Would you quit a game if....

[Piratecat]

A gentle reminder to stay polite, and a thank you to everyone who has worked hard to do so and who has avoided personal attacks. Keep that up.

 

[Hussar]

That is setting up the game's parameters- the DM's job & prerogative. Every DM does it to some degree. Every DM, no matter how permissive, has something he will not allow in a given campaign.

He is not saying he'd raise a fuss if the situation were reversed.

What difference does it make if he'd raise a fuss or not if the situation were reversed?

Sure, it's every DM's prerogative to establish a game's parameters. But, throughout this thread, people have been patting him on the back for not just establishing the parameters, but outright belittling and attacking a playstyle that he doesn't share. You can go back through the thread but, it's there is pretty clear black and white.

It's not, "No thanks, that's not to my taste" it's "Look at my stupid player who thinks that we should play Little League D&D where everyone gets a trophy BWAHAHAHAAHA!"

I mean, good grief. The player steps up and tells the DM that he has every intention of spending a great deal of effort on a character, presumably making the character fit into the setting, engaging with both the situations in the campaign and with the knobs and dials of the campaign itself and really immersing himself in the campaign. In return, he wants to know that his character isn't going to die and all that effort be wasted.

Is that really such a bad thing? Really? This player just stepped up to be the DM's absolutist best friend, presuming that he's on the up and up and not a prat. He's going to be the go to guy for every plot hook, every bit of needed campaign color and whatnot. Why? Because he's going to spend the effort to be that guy.

But, no, apparently the only joy that can be had from an RPG is when the DM can kill a PC. Take away that, and you might as well not even play anymore. Are DM's really that uncreative that the only real consequence in your game is PC death? Is the only thing that your players care about is their single PC and nothing else?

Hey, I have no problems playing either way. You want a meat grinder DM? I can do that. You want a more story focused game where the revelations of the story are the reward? I can do that too. I'm pretty easy.

I'd much, much rather have happy players than try to brow beat people for not sharing my own idiosyncratic needs in a game.

 

[Janx]

From the PCs' point of view, the situation looked impossible. It looked like I was out to kill them.

I think this here's an important concept. Not just WB's protectionist part, but the idea that the players THINK their PC can die.

As with my point to [MENTION=28373]Broken Druid[/MENTION] about how I might act if I think my PC cannot die, behavior is altered with the reverse.

Whether your game is lethal or not, if you THINK your PC is in danger and you care about that PC, you will make decisions that are decidedly different than if you think your PC has plot immunity and is in no danger.

As an aside, [MENTION=6681181]chubbyloremaster[/MENTION]'s story is the extreme case where agreeing to player wishlisting became a slippery slope of the player deciding more and more of the game conditions.

Let's use another crappy analogy: Food service

1. You have a right to good service at the restaurant
2. you have a right to be sold what's on ther menu and know it's nutritional facts
3. You don't have a right to insist that Chic'Fila serve you a hamburger on a Sunday.
4. You don't have a right to know the recipe to their secret sauce (though I'm not sure how that meshes with knowing the nutitrional facts, but that's why analogies fail)

How's that map to D&D, by the numbers:

1. The GM shouldn't be abusive to his players and should consider their preferences when running the gamee
2. The GM shouldn't bait-n-switch his game, be straightforward on what the game is and isn't and let the player decide
3. The GM is the scarce commodity who puts in more time and effort to give his product away. He who cares less holds the power, and the GM can always find more players, a player cannot always find more GMs. The GM gets to run what the GM wants to run. Players are free to shop around.
4. The GM has to hold secrets in order to build suspense. If you're player can't know it, your DM don't have to show it.

I know from past threads that JamesonCourage disagrees with #3. However, if he and his brother stopped supplying, the players would likely have no comparable replacement because good GMs are hard to find. There is no reason Jameson should settle to run something he doesn't want to because he should be able to more easily find players who will accept his terms, than players who expect a GM to accept theirs.

the guys at Chic'Fila don't open on Sundays and they only sell chicken. That is what they want to do. Unless their product is so distasteful that nobody shows up, they not only have the right to do so, they have the authority to do so in the walls of their establishment. That authority is granted them by virtue of them doing all the work to create the restaurant with a desirable product and people showing up wanting it.

