# Why I don't GM by the nose



## fireinthedust (Nov 26, 2010)

This is a long-overdue gripe that I have with players that I feel is important to state here on this forum.  I am hoping for the message to get out, and maybe save some friendships.


I like the idea of fantasy settings and being a hero, because I like to imagine that I'm in them, to have input, because I believe my ideas are just as valid as a video game designer's.  Also, I can think outside the box technology has made for me (and my poor dexterity means bad aim in games; can't finish Mario, sorry)

  I like the question "what would you do?"   The reason: it is important.  It defines the game, the adventure, and makes everything possible.

The worst sort of player is one who thinks the GM has to tell them exactly what to do and how to do it.  In fact, who want him to tell them exactly how to do it.  Then, when the GM doesn't say what the player is supposed to do, they just sit there looking confused until they get a hint.

Example:

GM:  you see a sandstone statue of a man about two feet tall standing in front of the doorway.  It has a wicked grin with tiny sharp teeth carved into it, and an aztec-style head dress.  At its feet are dried oranges.  The door behind it is like the others in this dungeon, iron-bound wood with a gold lock below the doorknob.  What do you do?

Response 1:  Ideal player: 
      Hmm, I suppose I should think about the statue and interact with it in a meaningful way to determine if it is a threat to my goals.  Then I should attempt to get around it to the door, perhaps, or reevaluate my situation based on new information gained regarding the statue.

Response 2:  Increasingly Typical player:
    Uuuhh... now what?

GM: now... what do you do?

Player: Um... does the statue look like it's going to attack me?  Or should I... rest?


I know I'm not alone in this.  As a GM I make a scenario so players can *Play* in them.  I want to make a world that people can explore.  This doesn't mean that I want them to just sit there while I tell them what they do, it means I want them to do things in the setting or scenario I'm DMing.

Thoughts?


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 26, 2010)

Tell that to your players.

Really. Communication is key. Communicate your expectations to your players, and listen to theirs. If communication is effective, then you'll find the sweet spot that satisfies everyone by trial and error. If you just wait for them to do stuff and complain after the fact, you won't get anywhere. This is a social game, first and foremost. Use that to your advantage.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 26, 2010)

A couple of months ago over on *Big Purple* I wrote that Pinky and the Brain are model roleplaying game players.







> *Pinky:* "Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
> *The Brain:* "The same thing we do every night, Pinky—try to take over the world!"



For me, the best players are proactive, from figuring out the significance of a leering idol to mounting a plot to discredit a seditious baron, without spoonfeeding by the referee.


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 26, 2010)

Hi Fire, it could be a type of player or playstyle at work. Here's some of my ideas and how as a DM I would deal with it. Since you know your players best, maybe you see them fitting in some category below or something else. 

The Distracted Player: This player is not your ideal player because they got other things on the mind or in their face that isn't allowing them their full attention. Probably, I would have little tolerance for this kind of player and abruptly tell them that they need to pay attention, repeat the situation again, and then let them fail or succeed. If the distraction is something that can be easily remedied such as a cellphone that they need to turn off, I'll deal with it then.

The Newbie: Surprisingly, even though there are gamers out there that like to play D&D, they don't read fantasy books, or reading holds little interest to them. So their imagination is somewhat lacking. Or maybe they are new to gaming and their interaction with it is limited. I try to cut these guys more slack (particularly if they are younger players) and try to bring up situations that aren't overwhelming in terms of info overload. 

Uneducated Player: Even gamers who like to play D&D, if they seriously lack an education, will tend to get "stuck" in approaching situations and problems the same way over and over. Again, I tend to break situations down a little better for them and cut them more slack because I don't know the circumstances as to whether their lack of education is because of poor choice or poor circumstances.

Lazy Player: Some players play D&D like they do other activities--half-hearted and lazy. It's not really a play style, but more of a lifestyle choice that follows them in their gaming. These players annoy me, but I try to meet them halfway through handouts and making information quite simple to remember though easy names, smaller pieces of information, and so on.

Another thing is that you maybe able to illicit more interest from the players by changing up to how you GM. For example, if you have information that you really want to pay attention to, talk really fast and loud as if you're some kind of 1930's narrator of a radio serial. Or use an evil voice when reading a box text that can have dire consequences, use a soft voice when presenting a role playing opportunity (so that players are forced to listen). The key here would be to not overdo it because then too much of the evil voice with no threat of consequences will result in your players tuning you out.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Nov 26, 2010)

Well, you have to take the player's expectations and interests into account, not just your own.  Why does the player need to be lead by the hand?  Many reasons, but it could be he is bored.  To be engaged, you have to be motivated.  Some people don't really care about the minutiae you described in that example;



fireinthedust said:


> Example:
> 
> GM:  you see a sandstone statue of a man about two feet tall standing in front of the doorway.  It has a wicked grin with tiny sharp teeth carved into it, and an aztec-style head dress.  At its feet are dried oranges.  The door behind it is like the others in this dungeon, iron-bound wood with a gold lock below the doorknob.  What do you do?
> 
> ...




I don't know if that kind of thing is common in your games, but if it is, I would be player two.  Why?  Mostly because I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the statue.  I don't care how the dried oranges might interact with the statue or whatever else you had in mind.  All I want is to get by this statue and door with a perception check and/or a thievery check.  Actually, if you let me know that a failed check sounds the alarm, you have my attention.  If you expect me to solve some kind of puzzle, I'll leave the room for a beer and hope somebody else solved it by the time I am back.  When I want to do a brain teaser I do a sudoku or crossword puzzles (I really do!). 

Personally, I like two things more than any other about D&D:  Nail Biting fights and interacting with other PCs and NPCs.  I want interesting villains and allies and then I want to interact with them until it leads to battles that I feel invested in.  All of my best D&D memories are wacky quotes from crazy exchanges my PCs had with the other PCs and NPCs or awesome moments in a battle (both awesomely good or bad).  None involve a tree with dried apple and no enemy in sight.  There is no tension in this scene; There is only the possibility of screwing up if you don't conform to whatever the DM decided was an acceptable course of action.  Yawn.

I don't like puzzles; they usually are much better in the DM's eyes than in mine.  And I really hate to get bogged down in details.  

That's my opinion.  Other people focus on different things as is their right.  But understand this; just as you are thinking that you aren't dealing with an ideal player, the player is probably thinking he is not dealing with an ideal DM.  

If you got one or two puzzles fans in your group, feed them this statue bit and adress mostly them.  Just make sure it is quick and to the point in order not to bore the others and then move on to something that engages them.  You have to give the people what they want.  And there damn well better not be another 'what do you do' scene behind the door!  And if NONE of the players feel engaged by the kind of situation you described, stop doing it altogether. 

PS: 'What do you do?' isn't nearly as important as 'What do you want?'.  IMO, anyway.  'What do you do?' when I am in a situation I don't care for in the first place isn't that useful.  If you'd ask me what I wanted first, we wouldn't be in this bind!


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 26, 2010)

If you are talking about a particular instance regarding players who are otherwise engaged it could be the players were tired, just not interested in a puzzle like that, or other similar issues.

Assuming it's a more long-standing problem my approach is to "train" the group of players. Coach them on what I expect, show them by how scenarios play out that they can influence events, make it clear that their actions matter and that I expect them to solve difficult problems. If they don't will they die? Very rarely but they can expect to miss out on things they would rather not miss out on.

I say group and not player because in the end, not all players will always get engaged with these things. In any group, there are usually some who engage sometimes and some who almost never do. Of the former, not all will be 'on' at any given moment. But if the group can solve a problem, I'm happy as a ref.

As someone else replied, though, sometimes a lack of engagement on a problem can mean a lack of engagement in the game itself. Or it can mean that the players think their actions don't matter. Why solve a hard puzzle if the ref has previously demonstrated that the plot is linear and he'll get them through that door one way or another? Or the players might be new to you and used to more linear games or games without puzzles.

I find that with patience most players will eventually step up to solve problems often enough.

I don't do true puzzles (as opposed to problems that make them think) a lot but I had one introduced in session 1 that just resolved in session 11. It involved finding different chambers with clues and working out sequences for basically a combination lock. It was introduced as a hook that they did not have to bite on and they could abandon it at will (and often did non-related things) but the fact that someone else was racing them to the end and had tricked them in a way that almost killed one of them spurred them on, as well as the belief there was a substantial reward on this path (and there was ). It was a fairly hard and involved puzzle that involved finding these chambers as well as solving the sequence (the latter they did with surprising ease but you never know with players). But it played out over many sessions and they could control when and how they did it. As a player or ref, I don't mind an involved puzzle if it is optional. I do mind them if it is required for any further progress that night.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 26, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> You have to give the people what they want.



Or you could find players who understand that the game will cover a lot of ground, some of which is directed at their specific interests and some which is directed at the interests of other players and of the referee as well.

And hopefully they won't be so rude as to walk away when something comes up in the game that isn't focused on them, 'cause no one should have to put up with gamers like that.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Nov 26, 2010)

These days all my roleplaying is done by play-by-post. I have found this issue cropping up when I try to run 4E games in particular. Players seem to want to be led between one combat encounter and the next.

Love the 4E iteration of D&D but this is a worrying sign. Is this how new players are learning the game?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 26, 2010)

HealTheSquad said:


> These days all my roleplaying is done by play-by-post. I have found this issue cropping up when I try to run 4E games in particular. Players seem to want to be led between one combat encounter and the next.
> 
> Love the 4E iteration of D&D but this is a worrying sign. Is this how new players are learning the game?



In D&D Encounters, yes.


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 26, 2010)

fireinthedust said:


> GM: now... what do you do?
> 
> Player: Um... does the statue look like it's going to attack me?  Or should I... rest?
> 
> ...




You certainly have set up an extreme. But it really does come down to what else is going on. 

I recall vividly where we had a group that was sneaking out of a besieged city. We encountered .... I don't know who they were ... we attacked at the slightest provocation. Why? We had not had a good fight in several sessions, and we only met every other week. The look on the DM's face it was clearly we did not do what he wanted/thought would go down. 

For some of us, we need some red meat in order to play along with your* plot.

* your being the generic - you very well may just have a bad crop of players. Its nothing the Tomb of Horrors will not fix.

So I have been player #1 and I have been player #2.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 26, 2010)

As a GM, I simply don't play along with that.

If the players mill around for five minutes deciding what to do, the characters do likewise.

If the players ask me "What should we do?" I respond with "Who are you asking?"  If they say, "You", I say "I'm not there".

Players are a clever lot.  Given a game where they must think for themselves, or suffer the consequences of not thinking for themselves, many will succeed in getting out of the "Tell me what to do!" rut.  

Those who do not....do not.  They either become effectively the henchmen of those capable of thinking for themselves, or they find something more suited to their tastes.

Perhaps that's harsh, but if I am running the world _*and*_ telling the PCs what to do, that's not a game.  I might as well be writing a novel.


RC


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 26, 2010)

fireinthedust said:


> I know I'm not alone in this.  As a GM I make a scenario so players can *Play* in them.  I want to make a world that people can explore.  This doesn't mean that I want them to just sit there while I tell them what they do, it means I want them to do things in the setting or scenario I'm DMing.
> 
> Thoughts?



First and foremost, to be an impartial referee the person behind the screen needs to drop expectations about what the players will do.  It should be expressed before play that they are being tested on how capable they are in performing their chosen role, no matter what class that is.  This defines the game's objective and scope, two important elements that should be known in any game prior to play.

I think you're on the right track with an intention or attempt-based game.  It puts the players in the driver seat and if they wish to engage, then they are always doing so proactively.  

Think of it in a action-consequence, cause-and-effect model.  The players are always telling you what they are trying to do and, based upon the system you're using, you can clarify by asking them for more information.  I think this goes beyond your "what would you do?" expectation and allows the players to drill down.  

Rather than your description, maybe you could try the following:

Ref: Down the hallway about 20' is a doorway illuminated by your torchlight.  In front of it is a stone statue with two oranges at the base. 

(All these elements are taken in with a casual glance.  If they want to interact more with any of the features, then you can start adding wicked grins and shriveled peels on the oranges.  Not to mention the heavy detailing of the door.  At this point, these details are extraneous to the players anyways.  If they become important, they will tell you what they are doing to find them.)

Player: Is the statue moving or holding a weapon? 
Ref: Neither.
Player: What about the door? That's shut right? Any locks or bars?
Ref: It is shut and there is a golden lock below a doorknob.
Player: Is that real gold? 
Ref (clarifying): What are you doing to check? 
Player: I'll scratch it with my steel dagger to test its' softness.
Ref (marking that the PC has moved forward): The metal is softer than the dagger's. There's a scratch on the lock now.
Etc.

If the players ignore anything, in the particular or the whole, that is their decision. A referee isn't there to second guess the strategies of players in a game.  

By using an attempt-based model for refereeing the players maintain their proactive status rather than being directed.  I think it also serves your goal of running an exploration game, having the players "do things", and asking themselves the question "what would you do?"  

What's doubly nice IMO is it does not differentiate between the players and the characters, which leads to world immersion if not always immersion in character personality.  The second is really more or less secondary in fantasy Roleplay Simulation games like these.


----------



## ShadesOfGrey (Nov 26, 2010)

I pretty much agree with just about everything said in this thread, altough I havent yet seen anyone mention one thing: a lot of people got their 'rpg education' from MMO's and offline cRPGS.

A lot of what people expect or their approach to the game gets influenced by that. And this isnt meant as a rant or anything or to say those other mediums are somehow 'less' than p&p or something, but ever since they began making those, it's always pretty much focused on combat.

Most cRPG's and especially MMO's tend to not use problem solving outside of combat, and even the games that do have a bit of flexibility and freedom in them are still constrained&codified in the possibilities, like a multiple choice kind of thing.
Then, add to that jRPG's whom's major trope seems to be completly linear railroading through the story, no advancmenet unless you solve a puzzle exactly like the designers envisioned it.

If you come from that kind of experience, it's not hard to see how you'd feel clueless and draw a blank when you'r supposed to do something that isnt combat and there is no obvious que to what you're supposed to do.

I think, therefore, that it's important to explain the freedom inherent in the game, and that it's not about 'solving a puzzle'.
That said, that also means you should watch out for designing adventures where you as a DM expect a certain thing from your PC's, as in "is this what you want us to do?"


----------



## Transformer (Nov 26, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> Well, you have to take the player's expectations and interests into account, not just your own.  Why does the player need to be lead by the hand?  Many reasons, but it could be he is bored.  To be engaged, you have to be motivated.  Some people don't really care about the minutiae you described in that example.
> 
> I don't know if that kind of thing is common in your games, but if it is, I would be player two.  Why?  Mostly because I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the statue.  I don't care how the dried oranges might interact with the statue or whatever else you had in mind.  All I want is to get by this statue and door with a perception check and/or a thievery check.  Actually, if you let me know that a failed check sounds the alarm, you have my attention.  If you expect me to solve some kind of puzzle, I'll leave the room for a beer and hope somebody else solved it by the time I am back.  When I want to do a brain teaser I do a sudoku or crossword puzzles (I really do!).
> 
> ...




I'm with Mal. I believe in objective value in a lot of different areas, but how one plays PnP RPGs isn't one of them.



> Assuming it's a more long-standing problem my approach is to *"train"* the group of players.



This illustrates what I mean, I think. A GM "training" his players in how he wants them to play reminds me of a person trying to "change" his significant other after they've started dating. Obviously it's not such serious business, but I think there's a real similarity here.

If a GM thinks his players would really enjoy puzzle solving and exploration, but just need to be drawn out of their shells a bit, that's one thing. But if his players _really_ just enjoy NPC interaction and combat like Mal, or even if they want nothing but combat and powergaming, there's nothing at all inferior about their preferences, and there's no point in trying to "train" them out of what they enjoy. If A GM just really doesn't enjoy GMing the kind of game his players want to play, then he can honestly and nonjudgmentally tell them that he'd like to step down after next week's session.

Now, I know it isn't quite that clean in real life, and that a GM might (for instance) want to keep GMing for his friends because they're his friends, even though their preferences don't line up. In that case, maybe a compromise is in order, and the GM can expect a little give from his players. The one thing that should not happen, though, is the GM deciding that because his players aren't interested in his puzzles or exploration opportunities that they're doing it wrong and need to be trained out of enjoying what they enjoy. They're not doing it wrong. Even if they want nothing but to be led around by the nose and fight monsters, they're still not doing it wrong. It's just the kind of game they enjoy.


----------



## darjr (Nov 26, 2010)

Mal, I think that you wouldn't fall into player type 2. You would have your character do as you just described, by pass the encounter as expediently as possible. Sure you might miss the encounter the GM setup, but I would guess that was your point as a player. I'm just hoping that you wouldn't go away from my table in a huff, cause in that encounter I probably would try and make sure you could find what you wanted..... an exciting combat encounter or a weird and wonderful NPC interaction.

I do subscribe to the idea of finding out what your players want. If what they want is to be lead by the nose then I'm not sure there is much you can do. Maybe find players to add to the group that don't, and let the others tag along for the ride?


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 26, 2010)

marcq said:


> I don't do true puzzles (as opposed to problems that make them think).....




Yeah, I find it hard to give my players puzzles too. Out of the four players I have, one refuses to look at puzzles because he has zero confidence in himself in being able to solve them, two others will approach the problem by making random guesses, and one player will have an idea of what it takes to solve it. I refined my process more and more to simplify the puzzles so that the players can at least look at them and maybe figure it out, but it's a challenge.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 26, 2010)

If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, you have failed as a GM.

Either the scenario and players lack immediate goals and motivations or you're not running the game they want to play.

Honestly, I can't tell you what I'd do in the given example because there's not enough there. Is the statue something (or similar to something) I've seen before? Why am I in the dungeon, heck, what is the dungeon anyway? Old temple complex? Tomb? Is the GM prone to intricate descriptions  that serve no real purpose? Does he constantly include stuff that violates Chekhov's Gun? Is the game largely made up of stuff he should have edited out? Am I just here exploring, searching for fortune and glory? Is the world the sort where sadistic and schizophrenic architects build non-sensical buildings and tombs and such in case someone comes to visit or does form follow function and architects actually design structures appropriate to their original use? Is there a MacGuffin I need to get from this place? Am I infiltrating the villains play house? That all feeds into knowing what to do next. Based on the lack of knowledge, I suppose I'd try the door knob while thinking about a tale to cheat death or what to make my next character.

Not everyone likes the pixel bashing, trial and death sandbox game style.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 26, 2010)

Krensky said:


> If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, you have failed as a GM.



Do you believe that a gamer can ever fail as a player?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 26, 2010)

Transformer said:


> This illustrates what I mean, I think. A GM "training" his players in how he wants them to play reminds me of a person trying to "change" his significant other after they've started dating. Obviously it's not such serious business, but I think there's a real similarity here.
> 
> If a GM thinks his players would really enjoy puzzle solving and exploration, but just need to be drawn out of their shells a bit, that's one thing. But if his players _really_ just enjoy NPC interaction and combat like Mal, or even if they want nothing but combat and powergaming, there's nothing at all inferior about their preferences, and there's no point in trying to "train" them out of what they enjoy. If A GM just really doesn't enjoy GMing the kind of game his players want to play, then he can honestly and nonjudgmentally tell them that he'd like to step down after next week's session.




Nah.

A GM "trains" his players as to the expectations of the campaign.

Is it worthwhile to talk to NPCs?  The GM should demonstrate that this is so _*before*_ the wholesale slaughter begins.

Is there a benefit to/expectation of mercy?  Again, the GM should demonstrate that this is so _*before*_ the wholesale slaughter begins.

Do the PCs have to talk to NPCs or show mercy?  No.  But they might miss things if they do not.

As long as the GM has players who want to play his game, he is justified in running any game he wants.

As long as a player is still welcome in a game, he is justified in running his character any way he wants.

A wise GM doesn't wait until every player is gone before considering his game; a wise player doesn't wait until he is booted from every game before he considers his playing.

If Bob is GMing, and Marcy and Joe want a different game, Bob absolutely does not need to "step down"; he can keep running a game for Sue and John.  If Marcy then runs a game more like what she and Joe want, perhaps Bob, Sue, and/or John will also want to play in that game.

If, for some reason, Sue and John can only play in one game, then either Bob's or Marcy's gets them, depending upon which is closer to what Sue and John want.

The only reason Bob should "step down" is because he is tired of GMing.



Krensky said:


> If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, you have failed as a GM.
> 
> Either the scenario and players lack immediate goals and motivations or you're not running the game they want to play.




This is no more, or less, true if reversed:

If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, they have failed as players.

Either they lack immediate goals and motivations, or they're not choosing to play in the game they want to play.

Maybe the scenario sucks ("You're on a flat featureless plane with nothing to do.").

Maybe the players suck ("Can't you just tell us what to do?")

Or maybe the players simply have no experience with rpgs run so as to allow and expect them to make real choices.  IMHO, and IME, this third is by far the most common cause.  And, IMHO and IME, most players truly enjoy a game that allows and expects them to make real choices, assuming that it is run well.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that I have never, ever, had a problem filling a table in this manner....my problem has always been the opposite.  At what point do you start turning players away?


RC


----------



## jbear (Nov 26, 2010)

I think Dming has its difficulties. Communication and expectations are two important things for a DM to deal with.

'Am I getting all this important information crucial to the adventure over to my players. Am I doing that at a good pace and in interesting ways? Have I been clear enough or given enough information so that my players do have something to go on from here?'

'How much do I expect my players to resolve for themselves without allowing them to eek out further clues with knowledge checks, how much does the successful continuation of the adventure base upon their ability to put together all the things that have gone on before? Do I expect them to look under the right stone in the right way in order to find this hidden treasure? Are they expected to specifically ask if a door has a lock when they ask to examine a secret door or am I expected to describe it as soon as they say they look at the door? Are they expected to comb every inch of the laboriously elaborate dungeon I have designed or can they cut to the chase... etc etc.

Lots of important questions you have to ask yourself as a DM just beneath the banner of those two areas.

And I think they are very easily turned around and can be looked at in very similar ways from the player's perspective. Am I communicating my PCs actions clearly enough or am I assuming certain things that the DM is perhaps not assuming. Do I need to establish a 'default' state my character is in when travelling through a dungeon i.e walking defensively with my crossbow loaded searching for traps. Or do i need to state this over and over as we progress. How much do I expect the DM to describe when I investigate something, how explicit and specific do my questions need to be to hit the mark.

I guess a lot of these things are discovered by trial and erro as players and Dm learn each others play styles.

As frustrating as it can be for a DM to be met with a shrug after describing a relevant area of the adventure, it can also be frustrating to receive a lack of description from the DM as a player upon entering an area. I do think there is a lot of give and take necessary between players and DM. When everyone is contributing on both sides of the screen, thats when a game starts to feel like real fun.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 26, 2010)

Transformer said:


> This illustrates what I mean, I think. A GM "training" his players in how he wants them to play reminds me of a person trying to "change" his significant other after they've started dating. Obviously it's not such serious business, but I think there's a real similarity here.
> 
> If a GM thinks his players would really enjoy puzzle solving and exploration, but just need to be drawn out of their shells a bit, that's one thing. But if his players _really_ just enjoy NPC interaction and combat like Mal, or even if they want nothing but combat and powergaming, there's nothing at all inferior about their preferences, and there's no point in trying to "train" them out of what they enjoy. If A GM just really doesn't enjoy GMing the kind of game his players want to play, then he can honestly and nonjudgmentally tell them that he'd like to step down after next week's session.




I don't mean it in the sense of training them to like puzzles. I mean it in the sense of training a neural net response: you give them stimulus and help them understand the response. Specifically, you show them that their actions matter and you create situations where they have to make some difficult choices.

Put the opposite way to illustrate, if as a ref, all game time to date shows them that their choices do not matter, that the ref thinks there is a 'right' answer to everything, that challenges will be overcome regardless of whether the players come up with good solutions, then the ref has trained them to not bother with your plot twists or worry about your puzzles.

It's a weaker use of 'train.' As I said elsewhere on this thread, not everyone is into puzzles and that's fine.

If you don't care for the word "train", consider "demonstrate" instead. Over the course of your game, you will demonstrate your style, how much freedom you allow players, how much their decisions matter. If you demonstrate that their choices count, that they have consequences, they will be much more likely to put some effort into these choices, some of which might be a difficult problem, a few might be a classical puzzle.


----------



## fireinthedust (Nov 26, 2010)

Clarifications:

Firstly (Editing here):  This isn't intended as a jab at my current players on these boards.  Hopefully they know I'd love input on how to make games more interesting, and how I prefer sandbox-style campaigns with active players to just feeding them information.

[/edit]


1)  This was an on-the-spot scenario I've never used, intended to illustrate the issues with players rather than a particular episode with my home group.


2)   Most of my issues are with PBP players who don't post for weeks while other players are doing all the work.  By all the work I mean any actions, even during round-by-round combat when everyone should be acting.


3)  My home group is usually fairly good, though I do have to be somewhat straightforward in describing "the game within the game", ie: you'll need to make three of this kind of check;  or "you need to find all three keys before you can reach the Dragon's Lair".

4)  There are failure players, especially ones who can't make up their minds about which goblin to attack.  I had one who couldn't choose which character to wake up for the next watch; when he was asked if he wanted, with a point blank shot to the head of the bad guy, to take the shot and save his friends, he said he'd "wait and see" and continue to hide behind an overturned table.  His reason: he didn't want the bad guy to be angry with him.  Not kidding here, loads of issues, let his friends die because of them.

Mal:  giving people what they want is easy enough.  

a) I advertise the plot I'm going to run, they apply to play pbp with me.  
b) I ask "what do you want to do?" and they can at this point tell me.  

My issue is that players don't do either of these things, lie to me that everything is fantastic, and just sit there soaking things in.  That's great, and good for my ego, but I'd like them to do stuff.

It's more than just puzzles.  In fact, it's situations like "you're in a Tavern that looks like this.  There are three areas (by the bar, by the fireplace, at a table or booth), which do you go to?" and they can't answer.  

In fact, we get through a plot and they get a pile of money.  Now what?  They have no idea, including players in my home game.  They could build a fortress, build an army, design a dungeon, travel the planes, look for dragons, whatever.  Their response?  "I dunno."


I have a setting that I've detailed.  I give them options for places to go (ie: pirate islands, borderland forests, knightly realms, or bustling anything-goes cities).  Which would they like to try?   

"I dunno, whatever".

The exceptions I run into usually are evil overlords who want to build armies of the undead.  Which is great, but they're never heroes and try siding with bad guys and betraying party members.  arrgh!


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 26, 2010)

fireinthedust said:


> It's more than just puzzles.  In fact, it's situations like "you're in a Tavern that looks like this.  There are three areas (by the bar, by the fireplace, at a table or booth), which do you go to?" and they can't answer.
> 
> In fact, we get through a plot and they get a pile of money.  Now what?  They have no idea, including players in my home game.  They could build a fortress, build an army, design a dungeon, travel the planes, look for dragons, whatever.  Their response?  "I dunno."
> 
> ...




Wow, these are some interesting examples here Fire. From reading these, I don't know if should feel really sad, or bust out laughing. May be a bit of both I guess. 

Anyways, wanting to be constructive, it seems that you got a sandbox campaign going on here and the players are probably not use to that kind of DMing either because they are lazy, indifferent, or they just don't know what to do. Of course, with a campaign world, having all the locations and names populating the area kind of makes it daunting or overwhelming. Maybe you should take the Grand Theft Auto approach. You have a map, but only put about three locations on it. Everything else are just features, but no names. This would be similar to the big letters that clues the players for "find adventure / mission here". The PC's can then choose where to go from the three locations that you've got listed. If they ask you about them, you give them a handout that gives some rumors or common information. 

You can give them a nudge here and there by stating in your handout about each location, "If you go X, you'll need packmules to carry the necessary food to trek across the waste" or "If you go here, armor will be too hot to wear."

For the tavern example, draw the map and tell the players to place themselves where they want to be. If you're not into minis and maps, then tell them that they have arrived at the tavern and end the box text opening there. 

Also, instead of asking "What do you do?" simply describe the situation going on and let them answer the unspoken question of, "What do you?" for themselves. Going back to your tavern example you can say, "You enter the Five Coins Tavern and Alehouse. The fireplace looks warm and inviting from that deluge you just sludged through, but it's away from the bar where a good hot mead would take the chill off your bones, or may be that game of dice that's being played catches your attention since you could use the winnings to buy your mead." Then after you read / stated this, you just meet your players with silence and then let them ask you any questions or give you any stated actions.  You remain silent until one of them says something. 

If you do all of this by putting the choices in front of the players and they still just wander around or give you "I dunno", then it's clear that you either have 1) players who disinterested in the game itself or 2) players are very use to gaming where the previous GMing styles have been "GMing by the nose" and that is their comfort zone in gaming. If you like this group a lot, then maybe switching to railroading is better for them and for you.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> Do you believe that a gamer can ever fail as a player?




Sure.

Not engaging with the game. Refusing to follow the conceits of the campaign. Ignoring the game until it comes time to do what ever their thing is. Generally being an ass. Not having fun and not talking to the rest of the group.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 27, 2010)

fireinthedust said:


> I have a setting that I've detailed. I give them options for places to go (ie: pirate islands, borderland forests, knightly realms, or bustling anything-goes cities). Which would they like to try?
> 
> "I dunno, whatever".




If it is a detailed setting as you say than the likely issue is that they don't really understand the setting; it hasn't been presented to them in a manner that matters for them. It might be too abstract or perceived as a lot of detail to slog.

You may have shortened your text for the forum post here but if it was actually presented as "pirate islands, borderland forests, knightly realms," etc., that's pretty sparse on detail and while it may conjure clear cut images for you, your players will have their own images and may be leery of exactly what you have in mind.

I've asked players what to do at times, either at start of campaign or mid-game. For the start case, in addition to some information on the world, I will try to present them with at least a paragraph, sometimes a page of what each of the options might mean. For the in-game choices, I am usually much less formal (no write-ups to choose from that is) but on the otherhand, the choices will hopefully be already established in-game.

Last session, they cracked a treasure vault they have been chasing off and on for 11 sessions. It had a spirit in it that gave them some information on the current situation that they had been dealing with, her own agenda, and a proposition for them regarding some material aid in return for the party doing something for them (I've left out all the gorey detail).

We roleplayed the encounter and in-game the players seemed interested in her offer. After the game ended, I made it clear to them that this could be another many session arc and that it was up to them whether they wanted to take this path or not. I reminded them of some of the other things they could be doing. They opted for the path as I expected they would because this path has been setup earlier and aligns with several of the PC's backgrounds but I still gave them the choice, partly because there is an implicit contract here: they have given me the green light, I will prepare more than I otherwise would for this arc.

The trick is not to give them completely open ended choices but give them bounded choices within an established context.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 27, 2010)

Krensky said:


> If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, you have failed as a GM.




how? The DM is the whole world as. Player you can ask any question, take any action, you can even go outside your character and ask questions.

Let's use the statue as an example. As a player I have run characters that would have: examine the statue, ignored the statue, tried to steal the statue, or pissed on the statue. A player who just sits there drooling after that description blank faced is the failure. 

They aren't even engaging enough to ask the most obvious out of character question, "why are you suddenly describing this with so much more detail than anything else?"

I have asked that too, the DM answer if a bad DM is, dunno, which means obvious important, or something similar. A average DM or better will tell you why that statue caught your eye. He may say it looks familiar and that caused the description, he may say it's the first piece of ornamentation you have seen in hours of dungeon crawling, or something else. 

A player or a DM can fail in many ways. To suggest the DM failed because the players won't engage even a fraction of their brain is unfair. Unless your saying the DM failed in selecting a worthwhile group of people to spend his time and effort on.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is no more, or less, true if reversed:
> 
> If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, they have failed as players.




Not really. It's a GM failure. The GM hasn't presented enough hooks, or he's presented the wrong hooks, or he's presented too many hooks inducing option paralysis. Either way, the GM's either not doing their job, or they're doing it wrong.



Raven Crowking said:


> Either they lack immediate goals and motivations, or they're not choosing to play in the game they want to play.




You're repeating what I said here.



Raven Crowking said:


> Maybe the scenario sucks ("You're on a flat featureless plane with nothing to do.").




This is pretty much entirely the GM's fault. Typically because he wants to run a sandbox game.



Raven Crowking said:


> Maybe the players suck ("Can't you just tell us what to do?")




That's not the player's sucking. That's the GM sucking. It's no different then in a video game. If your players are at a loss for something to do at the gaming table you have failed. As a GM part of your job is to make sure they know where to go an what to do. That doesn't mean leading them by the nose all the time, but the players should never be stuck floundering. The minute the players hesitate and surrender the initiative the GM should seize it. Have someone kick in the door. Have a peasant run up begging them for help. Now, there are times the players should ask themselves what they should do next, but this should be a tactical question. What should are next step be to reach our goal? It should never be a strategic one.



Raven Crowking said:


> Or maybe the players simply have no experience with rpgs run so as to allow and expect them to make real choices.  IMHO, and IME, this third is by far the most common cause.  And, IMHO and IME, most players truly enjoy a game that allows and expects them to make real choices, assuming that it is run well.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that I have never, ever, had a problem filling a table in this manner....my problem has always been the opposite.  At what point do you start turning players away?




