Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[AverageCitizen]

I don't know if you realize this, but you're still denigrating other playstyles by suggesting that they are "just a game" while yours is "just a game + some other interesting stuff". You can have all that extra interesting stuff without a player-centric game.

I may have mistaken your game style. There definitely are some people who like to keep DnD strictly to the battle grid, and that is fine. If that's not you, then in my admittedly broad generalizations I'd lump you in with the "game+" group. I hope I am not continuing to offend, because that really isn't my intent.

Well, to clarify, I definitely want the players in my game to enjoy the game- that's why they keep coming back for more- but I don't think entertaining the players is at the top of my duties as dm. It's on the list, but there are many more important aspects to my game (and, again, this is all about playstyle preference).

Fair enough. I am beginning to suspect that our 'lists' of duties as a DM is more similar than you might think (probably due me not representing myself well) but the lists are in different order. Anyway, moving right along...

For instance, I think running a consistent game is more important than stroking the players. So is building a consistent milieu. So is having my npcs and monsters act appropriate to their intelligence- the classic example of a mystery adventure where the Int 25 villain makes tons of stupid mistakes satisfies the players, because it makes it easy for them to win, but I find it terribly dissatisfying, since an Int 25 villain wouldn't make those mistakes. If I want a villain to act dumb, I make sure the villain actually is done- or that there is another reason for them to act that way (emotional entanglements, etc).

Okay, so I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but this section of the post, submitted as a counter-point to my OP, shows that I have clearly failed to communicate my point of view so I am going to try to clarify and I'll try to be concise.

I am very picky about my players, and I think this section of your post shows why. If the players are happier with an INT 25 villian making stupid mistakes then I don't play with those people. Its not fun for me. The players I have chosen to play with (I have a waiting list as well) are the ones that would be extremely dissatisfied if the Professor Moriarty in our campaign were to be stupid for no good reason. In fact, when I was first starting out I'd occasionally overlook some angle of the story or strategy that would accidentally allow for easy victory, and all of us were very disappointed with the outcome. I have run into a few really immature RPers who just want to win. I guess I shouldn't say immature, maybe they just use DnD to unwind and they want a punching bag. That's fine, but personally I can't stand power-gaming.

Hear that everyone? I don't like power-gaming (not the people who do it, just the style). If you think I am advocating it, please reconsider my comments with that in mind. Notice the very end part about story and validation. Power gaming is an example of following all the steps I outlined originally except validation. IMO, in order for someone to really be satisfied with an outcome, it has to be hard-won as well as well delivered. I feel that power-gaming is like junk food. It might be sweet but it lacks substance and is ultimately less satisfying.

Hopefully that makes me more clear. I guess theoretically if you were being as player-centric as I suggested originally, if you were stuck with a group of power-gamers that would be a problem. But that is why I pick my players. If you run a player-centric game, picking your players is picking your style.

Again, playstyle choice. DnD is indeed "just a game"- but, run and played right, it's a game that includes all kinds of crazy elements of acting, storytelling, etc. I think most players that have come to gaming within a group that coddles the players would be shocked at games like mine, and that is okay. Players that fit well with my style of game would be bored to death in a campaign where nobody ever dies, or where everything evolves to match the level of the party regardless of what level it was six game months ago. Dms that fudge the dice are fine for a certain style of game, but I roll almost all my dice in the open and let the chips fall where they may. Personally, a non-objective dm really sours me on a campaign very quickly.

Yeah I agree with everything you said here. I have PC death sometimes, but you probably have a lot more. I very occasionally fudge the rolls, mostly if I feel like I made a mistake in planning, but not always. So yeah, we have some different playing styles. I probably would enjoy your game, its just I have my own style that emphasizes different aspects and it just sorta comes out that way. But those particular differences weren't what I was trying to contrast in the original post. I wasn't talking about making it easy or hard. If anything I think to err on the side of difficult is better, because then they might pull it off and it'll be even more satisfying, but if it's too easy then the game is already spoiled. I understand that I am probably difficult to follow right now, I think its mostly because my original post has been misinterpreted (my bad) and so the conversation has spread into several related but difficult to distinguish topics.

I think trying to claim the "more than just a game" label for your playstyle really implies a disdain for the way others play the game. I am pretty sure that isn't your intent, but that is how you are coming across to me.

I'm not saying one style is "better" than the other- just that I have a strong preference for one over the other, and my players are perfectly happy to play my style of game. Hell, I almost always have a 'waiting list' of potential players longer than the 6-10 I let into the group! So if what you mean by "more than just a game" is "a game that your players really enjoy," I think you'll find that there are many, many groups that play very differently from yours whose members are having the time of their lives.