Now WB's got a guy who's complaining that Chic'Fila ain't open on Sundays. WB's only got 2 players. I suppose he's got to wonder, maybe he should open on Sundays, just so he can retain the customer. Or he could advertise more and attract other customers who are happy with his product.

It isn't a simple situation. But it's always the GM's call on what to do.

 

[Water Bob]

I personally like both, but I like when it unfolds naturally.

That's the key. If my "illusionism" doesn't flow naturally and believeably, then I default to BURN 'EM UP, KILL, KILL, KILLL!!!

No, seriously. I do default to a, "Well, dem's the breaks," type mentality where, if you die, you die. But, I will work with a player and try to think of everything "legal" that he can do to save his character's arse.

But, in the end, if the character is dead. He's kaput. No go. up. Pushin' up daises. Feedin' the worms. Etc.

Essentially, by protecting the players, you're denying story arcs to them. You're okay with them dying in other ways, obviously, but certain things they may like experiencing they'll never get to because of the behind-the-scenes changes you make.

Explain this to me again....

If my group thinks their lives are on the line because I tell them from a meta standpoint (player to player) that it's the way I play, then I'm going to run the game that way.

I lie to my players all the time using Meta-Game information. But, my players don't think I'm a liar--I don't draw attention to it.

I even started a thread about this not too long ago. Meta-game lying can be a tremendous tool for the GM if you use it sparingly and the players would normally think that you wouldn't lie to them.





META-GAME LYING

I'm about to do it again in one of our upcoming game sessions. Remember the necklace I spoke about on this thread earlier? Well, the PCs also found a matching breastplate and battleaxe to go with it.

There's an old crone that lives in the village with the PCs. The villagers look to the old blind bat as an Oracle. Cimmerians are very superstitious, and she's been living with the clan for what some say has been one hundred years. The villagers shun her and give her the evil eye. Nobody in town will even allow their bed to face in the direction of her hut--an old ramshackle thing that is not even allowed to be in the village proper, but instead lies exactly 100 feet outside of town.

When Cimmerians need answers to questions that they can't find themselves, though, the villagers all of a sudden find the strength to overcome their fear of the old hag, approach her, and ask her questions about things.

I expect that the players will, when they get back to the village, approach Rutcrana (the crone) with questions about what they've found (maybe after asking their clansmen in the village--which they will find out some but little information).

As a GM, I want to play out this relationship between the Cimmerian player characters and the strange, wierd old hag.

The players themselves are, of course, not afraid at all of Rutcrana. When there's no real threat to the characters, sometimes that's hard to play (Or, forgotten--the players will be more focussed on getting the information, I bet, than remembering to roleplay correctly at this part of the game).

Now, as GM, I'll remind them that their characters are trepidatious of Rutcrana, but to enhance that, I'm going to lie to them using Meta-game info.

So, when we play out the scene where the PCs ask Rutcrana about the breastplate, shield, and necklace, I'm going to roleplay the NPC by having her caution, "Be careful what you want to know. Most answers, as with most things in life, come with a price. Are you willing to pay the price?"

Then, using Meta-Game information to enhance the situation, I will tell the players that this may mean that, in order to cast the spell that they need, they may have to sacrifice some experience points. Sorcerery is a bastardization of nature, and when it is warped so, nature demands a price.

Now the spell doesn't really require XP. This is just a device I'm going to use to put some perceived danger on the PCs to represent the real danger and fear that their Cimmerian characters will be feeling.

The characters have to overcome their superstition and fear of the situation, so I'll give the players a tangible obstacle to overcome.

The decision is, of course, up to the players. It is my job to make them understand the stakes from their characters' point of view.

If I say, "I'm a hardcore GM, so be careful when you make decisions; and remember, every combat is dangerous in this game, and I don't pull punches!" then I mean it.

Just to be clear, I never, ever, never, ever, never fudge dice throws in front of or behind the screen. I just never do it.

So, even though I will keep "hooks" in the game as contingency plans, I won't change an attack roll or a damage roll to either help or hinder the players.