Yeah... I completely disagree. If I come and play at your table and discover I have to entertain myself, I'm likely to leave even before the session's over. This is a play style issue though, so whatever works for you and your players is cool for you, but it would not work for me and mine.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> hA player or a DM can fail in many ways. To suggest the DM failed because the players won't engage even a fraction of their brain is unfair. Unless your saying the DM failed in selecting a worthwhile group of people to spend his time and effort on.




Because, as I said, if the players are at a loss for what to do, the GM has either failed to give them things to do (hooks) or failed to seize the initiative (kick in the door) when they flounder.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, they have failed as players.
> 
> Either they lack immediate goals and motivations, or they're not choosing to play in the game they want to play.
> 
> ...




Not necessarily.  Depends on the DM's expectations. Having played w/ 3 different DM's, there are major differnces in puzzles and riddles:

The first example., the DM had a series of riddles to do to get to the center of the place we needed. To put bluntly, It sucked monkey Balls. Seriously. Being stuck with players who, while I liked them, were dumb as bricks for hours trying to get around the puzzles was no fun.

The second? Cute puzzle to enter a place, turned out once you figured it out....it was a music score. PLay the notes and away we went. Its  was fun and cute and done every now and again type puzzle was awesome.

The last, frankly, is my current DM and he's awesome. But even in some cases, when we're slogging along ni say, a modified tme of horrors or something of that nature, player fatigue sets in. Trying to figure one thing out after another, after another, then do again, frankly is tiring as a player. But he's good enough and smart enough to figure that out a change on a fly.


The real problem is, two actually, is the OP's example- its out of context- does he do that often, once and a while, is it a typical senario? Its hard gauge where the game itself is at. The second? His player examples are pretty much two extemes with nothing in the middle- either they are unegaged or they like whats going on with puzzles, there's no in between.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 27, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Let's use the statue as an example. As a player I have run characters that would have: examine the statue, ignored the statue, tried to steal the statue, or pissed on the statue.



Or picked up the oranges and thrown them at the statue?  Many of my past characters would have done this... 

Lanefan


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 27, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Because, as I said, if the players are at a loss for what to do, the GM has either failed to give them things to do (hooks) or failed to seize the initiative (kick in the door) when they flounder.




The difference is in style and intent. A DM can be good or bad no matter the style. As an example u had a DM who ran a Pathfinder Adventure Path to the letter, he refused to deviate in any way possible. He demanded that the only possible actions were the ham fisted in your face plot hooks the AP included.

 I quit the Group during the 3rd module due to inconsistent play, got annoying that at least 50% of sessions were cancelled for player reasons (really? A Sunday every other week is too hard to plan for). After that I read the AP, everything was exactly as written, BORING! Please give me at least the occasional illusionary choice to feel like I am doing more than running a combat in between bouts of meaningless combat. 

The moral? My paradise sounds like it would be your nightmare and vice-versa.

Is either better than the other? No. But to say problems in game can only be the DMs fault is bs.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The difference is in style and intent. A DM can be good or bad no matter the style. As an example u had a DM who ran a Pathfinder Adventure Path to the letter, he refused to deviate in any way possible. He demanded that the only possible actions were the ham fisted in your face plot hooks the AP included.
> 
> I quit the Group during the 3rd module due to inconsistent play, got annoying that at least 50% of sessions were cancelled for player reasons (really? A Sunday every other week is too hard to plan for). After that I read the AP, everything was exactly as written, BORING! Please give me at least the occasional illusionary choice to feel like I am doing more than running a combat in between bouts of meaningless combat.




So that sounds like the GM failed at running the AP. It also sounds like the table had other major issues. Without knowing which one it's hard to judge the quality of the hooks. The ones I've read tended to have some decent subplots within the adventure, and a lot of things for a GM to flesh out and build upon if the players take interest in them. Now, I'm running Runelords right now, and admit I flat out told the one player interested in delving into the ruins beneath the Lighthouse that I had nothing for that prepped and that it was unrelated to the Goblin raid they were investigating as their main goal at that time. I did ask them to hold onto that idea for later so we could come back to it.

They have had various encounters and formed relationships with the town outside the published adventure though.

They haven't ever sat and said I don't know what to do now though.



DocMoriartty said:


> The moral? My paradise sounds like it would be your nightmare and vice-versa.
> 
> Is either better than the other? No. But to say problems in game can only be the DMs fault is bs.




I never said that all problems are the GM's fault. Just that the specific one being discussed is.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 27, 2010)

The series was Curse of the Crimson Throne. Playing it I was annoyed with the railroading and reading it made me realize it wasn't the DM it was the series. 

The bad is that the railroading was not the worst aspect of the series, but that is another discussion.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The series was Curse of the Crimson Throne. Playing it I was annoyed with the railroading and reading it made me realize it wasn't the DM it was the series.
> 
> The bad is that the railroading was not the worst aspect of the series, but that is another discussion.




While I own that one, I haven't done more the skim through the player's guide and first volume. I understand there's a number of jumps between volumes that flat out don't make sense.

Now, one aspect of playing in a published module of any sort is accepting that it's a printed module and that means a certain amount of "look at the shiny PC thing, go to the PC thing". On the other hand, part of the GM's job is to plaster the cracks over and keep the pacing smooth and engaging.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 27, 2010)

Krensky said:


> While I own that one, I haven't done more the skim through the player's guide and first volume. I understand there's a number of jumps between volumes that flat out don't make sense.
> 
> Now, one aspect of playing in a published module of any sort is accepting that it's a printed module and that means a certain amount of "look at the shiny PC thing, go to the PC thing". On the other hand, part of the GM's job is to plaster the cracks over and keep the pacing smooth and engaging.




Read on, it doesn't get better.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 27, 2010)

One thing the DM can do when the players say "I don't know what to do" is to give them some options. It is a natural human response when confronted by innumerable possibilities to be temporarily paralyzed. 

So you might suggest a few options to your players to get them doing stuff:

Do you want to investigate the statue? Investigate the oranges? Are you touching either of them? If not, how are you investigating? Do you want to check out the door to determine if it is locked?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 27, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> One thing the DM can do when the players say "I don't know what to do" is to give them some options. It is a natural human response when confronted by innumerable possibilities to be temporarily paralyzed.
> 
> So you might suggest a few options to your players to get them doing stuff:
> 
> Do you want to investigate the statue? Investigate the oranges? Are you touching either of them? If not, how are you investigating? Do you want to check out the door to determine if it is locked?




The problem being giving options is hard tondo without tipping your hand and effectively telling the players what to do.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 27, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The problem being giving options is hard to do without tipping your hand and effectively telling the players what to do.



It's less of a problem if you're not trying to steer them toward a particular outcome, if you have no hand to tip as it were.

I try to frame any advice in terms of what an adventurer is likely to know. A soldier will know soldiery things, a noble will know nobley things, a pirate will know piratey things, and so on. If a soldiery or nobley or piratey thing is relevant to the situation, then it's easy enough to toss out something like, "From your time in the regiment/at court/aboard ship, you recall that . . . ."


----------



## nedjer (Nov 27, 2010)

Statue with sharpened teeth. That's an iron spike in the forehead and orange juice for me thanks very much.

To be fair to both 'sides' most of us start out in thrall to the fixed narrative media that we're fed and sold on a daily basis. When you're used to being served school dinners on a greasy plate for every meal it takes practice to start making choices from an a la carte menu.

And even more practice to get up from the dining table and walk into the kitchen with confidence


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 27, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The problem being giving options is hard tondo without tipping your hand and effectively telling the players what to do.



In the scenario given, there are only a few things worth doing. By noting all of them (statue, oranges, door) you limit the number of options without actually telling the players what to do.

Yes, you are in effect saying "Eating the dungeon lint in the corner will not accomplish anything useful," but if you're players don't know that already you've got other problems.


----------



## Derren (Nov 27, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> In the scenario given, there are only a few things worth doing. By noting all of them (statue, oranges, door) you limit the number of options without actually telling the players what to do.
> 
> Yes, you are in effect saying "Eating the dungeon lint in the corner will not accomplish anything useful," but if you're players don't know that already you've got other problems.




"Anything useful" should depend on the players.
You, and sadly most players seem to expect that the DM creates a linear path on which the PCs travel, sometimes swaying left or right but in the end still linear.
Yes, eating the lint will not solve the puzzle to open the door (if there even is a puzzle to begin with), but maybe teh PCs do not want to solve the puzzle? Maybe they want to use brute force to open the door? Maybe they want to turn around and do something else? That are all viable options in a RPG, but most players seem to want to play the RPG like a video game where there is a single path you have to follow with no chance to turn back. Sadly many DMs obligue them and limit RPGs to exactly that.
And it is no surprise that such players have no idea what to do when not told what to do. To address the accusation that the "DM has failed because he did not provide hooks". The players should be able to create their own hooks. If not they fail as players.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 27, 2010)

Derren said:


> You, and sadly most players seem to expect that the DM creates a linear path on which the PCs travel, sometimes swaying left or right but in the end still linear.



No. You are completely wrong. I said nothing of the kind. In response to players saying "I don't know what to do," I suggested giving them options. 

Are you saying that if they don't know what to do, that they "fail as players" and the game stagnates? Why not try to have fun instead of trying to make yourself feel superior?

I think you'll find that if you refrain from telling other people their game styles, how they act, what their opinions are, etc., you'll come across as slightly less of a jerk.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

Derren said:


> "To address the accusation that the "DM has failed because he did not provide hooks". The players should be able to create their own hooks. If not they fail as players.




If the players sit around, not knowing what to do (rather then being jerks by refusing to do anything) and the GM lets the drag the game to a screeching halt rather then having something kick in the door or whatever, the GM has failed. Creating hooks is not the player's job, it's the GMs. Coming up with goals and pursuing them independently of the GM's hooks is.

Pacing is a GM responsibility. If the players are sitting around with blank looks, it's boring. Allowing this to last more then a short while is the GMs fault.


----------



## Derren (Nov 27, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> I think you'll find that if you refrain from telling other people their game styles, how they act, what their opinions are, etc., you'll come across as slightly less of a jerk.




And by that you are telling me how to play.
About your example, as soon as you decide what accomlishes something and what not and tell that your players as suggestion, you are not giving the players options, you are limiting them and drive them down a specific path.



Krensky said:


> Pacing is a GM responsibility. If the players are sitting around with blank looks, it's boring. Allowing this to last more then a short while is the GMs fault.




Why should pacing be the GMs responsibility?
If you are playing a linear story, then yes you are correct. But when not its the players who have to drive things forward and when they don't they fail.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

Derren said:


> And by that you are telling me how to play.
> About your example, as soon as you decide what accomlishes something and what not, you are not giving the players options, you are limiting them and drive them down a specific path.




No, it's called adjudicating. It's one of the primary responsibilities at the table.




Derren said:


> Why should pacing be the GMs responsibility?
> If you are playing a linear story, then yes you are correct. But when not its the players who have to drive things forward and when they don't they fail.




Even f you're playing in a plotless litterbox, it's still the GM's responsibility. Why? Because the players have no real control over pacing. The GM controls the world, so he controls the pace. If the players are proactive, great. If they're not then it's the GM's job to make them react. If the game drags to a stop and everyone just sits there twiddling their thumbs, that's the GMs fault. Why? Because he has the most ability to change it. Bad or too few hooks, unclear paths, not seizing initiative, inducing option paralysis. These are all failures of the GM, not the players. Honestly, I can not think of a situation, either anecdotal or hypothetical where the game grinds to a halt because where the GM is not at fault.


----------



## Derren (Nov 27, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Even f you're playing in a plotless litterbox, it's still the GM's responsibility. Why? Because the players have no real control over pacing. The GM controls the world, so he controls the pace. If the players are proactive, great. If they're not then it's the GM's job to make them react. If the game drags to a stop and everyone just sits there twiddling their thumbs, that's the GMs fault. Why? Because he has the most ability to change it. Bad or too few hooks, unclear paths, not seizing initiative, inducing option paralysis. These are all failures of the GM, not the players. Honestly, I can not think of a situation, either anecdotal or hypothetical where the game grinds to a halt because where the GM is not at fault.




The GM controlls the pace? Again only when the GM decides what ultimately the PCs have to do. If you are running this kind of game yes, the GM is at fault. But if not its the players responsibility to do something. The GM might controll "the world", but 90% of the world is off screen. THe PCs on the other hand are always the center of attention so the players have always the ability change the world even just by moving to another location.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 27, 2010)

Derren said:


> And by that you are telling me how to play.



I was referring to your asinine post in which you told me how I GM'ed, not to your game style. I even quoted the post in question. I never once mentioned your style of gaming. 

Do you know how this whole "message-board thing" works?


----------



## Krensky (Nov 27, 2010)

Derren said:


> The GM controlls the pace?




Yes, the GM always controls the pace.



Derren said:


> Again only when the GM decides what ultimately the PCs have to do.




No, the GM always controls the pace.



Derren said:


> If you are running this kind of game yes, the GM is at fault. But if not its the players responsibility to do something.




Only if the GM is lazy. If the players do something, awesome. If they don't it's the GM's job to keep the game moving. Otherwise everyone at the table is wasting time.



Derren said:


> The GM might controll "the world", but 90% of the world is off screen. THe PCs on the other hand are always the center of attention so the players have always the ability change the world even just by moving to another location.




The GM is the only person at the table who controls the pacing, because even the things the players can do to change things rely on the GM enabling them. Moving to a different location won't change anything if there's nothing different there.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Because, as I said, if the players are at a loss for what to do, the GM has either failed to give them things to do (hooks) or failed to seize the initiative (kick in the door) when they flounder.




I agree. This in the end comes down to GM *and* play-group style. In an ideal case, the GM has done such a nice job setting up the world, both background and hooks, and the players are so proactive and engaged that the players drive the story without much impetus from the ref (beyond the setup which can be substantial).

However, I say that if the players are staring at you looking for something to do, it is the GM's problem, not the player's problem.

Should the players be more proactive? Possibly. Maybe the ref has done a bang-up job on the setting and they really ought to be finding something to do. Maybe your entire group of players are a bunch of unmotivated laggards. But in general when there is a choice between 3-5 people being in the wrong or one person being in the wrong, it's usually the one person. Individually people make mistakes, groups are actually pretty effective. So if all the players are 'stuck' it is more likely the ref needs to better set up the game, make better hooks, whatever than that all players are clueless.

Even separate of the issue of where the burden lies, most refs are the "prime mover" for a gaming group. Most have invested a fair amount of time in the campaign. Most refs don't want their game to fall apart. If the campaign gets to a pause, rather than have it peter out or bounce around in aimless wandering that is likely to not entertain and therefore likely to cost you players, shouldn't you as the ref intervene to make sure your prized campaign succeeds?

Seems like it is in the ref's best interest to act in this case rather than perhaps arguing with his players that they ought to be finding stuff to do. The latter sounds akin to the movie director who, after getting mostly bad reviews, is prone to arguing with the critics rather than learning from his experience and resolving to improve his movies.

I've been on both sides of this and in my personal experience, my games improved tremendously once I took responsibility for game momentum. I like to think that I have done this by providing richer, clearer settings with clearer hooks but in the end if I got my hooks wrong and nothing clicked with the players, I'll step in and force something interesting rather than have my hard-to-schedule players sitting around staring at their navels.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2010)

Now this is a new one to me.  I don't think I've ever seen people try to pass the buck on pacing from the DM to the players.

How _exactly_ does a player control the pacing?  Since even the most pro-active player must still absolutely depend on the DM to provide the scene, NPC reactions, and every other detail outside of the PC him or herself, what can the player do to control pacing?

For example, if the party is currently at a meeting with the town mayor to discuss the recent orc raids, what can I do as a player to speed that meeting up?  Can I declare that the discussion is over, the Mayor hires us for the amount I want?  I suppose I could walk out of the meeting, but then again, I'd have to convince the rest of the table to do that too, which is likely going to slow pacing to a crawl.

So, what methods should a player use to increase pacing?  I can see players decreasing pacing pretty easily (particularly the player who takes fifteen minutes to complete his round in a 3e game, while playing a 4th level FIGHTER!), but, I'm not really clear how a player can do otherwise.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 28, 2010)

In contrast to the many people who have said the issue is due to GM failure, I am going to say otherwise.  I too am somewhat irked by players who seem to have mental inertia.  As someone has already mentioned, if I'm GMing the world and also telling your character what he should be doing, I might as well just stay home and write a book.

I do not believe anyone else is playing the game wrongly by prefering to be lead by the hand.  I simply highly prefer that players have at least a modicum of initiative.  Even if it's hack & slash, that's at least something... it may not be a strategy that always works in the games I run, but you're at least doing something without me needed to tell you what you have to do.

I see no reason why players can't create hooks.  Even if I am running an adventure path and am providing hooks, I still like it when a player's character has... well... has character.  When I sit and ponder your character's motivations for being an adventurer, I like it when I have more of a reason than 'well, the GM says so..."  Again, I'll take even ye olde cliche of fame and fortune; just give me some sort of feedback.

One thing which I don't think gets said enough is that the GM is a player too.  If I'm not enjoying my seat at the game from the GM side of the table, I'm not going to want to play any more than a player who isn't enjoying being part of my game.  I'm willing to compromise my style and include things in games which fit the styles of the people I game with; however, a compromise goes both ways, and I expect at least a token effort at giving me a little bit of what I want.  If you hate my GMing style, hey, that's fine too; I'll let somebody else GM if the group is violently opposed to what I want to run rather than do all the work of GMing only to be miserable every weekend.

I have had experiences similar to the player 2 example which Fire gave.  One of the players who comes to mind would literally not do anything unless I practically played his character for him.  Again, I understand that some people just want to sit down and roll some dice without much thought; I really do understand that.  However, asking whether or not you open a door shouldn't -I feel- lead to the deer in the headlights* look.   

Pacing can be controlled by players in more than just combat situations.  In the face-to-face campaign I am running right now, the players are in a town on the edge of civilization.  Through various social interactions with NPCs, the players developed a desire to be involved in the growth of the town.  This meant that the players chose to take a break from the story arc they were involved in and instead create their own hooks involved with the town.  This also meant that several months of in-game time had passed.  Thirdly, it meant that they had control over what they felt was important to them and the game.  From the GM side of things, I highly enjoyed that they were looking through the world in the eyes of their characters and creating things which had some amount of sentimental value to those characters; the world became something shared with the players rather than something completely dictated to them.


*Yes, I understand there can be a variety of reasons for this.  If all you've known are linear campaigns and you're caught offguard** by the ability to choose your path, I can work with that.  If you're new to rpgs and the game seems confusing, I can work with that.  I can work with a lot of things. If you just don't want to play in an open ended game, fine, I can even work with that or find you someone else better suited to a linear game.  All I ask is to let me know, and I'll do what I can to help if that's what you need.

 However, if you're just willfully choosing to not participate because "well, that's not why I'm here" that's -in my opinion- somewhat selfish.  I feel that rpgs are meant to be a shared experience.  As a GM, you need to know your players.  As a player, you need to be mindful that not everyone at the table is there for the exact same reasons you are.  Sometimes   Expecting the GM and other players to compromise and include things to fit your style without being willing to do anything at all which is outside of your prefered playstyle, I feel that is somewhat insulting to the other people at the table.

**I know some people don't like the term 'train your players' as illustrated by the posts earlier in this thread, but I do feel that some amount of training can and should take place in this case.  An rpg experience need not be exactly the same every time you sit down at a table.  That's something I feel that enough people are not aware of; that there's more than one way to play the game.  Especially in the case of new players being exposed to the hobby, I think it's good to showcase the flexibility of rpgs and illustrate that it's just as possible to interactively play through a multiplayer choose your own adventure book as it is to play a tabletop version of WoW.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2010)

Johny3d3d - I'd pretty much agree with all of that.

Just a point about the players controlling the pacing.  When you say that several months of game time got taken up by their plans, how much table time did that take up?

I wonder if there's a bit of a misunderstanding in the idea of pacing.  By pacing, I don't really mean how long things take in game.  That doesn't really matter.  By pacing, I meant how things play out at the table.  "We spend three months rebuilding the town" can take thirty seconds at the table or it can take two hours (or more).  And that time is mostly determined by the DM.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Johny3d3d - I'd pretty much agree with all of that.
> 
> Just a point about the players controlling the pacing. When you say that several months of game time got taken up by their plans, how much table time did that take up?
> 
> I wonder if there's a bit of a misunderstanding in the idea of pacing. By pacing, I don't really mean how long things take in game. That doesn't really matter. By pacing, I meant how things play out at the table. "We spend three months rebuilding the town" can take thirty seconds at the table or it can take two hours (or more). And that time is mostly determined by the DM.





It took the better part of three gaming sessions.  It probably would have been more, but I am close enough to them to have regular contact with them even when it's not game day, so there were times when we talked shop on non-game days.  We play every weekend, so that would be close to a month in real time.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 28, 2010)

A better question isn't how long it took, but is did everyone have fun?

If everyone had fun for those three sessions, the pacing (as it relates to the topic at hand) was fine.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 28, 2010)

Krensky said:


> A better question isn't how long it took, but is did everyone have fun?
> 
> If everyone had fun for those three sessions, the pacing (as it relates to the topic at hand) was fine.





Surprisingly, yes...  I didn't think they'd get as deep into the details as they did.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 28, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> I don't know if that kind of thing is common in your games, but if it is, I would be player two.  Why?  Mostly because I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the statue.  I don't care how the dried oranges might interact with the statue or whatever else you had in mind.




I've had gamers like Malenkirk at my table before. I refer to them as "damaged goods" since, IME, they tend to be created by poor GMing at other tables. (I've never seen a player new to RPGs suffer from this problem.) My GM has a pretty funny story about the time he ran into a whole table of them without realizing what was happening.

Malenkirk seems to be a pretty bad case, though. He can apparently look at someone saying, "I don't want to tell my players what to do." And his only response is, "! It's a trap! When he says he doesn't want to tell me what to do, what is he secretly trying to make me do?"

The examples I've encountered in real life tend to respond well to simply explaining the disconnect. Once they realize that Admiral Ackbar isn't going to leap out of the closet, they generally respond enthusiastically.



Krensky said:


> The GM is the only person at the table who  controls the pacing, because even the things the players can do to  change things rely on the GM enabling them. Moving to a different  location won't change anything if there's nothing different  there.




Your position of "GM as Ultimate Tyrant" is, IMO, a rather flat and boring one.

The truth is that both the GM and the players have control over pacing. If the player decide that their PCs take a knitting class instead of chasing the guy who just tried to assassinate them, that decision has an effect on the pacing of the campaign. And while theoretically the GM could turn their knitting class into a fast-paced thriller or the rooftop chase into a serene art film, the reality is that the responsibility for how a campaign is paced belongs to both the action chosen (which the players largely control unless the GM is railroading them) and the presentation of that action (which the GM largely controls).



marcq said:


> Should the players be more proactive? Possibly.  Maybe the ref has done a bang-up job on the setting and they really  ought to be finding something to do. Maybe your entire group of players  are a bunch of unmotivated laggards. But in general when there is a  choice between 3-5 people being in the wrong or one person being in the  wrong, it's usually the one person.




All other things being even, you're probably right: If everyone has a 50% chance of being wrong, then the GM has a 50% chance of being wrong while there's only a 3% chance of 5 players all being wrong at the same time.

But if the players have been taught through experience that the way to play an RPG is to "wait for the GM to tell us what to do", then all other things aren't even. That prior experience on the part of the players will skew your hypothetically perfect conditions and make it quite likely that when they're presented with the situation "the GM wants us to make decisions for ourselves" they'll screw it up.

I suppose one can argue that the GM should just suck it up and run another "I'll tell you what to do" campaign for these players. But since I'm (a) not a big fan of the "GM is a slave" meme and (b) I think railroading is generally a broken model for tabletop play, I'm generally going to try to make these players explore a better way of playing before giving up on them and finding new players. (I have zero interest in running a railroad.)


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> All other things being even, you're probably right: If everyone has a 50% chance of being wrong, then the GM has a 50% chance of being wrong while there's only a 3% chance of 5 players all being wrong at the same time.
> 
> But if the players have been taught through experience that the way to play an RPG is to "wait for the GM to tell us what to do", then all other things aren't even. That prior experience on the part of the players will skew your hypothetically perfect conditions and make it quite likely that when they're presented with the situation "the GM wants us to make decisions for ourselves" they'll screw it up.




Yes, if the players simply have not experienced a game where the ref expects more from them, then the ref should demonstrate what he expects to them. That was essentially behind my earlier comment (in this thread IIRC) that as I ref, I'm fine with having to train my players, by training meaning demonstrating to them that their actions matter.

If you get to this awkward pause point well into your campaign, you should have had plenty of opportunity to do this training/demonstration to your players already. If it happens in the first session or two, well, I'm still in my training phase. Either way, it's the ref's job to move things along 

That said, I guess as a ref, I never expect all my players to be proactive and ready to dive in at such pauses. There are a few there because the SO is there and as long as they aren't detracting from the game, I don't mind if they opt out of the problem solving bits (my wife would be one such person). In the bigger picture, different things engage different players. As long as some of them are willing to move things along at any given time, I'm happy.


----------



## fireinthedust (Nov 28, 2010)

A point has been missed.


The OP (myself) brought up one of many possible table dynamics.  The GM in this case has tried all the things mentioned, listening to player wishes, setting pacing, all that.  However, when a room is described to players, they don't respond.  

The point is that the GM can only do so much.  At some point even a game run by, say, the Steven Spielberg of GMs must have a group of players who wish to respond, who are willing to interact.

Railroading is the RPG equivalent of spoon feeding.  While it is a great tool for time-strapped games, like at conventions, its more of a tool than a true method.

The opposite dynamic is a group of interested players with a GM spoon-feeding them info that a) they can predict so it isn't a surprise, and b) that they're not interested in and have said so many times.

While the points of Mal and Krensky are well taken, this isn't the dynamic that the OP is bringing up as a problem.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Nov 28, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Malenkirk seems to be a pretty bad case, though. He can apparently look at someone saying, "I don't want to tell my players what to do." And his only response is, "! It's a trap! When he says he doesn't want to tell me what to do, what is he secretly trying to make me do?"




_That's_ what you got from my post?  The underscored part is sheer fabulation that can't be reasonably extrapolated from what I wrote.

The gist of what I said was don't ask me 'What do you do' if you have just put me in a situation where I'm bored out of my skull.  Obviously, you won't like the answer.  

The one example the OP gave was a bland situation where the PCs stand in some courtyard, with a tree, a door and dried apples.   It might be a puzzle ( which I dislike) and in any case there is no antagonist, stakes or tension.  Of course I am bored.  I did mention I would probably try to get out of there with a perception/thievery check in the hope of moving on to something actually interesting.

I basically said that if that was a common occurence, no wonder some players are non-responsive.  I don't care one bit for that aspect of RPGs and I'm not alone.  I am not playing a role in that scene, I am playing Mist!  As you can guess, I don't play Mist.  

The OP then slighlty shifted the premise by diminishing the value of the sample scene; it was not in that specific type of scene but under any circumstances that players were showing little initiative.  This is why I stayed out of the debate afterward.  If the game is interesting but players are uninterested I have little insight to offer beyond 'change groups'.

BTW, the 'damaged good' reference is arrogant.  It is a sentiment based on the assumption that there is greater value in the way you like to play than the way I like to play.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Nov 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now this is a new one to me.  I don't think I've ever seen people try to pass the buck on pacing from the DM to the players.
> 
> How _exactly_ does a player control the pacing?




The players opportunity are more limited in scope and tend to be cooperative but they are plentiful.

Basically, it involves being decisive and taking risks.  Groups of players tend to get bogged down in details whenever it's time for a tough decision.  For a short while you just cooperate with your friends to come up with a mutually acceptable decision but if it drags down a few minutes, it's time to move on.  Just have your PC take the lead (as long as he assumes most of the risk, for the sake of not pissing other players!).  

For example, let's say you are at court and you think the chancellor has been replaced by some kind of imitator and now the group is arguing what to do.  If no consensus emerge after a few minutes, I'll just do something dramatic to get the story moving like breaking into his room or tackling him in the middle of the court to forcefully remove whatever looks like a magic item.  

Trust me, it greatly improves the pace!  Maybe not always toward the DM's planned endgame, but at least things are happening.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 28, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> ...It is a sentiment based on the assumption that there is greater value in the way you like to play than the way I like to play.



You have painted yourself for good or ill as not being the most adaptable of players. If there is something that is presented by the DM that you cannot roll for, it does not seem to be your cup of tea - which is fine if that's how your group plays and enjoys themselves. However, you do seem to be cutting out both large sections of the RPG experience as well as significant interaction with the group's collective gameworld by doing this. Your style of play limits the scope of what a DM can reasonably bring to the table for the group's entertainment. This is fine if the DM and all the players are like you, but in a more diverse group your style is obviously going to cause friction and issues. That is perhaps why some people would regard your style of play (unfairly or not) as being of lesser value in a general sense.

Using a parallel, I know myself that I mainly like computer games that are single player only. I don't go in for the big multiplayer experience and thus I'm limited these days in terms of options. Some would see such use of a computer as being incredibly limiting, but heh... that's what I like and those that would seek to judge how I use a computer can go jump.

The lesson I suppose for the original poster is that everyone plays the game differently. The most important thing is communication in a group to ensure that everyone is getting the most fun they can out of the collective experience.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> The gist of what I said was don't ask me 'What do you do' if you have just put me in a situation where I'm bored out of my skull. Obviously, you won't like the answer.




! Very funny and honestly, spot on. I mostly ref and I feel it is my role to keep things moving forward. I have decent players and if they are at a loss as to what to do, I generally ascribe it to a failing on my part to set the setting and situation.

As a player, I can be harsh. You railroad me and I might start getting a little silly. Okay, I can't go anywhere but where you want me to but I *can* eat everything I kill.

You start violating premise (what? we have light sabers now?) and I might start experimenting with that light saber. (Hey, in Star Wars they used it to cut through several layers of starship blast doors, why can't I use it to open every obstacle in my way? And why does the bad-guy's armor matter? )

You, the ref, demonstrate that there is no consistency in your world or my decisions don't matter, then I'm going to focus on combat and don't expect me to pay much attention to the babblings of your NPCs.

It's a two-way street. Unless the players are new to RPGs or coming from a railroading ref, they have a basic idea of what to do in an RPG. If I present them a problem or ask them what they want to do next and they just stare at me, then it's *my *problem, not their problem. Unless they are really drunk at the time. In which case, I probably am too and it's time to call it a night.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 28, 2010)

marcq said:


> !
> It's a two-way street. Unless the players are new to RPGs or coming from a railroading ref, they have a basic idea of what to do in an RPG. If I present them a problem or ask them what they want to do next and they just stare at me, then it's *my *problem, not their problem.





A two-way street which ends in something being my problem no matter the direction chosen goes against my understanding of the terminology used.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> A two-way street which ends in something being my problem no matter the direction chosen goes against my understanding of the terminology used.




True enough. As long as I felt the ref was making an honest effort, I'd step in as a player as well


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 28, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The problem being giving options is hard tondo without tipping your hand and effectively telling the players what to do.



Or what not to do.  If you hint at the wrong option a few times and then let 'em get plastered if they blindly follow up on it, they'll either learn to think for themselves or they won't.... 

Lan-"yes, sometimes I wear a Viking hat"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, what methods should a player use to increase pacing?  I can see players decreasing pacing pretty easily (particularly the player who takes fifteen minutes to complete his round in a 3e game, while playing a 4th level FIGHTER!), but, I'm not really clear how a player can do otherwise.



How can a player increase the pace and-or relieve boredom?

Just *do* something.

Kick in a door.  Pick a random direction and go there whether the rest of the party follows or not.  Attack something.  Pick up one of the oranges and throw it at the party fighter.  If that fails, try throwing the statue; that'll get her attention.  But do something, preferably risky!

However, there's a corollary issue, and this one is *directly* under the DM's control:







			
				Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> Basically, it involves being decisive and taking risks. Groups of players tend to get bogged down in details whenever it's time for a tough decision. For a short while you just cooperate with your friends to come up with a mutually acceptable decision but if it drags down a few minutes, it's time to move on. Just have your PC take the lead (as long as he assumes most of the risk, for the sake of not pissing other players!).



She who takes the risk has to get the reward.  And what is this reward, you ask?

Experience points.

New-school games tend to want to give everyone in the party the same ExP for a given encounter regardless of participation.  (there was one awful discussion in here half a year ago or so where someone had to ask whether two PCs who were several miles away exploring should get ExP for things that happened to the rest of the party while they were gone!)  Or worse, there's those who don't bother with variable ExP at all and just bump everyone when they think it fits.

All this does, ultimately, is reward those players and-or characters who sit back and don't take risks!  No wonder players get in a mindset of letting others get on with it...and when you end up with a whole group of such players, nothing gets done; or what does get done happens at a snail's pace through a molasses of caution and "you first".

This also explains why new players tend to be the ones who have their characters get on with it in such games: they don't realize the same spoils (treasure, experience, fame) will come to those who sit back.

Lanefan


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 29, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> How can a player increase the pace and-or relieve boredom?
> 
> Just *do* something.
> 
> ...





