Why I don't GM by the nose

[The Shaman]

If that is how you run every character you play no matter the format or campaign then you would not be welcome at my gaming table.

Lanefan, you'd always be welcome at mine.

- The Sha - "It's not Traveller 'til you've hired a platoon of mercs to deal with your enemies" - man

 

[Dausuul]

Fair enough; see below...
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?

Well, as DM, I'm throwing challenges at the party calibrated on the assumption that the whole party is facing them. If somebody's going to hang back and not participate, the bad guys will win and nobody gets nuff'n. Not only that, but the bad guys have been known to come after the PCs instead of docilely awaiting slaughter. If the "looter" PCs have no allies because they hung back and let them get killed, they'll be in a bad way when the armies of darkness are knocking on the door.

As a player, if my fellow PCs aren't pulling their weight, I'm not going to cut them in on the loot. And when I have to run from a monster because my supposed allies aren't helping out, I will remember the rule: "I do not have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you."

 

[Beginning of the End]

Are you in any way capable of accepting that not all gaming tables work like that?

The GMs power derives from players choosing to allow the potential of absolute power. The only power they truly retain is to walk away.

I'm assuming that's your way of saying "no".

Selective quoting? Dude, I've pretty much quoted you wholesale in my responses. If you think I cut something critical to your argument out, I apologize. Please show me where I did so I can properly respond.

What I originally wrote was this: "What the OP explicitly stated was that he DIDN'T have anything in mind." Within the important, and explicitly quoted context, of Malenkirk trying to figure out what the GM wanted him to do.

You responded by quoting me accurately and saying: "fireinthedust never said he had nothing in mind about the statue et al."

At this point, everything was OK. You were wrong, of course. Fireinthedust had said that he had nothing in mind insofar as "what the PCs should do", but you weren't actively misquoting me yet.

But the next time you responded, you wrote: "The OP never said the statue had no meaning."

Who said anything about meaning? Not me. But I guess if we interpret "meaning" as "whatever the GM had in mind for the PCs to do", then it's still a fairly accurate portrayal of what I said. Unconsciously giving you the benefit of the doubt, I responded in good faith.

But then you wrote: "You, however keep insisting that there is nothing to figure out about the statue..."

Which now has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said.

And then your wrote: "Or, to return to point, the simple fact that I pointed out that your claim that the statue has no 'secret'..."

Which is also something I've never written in this thread.

So, to boil this down: On the one hand, you're apparently debating with some fantasy version of what I said that you've concocted out of wholecloth. On the other hand, you've professed a complete unwillingness to re-examine your fundamentally flawed premises while insisting that I respond to the creakily erected pillars of false logic you've built on top of those flawed premises.

Is there any point in continuing this conversation? Not until you've changed your modus operandi. The Emperor has no clothes, and I'm not going to waste my time commenting on his fashion choices.

Have a good day.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

What you wrote (emphasis added): "I don't care how the dried oranges might interact with the statue or whatever else you had in mind."

What the OP explicitly stated was that he DIDN'T have anything in mind. But your perception of gaming is so heavily skewed that you are apparently completely incapable of parsing that. Even now your post is still drenched with the expectation that the GM has hidden some sort of "puzzle" the he wants you to "solve" in a pre-determined way as if you were playing Myst on a computer.

If the DM had nothing at all in mind when he described that courtyard where nothing is happening, he has just wasted five minutes of my life.

It becomes even more urgent for me to make that thievery check and move past that door to arrive in a place where hopefully things are hapennings, descriptions matters and there are allies/antagonists to interact with. And dear lord, please let it not be a puzzle!

 

[The Shaman]

Your point being?

My point being, Han always shoots first in my games.

Heroes bore me. Give me self-interested rogues any day.

 

[Krensky]

I'm assuming that's your way of saying "no".

If I had wanted to say no, I would have said no.

Stuff

If you"re going to misrepresent everything I've said, all but insult me and insist that what I said isn't what I said and what you said isn't what you said, then we finally have agreement.

We are done here.

 

[Dausuul]

If you"re going to misrepresent everything I've said, all but insult me and insist that what I said isn't what I said and what you said isn't what you said...

Ah, but did he say that what he said was what you said he didn't say? Or did he merely claim that he didn't say what you said he said? And if he had said that, would you say that what he'd said was correct, or was he wrong in saying what you may have said he never said but would have said if you hadn't said it?

It's an important distinction*.

[size=-2]*Well, at least as important as this argument has become.[/size]

 

[TarionzCousin]

Have a good day.

Is this even possible after all of the finger-pointing in this thread?

As my grandmother* used to say, "Remember: when you point a finger at me, you have four other fingers pointing back at you [sblock]... unless you point with all five fingers, which looks really weird and will cause people to wonder about you." [/sblock]







*Not my real grandmother.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

My point being, Han always shoots first in my games.

Heroes bore me. Give me self-interested rogues any day.

Han shot first because he was straight out told that if he didnt pay up (which he couldnt do at the time) that he would be killed and his ship taken. At that point shooting first really doesnt matter anymore, its basic self defense.

Oh and by the way, Han Solo was never a self interested rogue. While he may on ocassion talk like one and try to present that image you will find that the reality of his actions in the movies and in the massive amount of books written about him say the complete opposite.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


Now, I certainly LOVE to go all iron fist on PCs and slap them around mercilessly from time to time. But, the critical additions to that are pre-slappage: establish confidence in the players that a good game is going and post-slappage: allow opportunity for glorious payback with interest. Giving the players a chance to set right an outrageous injustice that they feel has gone against them personally is one of the many ways that RPGs offer great fun. But, in order to reach that goal, the players must first actually suffer an outrageous injustice against them personally (at least vicariously....) Unlimited DM power provides this tool.

But unlimited DM suckage trumps all.

Totally agreed. But, I don't have to go that far to show that the DM has 99% of the power at the table and about the only power the players have is voting with their feet.

Again, take the following example:

Player: I try to jump across the pit.
DM: Make your jump check, DC 15.
Player: (rolls) I got a 12.
DM: You fall in the pit. Take 13 damage.

At no point can the player declare that he succeeded. Heck, until he rolls the dice, he can't even truly say that his character has started jumping.

So, in the above situation, what power (besides voting with your feet, we both agree that the extremes are there) does the player have?