I just don't like using that tool.

And, I find that, because I never do fudge, the players tend to trust me more (if they only knew about the Meta-Game lying!).





CONTINGENCY PLANS

Also, remember, that I don't always have contingency plans. In fact, most of the time, I don't. Typically, I'll set up a contingency plan when I think the scenario I've set up is a bit tough. I feel that I can set up an encounter that I think is maybe a bit too much for the characters at their level. If the players prevail, they're true heroes, and I reward them lavishly. If the players don't succeed, I have the contingency plan ready because I feel like I might have set them up to fail.

So, with the contingency plan, I really set them up to succeed. If they suceed in the scenario, they've gone beyond the call of duty. If they don't, I've got the contingency plan.

On most situations, I create encounters that I think are fair. This is 90% of the time. And for those, there are no contingency plans.

It's not, "No thanks, that's not to my taste" it's "Look at my stupid player who thinks that we should play Little League D&D where everyone gets a trophy BWAHAHAHAAHA!"

I mean, good grief.

Dude, I don't agree with everything you've said, but I've got to hand it to you--you wrote a good post with a strong point.

The player steps up and tells the DM that he has every intention of spending a great deal of effort on a character, presumably making the character fit into the setting, engaging with both the situations in the campaign and with the knobs and dials of the campaign itself and really immersing himself in the campaign. In return, he wants to know that his character isn't going to die and all that effort be wasted.

Is that really such a bad thing? Really?

But....let's look at this from a different angle.

Me, as GM, as spent--I bet more than ten times the amount of time on the game than the player. Tons of work I've put into creating NPCs, scenarios, history and lore, maps, learning rules, and creating a game that I think the player would like to play...

We might even call it 100 times the time...maybe more.

And, it's not a BAD THING to throw all of that away just because a player got stupid and lost his character?

Yeah, I'd call what the player is doing a BAD THING. Absolutely.

Now WB's got a guy who's complaining that Chic'Fila ain't open on Sundays. WB's only got 2 players. I suppose he's got to wonder, maybe he should open on Sundays, just so he can retain the customer. Or he could advertise more and attract other customers who are happy with his product.

It isn't a simple situation. But it's always the GM's call on what to do.

I actually have three other players who have expressed interest in my campaign...I'm just....picky....about who I'm gaming with these days.

I may allow some new blood, especially in light of the player in question on this thread.

I'm debating it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What difference does it make if he'd raise a fuss or not if the situation were reversed?

Because that makes it clear he is not trying to impose his preference on others, he is just setting the parameters for the game he is running.

Sure, it's every DM's prerogative to establish a game's parameters. But, throughout this thread, people have been patting him on the back for not just establishing the parameters, but outright belittling and attacking a playstyle that he doesn't share. You can go back through the thread but, it's there is pretty clear black and white.

It's not, "No thanks, that's not to my taste" it's "Look at my stupid player who thinks that we should play Little League D&D where everyone gets a trophy BWAHAHAHAAHA!"

What has happened in this thread is irrelevant, since he did not (as far as we know) express into the player in that way. He did not verbally demean the player and his playstyle- just told him that it wasn't going to fly in his campaign.

I mean, good grief. The player steps up and tells the DM that he has every intention of spending a great deal of effort on a character, presumably making the character fit into the setting, engaging with both the situations in the campaign and with the knobs and dials of the campaign itself and really immersing himself in the campaign. In return, he wants to know that his character isn't going to die and all that effort be wasted.

Communication is good.

Is that really such a bad thing? Really? This player just stepped up to be the DM's absolutist best friend, presuming that he's on the up and up and not a prat. He's going to be the go to guy for every plot hook, every bit of needed campaign color and whatnot. Why? Because he's going to spend the effort to be that guy.

Just like the DM is spending his precious time and so forth, right?

But, no, apparently the only joy that can be had from an RPG is when the DM can kill a PC. Take away that, and you might as well not even play anymore. Are DM's really that uncreative that the only real consequence in your game is PC death? Is the only thing that your players care about is their single PC and nothing else?

Dude, that's like a straw man going down the slopes at Aspen on hyperboskis!