Some of what was said here is why I love that the games I play outside of D&D don't use XP or levels.  Character advancement is based upon what the characters do and/or character points rewarded for playing the character.  In need of a shiny magical sword?  Go find it.  Allies?  Use social skills to get them.  etc; etc


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Nov 29, 2010)

I'm just the opposite! I'd like to roll my knowledge Hist/Religion skills and see if I know any cool lore about the statue. Its pint sized so its probably a dwarf deity (not dwarven but dwarf like the egyptian god Geb or other deities) or its the god of cannibal haflings or something known to file their teeth.

I'd figure that since the oranges are dried and at its foot, but not in a protective container they would have mildered if gotten wet or been eaten by rats or insects. So I would figure the obvious sacrifice could not have been made that long ago, probably by someone expecting to pass. If I could I'd try to do some tracking to see where people had been, as well as use Detect Magic on the door and the statue to see if there was anything unusual about the statue. If there was I'd be looking for traps, and still-I would even if it was mundane. I'd try the door next, and if it didnt open, I'd see about whether offering some more fruit or items to it might make it open or a UMD check. 

And lastly, since the statue is so small, well, I'd try to pry it from the floor to salvage the 'artifact' on the way back out.

I love being the forbidden loremaster, scholar-adventurer type. I love divinations as well, and working to gain that next scrap of information that adds to an ever unfolding picture. I dont just like examining things, I like talking to people too, writing letters, and poking around in dangerous places. I think a lot of CoC as I've experienced it has rubbed off of me, albeit I played PbP and DnD first.

At the same time, I dont like pixel biching and 'lets play guess what the DM is thinking' which is very different actually. You have to be careful, because often what SHOULD be 'obvious' isnt, and what you think will be very tough will be figured faster than you think. PUSH come to shove, a PC might be smarter than the mundane playing them, so if you *really* need to-allow an Int or Knowledge check to help things along if its as simply as bypassing a door. Bigger campaign spanning stuff, and larger mysteries however shouldnt be so simple as a single check, unless you've just come to a point at which they've already recieved *all* the information and the conclusion drawn is critical to knowing where or what to do next or how to approach it. But ONLY if they cant reach a conclusion, now, if they reach an incorrect one-you could either make it so, and reward their creativity, or just roll with it and let happens what happens.

What I CAN agree with, is the fact that you should talk to your players about what kind of game they expect first, and try to deliver something to everybody. I think 'what do you do?' and 'What do you want to do?' are extremely similar, if not the same. I do sometimes prompt PCs for a response, letting them know my narration or description is complete-but really when the PCs reach that statue, they _should _probably do what they wanted to do in the first place-even if that was only as simple as 'I find the statue slightly unnerving, but go ahead and try to open the door.' Ideally I think, players simply attempt _do _things and the DM tells them the result or consequence of their actions.

On a side note-the statue COULD just be fluff or atmosphere, but Law of Conservation of Detail says otherwise (which is somewhat metathought). Its obviously important, or if the object itself isnt, its prescense or that of the oranges is important in that it means, implies, foreshadows or hints at something making it a device.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail 



Mal Malenkirk said:


> Well, you have to take the player's expectations and interests into account, not just your own. Why does the player need to be lead by the hand? Many reasons, but it could be he is bored. To be engaged, you have to be motivated. Some people don't really care about the minutiae you described in that example;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Nov 29, 2010)

Herremann the Wise said:


> You have painted yourself for good or ill as not being the most adaptable of players. If there is something that is presented by the DM that you cannot roll for, it does not seem to be your cup of tea...




It's my day to be grossly misinterpreted, I guess.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 29, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Some of what was said here is why I love that the games I play outside of D&D don't use XP or levels.  Character advancement is based upon what the characters do and/or character points rewarded for playing the character.  In need of a shiny magical sword?  Go find it.  Allies?  Use social skills to get them.  etc; etc



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


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 29, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> It's my day to be grossly misinterpreted, I guess.



I apologise unreservedly if I've grossly misinterpreted and summarised your game style incorrectly.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> How can a player increase the pace and-or relieve boredom?
> 
> Just *do* something.
> 
> Kick in a door. Pick a random direction and go there whether the rest of the party follows or not. Attack something. Pick up one of the oranges and throw it at the party fighter. If that fails, try throwing the statue; that'll get her attention. But do something, preferably risky!




The problem with this approach is it can very quickly annoy the crap out of the other players.  They're trying to deal with a problem, taking more time than perhaps is fun, and Bloggins decides to go over and kick the statue.

Which then animates and kills Joe's character.

I'm going to imagine that Joe might be a bit miffed at this point.  He just died through no fault of his own.  Actually, he died as a direct consequence of Bloggin's acting without consulting the rest of the group.  When this happens once, it's kinda funny.  When this turns into a habit, Bloggins stops getting invited to game nights.

"Attack the chancelor because I'm bored" is about the worst kind of role play I can imagine.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 29, 2010)

I'm one of those folks who just levels up the entire party every so often. I don't feel the need to encourage gung-ho play by handing out bonus XP for it. In my experience, players who like gung-ho play will play that way without needing external incentives; and for those who don't like gung-ho play, why am I trying to push them to do something they don't like?

Obviously, there's potential for conflict when some players are more gung-ho than others. But that's just one of a dozen ways in which different player preferences can lead to conflict, and ultimately it's on the players to work out a reasonable compromise. Using XP awards to incentivize proactive/reckless behavior doesn't improve that compromise, it just pushes things toward the aggressive end of the scale at the expense of the more cautious players.

If it seems to me that the players' strategy discussion has reached the point where they're going round in circles, I'll step in and nudge them toward a decision--usually just by saying something like, "So, are you going into the dungeon, then?" Under the pressure of a direct question from the DM, the group almost always finds its way to a consensus. Outside that situation, I let them work out their differences on their own.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 29, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> _That's_ what you got from my post?  The underscored part is sheer fabulation that can't be reasonably extrapolated from what I wrote.




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.



> Of course I am bored.  I did mention I would probably try to get out of  there with a perception/thievery check in the hope of moving on to  something actually interesting.




IOW, you want to make a blind skill check in the hope that, if you succeed, the GM will tell you "whatever they had in mind".

But, again, the GM doesn't have anything in mind. Your are proceeding from a completely false premise, but are apparently possessed of such massive bias that you can't even acknowledge your fundamental failure when people point it out to you explicitly.



> BTW, the 'damaged good' reference is arrogant.  It is a sentiment based  on the assumption that there is greater value in the way you like to  play than the way I like to play.




Someone who literally cannot play if the GM isn't leading them around by the nose is, as far as I'm concerned, a broken player. Until they're fixed they are literally incapable of playing in games that I run.

Similarly, I would consider the opposite someone who refuses to follow up on any points of interest or scenario hooks presented by the GM on the general principle that "you should never do what you think the GM wants you to do" is also broken.

Although now that I think about it, while the latter is problematic for a railroaded game in roughly the same way that a "I must be led by the nose" player is problematic for a non-railroaded game, the root of the problem remains the assumption that the GM has an agenda (that must be either (a) followed or (b) thwarted). If the GM has no agenda, both types of broken players are equally problematic.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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.




Or, you know, like in a D&D game. Been that way since Castle Greyhawk. Standard of the hobby, really.



Beginning of the End said:


> IOW, you want to make a blind skill check in the hope that, if you succeed, the GM will tell you "whatever they had in mind".
> 
> But, again, the GM doesn't have anything in mind. Your are proceeding from a completely false premise, but are apparently possessed of such massive bias that you can't even acknowledge your fundamental failure when people point it out to you explicitly.




Actually, you're adding to what the OP said. fireinthedust never said he had nothing in mind about the statue et al. In fact, pretty much every GM I've ever played with or heard about would have some purpose to describing the statue and room that way, otherwise they're wasting words. Now, that purpose might simply to be to mess with the players head by adding detail to the description to make them think there's something going on there, but that's still a purpose.



Beginning of the End said:


> Someone who literally cannot play if the GM isn't leading them around by the nose is, as far as I'm concerned, a broken player. Until they're fixed they are literally incapable of playing in games that I run.
> 
> Similarly, I would consider the opposite someone who refuses to follow up on any points of interest or scenario hooks presented by the GM on the general principle that "you should never do what you think the GM wants you to do" is also broken.




Not suited or a fan of your preferred play style is not broken. Oh, and the use of the word there is insulting.



Beginning of the End said:


> Although now that I think about it, while the latter is problematic for a railroaded game in roughly the same way that a "I must be led by the nose" player is problematic for a non-railroaded game, the root of the problem remains the assumption that the GM has an agenda (that must be either (a) followed or (b) thwarted). If the GM has no agenda, both types of broken players are equally problematic.




Either (massively hyperbolic) extreme is equally problematic for either a litterbox game, or a non-litterbox game. The root of the problem is ofter lack of communication on table rules and agenda. Oh, the GM always has an agenda. Always. Saying you don't have an agenda is, in itself, an agenda.

Now, the OP has said he's tried all sorts of tricks, but has he actually sat down and asked his players why they don't seem to care? Player apathy (which, I think, is what he's talking about) is a very different issue then players being directionless. While I still insist the later is a GM failure, the former is typically a table failure. His (potential) failure is not talking to them to understand why they don't seem to want to play the bits between combat encounters.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The problem with this approach is it can very quickly annoy the crap out of the other players.  They're trying to deal with a problem, taking more time than perhaps is fun, and Bloggins decides to go over and kick the statue.
> 
> Which then animates and kills Joe's character.
> 
> ...




Or the statue may fall over, being a fake plaster cast, exposing the 5 perfect emeralds hidden beneath. All of a sudden Joe is not complaining and has no problem demanding a share of the loot gained from no action of his own.

Complaining about bad things that happen gets you nowhere when most players are quite willing to accept benefits that also happened from no action of their own.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Not really. It's a GM failure. The GM hasn't presented enough hooks, or he's presented the wrong hooks, or he's presented too many hooks inducing option paralysis. Either way, the GM's either not doing their job, or they're doing it wrong.




"Enough" is a slippery concept.  Tautilogically, this is true, but it is equally true to say "The players haven't responded enough to the hooks presented", or "The players are not proactive enough", or "The players are not able to make decisions" and be equally accurate.  Either way, the players are either not doing their job, or they're doing it wrong.

But both paragraphs -- yours and mine -- are equally meaningless for two reasons.  First, what is "enough" is left undefined, so that one can always then say, "Ah, but if you had done _*enough*_ things would be better."  Secondly, both paragraphs somehow imagine that what happens during actual game play is controlled exclusively from one side of the screen.

Both are, essentially, attempts to cop out on responsibility.

(I'm not going to quote and respond to all of your additional paraphrases of the same highly questionable point.  Suffice it to say that I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.)

As long as the GM has players who want to play his game, he is justified in running any game he wants.  That defines "enough".

As long as a player is still welcome in a game, he is justified in running his character any way he wants.  That defines "enough".

A wise GM doesn't wait until every player is gone before considering his game; a wise player doesn't wait until he is booted from every game before he considers his playing.  That defines making a change before you fail to have "enough".

If Bob is GMing, and Marcy and Joe want a different game, Bob absolutely does not need to "step down"; he can keep running a game for Sue and John. If Marcy then runs a game more like what she and Joe want, perhaps Bob, Sue, and/or John will also want to play in that game.

If, for some reason, Sue and John can only play in one game, then either Bob's or Marcy's gets them, depending upon which is closer to what Sue and John want.

The only reason Bob should "step down" is because he is tired of GMing.

That _*you personally *_do not like sandbox games is immaterial.



carmachu said:


> Not necessarily.




Yes.  "Not necessarily" was the point of what you quoted and responded to.  I apologize if that wasn't clear, but either way I am pleased that you drew the same conclusion.



Krensky said:


> Yes, the GM always controls the pace.




So, if a player wants to do something, the GM slaps him down until the GM says its okay?



Hussar said:


> Now this is a new one to me.  I don't think I've ever seen people try to pass the buck on pacing from the DM to the players.
> 
> How _exactly_ does a player control the pacing?




It's been said before, but I'll say it again:  The same way the DM controls the pace.  Do something.  Kick in the door.  Pull the lever.

But, whatever you do, don't whine that taking more time is being perhaps fun, but Bob doing something isn't fun when Bob decides he wants to exercise some control over the pacing of the game.  Bob is a player, too, and Bob should not be disenfranchised because you want to dicker around....or even because the GM wants to dicker around.



Hussar said:


> The problem with this approach is it can very quickly annoy the crap out of the other players.  They're trying to deal with a problem, taking more time than perhaps is fun, and Bloggins decides to go over and kick the statue.
> 
> Which then animates and kills Joe's character.
> 
> ...




As long as the GM has players who want to play his game, he is justified in running any game he wants.

As long as a player is still welcome in a game, he is justified in running his character any way he wants.

A wise GM doesn't wait until every player is gone before considering his game; a wise player doesn't wait until he is booted from every game before he considers his playing.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.


RC


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 29, 2010)

fireinthedust said:


> Example:
> 
> GM:  you see a sandstone statue of a man about two feet tall standing in front of the doorway.  It has a wicked grin with tiny sharp teeth carved into it, and an aztec-style head dress.  At its feet are dried oranges.  The door behind it is like the others in this dungeon, iron-bound wood with a gold lock below the doorknob.  What do you do?
> 
> ...





GM: If that is what you think is best.  (check for wandering monsters, rinse, repeat . . .)


----------



## Twichyboy (Nov 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Beginning of the End said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




I disagree with this statement, As a DM if i place the PC's in a room with a  puzzle and a wooden door thats magically locked, and the only way to actually open it according to the magic on the door is to solve the puzzle in the room, i should expect the players to solve the problem of going through the door, but not expect them to exactly solve the puzzle.

They should be able to decide, 
hey its only a wooden door, lets knock it down,

Lets dispel the door of the magic, maybe that would open it.

Lets leave the dungeon and try to find some sort of skeleton key that will open the door regardless of the puzzle being solved or not

lets head to town and pay someone to solve the puzzle for us

As a DM i don't have to plan for any of things to happen, but in theory, these should work whereas in a game like Myst, the only way would be to solve the puzzle, the puzzle is the room itself not the puzzle


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 29, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Actually, you're adding to what the OP said. fireinthedust never said he had nothing in mind about the statue et al.




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. 

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?"

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

I'm in a sandbox.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 29, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> However, there's a corollary issue, and this one is *directly* under the DM's control:She who takes the risk has to get the reward.  And what is this reward, you ask?
> 
> Experience points.



Experience points can be used as an explicit reward. They're certainly not the only form of reward. Nor are they even a requisite form of reward. The game works perfectly well when they aren't --at least for some folks. 



> New-school games tend to want to give everyone in the party the same ExP for a given encounter regardless of participation.



That's the way we roll (role?). 



> Or worse, there's those who don't bother with variable ExP at all and just bump everyone when they think it fits.



Yup -- the DM informs the party when they level. My group's been XP-fee for years!



> All this does, ultimately, is reward those players and-or characters who sit back and don't take risks!



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.

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? 

Sorry, a bit of a tangent this was...


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 29, 2010)

I think puzzle solving is being confused with the kind of pattern finding games use.  A Rubik's Cube has a single solution for every configuration possible.  If you know the solution, then you can solve the puzzle.

Games are slightly different.  Tic-Tac-Toe has a single objective, but there are multiple solutions to reach it.  The underlying pattern is relatively easy to see, all in all it's a pretty simple game, but it has multiple means for success.  3 X's or O's can be had in eight different ways.  More complex games like Chess have an exceptionally higher numbers.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 29, 2010)

In response to the original post...

... my first thought is: I'm pretty lucky. My friends are proactive gamers; let them loose in a setting and they'll have it it, or try to have their way with it, or something else adventurous and slightly unseemly.

... my second though is: Maybe the players in question simply aren't interested in the kind of challenges being put forth. Effing around with a statue puzzle isn't their idea of fun. 

Making this into a gaming-culture thing, or a generational thing, or a blame-assigning thing doesn't help. Start with the basic problem: the players aren't interested in what's going on in the game. If they're only interested in statues which animate and attack them, that tells you a lot about where their interests lie. You can try to present them with different challenges, but if they don't bite, there isn't much you can do other than graciously concede your gaming styles aren't compatible.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2010)

Mallus, good post.  Sorry I can't XP you for it.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 29, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Start with the basic problem: the players aren't interested in what's going on in the game. If they're only interested in statues which animate and attack them, that tells you a lot about where their interests lie. You can try to present them with different challenges, but if they don't bite, there isn't much you can do other than graciously concede your gaming styles aren't compatible.




There is an easy solution here. You hit them with so many vicious, biting, stomping statues that they start to beg for a statue that is just sitting there for decoration that they can stare at in enjoyment for a few minutes while bandaging their wounds.

If all the party wants is brutal combat give it to them and revel in the eventual TPK without an ounce of guilt. You get to have some guilty pleasure at your players expense and there is always the small possiblity that the players will learn from this and expand their enjoyment beyond endless hack and slash.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Nov 29, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> There is an easy solution here. You hit them with so many vicious, biting, stomping statues that they start to beg for a statue that is just sitting there for decoration that they can stare at in enjoyment for a few minutes while bandaging their wounds.
> 
> If all the party wants is brutal combat give it to them and revel in the eventual TPK without an ounce of guilt. You get to have some guilty pleasure at your players expense and there is always the small possiblity that the players will learn from this and expand their enjoyment beyond endless hack and slash.





That sounds extraordinarily *bold*. 

Or else my sarcasmometer is out of alignment today.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 29, 2010)

Sorrowdusk said:


> That sounds extraordinarily *bold*.
> 
> Or else my sarcasmometer is out of alignment today.




Only half so.

If your gaming for a group that is only interested in combat then you have to do things to make it interesting. More foes, less foes, easy combats, brutal combats, all one after another.

You just keep giving them what they want in ever larger quantites until they decide they want something else.

If all they want is grapes then you pile them babies on until their drowning in *&$%)&$ wine!!


----------



## Mallus (Nov 29, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> You get to have some guilty pleasure at your players expense and there is always the small possiblity that the players will learn from this and expand their enjoyment beyond endless hack and slash.



But some people really like hack-and-slash!

Just like some people like putting doggerel parodies of famous poems like _Kublai Khan_ and _The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock_ in their adventures.

(okay, so I might be alone in liking that... but a *lot* of people enjoy hack-and-slash.)


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Nov 29, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Only half so.
> 
> If your gaming for a group that is only interested in combat then you have to do things to make it interesting. More foes, less foes, easy combats, brutal combats, all one after another.
> 
> ...




Some people drink a several 40oz a day for 20-25 years.

But what would your approach be to the opposite situation? If a party were ONLY interested in politics or intrigues?


----------



## Krensky (Nov 29, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "Enough" is a slippery concept.  Tautilogically, this is true, but it is equally true to say "The players haven't responded enough to the hooks presented", or "The players are not proactive enough", or "The players are not able to make decisions" and be equally accurate.  Either way, the players are either not doing their job, or they're doing it wrong.




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. Right up until the minute the players leave the table, that is. Since the GM has the power, it's his problem and responsibility to take the lead in fixing these issues. Maybe it's a communication thing, maybe the GM needs to adjust his play style. Everyone has a responsibility to make sure that fun is had by all at the table, but as first among equals the GM has the greatest part of that since he controls the horizontal and the vertical.



Raven Crowking said:


> But both paragraphs -- yours and mine -- are equally meaningless for two reasons.  First, what is "enough" is left undefined, so that one can always then say, "Ah, but if you had done _*enough*_ things would be better."  Secondly, both paragraphs somehow imagine that what happens during actual game play is controlled exclusively from one side of the screen.
> 
> Both are, essentially, attempts to cop out on responsibility.




Enough is implicitly defined in my comment. Enough hooks is enough for the players to find one that grabs them. Your argument that it's undefined is just trying to confuse the issue by playing semantic games with a phrase that is perfectly clear in context.



Raven Crowking said:


> (I'm not going to quote and respond to all of your additional paraphrases of the same highly questionable point.  Suffice it to say that I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.)




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. One of the primary weaknesses of the 'pure' sandbox style is that it requires the players be completely self directing and self motivating. If they aren't the ball is in the GM's court. Either he needs to adjust his style or talk to the players about why they aren't. It's his (shared) responsibility to make sure everyone has fun. If some of the players aren't, it's his primary responsibility to address that issue. 



Raven Crowking said:


> As long as the GM has players who want to play his game, he is justified in running any game he wants.  That defines "enough".
> 
> As long as a player is still welcome in a game, he is justified in running his character any way he wants.  That defines "enough".
> 
> ...




Nothing I said runs counter to that.



Raven Crowking said:


> That _*you personally *_do not like sandbox games is immaterial.




You're right, it is. Especially since it's not true. I played in one for about a year until it folded due to the GM developing a case of parenthood, and I've played in another for the past... decade? I've lost count. I don't choose to run them because they do not scratch my GMing itch. You know what? I share players and with both those sandbox games without an issue.

What I dislike is the assertion that oh so scrupulously avoids calling the sandbox the one true way constantly beats the drum that they are a better, if not the best way to play.

Someone has an issue with a game with a narrative structure, "Run a sandbox and you won't have those problems." Someone asks for advice on running a mystery story arc, "You wouldn't have these problems if you ran a sand box." Someone has problems with their players not enjoying or playing in a sandbox, "Your players are are broken sheeple who you need to reeducate so then can appreciate the glorious sandbox that you are running."

The OP's players may be meat popsicles. He's tired everything with the possible exception of sitting down and talking with them about it. I say possible, because he didn't comment on that (or I missed it). They also may be bored and apathetic because they want more out of a GM then a keyed map, a monster manual, and a random encounter table. I don't know. If he hasn't talked with them about it, he's failing as a GM.

Sandboxes, despite peoples claims, are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in. They require the most preparation, the most player buy in, etc. That difficulty does not equate to superiority though. 



Raven Crowking said:


> So, if a player wants to do something, the GM slaps him down until the GM says its okay?




No. While the GM can do that, and the player's only real defense is to walk away, they shouldn't. By it's very nature, the player side of the screen can only effect change or take action if the GM allows it. The GM should allow it pretty much as a matter of course, but it still only happens because the GM allows it. As I said above, the hand the rules least rules best and the GM is best served by viewing himself as first among equals rather then absolute tyrant.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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.



Beginning of the End said:


> 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?



Beginning of the End said:


> 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.



Beginning of the End said:


> I'm in a sandbox.




And those aren't Lincoln Logs.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 30, 2010)

double post


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





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 (Nov 30, 2010)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2010)

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


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 30, 2010)

Krensky said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2010)

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 (Nov 30, 2010)

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 (Nov 30, 2010)

Krensky said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2010)

So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:

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 _save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character._​
Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic?  If someone has 99% of the power, saying that he doesn't have all the power, while factually accurate, is not exactly the whole truth.

Krensky's point that the DM controls 99% of the game, up to and including changing any rule he or she feels like changing at any point in time, disregarding die rolls and declaring any player dead at any point in time, does pretty much mean that the DM has all the power.

Granted, a DM likely won't exercise the ridiculous examples I put up there in the paragraph above, but, that doesn't mean that he can't.  I've seen people on this forum absolutely defend any DM's right to veto any and all player ideas for any reason the DM sees fit, including, "I don't like that, you can't have it."

Or, to put it another way, that DM can declare that there are no elves in his world.  As a player, you have two choices, accept that, or refuse to play.  

Again, how does the DM not have (almost) all the power at the table?


----------



## C_M2008 (Nov 30, 2010)

I run a sandbox game so I felt that maybe I should chime in here.

My game is sort of a blend of a sandbox game and a story based game, if I had to define it in in a phrase I would call it an evolving sandbox.

The players are free to do whatever they want in the setting, they have many possible hooks of every type (puzzle, hack, treasure, intrigue, etc) based on what I know my players tend to like. All the players also have individual goals to pursue that they can get themselves imbroiled in if they choose. 
However the villains of the setting aren't just going to sit back and do squat while the heroes go off chasing their goals. The villains will make progress towards their goals if the heroes don't intervene - the players have some leads to these things, some subtle, some obvious.

Meanwhile settlements change overtime as monsters make trouble, immigrants come in, trade improves, disaster strikes, etc.

The majority of the setting changes rotate around the players, although some are determined by NPC plots or random tables(the DM).
I also give the players further agency by giving the players "Narrative Points" - basically several times per session the players can use these to change the details of the setting in some way, choose how an NPC reacts, decide what that ancient piece of lore is, have a contact for information they need & etc. It's a relatively new introduction in my game, but so far it has met with solid reviews from my players.

The players can have an exceptionally large amount of power in a game if the DM is willing to hand over some of the reins - I will admit this game has required an insane amount of initial prep and the willingness to let the players "murder my baby" (which can be hard to let go of at times) but it has been worth it so far.

Just a bit of insight into how a give & take relationship with the players (who are also my friends - hopefully the case in most groups)  - I'll let this get back to its regularly scheduled argument.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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?
> 
> ...





No problem with anything you've said here... but I do want to point out that what is true of D&D is not necessarily true of how other games work.  There are many games in which you could indeed claim to be a prince or an avatar of a diety, and it would indeed grant you tangible benefits -benefits which are just as supported as the rules for magic swords and hacking through goblins.  Likewise, there are games in which you could indeed have some amount of control over NPCs by having hirelings or gaining allies; alternatively, skills such as propaganda, diplomacy, and various other things can be used.


----------



## Krensky (Nov 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> No. He doesn't.
> 
> Once your understand that, you will understand your error.




I'll try this one more time.

When a table forms, the pool their agency together and transfer it to the GM. The GM controls essentially all the power at the table. The GM controls everything other the the players directly. The GM can control the players indirectly, even though he shouldn't. Every action and choice a player makes occurs only because the GM allows it. The GM can disallow anything a player chooses. Now, this is an abuse of the power the table has invested in them, but the only true power the players have to change a situation where the GM acts as a tyrant rather then the first of equals is to leave, or to threaten to leave, the table.

Further commentary on why this is so or more useful, generalized, examples would run afoul of the politics ban.



Beginning of the End said:


> 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.




I'm not excluding the middle. I'm quite aware of the principle, both as a logical rule and a logical fallacy. Focusing on the ends is not excluding the middle. Besides, isn't your sandbox good, railroad bad stance 'ignoring' far more of the middle?



Beginning of the End said:


> 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.




Apples and oranges. Well, not your opinion about prep. Of course a non-linear game doesn't have the same potential problems as a linear one. It has it's own. It doesn't make either one better though.



Beginning of the End said:


> Okay, the truth is that I'm really not sure what to say to you at this point.




Maybe you should try reading what I've written, rather then what you want me to have written?



Beginning of the End said:


> 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.




Stow the bias. What I said was that the OP never said anything about the statue. It might be a trap, it might be a puzzle, it might be a red herring. Frankly, which it is is immaterial to his point. You, however keep insisting that there is nothing to figure out about the statue, which is both a relatively unimportant, tangential issue and unsupported by the evidence. Also, just because there is a 'secret' to the statue doesn't mean there's only one solution. Heck, it doesn't mean there's even a solution at all (in the sense that there's nothing to solve).



Beginning of the End said:


> 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".




Perhaps your sand box bias is causing you to fill in the OP's description as confirming to your world view, rather then taking it for what it is. Maybe it's further causing you to read things into me arguments that I haven't said.



Beginning of the End said:


> 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.




Try abandoning you bias toward sandboxes and then rereading what I actually wrote.



Beginning of the End said:


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




Sure, despite it's loaded terminology.



Beginning of the End said:


> *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.




Lots of democracies have monarchs. The UK, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Canada, etc. Of course you analogy is so heavily slanted and biased I question it's validity in the first place.



Beginning of the End said:


> *Krensky*: You're adding stuff to the OP. He didn't say anything a bout there not being any kings.




He didn't.



Beginning of the End said:


> *BotE*: When you vote, you don't need royal surcoats.




And here's where either you analogy or argument falls apart. Your answer is a non-sequitur since the issue isn't if you need a monarch in a democracy, it's whether the OP's proposal excludes them.

Or, to return to point, the simple fact that I pointed out that your claim that the statue has no 'secret' is unsupported by the original post or the follow ups. You may want it to not have a 'secret' since that's how you run your sandbox, but it's not how everyone plays, not even every sandbox GM.




Beginning of the End said:


> *Krensky*: Uh huh. The OP never said there wouldn't be a king. Way to construct a cute dismissal of an inconvenient argument.




Your actual commentary that elucidated that quote was far sillier and had far less content.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2010)

Krensky said:


> 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.




I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.

A _*novelist*_ has all the power at the keyboard.  

A _*GM*_ is part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and maintain background, including NPCs, monsters, and various adventuring sites/adventures; run the game fairly; try to make play at the table balanced and fun) are balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over background; control over rules).

A _*player*_ is also part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned) is balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over character creation, except where rules or background might be involved; absolute control over character play, except where rules are involved).

Both player and GM have an absolute right to seek out any sort of game that they might prefer; both GM and player have an absolute right to not engage in any sort of game that they do not enjoy.

If the players are sitting around bored, both the responsibilities of the GM and the responsibilities of the players have not been met.  Trying to say that it is all the fault of one person is a dodge.



> Enough is implicitly defined in my comment. Enough hooks is enough for the players to find one that grabs them. Your argument that it's undefined is just trying to confuse the issue by playing semantic games with a phrase that is perfectly clear in context.




No, it is not, because there is no counter to it.  There is nothing to test what "enough" means apart from the result.

If I say, "Enough water can balance a 20-pound weight", the term "enough" has exact meaning.  Twenty pounds of water will balance a 20-pound weight.  If I say, "You need enough Vitamin D in your diet for good health", there are recommended daily allowances that the term "enough" can be compared to.

If I say, instead, "A hot enough temperature will bring the dead back to life" the statement is tautologically true.  If the dead do not come back to life, clearly it is not hot enough.  That there is no way in which "hot enough" can be tested or measured apart from the dead coming back to life makes it analogous to your statement.  

"Enough" has no meaning.  The statement exists merely to assign blame.  The players are disenfranchised (they have no power to make the game fun, because "the GM has all the power at the table") and they are stripped of all responsibility to run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned.

It is a dodge, and it is a dodge of the worst possible sort.  (IMHO, of course.)

I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.

I also "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".

But, then, I embrace a gaming philosophy that balances rights and responsibilities at the table, and shares them based upon the needs of the game.  This is, perhaps, a foreign concept to some.



> One of the primary weaknesses of the 'pure' sandbox style is that it requires the players be completely self directing and self motivating.




This 'pure' sandbox style must be an invention of yours.  I am not aware of any gaming philosophy that requires the GM to avoid giving the players hooks to potential action, encounters, context, and/or consequences to their actions.



> What I dislike is the assertion that oh so scrupulously avoids calling the sandbox the one true way constantly beats the drum that they are a better, if not the best way to play.




Good grief.  I hope that you are aware that any statement about subjective values is, by its very nature, subjective.  If I say "Chocolate ice cream is best" it does not imply that _*you*_ believe it is best, or that you *must* believe it is best.  It only implies that _*I*_ believe it is best.  The poster ought not to require "IMHO" in mile-high flaming letters.



> Someone has an issue with a game with a narrative structure, "Run a sandbox and you won't have those problems." Someone asks for advice on running a mystery story arc, "You wouldn't have these problems if you ran a sand box."




Often true, though.  Every form of gaming has its own benefits, and its own difficulties.  IME, most players do enjoy a well-run sandbox more than anything else.....and while my sample set is not universal, it does run into several hundred players in multiple US states and Canada.  YMMV.  Obviously, Your Experience May Vary, too.  But, if I give advice to someone saying they have problem X, it is going to be based on how I solve problem X.  If that advice doesn't strike the other person as useful, so be it.

Obviously.

Just as it ought to be obvious that, to a person who enjoys narrative games more, the solutions proposed are going to be along the lines of "Y solves X", where Y is a solution that works well in a narrative game.

Really, though, I find it difficult to reconcile your claim of having played in or run, and enjoyed playing in or running, a sandbox with the definition you give for a sandbox.  A sandbox is not a flat, featureless plane.  At least not as I -- or anyone I know -- uses the term.

If you believe that a sandbox is a game where the players are required to be "be completely self directing and self motivating" one has to wonder why you also believe that sandboxes "are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in. They require the most preparation, the most player buy in, etc."?

After all, the creation of anything that interacts with the players would seem to prevent them from being "completely self directing and self motivating".  AFAICT, the only job for the GM in a "pure" sandbox, as you define it, is rules adjudication!





Hussar said:


> So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:
> 
> 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 _save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character._​
> Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic?




No.

In any game that anyone is likely to remain in long, the focus of play is clearly on the decisions the players make concerning their individual characters.  The "99% of the power" that the GM has is exercised to provide context for those choices, and to describe/evaluate the consequences of those choices.  Those choices, though, are the focus.

This is true in a sandbox.  This is true in a narrative game.

Trying to narrow this complex social interaction into "The GM has all the power" or even "The GM has 99% of the power", though, results in an extremely skewed view of what actually occurs during game play.

For instance, even that "99% of the power" is meaningless.  99% of what power?  The power to control game play is shared.  Bored players can simply do something.  A bored GM can simply throw an enemy at the PCs.  If the bored player discovers that the GM will not allow her to do anything, or that anything she chooses to do has no consequence, the solution is clear.  Find (or make) a new game.