Again, I apologize if I offended. But it is clear here that I have miscommunicated.

The game/game+ statement came from the fact that I thought we were talking about story vs. the absence of story, not player pampering vs. tough love. Because of that, when you disagreed with me I figured you were in the DnD-dungeon-crawl-minis-combat-board-game camp. Some people don't like to mix their fiction with their tabletop gaming, and thats fine, but I think we both agree that there is a lot more to it.

I'll admit that I do have disdain for certain play styles, but I have tried and will try harder to not vocalize it here because that is the rules of the forum. And you know, its a good rule, cause what do I know? I'm just some guy. I shouldn't be allowed to go rain on people's parades. I would like to point out that after learning about it, I really, really don't think your game is the type I was talking about in those comments.

 

[Aus_Snow]

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to pawsplay again.

Gotcha covered there.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As far as playstyle is concerned, the job of the DM is help provide the most fun and satisfying game possible. How that is achieved will depend on the player group. Some players like to play in a tough game world that requires thier characters to fight tooth and nail for every scrap of success, and others might enjoy a game with little to no risk and heaps of reward and glory. Other players might want something in the middle.

However the game is played, if the DM and players had a great time then the DM did a good job.

My personal preference is for games that allow the players to determine the level of risk vs reward. My players generally like games that feature failure as a possible option. Knowing that thier choices,actions, and luck brought about their successes provides a more satisfying experience.

 

[CharlesRyan]

The DM (a.k.a. Judge or Referee) must not take sides. The DM is not playing for or against the players but presenting a challenge to their skills. Some characters survive, succeed and grow more powerful; other "pawns" perish . . .

Yeah, that was fun. Back in 1979. When I was like, 14. For about three weeks.

Frankly, a good game of Descent sounds like a more engaging RPG than what you're describing.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good game of Descent. Or the occasional dungeon delve that just pits a page full of stats against some tough monsters for an hour or two.

But a dispassionate "tester of skills" is the last thing I want in my GM, or that I want to be as a GM.

 

[maddman75]

I don't understand how you can have an RPG without uncertainty. I mean, I've seen freeform RPGs, and those are well and good, but I just don't get how someone can pick up D&D or DC Heroes or Vampire and believe they can know the future without compromising the basic design of the game.

What in my post suggested that? Uncertainty is what makes it interesting! How far will Batman go to take down the Joker? Will he torture someone to find out where his lair is? Will he commit murder? Would be betray old Alfred, or give up the Wayne fortune, if that's what it took?

Just because I know the Joker isn't going to kill Batman doesn't mean that there's no uncertainty, or that everything is a cakewalk!

the classic example of a mystery adventure where the Int 25 villain makes tons of stupid mistakes satisfies the players, because it makes it easy for them to win, but I find it terribly dissatisfying, since an Int 25 villain wouldn't make those mistakes. If I want a villain to act dumb, I make sure the villain actually is done- or that there is another reason for them to act that way (emotional entanglements, etc).

Why do you think a villain making stupid mistakes would make for a satisfying game? Do you think players want it to be easy to win?

 

[Hussar]

As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.

That's fine, so long as you are only willing to entertain a single purpose to playing an RPG - a fairly traditional way that is certainly loads of fun.

However, you should realize that that's not the only way to play. Maybe I want to delve into the psychological ramifications of being Batman. Taking down the Joker is simply the vehicle for that examination, not the focus of the campaign at all.

I'm totally not saying you are wrong at all. I've played the way you are describing, and I still play that way. But not all the time. There are times when I want my RPG to be a vehicle for something different.

Just to give an example from my current game. I'm running a hard SF game using the Sufficiently Advanced ruleset. The first scenario I ran had the players investigating the cause of serious depression and general malaise aboard a colony ship. They discovered that a toy had been invented that empirically proved that the universe is deterministic and that there is no such thing as free will.

People become addicted to the game in order to try to prove it wrong, fail, and then become almost catatonic and paralyzed by the psychological ramifications.

Now, solving the situation was pretty much entirely secondary to what I wanted out of this scenario which was a discussion on the psychological and socialogical effects of knowing the universe is deterministic. ((The end solution for the players was to show that the toy was actually a hoax and the universe wasn't actually being proven to be deterministic.))

I don't want to say that I want to do this every single game. I certainly don't. But it was a fascinating diversion from the normal Kill Kill Kill Talk Talk Talk of traditional gaming. Everyone, I think, really enjoyed the scenario. It really engendered a great deal of discussion and in character rp. A good time was had by all.