No one has suggested that the only joy on the other side of the screen is found in slaughtering carefully crafted PCs. And as far as I can see, the only people who have suggested that the choice between including PC death and other real consequences is a binary one are the people who want their PCs to be effectively immortals. News flash: it's not a binary choice.

The prospective player asked for treatment different from the treatment other players in an ongoing game were getting. For a lot of us, that's a non-starter. If, perhaps, this suggestion came up before the campaign started, perhaps the reaction would have been different.

Furthermore, the prospective player made the granting of request a condition of his joining the game. In the best light, it makes it clear that person has strong feelings about his playstyle and probably wouldn't fit in the game in the long run. In the worst, it's rude.

If I were to ask to join my Church's noon mass band & choir- which is essentially folk/rock/jazz/gospel- my request to add some metal to the mix as a condition of my participation could fairly and politely be dismissed as a "nevahgonnahapen" thing...without it being a case of the choir director being a mean person who wants everyone to listen to only folk/rock/jazz/gospel. It is my job as the new guy to try to fit in, not shake things up, until I've earned the right to do so.

To put it a different way, I was involved with a similar situation a while ago when I was running my Supers 1900 game. A new guy joined the group mid campaign, and I failed to inform him that it was essentially a "4 Color/Golden Age" game, not dark & gritty. Initially, his PC seemed to fit in, but in his first major combat, his PC was slaughtering foes left and right- bloodthirsty heroes were not part of the setting's base assumptions.

It was disruptive to everybody else's enjoyment, and even though I stanched the bleeding, as it were, he didn't care for the way I did it. He never returned.

The thing is, I- nor anyone else in the group- had a problem with his play per se. It just didn't fit in that campaign. If he'd been willing to dial down his PC from bloodthirsty killer to violent maniac, he'd have fit in just fine.

Hey, I have no problems playing either way. You want a meat grinder DM? I can do that. You want a more story focused game where the revelations of the story are the reward? I can do that too. I'm pretty easy.

From the latest replies, it seems the OP feels likewise, further reinforcing my perception that he is not forcing his views on anyone.

I'd much, much rather have happy players than try to brow beat people for not sharing my own idiosyncratic needs in a game.

Saying "No" is different from browbeating.

 

[JamesonCourage]

[*]The GM is the scarce commodity who puts in more time and effort to give his product away. He who cares less holds the power, and the GM can always find more players, a player cannot always find more GMs. The GM gets to run what the GM wants to run. Players are free to shop around.

I know from past threads that JamesonCourage disagrees with #3. However, if he and his brother stopped supplying, the players would likely have no comparable replacement because good GMs are hard to find. There is no reason Jameson should settle to run something he doesn't want to because he should be able to more easily find players who will accept his terms, than players who expect a GM to accept theirs.

I, um, agree with your point. Hussar doesn't, I think. But, to me, the GM gets the ultimate say on their game, and they should only run a game they enjoy. They should work with the players inside of the parameters that fit themselves best. So, yeah... I agree with you. Love it when that happens. As always, play what you like

Explain this to me again....

Okay, I'll try to be more clear...

Okay, let's take your example of the PCs being chased by 5 undead and a demon. You're making them roll endurance checks, they're jogging on for eight hours trying to escape, they're injured at 2 HP and 6 HP, etc. The tension is high, and they think they're most likely going to die based on how you've told them you run the game.

However, you know that if they're going to die, you're going to magically make the amulet magical, and it's going to save them. No, you didn't need to use it, but that was the contingency plan. The backup plan. You were planning on saving them if necessary.

By doing so, you're going to deny them other possible naturally unfolding storylines. For example, say one PC makes his endurance check and another doesn't: now, you have one PC who can continue going, leaving the other PC behind. Do they go for this option? Will they adopt a "why should both of us die?" attitude, or will they adopt a "live together, die together" attitude? Will the guy who failed his check courageously urge his brother on so he'll live, or beg him to stay because he's afraid of dying after all they've gone through?

If both fail, do they stand their ground together? Do they split up in hopes of losing them or hiding separately? Does one brother walk on, looking for a place to hide, while the other charges into the undead in an attempt to stall?