The power to control PC interactions, except in the case of Charm spells and the like, is entirely in the players' court.  If the bored GM discovers that the players simply will not react to anything she introduces, the solution is clear.  Find new players, or change what you are running.



> Again, how does the DM not have (almost) all the power at the table?




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



RC


----------



## Mallus (Nov 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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...



Heh... our theories and practices are mixed up. In my experience, the reason players _play_ is for the chance to act out imaginary daring-do. There's a reason these games tend to model various forms of adventure fiction, and not other potentially lucrative acts like investment banking or Powerball-playing. 

That some players would actively avoid these dangerous acts is like someone agreeing to play a soccer match w/friends and then spending the entire afternoon sitting on the sideline. Different strokes and all, but this is kinda weird.



> ... 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.



What does 'bask in the fame and fortune' even mean in this context? How much game time can you spend basking in virtual praise, for imaginary acts your avatar didn't _actually_ pretend-accomplish, or spending imaginary wealth on imaginary vices, products, and services? "OK, so your PC is stuffed to the rafters with ale and whores, and owns a Bentley, which is strange because they won't be invented for a few hundred years. Now what?" I've never seen a campaign play out like this. 



> So what's my incentive to keep taking risks and-or to keep things moving?



Well, my solution, should I ever DM for such creatures, would be to devote very little game time to the, ahem, _reticent_ players imaginary shopping sprees and fame-whoring. The vast majority of the game would be spent on the dangerous stuff. If they didn't take the hint, I'd ask them to go...


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:
> 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 _save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character._​Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic?




If you can't figure out how controlling the protagonists in a story gives you the ability to strongly influence the pace and content of the story, I can't really help you. We've reached a level of "self-evident" at which I'm not clear on how to further elucidate you.



> Krensky's point that the DM controls 99% of the game, up to and  including changing any rule he or she feels like changing at any point  in time, disregarding die rolls and declaring any player dead at any  point in time, does pretty much mean that the DM has all the power.




Well, yes. If a GM wants to lead their players around by the nose and make their choices for them (or negate the choices that they do make), then the players won't be able to wield power through their choices. But I urge you to take a long, hard look at the title of this thread and consider that you have now boiled the conversation down to:

*fireinthesky*: I don't want to lead my players around by the nose.
*Hussar*: That's your fault because you won't lead your players around by the nose.



Krensky said:


> When a table forms, the pool their agency together and transfer it to the GM.  The GM controls essentially all the power at the table.




No. Seriously. Stop. Is there any way to make you re-evaluate this fundamentally dysfunctional premise?

As I've said before, I'm fully willing to accept that there are gaming tables at which the GM wields complete and absolute power. (In fact, my original post in this thread relies upon that being true.) Are you in any way capable of accepting that not all gaming tables work like that?

Because if you are really unwilling or incapable of widening your narrow view of how RPGs can be played, then there's really nothing more to be discussed. I've got better things to do than chatting with a blind man who refuses to believe that other people are capable of sight.



> You, however keep insisting that there is nothing to figure out about  the statue, which is both a relatively unimportant, tangential issue and  unsupported by the evidence.




This, BTW, is not what I wrote (your efforts at increasingly selective quoting notwithstanding).


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:
> 
> 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 _save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character._​
> Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic?  If someone has 99% of the power, saying that he doesn't have all the power, while factually accurate, is not exactly the whole truth.
> ...




Yes it does mean he cant. A DM is nothing without a group of willing players. Attempts to do anything you mentioned above will 99 times out of 100 result in a player revolt and 4 to 1, 5 to 1, or 6 to 1 goes in favor of the player. Remember if a DM pisses off his entire group then they can leave and if they want to chose one of their own as a new DM. The DM on the other hand has to go find a new group or form a new group will to accept him as DM.

Both the players and the DM have the same amount of power to basically nuke the game, beyond that neither has any more power than the other. Both need the other to have a game. A DM may in theory have the ability to ignore rules, etc, etc, but any attempt to use that power without a damn good reason will in most cases result in any number of players leaving.

I will caveat this with my opinion that a DM is not the final arbitrator of the rules. If 5 players read a rule the same way and the DM reads it a different way then the players win. End of story.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 30, 2010)

Tone down the arguing please guys. It is getting a little personal, and we don't want that. Thanks.


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> "Attack the chancelor because I'm bored" is about the worst kind of role play I can imagine.




I had a 2e gaming group that was like that. Running them at the time was always a frustrating experience, but when I look back on it, I can't help but laugh about it. When one of the players got bored or didn't think there was enough mayhem, they did these things.

For example, one guy played a halfling rogue who was about a much of a blood-thirsty wannabe assassin he could be without having to list evil as his alignment. The party is in a dungeon and they are sort of trapped because they all went around opening as many doors as possible and letting things out at the same time. So when the group was taking five minutes to discuss what to do next, he simply opens the door and they have to fight it out with the various vermin on the other side.

Of course, the event that led up to them getting stuck in the dungeon was that they were on the run from a village that formed a mob. The guy's wife played a barbarian and she refused to give up her weapons to enter the village. The constable said, "Suit yourself, you can't come into the village grounds." She attacks and kills the constable. She, as a player, didn't want to roleplay or comply as she thought that was boring. When the other village militia arrive to provide help, the party kills them too and then the village forms a mob at which they players fled. This killed my whole "You arrive in a village and they need your aid with something" adventure.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 30, 2010)

kitsune9 said:


> Of course, the event that led up to them getting stuck in the dungeon was that they were on the run from a village that formed a mob. The guy's wife played a barbarian and she refused to give up her weapons to enter the village. The constable said, "Suit yourself, you can't come into the village grounds." She attacks and kills the constable. She, as a player, didn't want to roleplay or comply as she thought that was boring. When the other village militia arrive to provide help, the party kills them too and then the village forms a mob at which they players fled. This killed my whole "You arrive in a village and they need your aid with something" adventure.




I have yet to find a good solution (as a DM) to the wannabe anarchist player who does all the things in game they cannot in real life, nor the suicidal player who doesnt care how long their character lasts since they think character creation is fun. 

On the other hand as a player I have solved this problem easily. 

Had a similar situation to the bored female barbarian who decides to commit first degree murder. Our situation was the barbarian who didnt want to pay his bar tab at a tavern in a sleepy town. So he killed the tavern owner over a reasonable bill and started to walk out. Playing the party cleric I Held Person the barbarian then crushed his skull with my mace, then paid let the tavern owners wife have the barbarians money.

The player of the barbarian was a second hand friend in the group and a bit shocked. But I said clearly that he had commited murder and paid the price for it. then I said if he had a problem out of character then he shouldnt roleplay as a psychotic idiot in what is supposed to be a heroic campaign of good aligned characters.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 30, 2010)

Mallus said:


> What does 'bask in the fame and fortune' even mean in this context? How much game time can you spend basking in virtual praise, for imaginary acts your avatar didn't _actually_ pretend-accomplish, or spending imaginary wealth on imaginary vices, products, and services? "OK, so your PC is stuffed to the rafters with ale and whores, and owns a Bentley, which is strange because they won't be invented for a few hundred years. Now what?" I've never seen a campaign play out like this.



"Bask in the fame and fortune" = become local heroes, get feted by the local nobility, have cash to buy or commission better gear (magical or otherwise) than they'd otherwise have, and all in all be better prepared for the next adventure.

An example:
A party of 4 characters, let's call them Alpha, Brave, Coward, and Douche.  Each goes in to the adventure owning 1000 g.p. worth of gear; the party finds another 6000 g.p. during the adventure.  Normally, each PC would end up* with a total of 1000 + (6000 / 4 = 1500) = 2500 g.p. worth of stuff.

But Alpha and Brave, being what they are, both died in the field.  Coward and Douche, being what they are, are now going to get back to town with 10000 g.p. worth of stuff - they each had 1000, Alpha and Brave each had 1000, plus the 6000 from the dungeon - and so each now has 5000.  They gear themselves up, then go out and recruit two more adventurers - this time called Eager and Foolish - and the process repeats.

* - for discussion purposes and to keep the math simple, I'm ignoring item loss-consumption-etc.

The DM pretty much has to run Coward and Douche, as they have become the party.  The game grinds to a halt halfway through the next adventure, however, once Eager and Foolish catch on and start emulating C and D.

So how can Alpha and Brave be rewarded for their risk-taking while Coward and Douche are held back, particularly in a game or system that does not use variable experience points?

Lan-"occasionally, an Alpha-Brave type survives.  My PCs are living proof"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 30, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> I have yet to find a good solution (as a DM) to the wannabe anarchist player who does all the things in game they cannot in real life, nor the suicidal player who doesnt care how long their character lasts since they think character creation is fun.



Whe the whole game's like that, it's not really a problem. 



> ...supposed to be a heroic campaign of good aligned characters.



Heroic?  Good aligned?  There's yer first problems, right there... 

Lan-"any heroism I may achieve is merely a random side effect of the chaos I create"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> No problem with anything you've said here... but I do want to point out that what is true of D&D is not necessarily true of how other games work.  There are many games in which you could indeed claim to be a prince or an avatar of a diety, and it would indeed grant you tangible benefits -benefits which are just as supported as the rules for magic swords and hacking through goblins.  Likewise, there are games in which you could indeed have some amount of control over NPCs by having hirelings or gaining allies; alternatively, skills such as propaganda, diplomacy, and various other things can be used.




Oh totally.  Yes.  I certainly didn't want to imply that there were games which didn't provide players with this level of authorial control over the campaign.

Just that D&D isn't one of them.

I'm still rather confused how BOTE can think that the DM doesn't control the game and have all the power.  

Player:  I jump over the pit.
DM: Roll a check, DC 15
Player:  I rolled a 12
DM:  You fall in the pit.

At what point did the player have ANY power?  The player at no point can declare any action completed.  Heck, the DM can arbitrarily jack up the DC to make success impossible.

When does the player get the power to reduce the DC without the DM's say so?


----------



## Krensky (Dec 1, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> No. Seriously. Stop. Is there any way to make you re-evaluate this fundamentally dysfunctional premise?




You might start by responding to the rest of the paragraph and the argument there in to show me how my understanding is flawed.



Beginning of the End said:


> As I've said before, I'm fully willing to accept that there are gaming tables at which the GM wields complete and absolute power. (In fact, my original post in this thread relies upon that being true.) Are you in any way capable of accepting that not all gaming tables work like that?




Pretty much all gaming tables the a traditional split of GM and Player responsibility work as I described. The GMs power derives from players choosing to allow the potential of absolute power. The only power they truly retain is to walk away. The most important aspect of a GM's job is to limit his exercise of power. To act as the first among equals rather then a tyrant. Which is an element of my argument you keep leaving out of your quotes.



Beginning of the End said:


> Because if you are really unwilling or incapable of widening your narrow view of how RPGs can be played, then there's really nothing more to be discussed. I've got better things to do than chatting with a blind man who refuses to believe that other people are capable of sight.




Why does an honest (albeit simple) assessment of power structures at the gaming table make me narrow minded? I'm willing to accept you don't feel the GM has absolute power as long as the players allow it. I'm even willing to entertain counter arguments and adjust my position based on them. Assuming their more then ad hominems and non-sequitors. Heck, I've been doing that despite them.



Beginning of the End said:


> This, BTW, is not what I wrote (your efforts at increasingly selective quoting notwithstanding).




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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Player:  I jump over the pit.
> DM: Roll a check, DC 15
> Player:  I rolled a 12
> DM:  You fall in the pit.
> ...




_*Player:  I jump over the pit.*_

Alternatively:

Player:  I am thinking about jumping the pit.  How hard does it look to me?
DM: As far as you can tell, about a DC 15.
Player:  Would a running jump help?  How deep is the pit?  Maybe I could find something to use as a pole-vault.....


etc.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> At what point did the player have ANY power?  The player at no point can declare any action completed.  Heck, the DM can arbitrarily jack up the DC to make success impossible.
> 
> When does the player get the power to reduce the DC without the DM's say so?




The conclusion (that the player has no power) doesn't follow the evidence (that the player lacks certain specific powers).

"I do not have the power to fly; therefore I have no power.  Therefore, I cannot have the power to walk."


----------



## BryonD (Dec 1, 2010)

Back in the 2E days I had a player announce that he had read a cool article about running dragons and wanted to DM a session for us.

Unsurprisingly, we encounter a dragon almost immediately, but that was ok because we knew we were just doing a one-off fight e the dragon thing anyway....

Round 1 dragon swoops down and grabs the wizard flies up and then smashes the wizard to the ground, killing him  (no dice were rolled)

End of round 1, players exert their power: we walked away from the table.




In the end I think the whole debate comes down to less extreme examples of this.  I am quite confident that the standard presumption is that the players/characters DO have significant influence and control over the destiny.  And the PLAYERS have the power to dictate that they will only play in a game that actually provides rewarding fun.

A ham-fisted DM certainly has, however fleetingly, the authority to completely suck at DMing.  So what?  Does it really matter?  Bad players, on either side of the screen, will ruin a game.  This is not news.


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.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Whe the whole game's like that, it's not really a problem.
> 
> Heroic?  Good aligned?  There's yer first problems, right there...
> 
> Lan-"any heroism I may achieve is merely a random side effect of the chaos I create"-efan




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. 

The campaign at the time was heroic, or at least non-evil, in focus. The player in question was being an ***hole and I happily smacked him down both in and out of game.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 1, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> The player of the barbarian was a second hand friend in the group and a bit shocked. But I said clearly that he had commited murder and paid the price for it. then I said if he had a problem out of character then he shouldnt roleplay as a psychotic idiot in what is supposed to be a heroic campaign of good aligned characters.




Awesome way to play it out!

For this group back in the day, they weren't my kind of players. I probably should have obliged them more by having them hunted by more powerful groups of adventuring parties and the Harpers (we were playing Forgotten Realms) given their penchant for chaos and mayhem. 

However, the more serious charge of me leaving this group was that they all cheated constantly on the die rolls during the last session I ran for them. One player would grab the die before it finished rolling and say it's a "20". I had frequent arguments about him on it and he didn't relent. The guy who played the halfling rogue was always adding modifiers where his rolls where always up in the upper 20's and when I confronted him about it, he would tell me that his math is good. I wanted to audit his character sheet and he refused and he was prepared to physically fight me over it. His wife was just as bad. So I packed up my stuff and left.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 1, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Dec 1, 2010)

Krensky said:


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




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 (Dec 1, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Your point being?



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

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


----------



## Krensky (Dec 1, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


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




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



Beginning of the End said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2010)

Krensky said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2010)

BryonD said:


> /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.
> ...




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?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 2, 2010)

Dausuul 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?




The pellet with the poison's in the Krensky with the Penske. The brew that is true is the quote in a boat.

Why a boat?

Because it'll hurt more.

[SIZE=-2](Do we feel that putting something I didn't say into a quote box was Krensky revealing that he was pranking us all along? Or just clueless irony?)[/SIZE]



Mal Malenkirk said:


> 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.




Face, meet palm.

This is actually kind of fascinating to me. I've certainly encountered players in real life who have a predilection towards being led around by the nose, but the belief being professed by several different people in this thread that *all* action *must* originate with the GM is truly _bizarre_ to me. Surely no one actually plays the game this way? I'm having difficulty even imagining what playing at a game table like that must look like.

Of course, you're also claiming that your GM speaks at the rate of 1 word every 5 seconds. I'm finding that kind of difficult to believe, too. (The average rate of speech is 12x faster than that.)

Here we see the end of the beginning of the end in this thread. Too much borderline obnoxious behaviour ends up in threadbanning, especially since I've made a general warning in this thread earlier.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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.




Let's take this same example and actually remove all the power the player has:

......

Man, that's boring.

Okay, let's instead transfer the power the player has and give it to the GM:

GM: You see a pit. You try to jump over it. Make your jump check.
Player: 12.
GM: You fall in the pit. Take 13 points of damage.

Or I suppose we could take a peek at Malenkirk's table:

GM: You see a pit. What do you?
Player: (picks his nose) I dunno... Umm... I guess I make a Dungeoneering check to try to figure out whatever you had in mind for the pit. (rolls dice) 15.
GM: You should try jumping over the pit.
Player: Okay. I do that.
GM: Make your jump check.
Player: 12.
GM: You fall in the pit. Take 13 points of damage.

How many different ways do we need to spell out the word "choice" before you acknowledge it?


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Dec 2, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Face, meet palm.
> 
> This is actually kind of fascinating to me. I've certainly encountered players in real life who have a predilection towards being led around by the nose, but the belief being professed by several different people in this thread that *all* action *must* originate with the GM is truly _bizarre_ to me. Surely no one actually plays the game this way? I'm having difficulty even imagining what playing at a game table like that must look like.




1-The expression 'Face, meet palm' is juvenile.  

2-If the DM has described a pointless courtyard, he _is_ leading his PCs by by the nose.  He led them into a pointless courtyard.  Because I guarantee you, I didn't ask to go there!  If the DM had listened to me, I'd be at court, or hunting a beast or whatever feels right.

3-I never professed all actions originate from the DM.  The scene originates from the DM.  The Players act in it.  If the DM sets boring scene, you got a problem.  

I keep saying I would want out of such a useless scene as fast as humanly possible and you keep saying I like being led by the nose.  Let's say I cared about your approval, how could I earn it?  Have my PC sit down under the tree, eat an apple and start singing?  How is having my PC immediately lockpicking the door and getting away from that courtyard where nothing is happening the equivalent of 'wanting to be led by the nose'?  



> Of course, you're also claiming that your GM speaks at the rate of 1 word every 5 seconds. I'm finding that kind of difficult to believe, too. (The average rate of speech is 12x faster than that.)




Hum... feels like a situation where a certain juvenile expression could come in handy.


----------



## Krensky (Dec 2, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> The pellet with the poison's in the Krensky with the Penske. The brew that is true is the quote in a boat.
> 
> Why a boat?
> 
> ...




Ah, petty insults. Nonsensical ones at that.

Thank you for proving my point.

My statements beliefs are completely honest and sincere, and are formed from years of experience gaming and of study of the nature of power in politics and other human relationships. I reduced your comment to 'stuff' because, frankly, there was no point in answering them since I'm sure you'd find some other way to avoid actually responding to the arguments I made.

Sadly, people tend to reject honest discussion of the nature of power since the lies told to them by the powerful are so comforting.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> 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.



Consider for a moment that I'm a guy who never saw anything but the movies, liked the first one and the scenes on Bespin in the second but thought the rest of the film series was dreck, never read a single written word about Han Solo in any of the novels or comic books, and didn't watch the Christmas special.

Then re-read my statement in context, which is to say, _both_ sentences.

Now tell me, was there really anything not clear about my meaning?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 2, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> This is actually kind of fascinating to me. I've certainly encountered players in real life who have a predilection towards being led around by the nose, but the belief being professed by several different people in this thread that *all* action *must* originate with the GM is truly _bizarre_ to me. Surely no one actually plays the game this way? I'm having difficulty even imagining what playing at a game table like that must look like.





Mal Malenkirk said:


> 2-If the DM has described a pointless courtyard, he _is_ leading his PCs by by the nose.  He led them into a pointless courtyard.  Because I guarantee you, I didn't ask to go there!  If the DM had listened to me, I'd be at court, or hunting a beast or whatever feels right.
> 
> 3-I never professed all actions originate from the DM.  The scene originates from the DM.  The Players act in it.  If the DM sets boring scene, you got a problem.
> 
> I keep saying I would want out of such a useless scene as fast as humanly possible and you keep saying I like being led by the nose.  Let's say I cared about your approval, how could I earn it?  Have my PC sit down under the tree, eat an apple and start singing?  How is having my PC immediately lockpicking the door and getting away from that courtyard where nothing is happening the equivalent of 'wanting to be led by the nose'?



Mal, your reply here makes sense to me.

The way I approach the game (almost always as a GM) is this: the players don't only want their PCs to act - they want their PCs to act in a way that is meaningul both from the ingame perspective, and from their own out-of-game/metagame/gameplaying perspective.

Therefore, as a GM, when I design a part of the gameworld - a place, a creature, an NPC, a nefarious plot, whatever it might be - and whether I do that in advance or (as often happens given my frequent lack of prep time) on the fly, I try to make sure both (i) that it gives the PCs an opportunity to act - a pit to jump, a lock to pick, a statue to investigate, or whatever it might be - and (ii) that in undertaking these sorts of actions the PCs will have made and acted on a decision that is meaningful in both the sense noted above.

That doesn't mean that I've predetermined what the players' or PCs' responses will be.

For example, if I have a player whose PC is a priest of the Raven Queen, then when it comes time to stick a random statue in a crypt and describe it to the players I am more likely to choose a statue of Orcus than a statue of Melora because not only does a statue of Orcus provide the same range of actions as a statue of Melora - break it, look under it, cover it in a shroud, walk on past it indifferently, etc - but it provides an additinal range of options, such as channeling divine power from the Raven Queen to cleanse, and it also means that whichever action the player has his/her PC take, the consequences are likely to be meaningful for that player - because by choosing to play a priest of the Raven Queen, the player has signalled that elements of the game dealing with death and undeath are meaningful to him/her.

When I think of the GM's role in originating scenes in D&D, this is the sort of thing I think of. (Other games have more formal rules for linking the setting of the scene to various elements of the PCs, either by directly empowering the players in scene setting or by obliging the GM to include certain elements that are drawn from the PCs. D&D doesn't.)

I know from experience that it is possible to run a sandboxy game in which the constraints on scene-setting are derived more heavily from considerations of gameworld consistency, hence making metagame considerations - such as what the players might find interesting - less important. Also in my experience, this sort of game obliges the players to work harder to "find the adventure" - if they want to find statues of Orcus to respond to, they will have to hunt out the Orcus cult rather than rely upon the GM making sure an Orcus statue turns up in the very next crypt visited.

I used to prefer this sort of play because I though it better served a goal of verisimilitude. I also played a game that tended to encourage this sort of play through its action resolution system (Rolemaster). Now I tend to dislike it for the sorts of reasons that Mal gives in the quote above. I like to frame scenes a bit more aggressively in order to cut straight to the chase (or at least to my best guess of where the chase might be found - every GM can have a bad day where you think a scene will excite the players but in fact it doesn't).

I think this issue of sandbox approach to scene framing vs more metagame-y aprroaches to scene framing is pretty orthogonal to the issue of player power or leading players by the nose. In a good sandbox, the GM has a large degree of power, because they tend (in the typical sandbox game) to describe the world and adjudicate attempts by the PCs to move through it. The players obviously have some power - they can initiate actions for their PCs. In a sandbox game in which powerful scrying and movement magic is available, the players gain more power as their PCs have a much wide field of action within the gameworld.

In a good game with hard scene framing the GM has a large degree of power, because they get to originate the scenes, but the players also have some power - they have a major influence over how any given scene resolves, and they also have at least indirect influence over scene framing in the first place, because a good GM will be building scenes that pick up on elements of the PCs that the players are keen to explore further in the game.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I certainly didn't want to imply that there were games which didn't provide players with this level of authorial control over the campaign.
> 
> Just that D&D isn't one of them.



I don't entirely agree with this. At least as I read the 4e PHB, players get to choose a race, a class, a paragon path and an epic destiny for their PC. This all sets some parameters on the gameworld, which the GM is not free just to ignore.

I know some people contend that the GM is always free to veto any given race, class, PP or ED. But this isn't written into the PHB. (It may be in Essentials. I haven't seen those players' books. If it is, it would be yet another reason why I like the technical design of Essentials but dislike the feel of the RPG it describes.)

The 4e rules (in Essentials as much as the earlier books) also make it pretty clear that it is up to the players to choose quests for their PCs to pursue, and that when conflicting quests are on offer the players get to choose between them. This pretty much presupposes that the players have some degree of power in resolving the situation, just as much as it presupposes that the GM has a high degree of power in setting up the situation ("originating the scene", as Mal put it upthread).



Hussar said:


> I'm still rather confused how BOTE can think that the DM doesn't control the game and have all the power.
> 
> Player:  I jump over the pit.
> DM: Roll a check, DC 15
> ...



I think that part of the point of 4e's DC-by-level guidelines and skill challenge rules is to put constraints on this sort of exercise of GM power. So if the players chooses to have his/her PC jump over the pit (which, as others have said, is itself a type of exercise of power) then the GM is not free to arbitrarily jack up the DC. And the maximum number of succcesses that can be required in the context of a serious non-combat challenge is 12 before 3 failures.

There is some stuff in the DMG2 that contradicts this, canvassing the setting of DCs by the GM at high or low levels in order to facilitate plot development (bizarrely enough, written by Robin Laws) but no effort is made to explain how to integrate those remarks (which are much more apposite to HeroQuest and its systematic mechanical approach to the pass/fail cycle) with the standard 4e mechanics. So I prefer to treat them as non-canonical!

EDITED TO ADD: If, as GM, you think the game will be better - more interesting, speaking more immediately to the players' metagame concerns, giving the players a more engaging field of action for their PCs - by having them fall into the pit, then don't tell them they see a pit, get them to roll, and then retrospectively set the DC so that they fail. Originate the scene with the PCs at the bottom of the pit! Conversely, if you're pretty sure your players don't want to play in a game, or a session, or whatever where they start at the bottom of the pit, then you should be letting them use the action resolution mechanics to avoid that outcome, which makes fudging or abitrary jacking up of DCs redundant. And if you can't think of anything interesting happening if they cross the pit (or, conversely, if they fall into it) then what the hell was the pit doing in the gameworld in the first place?

(This is the Trail of Cthuhlu approach to investigation - the players find the clues if they arrive up on the scene, and the real action is in interpretation/elaboration of those clues - transposed to an action/adventure game like D&D. If a given event is a necessary condition of action or adventure, then it's not something that should be left to the vagaries of the action resolution mechanics. And there shouldn't be any need to pretend otherwise.)


----------



## Jacob Marley (Dec 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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:
> 
> ...




In this particular scenario, what power does the DM have? As far as I can tell, the DM set a challenge; the player declared an action to resolve that challenge; the DM set a condition for the player to meet; both parties agreed to abide by an independent arbiter (the dice) to resolve said challenge. 



The DM exercised his power in creating a challenge and setting the conditions to overcome said challenge.
The Player exercised his power in choosing to engage this challenge and how.
Both transferred their power to an independent arbiter to resolve this challenge.
The player has the power to choose to engage a challenge, how to engage the challenge, and whether to agree or disagree to a means to resolve the challenge.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 2, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> 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.



So the DM is never supposed to throw out a red herring; to describe something that's in fact completely mundane in order to throw you off the track?

It gets mighty predictable (and thus, gawdawful boring) if you can tell something's relevant and-or needs to be examined closer only because the DM bothered to describe it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that richness of setting doesn't matter much to you.


			
				Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> If the DM has described a pointless courtyard, he is leading his PCs by by the nose. He led them into a pointless courtyard. Because I guarantee you, I didn't ask to go there!



Maybe the DM led them there.  Maybe the PCs decided to go there on their own, or going there made sense for whatever reason.  Maybe the DM doesn't want the PCs there at all.  You've no way of knowing until after you've interacted with it - note that said interaction *can* consist of turning around and leaving - and observed results if any.

What I simply don't understand is the reluctance to allow the DM to flesh out the game world and-or to throw a few curveballs at you.


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

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



I actually prefer a mix: some who want to be heroic, some who are only out for themselves, some who just want to raise hell, an occasional psychopath - mix well, serve, and watch. 

Lan-"I've played all of these, many times each"-efan


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 2, 2010)

Just to go with this courtyard analogy. As a DM I would describe the courtyard to the players even though I have no immediate use for it. My reason would be that a player could decide to stop before going on to the lord's court and do something in said courtyard. Maybe the party rogue is looking for a possible escape route if deliberations turn sour. Depending the scenario maybe the fighters think that holding off an invading force in the courtyard might be a good idea and need to know size, ways in and out, statues and walls that could be cover. 

If the DM only describes things that are relevant all the time the game would be rather boring. 

"Jim has just described that door, must be worth investigating."

A description of an area that the players are passing through (said courtyard on way to the local lord) doesn't need to be in depth but should be there for the world immersion.

I'm not saying that any one way is right or wrong but I think more roleplayers would prefer the description than not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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 jump over the pit.*_

Alternatively:

Player:  I am thinking about jumping the pit.  How hard does it look to me?
DM: As far as you can tell, about a DC 15.
Player:  Would a running jump help?  How deep is the pit?  Maybe I could find something to use as a pole-vault.....

etc.

The conclusion (that the player has no power) doesn't follow the evidence (that the player lacks certain specific powers).

"I do not have the power to fly; therefore I have no power.  Therefore, I cannot have the power to walk."

A _*GM*_ is part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and maintain background, including NPCs, monsters, and various adventuring sites/adventures; run the game fairly; try to make play at the table balanced and fun) are balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over background; control over rules).

A _*player*_ is also part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned) is balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over character creation, except where rules or background might be involved; absolute control over character play, except where rules are involved).

In any game that anyone is likely to remain in long, the focus of play is clearly on the decisions the players make concerning their individual characters.  The "99% of the power" that the GM has is exercised to provide context for those choices, and to describe/evaluate the consequences of those choices.  Those choices, though, are the focus.

This is true in a sandbox.  This is true in a narrative game.

Trying to narrow this complex social interaction into "The GM has all the power" or even "The GM has 99% of the power", though, results in an extremely skewed view of what actually occurs during game play.

For instance, even that "99% of the power" is meaningless.  99% of what power?  The power to control game play is shared.  Bored players can simply do something.  A bored GM can simply throw an enemy at the PCs.  If the bored player discovers that the GM will not allow her to do anything, or that anything she chooses to do has no consequence, the solution is clear.  Find (or make) a new game.

The power to control PC interactions, except in the case of Charm spells and the like, is entirely in the players' court.  If the bored GM discovers that the players simply will not react to anything she introduces, the solution is clear.  Find new players, or change what you are running.

Or, to put it even more succinctly:



Jacob Marley said:


> In this particular scenario, what power does the DM have? As far as I can tell, the DM set a challenge; the player declared an action to resolve that challenge; the DM set a condition for the player to meet; both parties agreed to abide by an independent arbiter (the dice) to resolve said challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> So the DM is never supposed to throw out a red herring; to describe something that's in fact completely mundane in order to throw you off the track?




Well, if you throw out "world flavour" that is irrelevant, it might become possible for the players to believe that wolf-in-sheep's-clothing is actually a bunny on a stump.

They might not know that the raven in the tree is a familiar.

They might not know what they are supposed to do with a statue in a courtyard.

No, I am afraid that world flavour makes leading by the nose far too difficult!

EDIT:  You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are not readily apparent, and player decisions are important, because they must determine what they should do.  You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are obvious, and player decisions become unimportant because the players know what they should do; not following those optimums isn't really going to happen.  You can make a game experience in which some decisions are obvious and some are not; the ones that are not are going to be the ones in which player decisions matter.

What you cannot do is both decide what the players should do for them, and have their choices be meaningful.


RC


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't entirely agree with this. At least as I read the 4e PHB, players get to choose a race, a class, a paragon path and an epic destiny for their PC. This all sets some parameters on the gameworld, which the GM is not free just to ignore.
> 
> I know some people contend that the GM is always free to veto any given race, class, PP or ED. But this isn't written into the PHB. (It may be in Essentials. I haven't seen those players' books. If it is, it would be yet another reason why I like the technical design of Essentials but dislike the feel of the RPG it describes.)




...what?

It's always seemed obvious to me that the DM has the absolute right to exclude any-damn-thing from his or her campaign world. You don't want elves in your world, there ain't no elves and nobody can play one. That's been the case in D&D since the beginning. Likewise, if you want to make up your own races, you can do that too. I have, many times.

The day I am informed that I have to include warforged in my game world is the day I quit running D&D*.

[size=-2]*Well, actually it's the day I tell the person making this claim, "Very funny. Now make a PC who isn't a robot." But that doesn't sound nearly as dramatic.[/size]


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 2, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Or I suppose we could take a peek at Malenkirk's table:
> 
> GM: You see a pit. What do you?
> Player: (picks his nose) I dunno... Umm... I guess I make a Dungeoneering check to try to figure out whatever you had in mind for the pit. (rolls dice) 15.
> ...



Personally, I would drop Dungeoneering rolls or any Knowledge-based rolls that asked the question "what do you, the DM, want me to do here?"  I believe that gets back to telling the players how the should play the game rather than letting them play it for their own ends.  But that's up to what everyone at the table desires.



pemerton said:


> _BIG SNIP_
> (Other games have more formal rules for linking the setting of the scene to various elements of the PCs, either by directly empowering the players in scene setting or by obliging the GM to include certain elements that are drawn from the PCs. D&D doesn't.)
> _BIG SNIP_
> In a good game with hard scene framing the GM has a large degree of power, because they get to originate the scenes, but the players also have some power - they have a major influence over how any given scene resolves, and they also have at least indirect influence over scene framing in the first place, because a good GM will be building scenes that pick up on elements of the PCs that the players are keen to explore further in the game.