So, no, I reject the idea that all rpg's must be played the same way. That rpg's have one single purpose and we must adhere to that purpose. Sometimes I just wanna kill stuff, sometimes I want to explore ideas, sometimes I wanna do something else. RPG's are a pretty varied medium. I would certainly never want them to be limited to a single style.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, that was fun. Back in 1979. When I was like, 14. For about three weeks.

Frankly, a good game of Descent sounds like a more engaging RPG than what you're describing.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good game of Descent. Or the occasional dungeon delve that just pits a page full of stats against some tough monsters for an hour or two.

But a dispassionate "tester of skills" is the last thing I want in my GM, or that I want to be as a GM.

Doing it wrong syndrome strikes again.

 

[Dykstrav]

You've never day-dreamed about dying? About who would show up at your funeral and what they would say?

You've never wanted to go out in a blaze of glory?

For what it's worth, I certainly have considered my own death, and I usually have all my characters do it to. After all, what is a more concrete way of telling people what you believe to be important than what you're willing to shuffle off the mortal coil for?

Yeah, that was fun. Back in 1979. When I was like, 14. For about three weeks.

Frankly, a good game of Descent sounds like a more engaging RPG than what you're describing.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good game of Descent. Or the occasional dungeon delve that just pits a page full of stats against some tough monsters for an hour or two.

But a dispassionate "tester of skills" is the last thing I want in my GM, or that I want to be as a GM.

I'm a bit opposite of this attitude. Unlike some of the players that I've known, I expect a challenge first and foremost. I don't care how compelling the narrative is or how "heroic" my character gets to be if I feel like I'm just walking through it. I want a real danger of character death and a real chance of failure. I want to be rewarded for caution and taking calculated risks.

I'd rather have a character meet a bloody and horrible death through my own choices and skill rather than have them succeed because he's the star of the show, or because the DM wants the players to feel empowered. My ideal DM would be a bit detached, clinical even, almost like a trial lawyer that adjudicates the life of my character without passion, prejudice, or remorse. I wouldn't enjoy the arbitrary, random-character-death sort of DM common in 1E days, but what I want is danger and a very real chance of failure. As long as I felt that the DM was being impartial, I'd be cool with it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover.

Hey! That's my job too!

Generally, I'm not going to be asking the question 'can Batman take down the Joker.' Its going to be more along the lines of 'What will Batman give up to take down the Joker?' or 'Can Batman take out someone as crazy as the Joker without going crazy himself?'

If Batman knows he is going to win, why should he give up anything? Wouldn't that make him crazy? Even a game that is about how much the PCs are willing to sacrifice in order to win requires that they must sacrifice something, or lose, and that the exact degree of sacrifice needed is unclear at the start.

I don't understand how you can have an RPG without uncertainty. I mean, I've seen freeform RPGs, and those are well and good, but I just don't get how someone can pick up D&D or DC Heroes or Vampire and believe they can know the future without compromising the basic design of the game.

Agreed.

However, if you try to convince the rest of us that the purpose of a game of Chess is to make sure that White always gets Black in check mate, then you're being absurd. Bringing that attitude to a normal Chess match is obnoxious.

Also agreed.

Umbran, your response goes off at such a strange tangent that I reckon I must have been terribly unclear!

Not just me then.......

As far as playstyle is concerned, the job of the DM is help provide the most fun and satisfying game possible. How that is achieved will depend on the player group. Some players like to play in a tough game world that requires thier characters to fight tooth and nail for every scrap of success, and others might enjoy a game with little to no risk and heaps of reward and glory. Other players might want something in the middle.

However the game is played, if the DM and players had a great time then the DM did a good job.

Also agree.



RC

 

[Hussar]

If Batman knows he is going to win, why should he give up anything? Wouldn't that make him crazy? Even a game that is about how much the PCs are willing to sacrifice in order to win requires that they must sacrifice something, or lose, and that the exact degree of sacrifice needed is unclear at the start.

I absolutely know that if I walk into my local 7/11, I can give up 179 yen to buy a can of beer. If I want that beer, I have to sacrifice my money.

How does knowing that you will win negate the chance of having to sacrifice in order to achieve that?

I absolutely know that I can sacrifice something in order to gain something I want. The question in this particular style of game though, is how important is it to me, or rather my character? Is the win worth the sacrifice and what ramifications are there to that sacrifice.

The end goal of defeating the Joker is not the point of the game. It might be the point of some games, true. But, it needs not be the point of all games.