today on time as a player.

So, what power does a player have?

 

[Beginning of the End]

Uh huh. The OP never said the statue had no meaning. Way to construct a cute dismissal of an inconvenient argument.

Sigh.

Okay, the truth is that I'm really not sure what to say to you at this point. You, like Malenkirk, are claiming that the OP has some sort of secret statue-and-oranges plan that he wants the players to figure out. You claim that the OP said nothing to contradict your belief that there's some sort of pixel-bitching puzzle hunt with a one-true-way solution lurking in that room.

But I look at the title of the thread and I see, "Why I don't GM by the nose." And maybe I'm reading too much in to that, but I can't help thinking that "I don't want to lead my players by the nose" is rather antithetical to "I have a secret one-true-way solution that they have to find".

Then I look in his the OP's original post and I see that he wants his players "to have input" and to "think outside the box". He believes that players' ideas are "just as valid as a ... designer's". He thinks the most important a question a GM can ask is, "What would you do?"

All of this seems pretty clear to me. And it's been restated several more times and in a variety of ways throughout the thread -- both by the OP and by others. So I'm not really sure how to rephrase it for an umpteenth time in a way that you'll understand.

So, in lieu of that, allow me to create an analogy of this conversation as I perceive it:

fireinthesky: I'd like democracy.
Malenkirk: But who would be king?
BotE: You've been living in a monarchy too long. In a democracy there wouldn't be a king.
Krensky: You're adding stuff to the OP. He didn't say anything about there not being any kings.
BotE: When you vote, you don't need royal surcoats.
Krensky: Uh huh. The OP never said there wouldn't be a king. Way to construct a cute dismissal of an inconvenient argument.

And then I shake my head sadly in your general direction while making an analogy involving bears with eyes that shoot laserbeams.

(Ah, recursive humor.)

 

[Beginning of the End]

BOTE, what power, beyond their individual character, can a player exercise at a D&D table?

(...)

So, what power does a player have?

Your first sentence answers the question in your last sentence.