To the first, I think D&D has always had a poor set of unwritten rules.  IMO, any time the players are submitting PC backgrounds they are putting stuff into the game.  The DM works with them to clarify elements and say no to what contradicts the code behind the screen, but even this is part of learning that code and the playing of the game.  
To the second quote, this is a lot what the DM is doing.  If the players declare they are going shopping for a boat, then the GM needs to either generate a boat or configure what a "boat" is to the players in order to include it.  Player intentions are always telling the ref what they desire, though questioning to find a higher degree of explicitness is often required.



pemerton said:


> I know some people contend that the GM is always free to veto any given race, class, PP or ED. But this isn't written into the PHB.



I disagree with any kind of veto power too.  Listed races and classes are prepared works like those found in the 4E PHB, but any race, class, power, whatever, could be submitted under the last on that list: Custom.  For me, this works just like backgrounds.



DragonLancer said:


> If the DM only describes things that are relevant all the time the game would be rather boring.
> 
> "Jim has just described that door, must be worth investigating."



My question is, what is relevant?  How is the DM supposed to know beforehand what is relevant to the players and what isn't without those players telling him or her beforehand?  

I think this mindset is coming from another question, what does the DM want me to do here?  My response would be: play your class.  Be the best fighting man, cleric, magic-user you can be.  That's the game's objective.  

Perhaps plot relevancy is what's being referred to though.  "What is the plotline we are supposed to follow that the DM has created?"  Well, my plot is the same as in most games, games like chess, cards, sports, and boardgames.  That is, figure out how to achieve the objectives you've set.  There is no one path.  In Chess the plot is the rules.  Ditto for the other games.  In my D&D games the plot is the code behind the screen, like a game of Mastermind it is decoded slowly but surely through play.  The world is the plot and everything in it, not a series of events players are expected to follow.

So, what is the description supposed to be relevant to?  Until we know that, I find it impossible to answer ...well, relevantly.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 2, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Consider for a moment that I'm a guy who never saw anything but the movies, liked the first one and the scenes on Bespin in the second but thought the rest of the film series was dreck, never read a single written word about Han Solo in any of the novels or comic books, and didn't watch the Christmas special.
> 
> Then re-read my statement in context, which is to say, _both_ sentences.
> 
> Now tell me, was there really anything not clear about my meaning?




Then I would say you dont pay attention very well. When "Han shot first" he shot someone who had a gun pointed at him and said he was going to take Hans ship over his dead body. 

Sorry you need a better example of a "dont give a crap about the world self-centered rogue" than this. This one is rather obvious self defense.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 2, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> So the DM is never supposed to throw out a red herring; to describe something that's in fact completely mundane in order to throw you off the track?
> 
> It gets mighty predictable (and thus, gawdawful boring) if you can tell something's relevant and-or needs to be examined closer only because the DM bothered to describe it.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that richness of setting doesn't matter much to you.



Sounds like.







Lanefan said:


> Maybe the DM led them there.  Maybe the PCs decided to go there on their own, or going there made sense for whatever reason.  Maybe the DM doesn't want the PCs there at all.  You've no way of knowing until after you've interacted with it - note that said interaction *can* consist of turning around and leaving - and observed results if any.
> 
> What I simply don't understand is the reluctance to allow the DM to flesh out the game world and-or to throw a few curveballs at you.



I don't get that, either.







Lanefan said:


> I actually prefer a mix: some who want to be heroic, some who are only out for themselves, some who just want to raise hell, an occasional psychopath - mix well, serve, and watch.



I think that's how most groups of adventurers shake out over time.

In my experience, the self-interested rogues tend to be most likely to come up with stuff for the adventurers to do. They stir up trouble, whereas the heroes stand around polishing their lordly rods waiting for someone to give them a quest.

Rapscallions for the win, in my book.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 2, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> ...what?
> 
> It's always seemed obvious to me that the DM has the absolute right to exclude any-damn-thing from his or her campaign world. You don't want elves in your world, there ain't no elves and nobody can play one. That's been the case in D&D since the beginning. Likewise, if you want to make up your own races, you can do that too. I have, many times.
> 
> ...



I'm going to just flat out disagree with you here.  This stuff is more about table rules or social contract depending upon your parlance.  It isn't about not letting anyone play a robot in my campaign world. 

I include a "Carebear clause" table rule.  That basically means that when a player is determining a custom option for the game, if it's too far out of context the player should think about putting it before the group instead of keeping it secret.  

Think of it this way, the player tells me he wants to play a carebear.  I say "that's great, but maybe you should put before the others first."  They can shoot it down or say "whatever, man.  It's your character" and we get on with play.

R2-D2 is an option, but it isn't on the standard list.  So, don't think PC-classed droids will be run into before it is submitted.

EDIT:
This is the D&D hodgepodge after all.  Isn't carebear in the 1E fiend folio anyways?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What you cannot do is both decide what the players should do for them, and have their choices be meaningful.





Certainly not meaningful due to player choice, though one can put their kids to bed and read them a story and have it be meaningful.  However, that is largely the difference between a game and a book.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 2, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> I'm going to just flat out disagree with you here.  This stuff is more about table rules or social contract depending upon your parlance.  It isn't about not letting anyone play a robot in my campaign world. ... R2-D2 is an option, but it isn't on the standard list. So, don't think PC-classed droids will be run into before it is submitted.




I don't think DMs are under any obligation to incorporate everything from the Player's Handbook (which I assume is what you mean by "the standard list") when building a campaign world. The deal I offer my players is this: I will build a world, populate it, prepare adventures in it. If you want to play in it--within the constraints I have built into it--you are welcome to do so. If not, I will step down and someone else can run a game.

As a player, if I find I'm not happy with my character concept, I can usually swap characters without much trouble. As DM, however, I'm locked into my chosen setting. If I find I'm not happy with it in a way that can't be solved by superficial retcons, my only option is to kill the whole campaign.

I have learned over the years that it does not pay to be overly accommodating when world-building. If a player wants to be an X and I say, "No Xs in my world," the player will usually make something else and be fine with it. If I agree to work Xs in even though I don't really want them, they will be a permanent fixture in the setting and I will find them increasingly irritating every time I have to deal with them.

To be sure, I am picky about things like theme, atmosphere, and verisimilitude. Not all DMs feel the same way. For many folks, the "kitchen sink" approach works perfectly well, and more power to them. But if I am expected to incorporate every wacky thing the players feel like playing, or work in the same standard list of Tolkien rejects game after game, I'm just not gonna DM; world-crafting is where much if not most of my DM fun comes from.



howandwhy99 said:


> Think of it this way, the player tells me he wants to play a carebear.  I say "that's great, but maybe you should put before the others first."  They can shoot it down or say "whatever, man.  It's your character" and we get on with play.




Well, anybody can _ask_ to play anything. I take much the same approach, except that I may well respond to this request with, "No, you can't play a Carebear. Not even if the rest of the group is 100% cool with it."



howandwhy99 said:


> This is the D&D hodgepodge after all.  Isn't carebear in the 1E fiend folio anyways?




If you object to my excising races from the Player's Handbook, you don't want to know the amount of stuff I cut from the monster books.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2010)

Can someone XP Dausuul for me?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 2, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Tone down the arguing please guys. It is getting a little personal, and we don't want that. Thanks.




Well, it seems some people don't want to observe a nicely worded warning and so have been threadbanned. It would be a shame to hand out actual bans or close the thread, so lets get back to being nice.

Thanks


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2010)

Also, it is hard to roll dice with your nose.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

Jacob Marley said:


> In this particular scenario, what power does the DM have? As far as I can tell, the DM set a challenge; the player declared an action to resolve that challenge; the DM set a condition for the player to meet; both parties agreed to abide by an independent arbiter (the dice) to resolve said challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Back up a second here.  How can the player agree or disagree on "a means to resolve the challenge"?  At what point can the player change how a challenge is resolved.  It's true, I suppose, that the player can disagree, but, so what?  The player disagrees.  He can't do anything about it, other than walk away from the game.

I'll give you an example from a game I was playing.  I had a 4e rogue with an at-will ability that let him calculate his jumps as if he had a running start, even if he was standing still.  And a +11 Athletics.  Essentially that means that my minimum jumping distance is 12 feet under 4e rules.  We come to a 10 foot pit.  I declare that I jump across the pit, sailing with ease.

The DM asked me to roll.  "Why?" I asked.  

"Because a 1 automatically fails skill checks," was the answer.

Now, I argued this.  I disagreed because, in the rules, this isn't true.  This was a house rule that the DM had added in.  His response was, "It's a common house rule, make your roll."

So, what power over mechanical resolution did I have here?

So, yes, as I said MULTIPLE times in this thread, a player has power over his own character.  But, that doesn't change the fact that the DM has 99% of the rest of the power in the game.

It's very pedantic to argue that power is shared when one side has virtually (almost, nearly, but not quite) all the power and the other side's choice is limited to leaving the game.

It's funny though, some people are telling me that DM's don't have authority over their game and control virtually all elements, while at exactly the same time, are telling me that DM's can veto player choices during character generation.

Isn't there a contradiction there?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> It's always seemed obvious to me that the DM has the absolute right to exclude any-damn-thing from his or her campaign world. You don't want elves in your world, there ain't no elves and nobody can play one. That's been the case in D&D since the beginning. Likewise, if you want to make up your own races, you can do that too. I have, many times.
> 
> The day I am informed that I have to include warforged in my game world is the day I quit running D&D*.





Dausuul said:


> I don't think DMs are under any obligation to incorporate everything from the Player's Handbook (which I assume is what you mean by "the standard list") when building a campaign world. The deal I offer my players is this: I will build a world, populate it, prepare adventures in it. If you want to play in it--within the constraints I have built into it--you are welcome to do so. If not, I will step down and someone else can run a game.



I don't think the notion of "obligation" has any work to do here. We're talking about playing games for a hobby.

My point is that, according to the 4e rulebooks, a game of D&D involves players building PCs from a certain list of game elements. Of course it's possible to play a game of 4e without one or more of those elements, but this is analogous to houseruling. And at least in my view, houseruling - or, to put it another way, working out the precise parameters of the game that will be run - is something that the whole table does, at least in principle. In practice, many players may leave the bulk of it to the GM, which is what seems to be going on when the GM say "OK, here's a campaign world, now build a PC according to the following parameters". Of course, if a player says "Great world, but how about including robots as well - it'd be even better then!" they might try and up the ante in the negotiations over the shared parameters. And there is nothing in the 4e rulebooks to indicate that this is playing the game wrong.

So I agree with this:



howandwhy99 said:


> This stuff is more about table rules or social contract depending upon your parlance.  It isn't about not letting anyone play a robot in my campaign world.




And, just for clarification:


Dausuul said:


> If you object to my excising races from the Player's Handbook, you don't want to know the amount of stuff I cut from the monster books.



It's not about objecting to what the parameters are for PC creation. The issue is about how we describe what goes on when these parameters are set. Is it an issue of GM power, or shared power? My point (and as far as I can tell howandwhy99's point also) is that the setting of parameters is a shared endeavour that happens at the social contract/table rules level. It's not a power that the rules of the game give to the GM.

The use and placement of monsters is a different matter. The rulebooks are pretty clear on this - the DM's kit says to the GM "It's your world" and the Rules Compendium says to players "It's your GM's world". The text under these headings makes it clear that it is up to the GM to determine the geography and the population of the world. But there is no suggestion in these texts that the GM's power over geography and population extends into the domain of PC building.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

Pemerton - as much as I want to agree with you, I don't think I do.  I know I've certainly argued in the past that DM's should consider player wishes during character generation (and the sticking point with me was when a DM uses solely his own preferences to veto a player choice), I'd say the rules are pretty clear that a DM's campaign setting is the DM's.

The DM is expected, by the rules, to create the setting in which the campaign will be played (or, if not create, then use a published one) and the DM has pretty much total control over that setting.  If the DM decides that he doesn't want elves, the players don't really have much say in the matter.  They can bitch and whine, but, at the end of the day, they certainly can't tell the DM to include elves.

And there are many perfectly good reasons why a DM will exclude particular choices - both thematic (no robots in my Middle Earth please) or mechanical (no, you can't bring your Battlemaster into my Middle Earth either).  I would never argue that a DM can never veto player choices during chargen.

Heck, most groups don't even get to choose the rolling method of chargen.  That's almost always dictated by the DM.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The DM asked me to roll.  "Why?" I asked.
> 
> "Because a 1 automatically fails skill checks," was the answer.
> 
> ...



I don't think I'm a target of this post, but I'll reply anyway!

The example of the house rule about 1s strikes me as a fairly common example of how D&D is played. It assumes that the GM has the power to set or vary the rules. Nothing in the 4e rulebooks supports it. It's an approach to play that I hope will die out over time, assuming that 4e (and other RPGs) have some lifespan beyond the current batch of aging D&D players who carry this legacy of earlier editions with them.

As to your diagnosis of contradiction, I agree. I avoid the contradiction by denying that the GM has any power, under the rules, to veto PC build choices. The legacy of earlier editions means that, in practice, the GM probably has a disproportionate voice at many tables when it comes to negotiating houserules/table variations from the rules as written (which includes PC build rules) but again my hope is that this will die out over time.

For a sensible discussion of how give-and-take can work beteen players and GM in setting the parameters of PC build, see (for example) the Burning Wheels rulebooks. These in fact go further, extending the same sort of give-and-take to monster building. In 4e, monster building is reservedby the rules to the GM , but a set of fairly tight parameters is established in order to ensure that the GM's decisions aren't arbitrary.

EDIT FOR CROSSPOSTING: Hussar, I entirely feel the force of your follow-up post. But as I said above in this post, I really think this is a legacy thing. Someone who came to D&D with the 4e books and no legacy wouldn't get the sense at all that the GM is free to exclue elves, or dragonborn or whatever. The "It's your world" section of Essentials is about geography and monsters, but not PC build. The Dark Sun rulebooks have a sidebar expressly discussing how to handle the issue of nonstandard races, making it pretty clear that it's a player/GM negotiation issue - and this is even _after_ everyone's agreed to play a Dark Sun game.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are not readily apparent, and player decisions are important, because they must determine what they should do.  You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are obvious, and player decisions become unimportant because the players know what they should do; not following those optimums isn't really going to happen.  You can make a game experience in which some decisions are obvious and some are not; the ones that are not are going to be the ones in which player decisions matter.



This seems to me to assume a certain approach to play - that the goal of play is something like "operationally successful exploration", and thus that "optimal choices" are those that maximise territory explored and loot acquired relative to attrition of PC resources.

If the goal of play is something different, then the notion of the GM making the "optimal choices" obvious doesn't have so much bite. To revisit an example I used upthread: if I deliberately place a statue of Orcus in the crypt rather than a statue of some other god or spirit, because I think the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen will enjoy interacting with it, it doesn't seem that I am making any choice obvious. Does the paladin destroy the statue? Try to cleanse it? Try to divine it's inner secrets, at the risk of being corrupted by it? No one knows until the game is actually played and the player actually makes some choices!

Similar considerations apply to including NPCs in the game. I tend to give detailed descriptions only of NPCs who will be interesting for the players to have their PCs engage with, but this doesn't mean the manner of engagement is obvious. I've certainly had players be hostile to NPCs whom I had thought might make good allies, and negotiate with NPCs whom I had assumed they would attack. These are the sorts of surprise outcomes of play that help make the game worth playing.

Anyway, in this sort of play it makes perfect sense to include only _relevant_ details - ie statues, NPCs etc who connect to ongoing dynamics and themes of the PCs and the unfolding gameworld - but in which doing so does not foreclose meaningful choices by players.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

Pemerton - Totally agree that other games approach the idea of table power sharing differently.  I do disagree though with your assessment of 4e and it's power sharing.

For example, looking at page 151 of the 4e DM (I just happen to have that one in reach) and it details how to approach building your setting.  The quotes are pretty specific here:



			
				4e DM page 151 said:
			
		

> Title:  It's Your World
> ...
> You can do the same to create a world that's uniquely yours
> ...
> ...




On and on.  They're pretty much handing the DM carte blanche to over rule any implied setting element in the game.  And I would rather hope they would.  I don't want campaign building by commitee where I have to ask permission for every single baseline change.  It's my campaign, and I should be able to do with it as I see fit.

Again, my personal take on this, the only limitation to that is enforcing things that are purely my own personal preference.  If I can't come up with a better reason for disallowing something than, "I just don't like it", I will personally allow it.  I think it makes for better games.  Others, obviously, disagree.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar, maybe it's me (wishfully) reading some stuff as non-canonical again!

Point conceded.

EDIT: I seem to have polymorphed from a Githyanki into a Gorilla Bear! At least I'm still a Fiend Folio monster (at least if memory serves me rightly).


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Dec 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> So the DM is never supposed to throw out a red herring; to describe something that's in fact completely mundane in order to throw you off the track?
> 
> It gets mighty predictable (and thus, gawdawful boring) if you can tell something's relevant and-or needs to be examined closer only because the DM bothered to describe it.




When you read A Song of Fire and Ice, whatch Dexter or write your own story, how many scenes are irrelevant?

Send me a curve ball...  As long as the curve ball is relevant to the story!

Taking me on a ride through a few scenes that add nothing to the tale we are weaving, that is gawdawful boring to me.  These are the scenes I edit out of my stories and I'd rather not suffer through them when I'm playing.



> I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that richness of setting doesn't matter much to you.




Yeah, you're on a limb.



> What I simply don't understand is the reluctance to allow the DM to flesh out the game world...




If the scene truly fleshes out the game world, it is somewhat tolerable, it has a minimum of relevance.  But seriously, I have only 4 or 5 hours a week to game so just give me something to read instead.  This accomplish a lot more 'fleshing out', you tend to remember what you read better than what you hear and it comes at no expense in gaming time.  Write your own stuff or provide interesting passage from published material that you want the player to be familiar with.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

I think there is a tendency among gamers and, genre fans in general, to conflate setting with plot.  Some people read genre fiction to revel in the mystical, fantastic worlds that are created.  Some people read genre fiction for the plot and the events.

I'm in the second camp.  I do not particularly like world building and this goes a long way to explaining why I prefer short fiction (short stories, flash fiction, novellas) to novels.  If you can't paint the picture of your setting in a couple of paragraphs, I stop caring.

So, sending the party off on some lengthy wild goose chase simply to showcase how wonderful your setting is, is not going to interest me.  I do, however, realize that there are others who would love this kind of thing.  For some players, being faced with a statue and a couple of oranges that have nothing to do with whatever is going on in the game at the time is a barrel of fun.  To me, it's like fingernails on a chalk board.  I find it endlessly frustrating.

As a DM, recognizing which side of the fence your players lie on is a sign of a good DM.  It's not about one side being a "better" game or not.  If this sort of thing floats your boat, more power to you.  

I think it also goes a very long way towards explaining how some people have multi-year campaigns.  Again, not a knock.  It's not my cup of tea, but, obviously it works for people who are not me.  And that's a good thing.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

Was reading the Campaign Duration thread and came across this post:



Ulrick said:


> My longest campaign ran for around 11-12 years. The players were close friends who all got along. The campaign ended because of real world obligations.
> 
> 
> My shortest campaign lasted for 30 minutes. The players were a bunch of mooks who sabotaged the campaign in the very first encounter where they attacked an administrator (who was a source of information) who was under the protection of the local baron. The players thought I was being unfair when I had the town guard show up and try to arrest them. After a few minutes of arguing, I folded up my DM's screen, packed up my books, and left.




Here we have a pretty solid example of DM power.  The players attempt something the DM didn't like and the game ended.

Everyone can talk about walking out on the DM, but, at the end of the day, if the DM walks out, your game ends.  The DM can always replace a player.

((Note, I am not making any comment on the validity of Ulrick's response or criticising his actions in the slightest.  I am simply holding up an example of how DM's have far more power at the table.))


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar, I share your dislike of the prioritisation of setting over story/plot. But I've run multiple years-long campaigns (8 years, 11 years, and 2 years for the current one).

In the sort of game I like to run, the setting nevertheless plays an important role, as a source of plot elements. My games tend to have a certain same-iness about them (if I was any good as a creator of fictions, I'd be doing it professionally!), with the early part of the campaign involving the PCs (and the players) developing a sense of the history and scale of the gameworld and the range of relevant adversaries/allies given their own inclinations and PC backgrounds. As the game develops, the PCs become more and more directly invovled in the myth and history of the gameworld.

To keep the momentum going, in my experience you need (i) a fairly rich and layered myth/history, with (ii) lots of interrelated elements that both relate to the PCs' backgrounds (and players' thematic concerns) and will give the players lots of scope to make choices about alliances/enemies/how to engage, and (iii) a story structure (established via geography, antagonist's motivations, etc) that makes it plausible for multiple such choices to be made and have their ramifications play out over many sessions of play without things being forced to an early conclusion (the game can become derailed if things go too far in this direction, and the story is so convoluted, dense or just plain slow that no progress towards a conclusion seems to be possible). And obviously the players have to be happy to buy into this.

The upshot is fairly complex plots with the PCs at the centre of events in the unfolding history of the gameworld. The game can become fairly sprawling, in terms of the relevant geography and the PC's salient field of action, but it's not a sandbox (ie the players aren't exploring the world with their PCs - if anything, they are exploring their PCs with the world as a tool in that endeavour). At the practical level, players ensure at least some of the PCs have sufficient knowledge skills to engage with the gameworld, and they take lots of notes to keep track of everything, and draw relationship charts or similar to keep track of enemies/allies/factions/historical connections etc. I think it's a playstyle to which 4e is well-suited (certainly better than Rolemaster, which is what I was doing it with!).


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 3, 2010)

pemerton said:


> ... I've run multiple years-long campaigns (8 years, 11 years, and 2 years for the current one).
> 
> I think it's a playstyle to which 4e is well-suited (certainly better than Rolemaster, which is what I was doing it with!).



I'd be interested to hear how you plan to bang an 8-10 year campaign out of 4e, for such things seem to be something to which it is not well-suited.  Unless, of course, you can scale the game to 70th level. 


> In the sort of game I like to run, the setting nevertheless plays an important role, as a source of plot elements. My games tend to have a certain same-iness about them (if I was any good as a creator of fictions, I'd be doing it professionally!), with the early part of the campaign involving the PCs (and the players) developing a sense of the history and scale of the gameworld and the range of relevant adversaries/allies given their own inclinations and PC backgrounds. As the game develops, the PCs become more and more directly invovled in the myth and history of the gameworld.
> 
> To keep the momentum going, in my experience you need (i) a fairly rich and layered myth/history, with (ii) lots of interrelated elements that both relate to the PCs' backgrounds (and players' thematic concerns) and will give the players lots of scope to make choices about alliances/enemies/how to engage, and (iii) a story structure (established via geography, antagonist's motivations, etc) that makes it plausible for multiple such choices to be made and have their ramifications play out over many sessions of play without things being forced to an early conclusion (the game can become derailed if things go too far in this direction, and the story is so convoluted, dense or just plain slow that no progress towards a conclusion seems to be possible). And obviously the players have to be happy to buy into this.
> 
> The upshot is fairly complex plots with the PCs at the centre of events in the unfolding history of the gameworld. The game can become fairly sprawling, in terms of the relevant geography and the PC's salient field of action, but it's not a sandbox (ie the players aren't exploring the world with their PCs - if anything, they are exploring their PCs with the world as a tool in that endeavour). At the practical level, players ensure at least some of the PCs have sufficient knowledge skills to engage with the gameworld, and they take lots of notes to keep track of everything, and draw relationship charts or similar to keep track of enemies/allies/factions/historical connections etc.



This sounds frighteningly like my current campaign, except you've probably put more thought into it.

Only thing I'd add is that sometimes it's nice to have an adventure that has nothing to do with the overall plot at all; to just go up in the hills and wallop giants for a while, or something similar.  That way, the main plot seems a bit fresher when returned to later.

Lanefan

EDIT: I've become a Qullan, it seems.

What's a Qullan?


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 3, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't entirely agree with this. At least as I read the 4e PHB, players get to choose a race, a class, a paragon path and an epic destiny for their PC. This all sets some parameters on the gameworld, which the GM is not free just to ignore.
> 
> I know some people contend that the GM is always free to veto any given race, class, PP or ED. But this isn't written into the PHB. (It may be in Essentials. I haven't seen those players' books. If it is, it would be yet another reason why I like the technical design of Essentials but dislike the feel of the RPG it describes.)





I just felt the need to chime in because what I quoted here was in response to a response that Hussar had to something I said.  I feel as though the conversation branched into a direction which drifted too far away from the original comment.

Here's what was said prior to Pem:

_Me: No problem with anything you've said here... but I do want to point out that what is true of D&D is not necessarily true of how other games work. There are many games in which you could indeed claim to be a prince or an avatar of a diety, and it would indeed grant you tangible benefits -benefits which are just as supported as the rules for magic swords and hacking through goblins. Likewise, there are games in which you could indeed have some amount of control over NPCs by having hirelings or gaining allies; alternatively, skills such as propaganda, diplomacy, and various other things can be used._

Originally Posted by *Johnny3D3D* 

 
_No problem with anything you've said here... but I do want to point out that what is true of D&D is not necessarily true of how other games work. There are many games in which you could indeed claim to be a prince or an avatar of a diety, and it would indeed grant you tangible benefits -benefits which are just as supported as the rules for magic swords and hacking through goblins. Likewise, there are games in which you could indeed have some amount of control over NPCs by having hirelings or gaining allies; alternatively, skills such as propaganda, diplomacy, and various other things can be used._

Hussar: Oh totally. Yes. I certainly didn't want to imply that there were games which didn't provide players with this level of authorial control over the campaign.

Just that D&D isn't one of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------


I think (perhaps wrongly?  I'm sure Hussar will correct me if I am assuming what he meant wrongly) Hussar was talking about having control over the setting and some amount of authority over the narration and fluff of the setting.  

In the current version of D&D*, by default; at best, saying you are the son of the local baron or something of that nature tends to grant you a whopping +2 bonus on a skill related to your background, perhaps a feat, or some sort of situational bonus.  Beyond that, you're not assumed to have any real authority over any of the NPCs in the game or have any added wealth or status beyond that given to the other characters

(*Be aware that I have virtually no knowledge of 4E.E at all.  If it is different, I am not aware of that.)

There are other games which do not function the same way as D&D.  There are games in which claiming to be the son of the local Baron has a more tangible value, and has benefits which are just as useful and just as supported by the structure of the game as a new magic sword or knowing a certain spell.  You could use your status, social influence, and other such things and get a little more out of it.

This is not meant as a slight against D&D; my original comment (and this one) are only intended to illustrate that not every rpg functions the same way.  D&D's style and the ideals upon which D&D are built assume certain things about the type of game a group of people will be playing that other games might not.  As such, there are certain in-game activities and certain aspects of characters which are given more prominance and support in D&D; likewise, games which have different ideals highlight other things about a character.


With all of that being said, I also feel that I should clarify my position somewhat.  A lot of the discussion seems to focusing on DM power vs Player power.  I was looking at things from more of a Character power point of view.  Yes, the character is ultimately controlled by the player; however, I feel that the point of view is somewhat different.

While I would agree that I have a little more out-of-game power than my players do in the game I currently run by virtue of having to abide by the parameters of the game I have set** (i.e. point values of characters, races available, etc,) I don't not necessarily feel that their characters have a lack of in-game power and/or control over the progression of the game.  

To give an example, one of the PCs has aspirations of building a castle and claiming a section of land; his character is free to pursue that goal.  That doesn't mean there won't be reactions to his actions.  There may be NPCs who aren't thrilled with the idea, but those reactions are also things which are character generated.  As the out-of-game entity of DM, I am in no way telling the out-of-game entity which is the player that he cannot have his character attempt to do that.  As the player of an in-game character (NPC) I am reacting to the actions of another player's in-game character (PC.)  This is a shared experience; not a dictated one.

**I should mention that this particular campaign is a little bit of an exception to this statement though.  The only thing I had sketched out and set in stone was the area where the PCs were meeting to begin the campaign.  The rest of the surrounding area was fleshed out using what the players had included in a background story.  To give an example of this, the player of a mage character had in his character's background story that he was exiled from a cabal of mages who live on an island off the southern coast of the main land.  As a result, that location and the group of mages are now part of the game world.  I still have a lot of power over what exactly is there, and what I felt was reasonable to add to parts of the setting, but the players had a far greater amount of control in creating the setting than I imagine is typical of most games.  


Comments on a few other things:

If I was not informed of the houserule ahead of time, I think I would be somewhat irked by the jumping rogue situation.  It _is_ a common houserule, but I wouldn't like being told mid-game (especially when in a situation where how the rule worked could impact the life of my character!) that it was suddenly being implemented out of the blue.  

I would not be upset at a DM not including a certain race in a game during character creation nor would I be upset about fluff or other things being changed about a game.  There are two main reasons this wouldn't upset me.  A) Because this is something which would be communicated to me before the actual wheels of the game started turning.  If I chose to still participate in the game after being told Race X isn't available, I am agreeing (as a player in the game) to abide by those limitations, and B) Because I feel that the person doing all of the preperation work to create the game, create the setting, keep track of every NPC in the world, and writing encounters should be entitled to at least some amount of narrative control so as to help make all of that work feel like a more rewarding experience.  

I dunno... I'm just a guy who gets together with some friends on the weekend to roll dice, satisfy my urge to game, and drink a little Mt. Dew, but that's how I see it.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 3, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> When you read A Song of Fire and Ice... how many scenes are irrelevant?




Depends. Am I reading "A Feast for Crows?"


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Here we have a pretty solid example of DM power.  The players attempt something the DM didn't like and the game ended.
> 
> Everyone can talk about walking out on the DM, but, at the end of the day, if the DM walks out, your game ends.  The DM can always replace a player.




There is a logical fallacy here because your conclusion that the GM's power to walk away is a game ender but a player's is not is predicated on the the presumption that "The DM can always replace a player."

But implicit in that presumption is that there is an unlimited supply of players who won't walk away.  If that is true then clearly the DM in question does not suck, simply by fitting definition of the situation.  The player is not walking away because of a problem with the DM, the player is walking away because there is a solid GROUP of people, DM included, who are playing a good game of a type that isn't the same as what that player is interested in.

Difference in game style preference is a completely unrelated discussion.

If the DM is just abusing power left and right, then, I assure you, the players can replace the DM EASIER than he can replace players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2010)

pemerton said:


> This seems to me to assume a certain approach to play - that the goal of play is something like "operationally successful exploration", and thus that "optimal choices" are those that maximise territory explored and loot acquired relative to attrition of PC resources.
> 
> If the goal of play is something different, then the notion of the GM making the "optimal choices" obvious doesn't have so much bite.




I disagree with the above, very strongly.

If one is to make a choice, and that choice is to be important for that person to make, then it follows both (1) that the person be able to make a choice, and (2) that a real choice be offered.

If the optimal answer is clear prior to the option to chose, then that impinges upon (2) in direct proportion to the degree of clarity, and the degree to which the choice is optimal.

Your counter-example (the Orcus statue) seems to be in response to someone else's post, or to someone else's ideas.

What you quoted was



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are not readily apparent, and player decisions are important, because they must determine what they should do. You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are obvious, and player decisions become unimportant because the players know what they should do; not following those optimums isn't really going to happen. You can make a game experience in which some decisions are obvious and some are not; the ones that are not are going to be the ones in which player decisions matter.




after which you follow with a scenario where the optinal choices are not readily apparent, apparently to demonstrate that the above is false: 



> To revisit an example I used upthread: if I deliberately place a statue of Orcus in the crypt rather than a statue of some other god or spirit, because I think the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen will enjoy interacting with it, it doesn't seem that I am making any choice obvious. Does the paladin destroy the statue? Try to cleanse it? Try to divine it's inner secrets, at the risk of being corrupted by it? No one knows until the game is actually played and the player actually makes some choices!
> 
> Similar considerations apply to including NPCs in the game. I tend to give detailed descriptions only of NPCs who will be interesting for the players to have their PCs engage with, but this doesn't mean the manner of engagement is obvious. I've certainly had players be hostile to NPCs whom I had thought might make good allies, and negotiate with NPCs whom I had assumed they would attack. These are the sorts of surprise outcomes of play that help make the game worth playing.




AFAICT, what you are writing here seems to be in exact agreement with what I wrote, and what you quoted.



> Anyway, in this sort of play it makes perfect sense to include only _relevant_ details - ie statues, NPCs etc who connect to ongoing dynamics and themes of the PCs and the unfolding gameworld - but in which doing so does not foreclose meaningful choices by players.




Hmmm.  Let's backtrack for a second, shall we?

(1)  I say that it is only when the optimal course is not obvious do PC decisions actually matter.

(2)  You offer examples where play is interesting because the optimal course was not obvious, and the PCs made choices that surprised you (thereby changing the nature of game play, and exercising that very important power that some apparently feel doesn't exist).

(3)  You then conclude that it makes perfect sense to only include _relevant_ details, by which you mean details that "connect to ongoing dynamics and themes of the PCs and the unfolding gameworld".

This last does not follow from your argument, and begs the question of what sort of detail *doesn't* "connect to ongoing dynamics and themes of the PCs and the unfolding gameworld"?  

It also begs the question of relevance at all -- if the PC is uninterested in the statue of Orcus, is it irrelevant?  If so, should it have been included?  If it is now irrelevant, and should not have been included, what happens seven sessions later, when the players bring it up again?  Is it now relevant, because they express interest?  And therefore, should it have been included?  Does the statue exist in some sort of quantum relevant/irrelevant state until either the players express interest, or the campaign ends without them doing so?  And what if it then is mentioned in the next campaign, spontaneously, by the players?  How far does this superimposition of states go?