These storylines would be denied to your players. And that's too bad, because they can be pretty damn cool. In essence, this is what I mean by denying storylines. You'd be exchanging their likely "loss" for a "awesome magic item!" moment. If everything is on the up and up and there's no fudging (even if it's not dice fudging), you can see either storyline unfold naturally.

For example, let's say that the amulet is magical, for sure, and it works to protect against undead. Then, let's say that one PC fails his endurance check, and can't continue on with his brother. He throws the clan's amulet to the other brother and shouts at him to run, and you inwardly wince, knowing that he threw away his best chance to live. The other brother continues to run, while the one who failed his check waits for the undead, chucks his spear at one, and starts leading them in a different direction. You might end up with a dead PC, but he could go out sacrificing his life for his brother, and it might be really cool. You're denying them that storyline.

I lie to my players all the time using Meta-Game information. But, my players don't think I'm a liar--I don't draw attention to it.

And, while there's nothing wrong with the way you're running the game, I'd feel a little cheated if I caught on to what you were doing, or if I ever found out (even afterwards). I mean, I'd still have fun, but the game wasn't how you told me it was.

Take the example above of one brother failing his check and the other fleeing with the amulet: by not letting this scene unfold naturally, you're essentially stealing this from your players, who are assuming you won't be pulling any punches based on your professed style of game.

It's just misleading other adults. I don't think I'd do it to my friends, since I think it's only fair to tell them, as other adults, how I'm going to run my game. This is their free time, too, and I don't want them to feel cheated, or lied to. And, even if they never find out, I don't want to cheat or lie to them.

I even started a thread about this not too long ago. Meta-game lying can be a tremendous tool for the GM if you use it sparingly and the players would normally think that you wouldn't lie to them.

Yep. I have the same reservations about this approach, too.

Now, as GM, I'll remind them that their characters are trepidatious of Rutcrana, but to enhance that, I'm going to lie to them using Meta-game info.

Then, using Meta-Game information to enhance the situation, I will tell the players that this may mean that, in order to cast the spell that they need, they may have to sacrifice some experience points.

Now the spell doesn't really require XP. This is just a device I'm going to use to put some perceived danger on the PCs to represent the real danger and fear that their Cimmerian characters will be feeling.

To me, this isn't lying to them. You're telling them something about magic in the campaign: it costs something. This isn't broadly lying to them, it's informing them. If you said "this will cost experience points" then it'd be lying to them. If you're reminding them "remember, this is Conan's world, where magic is costly; with a spell like this, you're probably going to lose experience points", then I'd say you're just reinforcing the setting, not actually lying to them.

And, I find that, because I never do fudge, the players tend to trust me more (if they only knew about the Meta-Game lying!).

I consider both to be "fudging" so, when you say "I never do fudge", it can be misleading. It's a definition issue. You never fudge dice. You do fudge outcomes. If you purposefully gave the impression to the players that their lives are dangerous because you never fudge dice, that's fine. You don't fudge dice, and there's no lie there. If you knowingly trick them into thinking you're not fudging behind the scenes (when you actually are), that's the part I wouldn't do, personally. It's lying to people about what game they're playing, in my opinion, and I don't want to do that.

On most situations, I create encounters that I think are fair. This is 90% of the time. And for those, there are no contingency plans.

This is also a difference between us; I don't craft scenarios with the goal of the PCs triumphing in mind. I have a setting, and I have "this is what is most likely to be here" as the norm, and I have random rolls to determine what else is going on or what might be different right now (based on probability... that is, it's extremely unlikely that there are no guards on the walls of the city).

So, that's probably another disconnect.

I actually have three other players who have expressed interest in my campaign...I'm just....picky....about who I'm gaming with these days.

I may allow some new blood, especially in light of the player in question on this thread.

I'm debating it.

Yeah. I've got five guys right now (it will be six when college relaxes soon for one guy, though he has his first kid on the way). I have a couple people who are interested. I'm very picky. I've had others join that I've eventually kicked out. If things didn't work out with my current players, I'd transition them out, too. The two newest guys are the most incompatible, but they fit well enough.