Finally, if a (or, indeed, _*the*_) goal is to "not foreclose meaningful choices by players", and you agree that a real choice being offered is impinged upon in direct proportion to the degree to which the optimal choice is clear to the players, and the degree to which the choice is optimal, then some degree of "irrelevant" detail is, in fact, relevant, because (as described in my previous post) it helps to obscure what would otherwise be obviously optimal choices.



RC


EDIT:  Just to be clear:



> If the goal of play is something different, then the notion of the GM making the "optimal choices" obvious doesn't have so much bite.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine.

Either you have misread/misunderstood what I posted, or you are disagreeing while in agreement of it.

Since the described purpose of detail is to prevent choices from being obvious, and since that seems to be what you are doing with your "interesting" NPCs, your conclusion certainly does not follow from your premise, or from the examples given.


RC


EDIT to the EDIT:  It should be obvious that everyone agrees that there is some cut-off where extraneous detail simply should not be prepared.  Where that cut-off is is dependent upon personal taste....but will have an effect on how obvious optimal choices are.  Again, no one is fooled by a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing in a world where bunnies or stumps are never otherwised mentioned.  In a world with neither colour nor texture, camouflage is of little value.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2010)

BryonD said:


> If the DM is just abusing power left and right, then, I assure you, the players can replace the DM EASIER than he can replace players.




Indeed, and good post!


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2010)

The problem, BryonD, is that you are assuming that either the DM or the player is a problem.  You're taking the extreme.  The DM in the quote above isn't abusing his powers apparently.  Nor, in the jumping example further above, was the DM abusing his powers either.

But, both are exercising far greater powers at the table than the players can.  A player cannot declare house rules at the table.  A player cannot end the campaign for everyone at the table.

Are you saying that a DM cannot do either of those things?

---------------

Just so I'm clear here.  I'm not saying that players have no power at the table.  That's obviously not true.  I am saying, however, that the DM has the lions share of the power at the table.  The DM can veto any chargen choice the player makes.  The DM can add or subtract rules at any point in time.  In fact, all rules are subject to Rule 0 in D&D (does 4e have an explicit Rule 0?), which means that all rules are subject to the DM's interpretation.

None of this is true for the players. 

Is there anyone out there that thinks that there is even remotely parity in power at the table in D&D between the players and the DM?


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 3, 2010)

Referring to Hussar's post above.

Actually in a way I do.

I consider it (another analogy oh no...) like the relationship of the president (DM) and congress (Players) [NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS PLEASE].

Both have great power, the president can veto anything he likes.  But he should use it sparingly and wisely in conjunction with Congress, or they will overthrow it.

Congress can impeach the DM, and appoint another in his place.  If the players tell the DM "we don't like it dude, Bob is going to DM" then the DM could still hang out and play with friends, or he could bail.

But overall, the bottom line should be this (unlike the above example sometimes)  the relationship of power is shared and good natured, so when one side or the other feels the need to use its power, the other side is cool with it.

A final example, if the players came to the DM in a friendly way and said "Tom, we all talked and we want robots mixed into the campaign" every DM I have ever met to include myself would either say "Not fond of it but ok dudes" or "Hmmm, maybe I could get some play time then, Bobs world is a good fit for robots."

So Hussar, your example of the DM's power to create and arbitrate the world and ongoing play are spot on, but I feel the players have equal power to shape the entire game environment.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> A player cannot declare house rules at the table.  A player cannot end the campaign for everyone at the table.
> 
> Are you saying that a DM cannot do either of those things?




A GM can do both of those things, so long as the players buy in.  Likewise, a player can do both of those things, so long as the other players buy in (including the GM).

A GM cannot declare a house rule at the table, successfully, unless the players agree to allow him to do so.

A GM cannot end the campaign for everyone at the table, successfully, unless the players agree to allow him to do so.

When I moved from Los Angeles to Toronto, one of my players continued carrying on the campaign for the same group, and the same characters, using his maps and notes from when I was running.  Sure, everything outside what had been discovered now bears his mark rather than mine, but for all practical purposes (from the players' POV) that campaign continued.



> Is there anyone out there that thinks that there is even remotely parity in power at the table in D&D between the players and the DM?




I assume you have me on Ignore, because I have repeatedly demonstrated that your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

However, I am certainly one.



RC


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 3, 2010)

People who join a game playing situation, where one or more people are meant to facilitate most of the game play, thinking in terms of who has more power and seeing it as some sort of inequity are bound to create an adversarial situation (at least in their own mind) and curtail the potential success of that game play.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 3, 2010)

I'm curious as to why so many of this forum seem to think that players should hold the power on the game. You talk about players getting what they want but what about what the DM wants? 

As someone who DM's for the most part but does enjoy playing, I would have suggested that it should be a compromise rather than one side or the other having their way. Now there are races, feats, prestige classes...etc that I won't have my games. Personal preference, mechanical balance... whatever the reason. But I'm open to player suggestions as to what sort of campaign, scenarios...etc they would like. Never been a problem.

There is no point giving players the power when the DM doesn't like what they want. The DM, who does all the hard work, should have their say providing that the game that gets run is fair.


----------



## Krensky (Dec 3, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> People who join a game playing situation, where one or more people are meant to facilitate most of the game play, thinking in terms of who has more power and seeing it as some sort of inequity are bound to create an adversarial situation (at least in their own mind) and curtail the potential success of that game play.




To be honest, I've found that understanding the inequity has made me more likely to allow the players more freedom and action and less likely to employ let alone abuse my power as a GM. Certainly seeing the exercise as adversarial will cause problems, but seeing it as adversarial is not a necessary end point of understanding the dynamics and balance of power.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 3, 2010)

Krensky said:


> To be honest, I've found that understanding the inequity has made me more likely to allow the players more freedom and action and less likely to employ let alone abuse my power as a GM. Certainly seeing the exercise as adversarial will cause problems, but seeing it as adversarial is not a necessary end point of understanding the dynamics and balance of power.





Understanding that a lack of equivalence does not equal inequity is a good starting point.


----------



## Krensky (Dec 3, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Understanding that a lack of equivalence does not equal inequity is a good starting point.




Sadly, my preferred response to this would run afoul of the no politics rule, so let's just go with:

That's like saying lack of oxygen does not equal asphyxia.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I don't think DMs are under any obligation to incorporate everything from the Player's Handbook (which I assume is what you mean by "the standard list") when building a campaign world.
> _BIG SNIP_



I don't think DMs are obligated by published works either, just the rules known to all the players at the table.  I would suggest trying to run an open world, not a locked in world as you put it, but if everyone knows it, then that's the group's game.

By standard list I mean something different than published lists.  My standard list informs players of the PC-playable races included at the start of the game, the ones I've already incorporated. Droid isn't in there, but it could be.  If a player writes a description I will work that person to codify it into the codeset. And it gets tacked on to the standard list as well thereafter.  

That goes for classes and races and other character generation choices.  Telling me in the background they are questing for a sword that trapped their uncle's soul is something fully incorporated and hunted down thereafter.  The player could even do this during a session, but I'm not capable of including it during the same without breaking the rules.



> Well, anybody can _ask_ to play anything. I take much the same approach, except that I may well respond to this request with, "No, you can't play a Carebear. Not even if the rest of the group is 100% cool with it."



We were talking about veto power. Does everyone have that power at your table? I'm pretty open, but there are certainly grandma-unfriendly choices I would want to veto down too, referee or not.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 3, 2010)

Krensky said:


> That's like saying lack of oxygen does not equal asphyxia.





Since you missed the point, let me restate that two things not being equal does not make the situation unfair.  The game is designed to include a facilitator, so claiming that inherently creates an unfairness would be inaccurate.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 3, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> We were talking about veto power. Does everyone have that power at your table? I'm pretty open, but there are certainly grandma-unfriendly choices I would want to veto down too, referee or not.





Since I often game at public venues, game stores and conventions, that ability is a must.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Since you missed the point, let me restate that two things not being equal does not make the situation unfair.  The game is designed to include a facilitator, so claiming that inherently creates an unfairness would be inaccurate.




I'm getting very, very tired of wanting to XP you when I cannot do so until I XP more people.  Could you please make less praiseworthy posts for the next week or two?

Thank you.



RC


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 3, 2010)

I'll split this, if there is interest.  But a page or two back in the thread there was some talk about plots and settings.



I'm curious as to how folks are defining plot. I don't care for predetermined ones, but I do have a world behind the screen.  This isn't just earth, plants, animals, and the like.  It is also NPCs, NPC knowledge maps, NPC relationships maps, and predetermined behaviors for all of these (they are just more maps). It's a sandbox game as it's called.

So is the plot what the players goals are? There actions and mine in response?

Is the plot the maps behind the screen?

Does WoW have plots, beyond quests?

What about other games like Chess? What is its plot?

What is the plot of poker?

Other questions come to mind for these games like genre, character, tropes, setting, mood, voice, etc. How do they relate to Go, Chess, Poker, Gin Rummy, or even Tetris?

My understanding of plot for these games is world-as-plot games.  I don't think setting really addresses all of what that means.  To me, that's like thinking plot is everything I do in life, setting is what everyone and everything else does.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The problem, BryonD, is that you are assuming that either the DM or the player is a problem.  You're taking the extreme.  The DM in the quote above isn't abusing his powers apparently.  Nor, in the jumping example further above, was the DM abusing his powers either.
> 
> But, both are exercising far greater powers at the table than the players can.  A player cannot declare house rules at the table.  A player cannot end the campaign for everyone at the table.
> 
> Are you saying that a DM cannot do either of those things?



This is a red herring.
Of course the DM can do these things.  
Pushing you back to the actual point - the player's power to walk from the table is far more powerful than a house rule.

But, following your new direction - Who cares?  If you point is now that the other players will still play then clearly the DM isn't the problem.  Again, you claimed the DM ended the game and the player's power was not equitable.  If the topic at hand *DM Power* is the problem, then your statement is very simply wrong.  The players can readily end the game.  If ONE player is upset and FOUR others are happy to keep playing then it isn;t a lack of player power, it is just a fact that one whiny spoiler can't end the fun for everyone else.




> Just so I'm clear here.  I'm not saying that players have no power at the table.  That's obviously not true.  I am saying, however, that the DM has the lions share of the power at the table.  The DM can veto any chargen choice the player makes.  The DM can add or subtract rules at any point in time.  In fact, all rules are subject to Rule 0 in D&D (does 4e have an explicit Rule 0?), which means that all rules are subject to the DM's interpretation.
> 
> None of this is true for the players.
> 
> Is there anyone out there that thinks that there is even remotely parity in power at the table in D&D between the players and the DM?



And again, parity of power at the table isn't the point of debate.   It seems to me you have lost that debate and now are retconning the whole conversation.

An all-powerful iron fisted unbending DM who ALSO runs an awesome game that people are thrilled to be a part of is not a problem needing resolution.

You said the DM has the power to end the game (true) and players don't (the false part).  That remains false and no list of DM powers will change that.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 4, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Since you missed the point, let me restate that two things not being equal does not make the situation unfair.  The game is designed to include a facilitator, so claiming that inherently creates an unfairness would be inaccurate.




Oh, wait a second.  Hang on here.  

Who said anything about being unfair?

I said the power distribution was unequal.  I said nothing at all about fairness.  

Is this what BryonD is going on about?  I kinda lost track there.  I never said anything about the fact that the DM has 99% of the power being unfair.  It's not.  Of COURSE the DM has 99% of the power.  

All rules in D&D are subject to Rule 0.  Rule 0 is only available to the DM.  So, the DM has the lions share of the power at the table.  

Note, nothing in there actually makes any value judgement at all.

But, seeing this, now I understand where the disagreement is coming from.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Dec 4, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Depends. Am I reading "A Feast for Crows?"




Ugh.  I just picked up the serie recently and I love it but am not to Crow yet.  Are you warning me that quality sharply declines?

I hope not; hate when an author does that once I'm so deep in the serie I feel compelled to finish it anyway!


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 4, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> Ugh.  I just picked up the serie recently and I love it but am not to Crow yet.  Are you warning me that quality sharply declines?
> 
> I hope not; hate when an author does that once I'm so deep in the serie I feel compelled to finish it anyway!




Sharply? Don't know that I'd say that. But it was something of a disappointment, for me anyway.

Without giving away any plot details, Martin decided to split up books 4 and 5, giving half the established points of view to one and half to the other. Then he added a bunch of new PoVs to "Feast" to round it out. IMO, this is always a mistake when you're several books into a series; the audience is deeply invested in the existing PoVs by this point, which makes the new ones feel like filler.

More serious for the long-term health of the series, many of the new points of view are heading off in different directions. They introduce tangential storylines that don't look like they're going to join up with the main branches anytime soon. There's a lot of new threads being added into the narrative and very few old threads being tied off.

Whether this is the harbinger of an overall decline in series quality, or a one-off dip, remains to be seen. In large part I think it depends on whether Martin recognizes the need to prune his plot tree; "Song of Ice and Fire" is in some danger of descending into the morass that swallowed "Wheel of Time." The fact that we're five years out from "Feast" and he's still working on the next volume is an ominous sign to me--it suggests that the plot is continuing to sprawl--but we'll see how it goes.

(Oh, yeah. Did I mention you have to wait years and years between books? That's the real problem with "Song" at the moment.)


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Dec 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> "Song of Ice and Fire" is in some danger of descending into the morass that swallowed "Wheel of Time."




Well, now I am scared.

I rather liked the 'Eye of the World' but after two books I started wondering if the author knew what he was doing and by the fifth I knew for sure he didn't.  He had an endgame in mind but no damn clue how to get there!

Also, I quickly realized that Robert Jordan wrote every single female characters the same way.  Only difference is hair colours and the speed at which they'd get angry.  This became increasingly annoying as the odds of a good payoff decreased.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 5, 2010)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> Well, now I am scared.
> 
> I rather liked the 'Eye of the World' but after two books I started wondering if the author knew what he was doing and by the fifth I knew for sure he didn't.  He had an endgame in mind but no damn clue how to get there!
> 
> Also, I quickly realized that Robert Jordan wrote every single female characters the same way.  Only difference is hair colours and the speed at which they'd get angry.  This became increasingly annoying as the odds of a good payoff decreased.




Well, I said it's in danger of it; I didn't say it's done it yet. And George R. R. Martin is a better writer than Robert Jordan in a lot of ways, including his portrayal of female characters. To me, the lights are flashing yellow right now. If the next book continues the pattern, that's when they turn red.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Dec 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Well, I said it's in danger of it; I didn't say it's done it yet. And George R. R. Martin is a better writer than Robert Jordan in a lot of ways, including his portrayal of female characters. To me, the lights are flashing yellow right now. If the next book continues the pattern, that's when they turn red.




All right, let's just hope that Crows and the 5th book of 'Fire and Ice' will turn out to be kinda like the relation between 'Half-Blood Prince' and 'Deathly Hallows'

Thanks for the feedback.  I will just hope for the best.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Is this what BryonD is going on about?  I kinda lost track there.



Can't really help you if you can't keep track of your own statements.

But, while "fair" wasn't specifically part of what I was responding to, you very explicitly commented on power to end a game.  Clearly you were defining a serious problem when your point hinges on the termination of the game.  

Now, I did leap to the conclusion that, beyond incorrect declarations of who can and can't end a game, you had some meaningful point about a problem you perceived.  But if you meant to say nothing more insightful than "DMs have more ways to effect events inside the game", then, my bad, I'll just move along...

Though the specific quote I replied to remains wrong....


----------



## pemerton (Dec 6, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The DM can veto any chargen choice the player makes.  The DM can add or subtract rules at any point in time.  In fact, all rules are subject to Rule 0 in D&D (does 4e have an explicit Rule 0?), which means that all rules are subject to the DM's interpretation.



4e does not have an explicit Rule 0, no. Hence our earlier exchange - as you pointed out, there are those hints of it still lurking in some of the world-design guidelines.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 6, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I think (perhaps wrongly?  I'm sure Hussar will correct me if I am assuming what he meant wrongly) Hussar was talking about having control over the setting and some amount of authority over the narration and fluff of the setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There are other games which do not function the same way as D&D.  There are games in which claiming to be the son of the local Baron has a more tangible value, and has benefits which are just as useful and just as supported by the structure of the game as a new magic sword or knowing a certain spell.  You could use your status, social influence, and other such things and get a little more out of it.



Agreed. The point I was trying to make was that (IMO) 4e heads more in this sort of direction than earlier versions of D&D, or at least (in the case of examples like being the son of a Baron) better facilitates it.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 6, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'd be interested to hear how you plan to bang an 8-10 year campaign out of 4e, for such things seem to be something to which it is not well-suited.  Unless, of course, you can scale the game to 70th level.



We play every 2nd to 3rd weekend for 4 hours or so, and don't keep up an especially cracking pace in that time. I don't know if it will go for 8 years, but I'd think 5+ is pretty likely, assuming everyone wants to keep going.



Lanefan said:


> I've become a Qullan, it seems.
> 
> What's a Qullan?



A 1st ed AD&D Fiend Folio humanoid. From memory, it paints itself in war paint and wields a sharp sword (maybe a scimitar?) which has some sort of critical/max-damage/vorpal feature. I think (but am not sure) that Qullan's would be on the Unearthed Arcana expanded list of giant class creatures against which Rangers get a damage bonus.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 6, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> So is the plot what the players goals are? There actions and mine in response?.



That's part of what I mean. To give an example. One of the PCs in my current game is a Drow rebel who worships Corellon (the Elven god of magic). He is also a sorcerer who draws power from the Elemental Chaos and the Abyss. At night, by the campfire, he sings ancient Drow lays of when they lived in the surface world beneath the stars and beside the waters. And his long-term goal is to reunify the races of Elvenkind.

Now that's character backstory and goals. It's not a plot per se. But what it tells me is that this player wants adventures and encounters that enliven these various elements: from small things, like his fluency in Elven making a difference, to big things, like having to choose whether to draw power from the Abyss even though that may strengthen the hand of Lolth and thus reduce the propspects of any unsundering of the Elves.

As I build these sorts of opportunities for that player into the game, I define more and more of the backstory of the world. The player's responses to those opportunities - which are influence by how they tie into the backstory and are likely to shape the development of the world - make the game unfold.

By "the plot" of my game I would generally mean the thematically relevant backstory, plus the choices the players have made for their PCs in response to that backstory, plus the immediate consequences of the resolution of those choices, plus the stuff that is likely to come next in the game in response to what has unfolded so far.

This last part of "the plot" - being oriented towards the future - is of course provisional, even in some cases conjectural. But I still have it in mind when I design encounters/adventures/backstory - I want what is happening in the game at present to at least be consistent with, and at best be supportive of, the destination that the game seems to be heading towards. For example, I envision one element of the culmination of this Drow PC's Epic Destiny being a confrontation with Lolth (who is statted out in the 4e MM3), and I always have that in the back of my mind when designing adventures and encounters at the moment. But if it turns out that this isn't going to happen (eg maybe at some stage the PC will change his mind and become a Lolth worshipper) then I will have to respond to those changes in further developing adventures, encounters and backstory.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Can't really help you if you can't keep track of your own statements.
> 
> But, while "fair" wasn't specifically part of what I was responding to, you very explicitly commented on power to end a game.  Clearly you were defining a serious problem when your point hinges on the termination of the game.
> 
> ...




For someone who goes out of their way to jump on me every time I might misunderstand something, you're awfully quick to add in things that aren't there.

I'll stand by the point that the DM has way more power to end a game.  Even without any "major problems".  All a DM has to say is, "Gee guys, I'm really not liking this anymore, let's do something else." and the game ends.  It takes an entire group of players to do that to end a campaign.

Lanefan has multiyear camapigns where only a small fraction of the original players are present at the end of the campaign.  No single player, and frequently no minority of player numbers can end a campaign.  But, OTOH, all Lanefan has to do to end his campaign is say, "Guys, it's over."

How is this not an example of much greater DM control?

But, in any case, yes, your comment, " But if you meant to say nothing more insightful than "DMs have more ways to effect events inside the game", then, my bad, I'll just move along..." is pretty much spot on.  Go back and reread the thread.  I was discussing with Beginning of the End how players had even remotely equal power to effect events inside the game and that's all I was discussing.

In fact, I believe, I actually approved of the idea that DM's have greater control over their game.  Design by committee is not something I want to see in tabletop games as a standard.

It would be really nice if just once the peanut gallery would argue the point and not the poster.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking, I'll quote but with some snippage and rearrangement. I think you are right that there has been some miscommunication, but I also think there is an element of disagreement (resulting at least in part, I think, from a difference of emphasis - what I describe upthread as a difference of playstyle).



Raven Crowking said:


> if a (or, indeed, _*the*_) goal is to "not foreclose meaningful choices by players", and you agree that a real choice being offered is impinged upon in direct proportion to the degree to which the optimal choice is clear to the players, and the degree to which the choice is optimal, then some degree of "irrelevant" detail is, in fact, relevant, because (as described in my previous post) it helps to obscure what would otherwise be obviously optimal choices.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Since the described purpose of detail is to prevent choices from being obvious, and since that seems to be what you are doing with your "interesting" NPCs, your conclusion certainly does not follow from your premise, or from the examples given.



I don't agree that "a real choice being offered is impinged upon in direct proportion to the degree to which the optimal choice is clear to the players", because it presupposes that there is an optimal choice. And I therefore don't agree with your conclusion about relevance/irrelevance. The point of interesting NPCs, for example, is not that optimal choices are obscured, but that interacting with them will give rise to multiple courses of action that are viable and exciting relative to the game me and my players want to play. So evil cultists make interesting NPCs (they can be killed, bargained with, converted, or gain converts, all of which have exciting implications for a game in which multiple PCs are priests or paladins, even the non-clergy PCs have strong religious commitments, and this is not just because the players wanted a PC with healing but because they enjoy exploring the mythic/religious dimension of the gameworld and of game play). Barkeeps, as a general rule, do not.

Thus if I mention a barkeep to my players they are likely to infer that s/he is an evil cultist, or otherwise of potential interest to them. For some playstyles (eg where it is supposed to be a mystery as to who the cultists are) this wouldn't work. But that's not the sort of game I'm genrally GMing. I will try to explain in more detail below, but in brief, the way I prevent choices from being obvious is not by concealing the optimal choice through inclusiong of camouflaging detail, but by elminating the notion of optimal choice. Once the players know that the barkeep is a cultist, what is the optimal choice for them to make? There isn't one. How they respond depends on where they want the game, and the story of their PCs, to go.

As I said above, I think this is a playstyle thing. I believe (from past posts of yours) that your playstyle is at least somewhat Gygaxian (based on 1st ed PHB notions of "good play"). Anyway, that's the way in which I'm reading your posts. My playstyle is fairly different.



Raven Crowking said:


> It should be obvious that everyone agrees that there is some cut-off where extraneous detail simply should not be prepared.  Where that cut-off is is dependent upon personal taste....but will have an effect on how obvious optimal choices are.  Again, no one is fooled by a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing in a world where bunnies or stumps are never otherwised mentioned.  In a world with neither colour nor texture, camouflage is of little value.



See, my preferred solution to this particular conundrum is to assign the Wolf-in-Sheep's Clothing a Stealth score, and to only mention it under one of two conditions: a PC succeeds on a perception check, in which case I mention that they notice a carnivorous plant disguised as a rabbit on a stump; or no PC succeeds on a percpetion check, at least one PC comes within range of the monster, and I mention that the PC is a victim of a surprise round from a carnivorous plant disguised as a rabbit on a stump.

This is not the only way of doing it, obviously, and from your posts I gather not your preferred way. As I said, it's a playstyle thing. No one in my game is interested in descriptions of ingame forest landscapes to the requisite degree of detail to do it otherwise. I would not therefore say that my gameworld lacks colour or texture. But the description of that colour and texture is focused elsewhere, on the things (like statues of Orcus) that are salient given my best guess at player interests as manifested through their PC builds and backstories and their prior play of those PCs.



Raven Crowking said:


> Your counter-example (the Orcus statue) seems to be in response to someone else's post, or to someone else's ideas.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't fully agree with your (2) - the reason that the optimal choice is not obvious is because there is no optimal choice. Is it optimal for a paladin of the Raven Queen to betray his mistress and throw in his lot with Orcus? Or to remain faitfhul, but in cowardly fashion leave the statue undisturbed because he fears he can't deal with it at his current level of power? Or to try and cleanse it, even though this risks corruption? Or to . . .?

There is no answer to this question. From the metagame point of view, any is a possible route to XP (whether combat XP, skill challenge XP, quest XP or more than one of the above). Also from the metagame point of view, any is likely to produce an interesting game, although each is obviously interesting in a different sort of way.

From the ingame point of view, some choices are obviously more optimal than others relative to a given set of PC goals, but the whole point of the example is that the choices invovle, to an extent at least, setting the PC's goals.

Furthermore, as a GM, I couldn't predetermine an optimal choice because the range of options isn't known to me. It is created by the player in question. As a GM I respond to the possibilities raised or actions undertaken as best I can, using the encounter-building and action-resolution rules the game gives me. (I should add - this example is a slightly pared-down example of something that actually happened in the course of play. The player ended up choosing to try and cleanse the statue. I resolved the attempt using the rules on page 42 of the 4e DMG, and awarded XP for completing a minor quest. This was only a minor piece of action, but it helped set the overall scene for further undead-related developments in the campaign.)

As to the move to (3), which you say is a non-sequitur - I had taken you to suggest that the notion of only including "relevant" details is pernicious, because it leads to the GM signalling the optimal choice and thereby depriving the players of the opportunity to choose. If I misunderstood you in so taking you, I apologise. But what I tried to do with the Orcus statue example was to provide an example where including only relevant details, so far from being pernicious because a way of signalling optimal choices, is in fact the very way in which the possibility of genuine player choice is opened up. But the choice in question is not a game-mechanical or tactical choice. It is a thematic or aesthetic choice.

This is not the only sort of choice that comes up in my games - once combat starts, for example, I resolve it using the standard 4e rules and this opens up the space for many tactical choices by players, which can be more or less optimal. Even in respect of these choices, however, I don't think it hurts to focus primarily on relevant (ie thematically salient) features of the ingame situation. In a recent combat I ran, for example, the PCs had to stop a ritual and rescue the prisoners being used as sacrifices in the ritual. Their were two main ways to fight the battle: stay in a defensible position near the entry to the ritual room, beat the guards, and then deal with the enemy ritualists; or, go immediately to the ritual circle on the other side of the room and try and stop the ritual, but then have to fight more foes simultaneously from a much more vulnerable position. My players took the first option, and found the combat quite a bit easier than I had anticipated, but failed to save one of the prisoners, because they didn't stop the ritual in time. A meangingful choice was made, with obvious ingame ramficiations (as well as resulting in fewer than maximum quest XP). It wasn't thwarted by a failure to desribe non-relevant details of the situation. Nor did I telegraph matters - indeed, in designing the encounter it hadn't occurred to me that the players would adopt the course of action they actually took. I assumed that they would try to rescue the prisoners straight away.

But this is also a case where the notion of "optimal choice" has no real purchase. What is optimal - to rescue both prisoner via a more risky strategy, or to increase the risk to the prisoners by adopting a safer strategy? It's rather a question of the players settling their own priorities, and the goals of their PCs.



Raven Crowking said:


> If it is now irrelevant, and should not have been included, what happens seven sessions later, when the players bring it up again?  Is it now relevant, because they express interest?



I don't quite follow. If the statue is mentioned and the players don't pick up on it, then as a GM I have made a minor mistake - insofar as I have included an element in my description that I had expected to be of interest to one or more players, given my best guess as to what they're looking for from the game, and my expectation has turned out to be mistaken. Given that the players haven't picked up on it, nothing is likely to come of it. If, subsequently, the players do pick up on it (eg "I remember something about an Orcus statue back there - maybe we should see if by cleansing that we can reduce the undeads' strength") then it has become relevant (and suppose they go and cleanse it, succeeding in a quick skill challenge, they can all have a +2 on their next attack roll against undead, or some similar modest benefit, as well as XP for the skill challenge itself and perhaps a minor quest).



Raven Crowking said:


> Does the statue exist in some sort of quantum relevant/irrelevant state until either the players express interest, or the campaign ends without them doing so?  And what if it then is mentioned in the next campaign, spontaneously, by the players?  How far does this superimposition of states go?



I don't follow this. If the existence of the statue is mentioned, then it is there. If not, it is not. I don't quite see how the next campaign is relevant - is the concern that another group of PCs might enter the same dungeon? I don't design campaign worlds or dungeons in that sort of way, as environs to be explored independent of any particular set of PCs/players. I design them (or, more often, adapt them from modules) with particular PCs and players in mind, and I continue to tweak them up until the moment I run them in order to maximise their relevance (in the sense I've been describing) to those particular players. This is not a full-fledged "no myth" style of play, because I do prepare in advance (I find that 4e demands a degree of advanced preparation if it is to give its best), but it tends at least somewhat in that direction.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 6, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree that "a real choice being offered is impinged upon in direct proportion to the degree to which the optimal choice is clear to the players", because it presupposes that there is an optimal choice.




Okay, let's talk about choices for a second.

(1)  In order for a choice to be meaningful, the result of a given option cannot be the same as that of all other possible options.

If I say "Choose a number between 1 and 6", but the result is the same regardless of what you choose, then there is no real choice.  This is the problem I have with "Regardless of whether the PCs go left or right, the same thing is waiting for them" GMing.

(2)  Assuming any goal, whether GM-presented or player-driven, if the result of an option moves the PCs forward toward that goal, it is (in general) a better option than one that does not.  Likewise, if resources are to be taken into account, an option that reduces expenditure whil moving toward a goal is (in general) superior to one that includes heavy resource attrition.

(3)  Since we are discussing the results of meaningful choices, there must be both context (sufficient information to at least make the choice something other than the result of random chance) and sufficient consequence (i.e., all choices cannot be equally optimal based upon the goals of the players, whether self-generated or GM-generated) to make the choice meaningful.

A choice where no option is more optimal than any other is, essentially, meaningless.  Counter-examples always, perforce, contain some element of optimization, even if what is optimal is the level of fun the participants enjoy.

For example, if you say

The point of interesting NPCs, for example, is not that optimal choices are obscured, but that interacting with them will give rise to multiple courses of action that are viable and exciting relative to the game me and my players want to play.​
I would point out that those multiple courses of action allow for choices that optimize what game you and your players want to play (i.e., they allow the players to drive the game in a direction they find more enjoyable), and the excitement arises from the tension between what is known and unknown while driving the game in that direction.

For example, you say 

Once the players know that the barkeep is a cultist, what is the optimal choice for them to make? There isn't one.​
But, then, your next sentence demonstrates that, in fact, there is one.

How they respond depends on where they want the game, and the story of their PCs, to go.​
"Optimal choice" =/= "mechanically optimal choice" of necessity (although, of course, it does in some contexts).

The same problem lies at the root of your other examples.  You are not describing cases where there is no optimal choice, you are describing cases where there is insufficient information (specifically, the desires of the player in question; i.e., that player's interest that makes one option better than another) to know the optimal choice.

It does not follow that, because you and I see different choices as optimal, there is no optimal choice.  Nor does it follow that, because you and I would choose differently under conditions where consequences are obscured, that we would discover that we had made the "best" choice for our desires.

Given my initial premise (that "a real choice being offered is impinged upon in direct proportion to the degree to which the optimal choice is clear to the players"), it seems somewhat odd to me that you would attempt to refute that by demonstrating real choices where the optimal choice is even more obscure!  

Or, perhaps, another way of putting it might be

From the ingame point of view, some choices are obviously more optimal than others relative to a given set of PC goals, but the whole point of the example is that the choices invovle, to an extent at least, setting the PC's goals.​
which seems perfectly consistent with what I was saying, to me!  

Moreover, the part of my post that you didn't get (about the statue) seems in conflict with this idea.  Knowing that the players are not going to find a statue, or a barkeep, interesting presupposes that you *can* predetermine an optimal choice, as well as predetermine what the players will find interesting -- and the barkeep isn't it!

(Ditto the statue, etc., in the examples you didn't get.)



> So evil cultists make interesting NPCs (they can be killed, bargained with, converted, or gain converts, all of which have exciting implications for a game in which multiple PCs are priests or paladins, even the non-clergy PCs have strong religious commitments, and this is not just because the players wanted a PC with healing but because they enjoy exploring the mythic/religious dimension of the gameworld and of game play). Barkeeps, as a general rule, do not.
> 
> Thus if I mention a barkeep to my players they are likely to infer that s/he is an evil cultist, or otherwise of potential interest to them.




Yes, they would.

Whether or not you find it problematical, this is exactly what I described upthread.  If you only mention the things you believe to be important, the players automatically assume (1) that anything mentioned is important, and (2) that anything not mentioned is not important.

Thus, you say

See, my preferred solution to this particular conundrum is to assign the Wolf-in-Sheep's Clothing a Stealth score, and to only mention it under one of two conditions: a PC succeeds on a perception check, in which case I mention that they notice a carnivorous plant disguised as a rabbit on a stump; or no PC succeeds on a percpetion check, at least one PC comes within range of the monster, and I mention that the PC is a victim of a surprise round from a carnivorous plant disguised as a rabbit on a stump.​
which is, of course, a perfectly valid way to play, but one which (to some degree at least) minimizes player choices because the PCs never have a "full view" of their environment.  

And, yes, I do understand that there are benefits to this approach.  For one, you do not need to worry about the players going off on a tangent, simply because no tangents are presented.



> Furthermore, as a GM, I couldn't predetermine an optimal choice because the range of options isn't known to me.




But it could be, if you decided that you were the sort of GM who wanted to lead the players by the nose.  It is easy enough to do.  All you have to do is decide what the players _*should choose *_aforehand, and make ever other potential choice result in maximum suckage.  

(And, yes, games like that do exist.....and arguably, some design paradigms lead potential GMs in this direction more than others.)

It is well within the power of the GM to constrain player options.  In fact, by limiting what you describe of the world, you perforce constrain player options.  And, as no GM can possibly describe everything that the PCs would see/hear/smell/feel, to varying degrees we all constrain player options by the choices we make when offering descriptions of the world.

Some simply constrain these options more than others, for good or for ill (or, as seems more likely the case, to offer a composite of good and ill that seems interesting to that particular GM).

AFAICT, you are replying to the suggestion that "a real choice being offered is impinged upon in direct proportion to the degree to which the optimal choice is clear to the players" by disagreeing with the premise, but basing your disagreement on statements that strongly support the premise:  essentially that, in some cases, the optimal choice is so obscured that you do not know what it is, and that these choices are meaningful.

The base statement would be refuted if, instead, you could demonstrate a case where knowing what is optimal somehow results in the choice being more meaningful.


RC


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 6, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't design campaign worlds or dungeons in that sort of way, as environs to be explored independent of any particular set of PCs/players. I design them (or, more often, adapt them from modules) with particular PCs and players in mind, and I continue to tweak them up until the moment I run them in order to maximise their relevance (in the sense I've been describing) to those particular players.






Do you make changes on the fly if the players express disinterest during play, such that if players roll their eyes at a particular element when they encounter it, would you simply ignore its previously designed details?  Along the lines of -

GM (Knowing that revolving the statue opens hidden grates): The exits of the statue room seal and the whole room begins to fill with water . . .

Player 1: Traps like this are no fun.

Player 2: Maybe we should switch campaigns.

Player 3: This is a waste of time.

GM: While attempting to stay dry, one of you bumps into the statue and must have hit a secret catch, opening grates and draining the room as the doors unseal and . . .


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Do you make changes on the fly if the players express disinterest during play, such that if players roll their eyes at a particular element when they encounter it, would you simply ignore its previously designed details?  Along the lines of -
> 
> GM (Knowing that revolving the statue opens hidden grates): The exits of the statue room seal and the whole room begins to fill with water . . .
> 
> ...




While I don't do that personally, I have to say, given this exact scenario you present, is there anything wrong with that?  When every player at the table expresses dissatisfaction with what's going on, wouldn't a good DM pick up on that and make some changes?  

Granted, it's a pretty far out there example.  Hopefully the DM has a somewhat better read on the players than this, but, it does happen.  

And, even if the DM does insist on playing out this single example, if he hits the players with it a second time, despite their very vocal protestations, in some sort of attempt to "train" the players into the "right" way of playing, he definitely wanders into "bad DM" territory for me.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 7, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Do you make changes on the fly if the players express disinterest during play, such that if players roll their eyes at a particular element when they encounter it, would you simply ignore its previously designed details?  Along the lines of -
> 
> GM (Knowing that revolving the statue opens hidden grates): The exits of the statue room seal and the whole room begins to fill with water . . .
> 
> ...



Interesting example. I've never quite had it come up - and certainly never in the language of Player 2 - but I tend to agree with what Hussar said in his reply. I do tend to take this sort of approach to a lot of exploration elements (eg I don't fuss very much about food, ammunition, weather, etc unless it emerges out of the mechanical resolution of a skill challenge) but this isn't really altering things real time in the course of play - it's more about adopting a certain approach to play in the first place.

The sort of changes I tend to make during play are to assumptions about relationships between the PCs and NPCs, and hence to assumptions about what sort of conflict will happen next. To elaborate: like many GMs (I think), I tend to sketch out a sequence of encounters for a given session, which presuppose (i) some sort of sequence of events that will lead the PCs through those encounters (not necessarily in any particular order, and perhaps not all of them) and (ii) some sort of "orientation" or "comportment" of the players towards those encounters ie whether I'm expecting them to fight, or negotiate, or explore, or . . .  These two things are interrelated, because the way that the players approach an encounter obviously affects the way that it unfolds and resolves, and this in turn effects the sequence of events that leads through the encounters.

Because I know my players and their PCs pretty well, and I plan with this knowledge in mind, mostly my planning works out. But every now and then, though, the players approach an encounter in a way that I didn't expect, or resolve it in a way that I didn't expect. (I'm not talking here about anticpated variations - like do they save two, one or zero prisoners from ritual sacrifice - but about significant variations, like joining in with the cultists and helping finish the ritual.) This can require both developing or alterning an encounter on the fly (eg if a fight starts, 4e needs a battlemap, and a battlemap needs terrain details that I probably won't have worked out in detail if I was assuming that the room would just be the site of negotiations) and then coming up with new encounters, or resolving entirely new events, as the whole direction of play changes in a way that I didn't anticipate. For me, perhaps the most frustating aspect of 4e is its lack of a good mechanical interface between skill challenges and combat, so making these changes to the "orientation" of an encounter and to the direction of play is sometimes non-trivial.

Both from my own play experience, and from what I used to read in old Dragon letters columns and what I read now online, I gather than not all GMs do this. For example, in an adventure path, I gather that the players are more-or-less obliged to follow the directions of the module author and the GM as far as the primary villain is concerned, and also as far as the principal events are concerned.

I also know that some people have the view that players have a sort of duty of civility to follow the GM's adventure hooks. Consistent with what I've said above, my preferred approach is to have the players build the hooks into their PCs - either at creation, or through the way that they play their PCs as the game goes along - and then I build and resolve the encounters in accordance with those hooks.

I regard this approach to play as a non-sandbox alternative to the railroad. It's my favourite way to RPG, both as GM and player.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'll stand by the point that the DM has way more power to end a game.  Even without any "major problems".  All a DM has to say is, "Gee guys, I'm really not liking this anymore, let's do something else." and the game ends.  It takes an entire group of players to do that to end a campaign.
> 
> Lanefan has multiyear camapigns where only a small fraction of the original players are present at the end of the campaign.  No single player, and frequently no minority of player numbers can end a campaign.  But, OTOH, all Lanefan has to do to end his campaign is say, "Guys, it's over."
> 
> How is this not an example of much greater DM control?



The DM can always end the campaign, pure and simple; she has exactly 100% of that power.  Further, she can then turn around and restart it with different players if she likes.  I've seen this done. 

That said, I'm not entirely sure that's what's under discussion here (though I could be wrong; I've skipped quite a bit within the longer posts here).

The question is not how much power the DM has as to whether the campaign exists or not, but instead - taking the campaign's ongoing existence as a given - how much power the DM has *within* said campaign.  And that varies almost group by group, with no hard and fast answers available.

For my own part, I've ended two long campaigns.  One ended in a story-driven manner: due to the PCs actions the world became unplayable (it became a non-magical world).  The other ended when I said "Guys, it's over."* as I'd run out of ideas for it.

* - or very similar words to that effect.

Lan-"it ain't over till it's over"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2010)

I'll agree Lanefan that the power the DM has within the campaign does vary.  Actually, I'd go a bit further and say that how much the DM chooses to exercise his control over the campaign varies.  The DM always has the power.  He can simply choose to delegate that power back to the players.

However, he can also take that power back at any time.  And, really, any player choice, even in the most wide open sandbox, is still limited by the options presented to him by the DM.  I can't choose to attempt to become the king of America in the 20th century Modern game.  America doesn't have a king.

The same goes for any DM's campaign.  If the DM decides that X isn't there, it's not there and nothing the player does will make it there.  I can't decide to run for election in the Free City of Greyhawk.  I suppose I could try to bring democracy to Greyhawk, although, again, the success of that will depend almost entirely on how the DM reacts to the idea.  

However, I think most players will constrain their choices based on what they know of the campaign and the DM.

People can talk about how wide open their sandboxes are all the time. And that's fine.  Giving players lots of choices is a good thing.  But, let's not pretend that the DM doesn't have virtually total control here.

Heck, if he didn't, why do we need a DM in the first place?  If players an decide on where they go, what they do and what happens when they get there, then why have a DM at all?  In most games, the player can decide where to go, and then the player can react to what the DM presents to him.

(Again sticking with D&D here - there are other games which give players much greater authorial control over the game)

Let me put it to you this way.  In a 3e D&D game, can I, as a player, tell you (not ask, tell) that I buy a +3 Defending Longsword in a large city?  Why or why not?


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'll agree Lanefan that the power the DM has within the campaign does vary.  Actually, I'd go a bit further and say that how much the DM chooses to exercise his control over the campaign varies.  The DM always has the power.  He can simply choose to delegate that power back to the players.
> 
> However, he can also take that power back at any time.  And, really, any player choice, even in the most wide open sandbox, is still limited by the options presented to him by the DM.  I can't choose to attempt to become the king of America in the 20th century Modern game.  America doesn't have a king.
> 
> ...



With one exception, everything you say above can only be answered on a group-by-group basis.

The exception is the very last question.  In a 3e game I might not be able to tell you I buy one (never mind my character might not even have the funds available to buy one), but if I have the levels and abilities I can sure as shootin' tell you I'm going to build one.

Lan-"and then I can steal it; that's what magic longswords are for, isn't it?"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2010)

But, Lanefan, we've already agreed that players have control over their own characters.  I have no problem with that.  Presuming the DM is playing by the rules, and you have the funds and time to build that sword, sure, no problem.  The rules do specifically delineate that power to the player.

Although, again, that's easy enough for a DM to stop - time and pacing is pretty much entirely controlled by the DM.  You can't build the sword because we don't stop long enough - or, if you do stop long enough, Kyuss is going to eat the world.

But, that sidesteps my question.  The rules do state that if I'm in a city of a certain wealth, I should, as the player, be able to buy a magic item under that limit.  But, even here, you cannot really say that I can buy a magic sword, even when the rules say that I can.  You can't say it because those rules are generally seen as the purview of the DM and he's more than entitled to change them.

It's true that a given group may allow more player authority or less.  But, that's still always the DM delegating that authority, not the rules.  The rules rest the power squarely in the DM's chair.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 7, 2010)

RC, in response to my comment that if I mention a barkeep, my players will assume that s/he is an evil cultist (or a similarly interesting potential antagonist), you say:



Raven Crowking said:


> Yes, they would.
> 
> Whether or not you find it problematical, this is exactly what I described upthread.  If you only mention the things you believe to be important, the players automatically assume (1) that anything mentioned is important, and (2) that anything not mentioned is not important.



I don't disagree with this. In fact, I've expressly said that I only like to mention what's important (or, in my preferred terminology, what's interesting). And I'm happy for my players to assume that if I haven't mentioned it, it's not important. (Of course, they may not always make that assumption. If they would like a given game element to exist - such as a friendly priest who was once a cultist of Orcus but then converted to the good side - they may have their PCs set off to look for it.)

The point I am making is that such an assumption being made by the players doesn't preclude meaningful choices.

The meaningful choices, once the players have had their attention drawn to the barkeep, are:

(i) What steps, if any, are to be taken by their PCs take ingame so that the ingame state of knowledge can be brought into alignment with the players' metagame hypothesis. By the standards of many posters here my table is pretty liberal on metagaming, but we do have a mild aesthetic preference that there be at least an ingame figleaf. This choice is meaningful, because the range of options - from surveillance to interrogation to mind probing to mind control to killing the barkeep and then coercing his/her dead spirit - is non-trivial, and which choice is made makes a potentially significant difference to the unfolding ingame situation, as well as the unfolding metagame situation (is this a game about nice guys, or about vicious torturers, for example? or even a game about how nice guys sometimes get corrupted into vicious torturers?) 

(ii) What, if anything, is to be done to the barkeep. Is s/he to be killed? Converted? Or are the PCs to join the cult and use the barkeep as their ticket to do so? These are obviously non-trivial choices. The choice to join the evil cult, in particular, is a hugely game-changing one (at least from my experience of having GMed games in which those sorts of choices have been made).

Neither of these is a "choice" on which nothing of significance for the game turns. It therefore satisfies your criterion (1):



Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  In order for a choice to be meaningful, the result of a given option cannot be the same as that of all other possible options.




You also say:



Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  Assuming any goal, whether GM-presented or player-driven, if the result of an option moves the PCs forward toward that goal, it is (in general) a better option than one that does not.  Likewise, if resources are to be taken into account, an option that reduces expenditure whil moving toward a goal is (in general) superior to one that includes heavy resource attrition.



As far as resource efficiency is concerned, in the game I run that tends to be relevant mostly (although not exclusively, as skill challenges sometimes consume powers and surges) in combat, both within combats and across combats that happen prior to a given extended rest. In 4e these sorts of "optimum because efficient" choices are shaped by the interaction between the mechanics and the geography. The best way to make meaningful choices possible is therefore to make the geography fairly apparent - via a battlemap - and let the players go to town with the mechanics. (There are some exceptions, like hidden traps or invisible opponents, which reward some character build and skill deployment choices to do with perception - I don't draw hidden things on the battlemap until they become unhidden.)

As to goals - I think it's a bit more complicated than your description of it. Suppose a player's goal is for his PC to flirt with the darkside but in the end be redeemed. This is the sort of goal at least some of my players adopt for their PCs from time to time. Relative to this goal, is it optimal to kill the barkeep, or to invite the barkeep to explain in more detail the theology of Orcus? I don't know.  I expect my player doesn't know either. Either choice could lead to some degree of corruption of a character. Neither seems likely to lead to iredeemable evil. My player is, I think, more likely to go one way or the other based on what strikes him at the time as fitting with his feel of his PC, the scene, and the current mood of the game.

In any event, to the extent that there is any optimality here, it's completely orthogonal to any issue of detail in description or not describing only interesting details. It's not as if my player's choice would be _more_ meaningful if I'd made it harder for him to work out that the barkeep is a cultist. That would only have made it harder for the player to actually reach the point at which the meaningful choice is to be made.



Raven Crowking said:


> (3)  Since we are discussing the results of meaningful choices, there must be both context (sufficient information to at least make the choice something other than the result of random chance) and sufficient consequence (i.e., all choices cannot be equally optimal based upon the goals of the players, whether self-generated or GM-generated) to make the choice meaningful.
> 
> A choice where no option is more optimal than any other is, essentially, meaningless.



I don't fully agree with this.

First, as to context - your examples of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing, and other cases of narrative detail, suggest that you are assuming the context for choices is provided overwhelmingly by information about the ingame state. To the extent that you are making such an assumption, I don't accept it. Information about the ingame state (eg that the barkeep is a cultist, that in the crypt the PCs find a statue of Orcus) provides some of the context. But a lot of context is provided by external considerations, such as a player's knowledge that if his PC just walks into the bar and kills the barkeep, the PC'll be judged as a pretty merciless individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs.

Second, as to consequences - it's simply not true that differences in optimality are a necessary condition of meangingfulness. This probably isn't a place to rehash the writings of Hume, Nietzsche, Joseph Raz, John Gray etc, but there is a strong body of argument that suggests that some values are incommensurable in principle - and hence that some choices are radical, in that they are meaningful but no consideration of reason tells in favour of one or the other. Even if one rejects this as a philosophical account of value, in practice there are many choices where optimality can't be measured. For example, a decade ago my job as a public servant came to an end and I had to decide whether to look for another public service job or instead to try for an academic career. I took the latter choice. I believe that it was a meaningful choice. Did I make the choice because I believed it was superior to staying in the public service? Obviously I thought it was an attractive choice. But I had also enjoyed being a public servant. Being an academic would let me do things that I couldn't do as a public servant, but obvioulsy the converse is also true. In the end, I had to choose - one can't deliberate forever - and I believe that I made a sensible choice. But I'm pretty confident that had I stayed in the public service I would also be able to reflect back on my choice and my (alternative, hypothetical) range of achievements and regard them as sensible and more than satisfactory. (A complicating factor is that a choice doesn't only deliver outcomes to be evaluated relevant to a preference set, but also shapes the preference set by which the value of the outcome is measured - this means that anticipatory valuation is not necessarily the best guide to post hoc satisfaction.)

As I said above in relation to the pursuit of player goals, when my players choose what to do with the Orcus statue or the Orcus cultist, they aren't engaged - certainly not explicitly and in my view not implicitly either - in a cost-benefit analysis. (They save these analyses for combat planning.) They are responding to a choice situation in a way that they think is sensible and interesting. The meaning is provided not by the opportunity to rationally maximise, but by the opportunity to determine the character - aesthetic, moral, thematic,  . . . (insert other appropriate evaluative categories here) - of the unfolding game, and their PCs as integral elements of that game.



Raven Crowking said:


> Counter-examples always, perforce, contain some element of optimization, even if what is optimal is the level of fun the participants enjoy.



For all sorts of reasons, including some of those given above, but also others to do with the dependence of certain sorts of emotional responses upon not just the outcome that they are a response to, but the means whereby that outcome is achieved, I don't find it helpful to analyse playing an RPG by reference to rational maximisation of a desired emotion.

To put it another way - as a general rule, I don't think that the best way to pleasure (or at least the sort of pleasure that an RPG provides) is to set out to maximise that pleasure, any more than the best way to get an aesthetically satisfying (and therefore, in some sense, entertaining) movie is to set out to make an entertaining movie.

Typically, then, when a player chooses to responsd in a certain way to the statue or the barkeep, I don't think they are following the imperative "Maximise fun!" I think they are responding to much more complex aesthetic and other emotional cues, which hopefully will have as an upshot the generation of fun.



Raven Crowking said:


> multiple courses of action allow for choices that optimize what game you and your players want to play (i.e., they allow the players to drive the game in a direction they find more enjoyable), and the excitement arises from the tension between what is known and unknown while driving the game in that direction.



The excitement in my game comes primarily from action resolution - especially combat, which in D&D 4e is very decision and consequence heavy with a healthy dose of randomisation thrown in. The overall game I would say is interesting but not always exciting. To the extent that it is exciting, I think that excitement arises from doubts about how it is going to resolve. But those doubts don't arise from unceratainties in expectation about GM-described ingame elements (eg Is that really a rabbit on the stump, or in fact a disguised carnivorous plant?). They arise from uncertainty as to how the action of the game will resolve (eg What is going to happen to me, now that I've decided to become a supplicant of Orcus?).



Raven Crowking said:


> Thus, you say
> 
> <snip pemerton's presentation of mechanical-driven approach to Wolves in Sheep's Clothing>
> 
> ...



This is consistent with my earlier suggestion that you see "context" as shaped overwhelmingly by ingame elements. It is also consistent with my remark upthread that your views on description seem to be influenced by a more Gygaxian/exploration-based approach to play.

If you take away these two assumptions - that is, if you assume that metagame evaluations and emotional responses are an important part of context, and if you assume that the game is not primarily about exploration (in the literal sense) of the gameworld - then the effect of non-description of rabbits on stumps on player choices becomes close to zero. Because failing to describe rabbits on stumps has a neglible impact on the possible range of metagame evaluations and responses that shape the metagame context for choice, and has a negligible impact on the players' view of the ingame environment that is relevant to generating such evaluations and responses - because the ingame environment that generates those evaluations and responses is an ingame environment of PCs killing or sparing cultist barkeeps, cleansing or fleeing in fear from statues of Orcus, and so on. Rabbits on stumps are irrelevant to this.

And as I said earlier, if my player would like an ingame element to exist that speaks to their concerns and the way they want to develop their PCs, and I haven't mentioned it yet, then they will have their PCs look for it. Thus, one player wanted to know whether or not, among the elves the players were camping with, there were any members of the secret society he had written into his renegade drow's backstory. He therefore had his PC flash a secret handsign and see if any elf responded. As this was the first I'd heard of the secret society, and as I hadn't thought much about the elves other than what the module told me about their need for an idol to be recovered from a crypt, I made a quick decision - that one of the elves was a member, as the player hoped - but it was not the leader, as the player hoped. Instead it was the crafter to whom the player's PC had given a dragon tooth to be shaped into a magic dagger. This was the first bit of personality that that crafter had manifested as an NPC.

I was subsequently able to develop this new gameworld element, by having the crafter taken prisoner in the course of bringing the dagger to the PC - whom the crafter now had an extra special reason to help. (This also made my life easier as GM - I wanted to get the item to the PC, but not until it was a level-appropriate treasure, and having the crafter be kidnapped while trying urgently to deliver the dagger to his fellow secret society member gave a perfect rationale for the dagger to end up in the PC's enemies' hands). As the rescue of the prisoners is still ongoing in the game, and continues to provide the backdrop against which a lot of player decisions have been made, this has been a development that has produced a lot of payoff for a small outlay by the player and me.

I would regard this as a paradigmatic example of (i) only describing what is relevant, (ii) following the players and their interests in designing encounters, and thereby (iii) facilitating meaningful choices. Choosing only to focus on what is interesting has not cut off options for the player in question - it has made meaningful options available to him.



Raven Crowking said:


> And, yes, I do understand that there are benefits to this approach.  For one, you do not need to worry about the players going off on a tangent, simply because no tangents are presented.



I don't understand the notion of "tangent" here. It's up to the players to decide the direction in which they take their PCs. There is no predetermined direction, in relation to which some other chosen direction threatens to be tangential.

My point - and it's really just rehearsing the point that Mal Malenkirk made way upthread - is that descriptions of rabbits on stumps aren't relevant to any direction my players are interested in going, because they don't engage the relevant emotional and evaluative responses.



Raven Crowking said:


> if you decided that you were the sort of GM who wanted to lead the players by the nose.  It is easy enough to do.  All you have to do is decide what the players _*should choose *_aforehand, and make ever other potential choice result in maximum suckage.



I don't see how this touches upon the question of whether or not describing only relevant things is leading the players by the nose.

I believe I've said enough about my game and more genrally about how I see 4e as playing, in this and other threads, to make clear that mine is not a game in which the GM leads the players by the nose. I believe I've also made it eminently clear that I only describe those gameworld elements that are relevant/interesting/important. I've done my best over a few posts now to explain how these two approaches to play are consistent.

If I wanted to lead my players by the nose I wouldn't change my practice in describing ingame elements. Instead I would dictate their PC backstories to them. I would instruct them (either directly or implicitly) who the PCs' ingame enemies are to be. I would impose my own moral judgement on my players via a combination of mechanical penalties to and ingame lynching of their PCs for doing things I disapprove of (traditionally in D&D the alignment mechanic has been the vehicle for achieving this). I would make sure that whatever decisions the players try to make about who their PCs fight and who they talk to, the ones I want them to fight always fight, and the ones I want them to talk to are always 20th level gold dragons or Elminsters who are (relative to the PCs) invulnerable. I would make sure that the king always hates them however nice the PCs are to him, and that the same patrons present the same plothooks in the same taverns with the same likelihood of turning out to be a turncoat regardless of the moral, political and mythical universe the players are trying to create in the gameworld via the actions of their PCs.

In my view, what I have described above is the main way in which D&D play, over the years (and especially but by no means exclusively in the 2nd ed AD&D period), has encouraged a style of play in which GMs lead their players by the nose. The range of approaches to ingame description has, in my view, played comparatively little role.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, that sidesteps my question.  The rules do state that if I'm in a city of a certain wealth, I should, as the player, be able to buy a magic item under that limit.  But, even here, you cannot really say that I can buy a magic sword, even when the rules say that I can.  You can't say it because those rules are generally seen as the purview of the DM and he's more than entitled to change them.



Perhaps.  It could also come down to random chance as to whether there's such a sword available right now or not.  All the rules say is that a town of that size supports an economy that in theory should sustain a market for (an) item(s) of that value.  The rules make no claim as to what said item(s) actually are or whether said item(s) are of any conceivable use to your particular PC.

And yes, many DMs/groups set it that the DM determines what is for sale or whether magic can be bought-sold at all.  To me, that's just a part of the presentation of the world (which is certainly within the DM's purview), the same as saying there's a tavern on the corner or the inn will charge you 5 g.p. per night.


> It's true that a given group may allow more player authority or less.  But, that's still always the DM delegating that authority, not the rules.  The rules rest the power squarely in the DM's chair.



System also makes a difference, even within D+D.  The DM has far more mechanical control (if she wants it) in 1e than in 3e or 4e.  In 1e the combat tables, saving throw matrices, etc. are all with the DM - and can thus be much more easily fudged, permanently tweaked, or whatever.  In 3e much of that information is transferred to the player and is thus much harder to mess with.

That said, as long as everyone involved plays by the spirit of the game instead of trying to break it and-or make it adversarial, and has half a clue what they're doing, it probably doesn't matter very much where the power is.

Lan-"as long as I still get to wear my Viking hat"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Dec 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's true that a given group may allow more player authority or less.  But, that's still always the DM delegating that authority, not the rules.  The rules rest the power squarely in the DM's chair.



Hussar, a question.

In my stupidly long reply to RC a message or two upthread, I give the following example that actually happened in my game:

A player wanted to know whether or not, among the elves the players were camping with, there were any members of the secret society he had written into his renegade drow's backstory. He therefore had his PC flash a secret handsign and see if any elf responded. As this was the first I'd heard of the secret society, and as I hadn't thought much about the elves other than what the module told me about their need for an idol to be recovered from a crypt, I made a quick decision - that one of the elves was a member, as the player hoped - but it was not the leader, as the player hoped. Instead it was the crafter to whom the player's PC had given a dragon tooth to be shaped into a magic dagger. This was the first bit of personality that that crafter had manifested as an NPC.

I was subsequently able to develop this new gameworld element, by having the crafter taken prisoner in the course of bringing the dagger to the PC - whom the crafter now had an extra special reason to help. (This also made my life easier as GM - I wanted to get the item to the PC, but not until it was a level-appropriate treasure, and having the crafter be kidnapped while trying urgently to deliver the dagger to his fellow secret society member gave a perfect rationale for the dagger to end up in the PC's enemies' hands). As the rescue of the prisoners is still ongoing in the game, and continues to provide the backdrop against which a lot of player decisions have been made, this has been a development that has produced a lot of payoff for a small outlay by the player and me.​
Do you regard this as delegation or not?

I tend not to see it that way. I tend to see it as power sharing. This is also more the tone in which the 4e DMG2 discusses it. But because as GM I have a type of veto/regulatory power over how the secret society actually comes into play at the table - even though it is the player who introduced it into the gameworld - I can see that you might want to describe it as delegation.

Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Dec 7, 2010)

I for one, refuse to play my own game when I GM. That's for players! I don't lead my players. I ask them what they will do, and they fail or succeed on their own. Of course in a certain point I do give them hints, like for instance "Your character is so intelligent that he knows that it's most likely going to be like this".

Rarely, if I lead my players, I emphasize them that what I'm about to say is not leading. And if they follow my hint, it may be a good idea or bad idea. Most likely both.

Some players assume that game-mechanics are so difficult, that GM has to give options what to do. But thinking about game-mechanics is a huge failure. You simply rp your character and say what you want to do. For instance, one guy tried Gather Information and failed. He said that he can't try it anymore, 'cause there's no retry. Meta-gaming *sigh*...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't disagree with this. In fact, I've expressly said that I only like to mention what's important (or, in my preferred terminology, what's interesting). And I'm happy for my players to assume that if I haven't mentioned it, it's not important.




Well, I'm not 100% certain where our thoughts differ here.



> The point I am making is that such an assumption being made by the players doesn't preclude meaningful choices.




No, they don't.  In fact, if you go back to my post you initially responded to, you will see that this must be true.

I said, more than once, that there are two factors involved:  (1) How obvious optimal choices are, or rather, options that have "good" results over "bad" results, and (2) How the choices made change the game.

By focusing the game only on choices you consider meaningful, you are strongly driving (2) at the expense of (1).  It is equally possible to strongly drive (1) at the expense of (2), and produce an equally satisfying game.  Most GMs, IMHO and IME, drive both to some degree, and may or may not be strongly favouring either.  So long as some form of balance is achieved, choices can still be meaningful.

It is only a game where the intended options are obvious, and the game results are the same regardless of what is chosen, that meaningful choice becomes impossible.

So, I hope you can see, my post was not an attack against your playstyle, but rather a response to the idea that removing "irrelevant" detail from the campaign milieu is necessarily a good idea.  

So-called "irrelevant" detail performs a function.  It is not a necessary function, depending upon your playstyle and goals in playing, but neither is it an unnecessary function, in that (1) it is impossible to force the players to accept every detail as relevant and (2) it is generally undesireable to respond to player requests for more detail with "That's irrelevant!  Why don't you deal with the barkeep cultist instead?".  



> First, as to context - your examples of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing, and other cases of narrative detail, suggest that you are assuming the context for choices is provided overwhelmingly by information about the ingame state. To the extent that you are making such an assumption, I don't accept it. Information about the ingame state (eg that the barkeep is a cultist, that in the crypt the PCs find a statue of Orcus) provides some of the context. But a lot of context is provided by external considerations, such as a player's knowledge that if his PC just walks into the bar and kills the barkeep, the PC'll be judged as a pretty merciless individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs.




How, exactly, is "if his PC just walks into the bar and kills the barkeep, the PC'll be judged as a pretty merciless individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs" less about the ingame state than "if his PC just walks into the garden and is killed by the wisc, the PC'll be judged as a pretty foolish individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs"?

Really, this is an artificial divide.



> there is a strong body of argument that suggests that some values are incommensurable in principle - and hence that some choices are radical, in that they are meaningful but no consideration of reason tells in favour of one or the other.




I'll go you one further.  Except as they relate to a goal or desired outcome, no choice is meaningful based on reason.  Reason is a tool to get to the desired state, but does not tell you in any way whatsoever what the desired state should be.  That is purely based on emotion.

The idea, therefore, that either meaning must be based on "a cost-benefit analysis" is one I reject utterly.  However, you may be certain that some level of analysis -- even if on the "gut feeling" level -- occurs when trying to reach the state that is seen to have meaning.

Again, any refutation of my post that relies on "optimal" meaning "mechanically optimal" is doomed to fail, because (probably through my own fault as a writer) it fails to understand the point.



> I don't see how this touches upon the question of whether or not describing only relevant things is leading the players by the nose.




In order to lead the PCs by the nose, it is necessary to tell them what is important.  Regardless of the amount of extra detail a milieu might contain, ensuring that the players have some means to know what the GM considers important is paramount.  You cannot lead without some form of reins, after all.

Consequently, while removing "extraneous" detail doesn't mandate that you lead the PCs by the nose, it is a good first step, and is certainly liable to lead many inexperienced GMs in that direction.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> /snippage for stuff I totally agree with.
> 
> Lan-"as long as I still get to wear my Viking hat"-efan




Yup.  I'd posrep you but, gotta spread it around and whatnot.  But, yes, we're on completely the same page here.



pemerton said:


> Hussar, a question.
> 
> In my stupidly long reply to RC a message or two upthread, I give the following example that actually happened in my game:
> 
> ...




Not really delegation I don't think.  You're simply adopting a player suggestion.  You are under no obligation to do so, so, you still retain the lions share of the power.  

Note, I don't think there's anything wrong with this.  Again, as we kinda got sidetracked a bit ago, I'm not making any sort of value judgement here.  It's not a good or bad thing.  Some games make power sharing explicit.  In, for example, something like Fate or games where the player can (and is expected to) add directly to things beyond his character, this would be delegation.  In D&D, that is still pretty much all up to the DM.  

In your example, you could have just as easily ignored his suggestion.  In a more sandbox style game, I think you're almost obligated to do so, since belonging to the cult wasn't part of the scenario design and, as I understand it, changing elements in play runs counter to sandbox play.  At least as I have had sandbox explained to me.

To me, I think you did exactly the right thing.  The player showed some initiative, actually BROUGHT character elements into the game (good for him) and you rewarded him for doing so.  Fantastic.  The player is happy and you get a better scenario for it.  

But then, I have no problems with rewriting things in the middle whatsoever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2010)

Who explained sandbox play to you in that way?

AFAICT, in sandbox play _*known elements *_are not intended to be changed.  I.e., if it established that X is Y, then X should not suddenly become not-Y without reason.

It is not expected, however, that the GM prepare ahead of time how many fleas are on the right ear of each dog, in the event that the players should ask.

Sandbox play as you seem to understand it, and sandbox play as anyone I have ever met who runs what they would call a "sandbox-style game" seem more often apples to buicks than anything else!  


RC


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 7, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I regard this approach to play as a non-sandbox alternative to the railroad.