But, in my opinion, don't let any new players in if it means running a game in a way you don't like. That's not to say you have to run it the same as you are now; just, don't run the game if it's not exciting to think about outside of game. If your creative juices aren't flowing, if you don't get satisfaction making NPCs and looking at maps and putting in details here and there, it's probably not going to be worth it for you in the long run. As always, play what you like

 

[Water Bob]

For example, let's say that the amulet is magical, for sure, and it works to protect against undead. Then, let's say that one PC fails his endurance check, and can't continue on with his brother. He throws the clan's amulet to the other brother and shouts at him to run, and you inwardly wince, knowing that he threw away his best chance to live. The other brother continues to run, while the one who failed his check waits for the undead, chucks his spear at one, and starts leading them in a different direction. You might end up with a dead PC, but he could go out sacrificing his life for his brother, and it might be really cool. You're denying them that storyline.

That actually almost DID happen in my game! And, I was prepared to let it happen. In fact, this particular scene is exactly what prompted the player in the OP to say what he did.

It was the other player who had 2 HP, and he didn't think that the two of them were going to make it. Just as you say, he heroically decided to stand his ground and buy his brother (the player in the OP) and the little girl they'd rescued, some time to disappear in the thunderstorm.

This was discussed for a moment, but the player in the OP gave him a speech and told the other player not to give up.

They didn't, and I wrote earlier what happened from there.

Since that almost happened in my game, I'm not really sure about your concept of denying them storylines. Exactly what you use as an example did almost happen.

So...I'm afraid I still don't understand your point on this.

And, while there's nothing wrong with the way you're running the game, I'd feel a little cheated if I caught on to what you were doing, or if I ever found out (even afterwards). I mean, I'd still have fun, but the game wasn't how you told me it was.

Interesting. From time to time, over the years, I've let on, here and there, with some players about things like this. I never heard a negative word about it. In fact, the few times I let the cat out of the bag (I usually keep it quite closed), I was slapped on the back for a job well done--the player really feeling the feelings his character experienced, usually because of a Meta-game trick or lie.

You never fudge dice. You do fudge outcomes.

Never. And, sometimes.

I've had a lot of success with the Meta-game lying bit, as well.

This is also a difference between us; I don't craft scenarios with the goal of the PCs triumphing in mind.

I semi-sorta do that, too. Depends on the situation.

I mean, for the campaign's first big quest, the PCs are chasing the missing girl, right? These are 15 and 16 year olds, not yet recognized as adult warriors by the clan.

What would you do for them?

I had them take on a cave full of enemy bad guy clan cult recruits--kinda like the Hitler Youth program for the bad guys in my game.

How would you have handled a game with two 1st level PCs?

 

[prosfilaes]

Whatever the value of death in RPGs in the abstract, I'd much rather play in a game with no death but concrete and immediate consequences of failure, then in a game where most of the time deaths will be prevented by the DM and there are no consequences for failure in those cases. The latter feels much more like giving out trophies to everyone.

 

[Hussar]

And, it's not a BAD THING to throw all of that away just because a player got stupid and lost his character?

Yeah, I'd call what the player is doing a BAD THING. Absolutely.

Why are you throwing it all away? The absolute worst case scenario is one player up and leaves. You can always get more players. If you insist that the campaign continues, then, no worries.

Would you rather he DIDN'T tell you up front and just left?

As far as the 100x work, well, DMing styles obviously differ here. I see where the major issue is going to lie. I don't do that much work as a DM. And I certainly don't see how the work that I do do makes the players beholden to me in any way, shape or form.

My work starts when the players tell me what they want. Having a player that's actually that committed to a particular concept? I'd kill for this player. It's great to have players that will actually spend time away from the table working on their character. Heck, I'd be dumping off loads of campaign work onto this guy, just to save me the effort.

"Oh, you want to be from this kingdom? What do you think about this kingdom? What's it like there... Oh, hey, would you mind putting something together and emailing it to me? Yeah, great."

Dedicated players - the DM's GREATEST resource.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dedicated players - the DM's GREATEST resource.

Hmmm...I'm thinking that 100% of DMs would agree to that!