That does seem to fall somewhere in between with elements of both (or perhaps more like avoiding specific elements of each) but also with an element during chargen that pre-arranges much of the campaign in spirit if not in detail.  What shall we dub this approach?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In your example, you could have just as easily ignored his suggestion.  In a more sandbox style game, I think you're almost obligated to do so, since belonging to the cult wasn't part of the scenario design and, as I understand it, changing elements in play runs counter to sandbox play.  At least as I have had sandbox explained to me.
> 
> To me, I think you did exactly the right thing.  The player showed some initiative, actually BROUGHT character elements into the game (good for him) and you rewarded him for doing so.  Fantastic.  The player is happy and you get a better scenario for it.
> 
> But then, I have no problems with rewriting things in the middle whatsoever.



As I understand it, you're saying a sandbox game obligates the GM to say no to any player attempts, which are not part of the scenario design.  That's is the complete opposite of the desired effect I strive to engender in my games.  _ANY_ player PC attempt in the game world not covered by the code behind the screen receives a yes answer from me. The action is defined and immediately incorporated, though it is not able to be contradicted after the fact.

I am not here to limit players' imaginations, but press them to both study and perform the social role they selected.  It is the role play simulation point of view, the analytic, question asking study of the world they are part of.  

As long as the focus is on character and narrative elements in games, then I think the purpose of sandbox games is missed.  Those two elements are always in every game from Chess to Gin Rummy to Monopoly, so a player is not necessarily adding character or narrative where none existed.  But these elements are largely irrelevant to the game's focus and design.  It is as asking two football teams why they don't choose to work together in order to tell a better story instead of competing against each other.  After all, the game of football is also a storygame about expressing fictional personas and quality narratives, no?

I've said before I run my game as a reality puzzle game, a cooperative simulation game with the rules hidden behind a screen.  Think of it like the blueprint of a Rubik's Cube.  I do not need to know how to solve that puzzle, only relate its current configuration and move the pieces according to the code/rules and as the players dictate.  It is an attempt to relate without personal preference and I am obligated to say yes, just as in a situational puzzle, to any PC attempt not covered by the rules.  As the reality puzzle game I run (RPG) is very, very broad in details covered, yet small and elegant in its design, rarely are the players expressing something not covered by that code.

I understand your worries about power.  The Foucauldian ethics of unending power struggles as the natural state of humans is in large part the current cultural absolute truth.  However, if you are so worried about issues of power as to never engage with a puzzle game, then I think you may wish to back off it a little.  Otherwise such fun activities as Suduko, trivia games, and any computer games will fall into the same interpersonal struggle of oppression-by-other.  Heck, using a computer software written by others incorporates the same risk.

Games are, in almost all respects, attempts to create a pattern for players to explore and demonstrate recognition thereof.  It's currently an unpopular opinion, but I do believe the vast majority of gamers are looking for just that.  I do not know anyone who plays chess strictly for its ability to express fictional persona and tell quality narratives.  It is the same in my game.  Mine does not require people to express a fictional persona when playing, that isn't roleplaying anyways as it was originally defined back in 1920.  Will they be doing so anyways?  Yes, in the same way they are expressing one when performing math or acting as if anything else they don't believe in exists.  

So how can I act honestly, sometimes called objectively, behind a screen as a referee and still end up being subjective?  It's about fairness and how balance is built into the game, like spotlight time in many contemporary storygames.  As in the game Mastermind I relate elements like color and spatial positioning, both of which are included in my codeset, and allow the players to decode the pattern.  Memory matters here as does quality communication, but as in any communication it is subjective understanding on all our parts.  Like Mastermind my RPG is largely a semantic language game with repetition coming from adequately relayed meaning.  It's beer & pretzels not rocket science, but the communication is only a power struggle when chosen to be viewed as such.  Unless you believe every interpersonal engagement is so, then playing the game is morally OK.

My own game design? I play a variant of Conway's Game of Life, which is ironically no longer considered a game by many of the top "let's define games" folks.  To understand the next part and, if you don't know GoL, you may want to check it out.  I start with positive and negative energy particles and create elements out of them.  With those elements I create more complex constructs like solids and gases and blood and flesh.  The most complex creatures are those sentient ones, the ones not only with maps in their brains that may be explored, but also are capable of incorporating what they interact with into those maps.  (Think of a square in GoL becoming a brand new color of that next to it.)  NPCs are the most complex configurations within the game, but PCs are not far behind.  It's just the players are asked to remember and demonstrate recognition of the world in their own right.  Play is largely as a blueprinted Rubik's Cube with player intelligence and skill demonstrated by manipulating events to their own desired ends.   I do not determine those ends for them just as I do not tell the players that all the sides of the Rubik's Cube must one color.  They will learn how it operates through play and perhaps maneuver to such positioning because they are intelligent enough to do so.  The code is heavy in the scope defined within the social role, class, they have chosen, but not so much in other places.  Learning how to be a good weaver isn't addressed, but it isn't promised to be.  Does a player want to weave? I say yes, but then their description is added on for future reasoning.

This type of play is associative learning and a powerful technique in my opinion.  It pushes players in many of the reasons I enjoy playing the game and I hope they do as well. I've posted them over here before, so I'll keep from repeating them.  In the end I think those behaviors are why players play in my games.  They aren't playing basketball because they will tell a great story. I think basketball is played because it improves players. In ways like eye hand coordination, strength, speed, agility, grace, and  teamwork.  But my game is a mental game and if it isn't helping the players in ways they've agreed to, it isn't worth much in my eyes.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2010)

Two quick points from behind that wall of text.

The first:



			
				H&W said:
			
		

> ANY player PC attempt in the game world not covered by the code behind the screen receives a yes answer from me.




Really?  So, if I declare that the coins we found in the chest are actually extremely rare coins from the Lost Civilization of Bazoooi, worth ten times what you say that they are worth, you say yes?

I'm not talking about player direct actions where the player states, "I do X".  I've already agreed that the player has that power.

I'm talking about what Pemerton is talking about and the player stating, "That elven envoy we just met is actually part of my cult".  Now, in Pem's game, the player asked, not stated.  Why?  Because the player does not have the authority to state that a member of his cult is included in this particular group of NPC's.  That authority rests in the hands of the DM.

Let's not confuse apples and oranges.

Which brings me to my second point:



			
				H&W said:
			
		

> I understand your worries about power.




Again, why is everyone assuming that I have any worries here?  Where have I stated a single concern?  I certainly have no issues with this.  

Heck, you state it yourself.  You say "yes".  But, that presumes that you also have the ability to say, "no".  Until such time as the player can dictate elements to you, any suggestion the player makes is entirely under your control.  You can veto anything you want at any point in time.  

That still means that power rests pretty much squarely in the DM's hands.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, if I declare that the coins we found in the chest are actually extremely rare coins from the Lost Civilization of Bazoooi, worth ten times what you say that they are worth, you say yes?



I don't say anything, it isn't a declared action.  But if the coins have a predetermined treasure value, as mine do, that is not then defined.  As to their origin, that was just defined by the player.  If they explore around next session something called Bazoooi can potentially be learned of and perhaps traveled to. Pemerton's example works as well. I define NPC or monster groups as factions.  But... a secret organization, which includes members from other factions? Those are also defined and but not something likely defined yet in this case.  So one of the members is a cult member.



> Again, why is everyone assuming that I have any worries here?  Where have I stated a single concern?  I certainly have no issues with this.



 What is your interest in power relations in these games then? If you have no concerns over unequal ability amongst players, why bring up the topic?  This isn't snark. I admit I was assuming this wasn't desirable for you.  



> Heck, you state it yourself.  You say "yes".  But, that presumes that you also have the ability to say, "no".  Until such time as the player can dictate elements to you, any suggestion the player makes is entirely under your control.  You can veto anything you want at any point in time.
> 
> That still means that power rests pretty much squarely in the DM's hands.



Like the guy behind the screen in Mastermind I don't get to veto any attempted action by the player.  In fact, I don't veto any action.  They can put those 4 pegs in any manner they choose.  I simply respond with the consequences according to the code behind the screen.  One of the few rules is I as referee cannot convey a failed attempt without the unchanging code as reference.

This is like being a messenger to a foreign king.  The messenger relays his own king's message without claiming it as his own.  But the foreign king kills him anyway.  Because how can a person claim not to intend what they say?  It's a fine line between sincerity and deceit.  Hannah Arendt called it the banality of evil, doing one's job as if the result of it does not make them culpable.  But does such a position of killing the messenger as morally good erase the line between sincere acts and deceitful ones?  It's not a call I would make in such a black or white manner.

Of course, in my game I am the one who defined the code. But as long as the scope and game objective are well defined and such code remains the same the players can pragmatically puzzle it out and my own sincere responses.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2010)

H&W said:
			
		

> What is your interest in power relations in these games then? If you have no concerns over unequal ability amongst players, why bring up the topic? This isn't snark. I admit I was assuming this wasn't desirable for you.




If you swim WAY upthread, you'll see Beginning of the End describing how there was equal power between the players and the DM at a D&D table.  I disagreed with that point.  Since then, apparently, everyone thinks that I'm against the power disparity.  I'm not.  I'm simply pointing out what I believe to be blindingly obvious - the DM controls the lions share of power at a D&D table.



			
				H&W said:
			
		

> Like the guy behind the screen in Mastermind I don't get to veto any attempted action by the player. In fact, I don't veto any action.




So, I can sell those coins for ten times their value?

I can bring in my Battlemaster Battlemech into your D&D game?

I can sprout wings and fly?

Saying that you never veto an attempted action by a player may very well be true.  I don't want to DM that way, but, hey, if it works for you.  I have no problems with the idea of "say yes" and I do believe that's a great way to DM.  But, there's the other side of "Say yes" which is "Yes, but" or "Yes, and".  

But, in any case, the statement of "Say yes" includes the implicit meaning that you have the authority to say yes.  After all, no other player at the table can.  No other player at the table could declare that a cult member was included in Pemerton's example.  Only the DM.

For the power to be equal, the player would have to be able to declare that there is a cult member in the delegation and the DM would then be obligated to adjust reactions accordingly.  Lots of games do give power to the players in this way.  Story games are based around the idea of this sort of power sharing to varying degrees.

But, at the end of the day, in D&D, the DM always has final say.  The player can do nothing without the DM's explicit permission to do so.  A player cannot even open a door to a room without informing the DM.  A DM, OTOH, is under no such constraints regarding NPC's.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If you swim WAY upthread, you'll see Beginning of the End describing how there was equal power between the players and the DM at a D&D table.  I disagreed with that point.  Since then, apparently, everyone thinks that I'm against the power disparity.  I'm not.  I'm simply pointing out what I believe to be blindingly obvious - the DM controls the lions share of power at a D&D table.



Well, then don't think about it in terms of power to tell a story.  Think of it like a puzzle game. As I mentioned in that wall  of text, if you think the NY Times crossword puzzler or Alex Trebek are there to oppress people, you're going to miss out on a lot of fun.



> So, I can sell those coins for ten times their value?
> 
> I can bring in my Battlemaster Battlemech into your D&D game?
> 
> ...



To be fair the vocabulary of literature is a wonderful ladder that can take people places few others can.  But, like any vocabulary, it limits as well as enables.  Choose to think in more than one singular viewpoint and you will find "good DM" can mean enabling people in vastly different ways than those possible in "games as literature".  For one example, chess enables people in a manner poorly defined within strict literary terminology.  It has no "Say yes", "Yes, but", or "Yes, and" rules, but players become so devoted to it some play it their whole lives. 



> But, in any case, the statement of "Say yes" includes the implicit meaning that you have the authority to say yes.  After all, no other player at the table can.  No other player at the table could declare that a cult member was included in Pemerton's example.  Only the DM.
> 
> For the power to be equal, the player would have to be able to declare that there is a cult member in the delegation and the DM would then be obligated to adjust reactions accordingly.  Lots of games do give power to the players in this way.  Story games are based around the idea of this sort of power sharing to varying degrees.
> 
> But, at the end of the day, in D&D, the DM always has final say.  The player can do nothing without the DM's explicit permission to do so.  A player cannot even open a door to a room without informing the DM.  A DM, OTOH, is under no such constraints regarding NPC's.



As in the example I gave I am adjusting reactions accordingly for a new cult member.  It's now in the game, part of the code.  And NPCs are not my PCs to play, they are more of the code. I do not improvise their actions or I would be breaking the rules.  

As I said above in a few different places I play a code breaking game.  It is what I believe most gamers want.  It is what drives such devotion to games like Magic: the Gathering and many others.  If you sit down to play a joint storytelling game with M:tG, I believe you will be missing out on all the fun in its design.  It requires being open minded enough to perceive the game as designed for something other than self expression.

I've mentioned in other places that Tic-Tac-Toe is a good example of postmodern self-blindness.  1st a new player may attempt to win by perhaps going first, in the corner, etc.  2nd the player recognizes the underlying pattern, the eight ways to win. 3rd the game is so simple it is understood most all games will either end in ties, a mistake by one player or both, or an intentional loss.  The 4th state, the postmodern one, is to claim there is no pattern and Tic-Tac-Toe designed so people can tell stories to each other.  

This isn't because the narrative vocabulary is "correct".  It is because the term story, like art, has been smurfed, for lack of a better word.  All human experience, expression, and thought are story. They are stuff, in part and in whole.  Preferring one vocabulary instead of another to talk about this story/stuff isn't wrong, but limiting yourself to one is, in the end, limiting your self.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2010)

H&W said:
			
		

> Well, then don't think about it in terms of power to tell a story. Think of it like a puzzle game. As I mentioned in that wall of text, if you think the NY Times crossword puzzler or Alex Trebek are there to oppress people, you're going to miss out on a lot of fun.




Again, you are assuming that I think the power relationship is a negative one.  "Oppress people"?  Why?  You're right, Alex Trebek in no way oppresses the players.  But, then again, they're playing a game where this is no player freedom whatsoever.  All answers must be in a specific form and there is only one answer to a given question.  

But, let's not forget, Alex Trebek still has all the power in that relationship.  If the players choose not to follow the rules, he can disallow their answers.  The judges (which Trebek is not one of) can disallow answers that are imprecise, and it's up to the judges to define "imprecise".

You cannot get around the idea that there is a power relationship at the table.  It's always there.  It has to be there really.  Someone has to set the scenario, someone has to adjudicate the scenario and someone has to set up the next scenario.  That someone is holding most of the cards.

And, again, that's NOT a bad thing.

But, just pulling another line out here:



> As in the example I gave I am adjusting reactions accordingly for a new cult member. It's now in the game, part of the code. And NPCs are not my PCs to play, they are more of the code. I do not improvise their actions or I would be breaking the rules.




Hang on a second here.  The presence of the cult member is entirely improvised.  It wasn't there until the player asked about it (given the original example).  By placing the cult member there, you've, to use your language, changed the code, not based on any in game action, but on a meta-game level because the player gave you a cool idea.

How is that not improvisation?

But, taking it a step further, unless you have scripted out every NPC speach and refuse to vary from that, you must improvise NPC reactions all the time.  That improvisation is based on a number of factors, but, it's still improvised on the spot.

I think you are trying to reduce the DM down to some sort of Internet Bot that simply reacts in a predictable way every time.  Again, to each his own, but, I certainly wouldn't want to play in a game where the DM never improvises.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 8, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> What shall we dub this approach?



Well, without meaning to be too cheeky (or to irritate HowandWhy99 too badly) I tend to think of it as vanilla narrativism with emphasis on character and situation.

More evocatively and less Forge-y, you could call it the "button pushing" approach - the players build buttons into their PCs, and the GM's job is to introduce gameworld elements (NPCs, events, statues etc) that push those buttons, and then we all see what happens.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I said, more than once, that there are two factors involved:  (1) How obvious optimal choices are, or rather, options that have "good" results over "bad" results, and (2) How the choices made change the game.
> 
> By focusing the game only on choices you consider meaningful, you are strongly driving (2) at the expense of (1).  It is equally possible to strongly drive (1) at the expense of (2), and produce an equally satisfying game.



I see now what you had in mind.

Given the rest of your post, I assume you agree that "equally satisfying" means _in principle_ satisfaction for the right player/GM - I think I would find it less satisfying, because it tends to make (literal) exploration of the gameworld become more important, but I think there are a lot of players who like to explore the gameworld.



Raven Crowking said:


> How, exactly, is "if his PC just walks into the bar and kills the barkeep, the PC'll be judged as a pretty merciless individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs" less about the ingame state than "if his PC just walks into the garden and is killed by the wisc, the PC'll be judged as a pretty foolish individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs"?
> 
> Really, this is an artificial divide.



Maybe. But it doesn't feel like one to me. On the other hand, I'm someone to whom Ron Edwards' GNS essays speak very powerfully, whereas a lot of people, at least on this forum, don't seem to find them very helpful at all.

The difference I feel between the two examples you give is that looking foolish for getting collared by the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is (I think) a bit like looking foolish for making a silly move in chess that needlessly allows a piece to be taken. The feeling of foolishness is a result of having played badly. In Edwards' terms, the stakes here are Gamist one - "Step on up!"

In my games, this sort of dynamic is certainly at work when the mechanics, and especially the combat mechanics, come into play. To a lesser but still noticeable extent it also informs character building. And even for me, as a GM, I like to present encounters that play well rather than poorly relative to the 4e mechanics set - this is less comparitive/competitive, obviously, but still buys into that sense of doing an activity poorly or well.

On the other hand, the feelings that are in play when a player has his/her PC ruthlessly cut down the barkeep are a bit different. This has actually come up recently more than once in my game. One particular player, whose PC is in many respects the most scrupulous of all of them (eg the PC's attitude to looting defeated NPCs is, by D&D standards, very constrained by a sense of who has prior ownership of the loot), has also had that PC kill unconscious hobgoblins at the end of a battle, not because prisoners couldn't reasonably be taken (there was a whole slew of NPCs who might have looked after them) but because the PC holds a bitter grudge against goblins and hobgoblins since they wiped out his home city, took his mother as a slave and then killed her rather than let her be rescued. And in a more recent session, as the players were fleeing a collapsing temple, having barely stopped a demonic ritual, the same PC magic missiled an NPC to death whom the PCs had met in the temple. The NPC was a devil-worshipper there to investigate growing demonic activity, and the PC in question killed the NPC (i) on principle, that devil worshippers, like demon worshippers, have forfeited their claim to live, and (ii) on the practical grounds that he was worried that too much exposure to devil worshippers might corrupt one of his fellow PCs (who had already shown some propensity to being influenced by an imp).

In both cases, the other players responded with some shock at the ruthlessness portrayed. But this isn't like the case of playing well or badly. It's not an emotional response based on a social situation in which one's prowess or ability is compared to another's, or to some ideal standard. Rather, it's a much more evaluative response to a fictional portrayal of a moral challenging situation. And the emotional dimension is amplified in the way that RPGs are particularly good, perhaps uniquely good (?), at achieving, because there is a blurring of the line between the PC's moral judgement, that it is permissible - even mandatory - to commit these murders, and the player's aesthetic judgement that it is permissible - even desirable - to portray and perhaps endorse such a moral judgement in a fiction.

So, to cut a long story short, my own experience fits with Edwards', that gamist and narrativist play are very similar in structure (the GM's job is to make meaningful choices by the players possible, and if this isn't happening then the game has gone badly wrong) but quite different in the sort of experience they aim at producing.

It is also part of Edwards' view that play can't simultaneously be both gamist and narrativist. I guess it depends on what is meant by "simultaneously", but I know that in my game both sorts of pleasures are aimed at, although typically at different times, or using discrete parts of the game system. (And thus there can be a particular pleasure in using the mechanics in a very skilled way to produce a thematically very satisfying or provocative outcome in the game.) I've never had the time to read through all the Forge threads where Edwards explains his view, but I suspect it depends upon imposing a certain sort of analytical framework on play whereby some elements of what is aimed at become subordinated as mere "techniques" whereby the ultimate elements of what is aimed at are to be achieved.



Raven Crowking said:


> It is only a game where the intended options are obvious, and the game results are the same regardless of what is chosen, that meaningful choice becomes impossible.



Agreed.



Raven Crowking said:


> In order to lead the PCs by the nose, it is necessary to tell them what is important.  Regardless of the amount of extra detail a milieu might contain, ensuring that the players have some means to know what the GM considers important is paramount.  You cannot lead without some form of reins, after all.
> 
> Consequently, while removing "extraneous" detail doesn't mandate that you lead the PCs by the nose, it is a good first step, and is certainly liable to lead many inexperienced GMs in that direction.



I'm pretty confident I follow your first paragraph. I remain uncertain about your move to the second paragraph. The removal of detail will only cause problems if the GM _also_ isn't prepared to let the players respond as they see fit (taking for granted that they don't break the implict or explicit understandings at the table as to genre, tastefulness etc) to what is important. Hence my little rant in my earlier post, that in my view the vice of D&D GMing advice (and a lot of GMing advice in general) has not been to emphasise removal of detail, but to emhasise to the GM the importance of controlling and shaping the story, which one way or another entails that the player's will not be free to choose how they respond to the situations the GM set up for them.



Raven Crowking said:


> it is generally undesireable to respond to player requests for more detail with "That's irrelevant!  Why don't you deal with the barkeep cultist instead?".



I strongly agree with this.

Given the dynamics at the typical RPG table - of which I (naturally enough!) think my own is an example - there is always going to be some (social) pressure for the players to go along with the GM. That's why, as a GM, I am always doing my best to make sure that the situations I'm presenting are ones that the players want to engage with independently of any feeling of such pressure. I also try as best I can to make sure that the situations I present offer clear ways in, but don't dictate any given way out - thereby trying to ensure that when I have made a mistake, and the players have their PCs enter the situation only because it's the one the GM offered up, that they at least have the freedom to exit the situation in the way that they want to (and hopefully, the manner of their exit will then help me get back on track with my GMing).

An example of this which came up upthread was when Mal Malenkirk said that, if he found himself in the courtyard with the Aztec statue and the oranges, he would try to pick the lock on the door to get out. I think it is bad GMing to respond to that sort of player choice by trying to obstruct it, in order to try and force the players to deal with the situation in a manner that the players clearly are not interested in.

This also hooks into the discussion of improvisation in this thread. In the courtyard-escape scenario, if the PCs are level 1 and the DC for the lock has been set at 40, then it is mechanically impossible for them to leave the courtyard via such means. I therefore think that the GM is under an obligation, in setting DCs in that sort of situation, to consider not only the ingame logic - "How difficult a lock would the builders of this courtyard have put into place?" - but also metagame considerations - "What are the consequences for the potential flow of play if I make this option mechanically impossible for the PCs?" Even if the GM thinks that it would be cool to reuire the PCs to do some trick with the oranges that will lower the DC from 40 to 20, it may be that this is (or turns out to be) a mistake, because the mechanics impede the optimal (from the players' metagame point of view) flow of the game.

Of course we all make mistakes of this sort from time to time (or at least I do - and in the past I have probably been guilty of deliberately constructing situations that I now regard as mistaken in this way). Rolemaster is a game system that, due to features of both its character build and action resolution rules, in particular makes these sort of "mechanical dead ends to play" easy to stumble into. I find that 4e, with its clear guidelines on combat encounter building, DC setting and skill challenge resolution, helps me to avoid these mistakes more easily, and also to negotiate my way out of them without having to fudge (which I strongly dislike), take things back (which can spoil the flow of play and tends to utterly spoil immersion) or otherwise exercise non-mechanically-mediated GM power.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 8, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> The DM can always end the campaign, pure and simple; she has exactly 100% of that power.  Further, she can then turn around and restart it with different players if she likes.  I've seen this done.
> 
> That said, I'm not entirely sure that's what's under discussion here (though I could be wrong; I've skipped quite a bit within the longer posts here).
> 
> ...




If I quit a campaign as a player, the campaign is over for me so I've ended it *for me*. (Actually as a player, the last 2 times I quit a campaign it ended the campaign for everyone, but that's another story).

If a DM decides to stop running a campaign, the campaign will end *unless the players determine it will continue under new management*.  The DM stopping has a larger risk profile to the player group than a player stopping, but the player group can survive a DM and a player group can terminate at the loss of a player.

If a DM decides to restart a previously failed campaign with new players, it restarts *for him*.  For the players, it is simply the start of their campaign.  There is no power shift there just context for the parties involved.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I see now what you had in mind.




And we're mostly agreed, in principle at least.

In terms of the artificial divide, I am claiming that it is artificial in terms of the point I am trying to convey; it is probably not in all topices, or even all related topics.

You are correct that I do indeed mean "equally satisfying _in principle_"; I know that different people find different playstyles more satisfying than others.  However, there is still a balance between my earlier (1) and (2) that is being sought; where that balance should fall depends upon your preference.



> I'm pretty confident I follow your first paragraph. I remain uncertain about your move to the second paragraph. The removal of detail will only cause problems if the GM _also_ isn't prepared to let the players respond as they see fit (taking for granted that they don't break the implict or explicit understandings at the table as to genre, tastefulness etc) *to what is important*.




Emphasis mine.

Define "important" in this context, and I believe it will aid you in moving from the first paragraph to the second.

Already, the move from "let the players respond as they see fit" to "let the players respond as they see fit *to what is important*" implies some degree of the GM leading the PCs.  In the hands of a less experienced GM, the decision as to what is important is liable to centre in the GM's hands even more.

The GM deciding what is important is a necessary step to deciding what should happen, which is a necessary step to leading the players by the nose.

IOW, your style works for you -- and, I feel certain, a good many other GMs -- because you are experienced and good at what you do.  It is not a style I would recommend to the novice.

YMMV, of course!  


RC


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Again, you are assuming that I think the power relationship is a negative one.  "Oppress people"?  Why?  You're right, Alex Trebek in no way oppresses the players.  But, then again, they're playing a game where this is no player freedom whatsoever.  All answers must be in a specific form and there is only one answer to a given question.
> 
> But, let's not forget, Alex Trebek still has all the power in that relationship.  If the players choose not to follow the rules, he can disallow their answers.  The judges (which Trebek is not one of) can disallow answers that are imprecise, and it's up to the judges to define "imprecise".
> 
> ...



This thing called power doesn't exist. I think you are creating it by choosing to view interpersonal relationships through an imperfect lens.  Choose not to use that lens and the relationship is not about power, this abstract concept I can't point at in the real world.

Defining personal relationships in terms of power almost always begins by defining other as enemy, so my instincts are "unequal power relationships are undesirable" is your point of view. The conclusion is in the premise.  But they aren't necessarily undesirable for you, okay.  But when you say, "You cannot get around the idea that there is a power relationship at the table.  It's always there.  It has to be there really." I think you are locking yourself in a box that isn't there.  Of course there is no power relationship at the table. It only exists if people choose to create it.

A puzzle game isn't about power differences between individuals, but the deciphering of the underlying pattern of the puzzle.  It is an enabling exercise, not a controlling one. 



> Hang on a second here.  The presence of the cult member is entirely improvised.  It wasn't there until the player asked about it (given the original example).  By placing the cult member there, you've, to use your language, changed the code, not based on any in game action, but on a meta-game level because the player gave you a cool idea.
> 
> How is that not improvisation?
> 
> ...



The player improvised the cult member, I did not.  It is added to the code as the game is designed to engage him or her in continual deciphering of the world they are in.  They all know about the "Irrelevant, so Yes" rule at start, so they know some of their conclusions drawn may be be accurate only because they were initially irrelevant.  But upon the asking they immediately become relevant and are incorporated within the entire web of the game.

NPC knowledge maps can be explored through 1st person POV speech, but they are not improvised at the table. They are either generated during scenario creation, determined by players in backgrounds or at the table, or chosen by me at their initial configuration.  As in the GoL, I as referee get to choose that initial configuration of the puzzle, like purchasing a module, but it must stick to or be converted to the underling code.  I could write a module for any number of computer game engines, but it would still need to be converted to that engine to work.

I get this style of game is not yet attractive to you.  It is appealing to people who play games to win, to decipher the code as in M:tG and demonstrate their own prowess.  Memory matters in my game.  Strongly attempting to imagine the related world, observe every detail, and retain for further reflection all of it leads to greater ability to perform within it.  It isn't necessary to do so, but it is rewarded.  My intention is not to turn the DM into a robot, but rather a referee.  As a language game they are always having to decipher communication by the players to their best judgment.  Clarification is key.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 8, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> (. . .) when you say, "You cannot get around the idea that there is a power relationship at the table.  It's always there.  It has to be there really." I think you are locking yourself in a box that isn't there.  Of course there is no power relationship at the table. It only exists if people choose to create it.





_"There's danger here, Cherie . . ."_  It is better to think of a DM, GM, Referee, etc. as a facilitator than on a "side."  There are connotations to describing the facilitator/player relationship in terms of "power" that are unwise to ignore, at best, and detrimental, at worst.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> the move from "let the players respond as they see fit" to "let the players respond as they see fit *to what is important*" implies some degree of the GM leading the PCs.  In the hands of a less experienced GM, the decision as to what is important is liable to centre in the GM's hands even more.
> 
> The GM deciding what is important is a necessary step to deciding what should happen, which is a necessary step to leading the players by the nose.
> 
> IOW, your style works for you -- and, I feel certain, a good many other GMs -- because you are experienced and good at what you do.  It is not a style I would recommend to the novice.



That makes your reasoning clearer to me.

My response (not in the sense of rebuttal, but in the sense of what I think is another factor that can be brought to bear to head of the danger that you are pointing to) is to emphasise improvisation - the readiness of the GM to follow the lead of the players, and to construct situations that allow the players to find their own path through them (and, if it comes to it, out of them).

I'm not sure what best suits a novice GM. Part of the difficulty with 4e being the contemporary "gateway" RPG is that its mechanics - the need for battlemaps, for example, and the fact that a skill challenge can fail as a satisfying action-resolution exercise if the GM doesn't work hard to keep the mechanics tightly integrated with and responsive to the fiction - strongly favour preparation. In my own experience improvisation is nevertheless possible, but I think you're right to say that in improvisng in this way I'm drawing on a lot of GMing experience.

But 4e also doesn't favour the sort of approach that you appear to favour, of strong attention to world detail which then allows the players to choose their own path through the sandbox. My intuition, at least, is that a sandbox is facilitated by purist-for-system simulatonist mechanics, because those sorts of mechanics help both players and GM form the sort of understanding of the ingame causal dynamics of the gameworld that facilitates high-quality sandbox play. And 4e is notoriously not a purist-for-system game.

I know that LostSoul is doing some interesting things with his 4e sandbox, but I think it's a bit different from a typical sandbox. For example, in place of purist-for-system mechanics it relies heavily on both GM metagaming at prep and player metagaming during play, and this isn't necessarily easy for a novice GM either. And certainly there is nothing in the 4e rulebooks that would help a novice set up a game like this.

The upshot might be that 4e, then, is in some sense the wrong game to be the gateway. A better gateway on the sandboxy side would be something like Basic Roleplaying - good, clear, easy to prep and adjudicate purist-for-system mechaincs. A better gateway on the importance + improvisation (or "button-pushing") side might be something like HeroQuest.

4e, by trying to be tactically crunchy (which I like) but also being better suited (I think) to button-pushing roleplaying than sandbox roleplaying, is actually perhaps a fairly hard game for a novice to come to grips with. This discussion has given me a better sense of how 4e, in the hands of inexperienced RPGers, might be more likely than (for example) Basic D&D to end up as a bog-standard railroad that, at the level of actual player engagement, is a boardgame/dice-rolling exercise, because the space of _mechanical_ decision-making is all that the players have left. That also gives me a handle on how it might come across as WoW-ish, because presumably the description I've just given is pretty well suited to WoW.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 9, 2010)

H&W said:
			
		

> Defining personal relationships in terms of power almost always begins by defining other as enemy, so my instincts are "unequal power relationships are undesirable" is your point of view. The conclusion is in the premise. But they aren't necessarily undesirable for you, okay. But when you say, "You cannot get around the idea that there is a power relationship at the table. It's always there. It has to be there really." I think you are locking yourself in a box that isn't there. Of course there is no power relationship at the table. It only exists if people choose to create it.




All personal interactions boil down to power.  It's unavoidable.  It's not positive or negative, it's just there.  Your parents have power over you.  Is that negative?  Most of the time, no it isn't.  Your teachers, your coach, and your boss all have some degree of authority over you.  You are adding meaning here that is not intended.  Power relationships have nothing to do with defining the other side as an enemy.  

At a game table, the majority of the authority rests in the hands of the DM.  Even if he is viewed as facilitator, that still vests the authority to facilitate in his hands.  You cannot be a facilitator without a disparity of authority.  I'm trying to avoid the use of the word power here because everyone seems to be getting hung up on the negative connotations there.

I see no negative connotations in saying that the DM has power at the table that the players do not.  To me, it's just a very obvious observation.



			
				H&W said:
			
		

> The player improvised the cult member, I did not. It is added to the code as the game is designed to engage him or her in continual deciphering of the world they are in.




How?  How did the player improvise that cult member.  He asked the DM if there was a cult member in the group.  There wasn't until he suggested it and the DM added it.  "It is added" by the DM, not by the player.  And, there is no obligation for the DM to add that element.  At least no rules obligation.  

That's entirely improvised by the DM.  It did not exist in the game world until such time as the DM added it.  The DM added it on the suggestion of the player.  In this case, the DM still retains all the authority over the game.  It could easily have gone the other way.  The player makes the secret sign and no one reacts.  

At what point does the player improvise anything?  At what point can the player have any effect on the game world, or the "code" as you call it, beyond making a funny hand gesture?



			
				Nagol said:
			
		

> If I quit a campaign as a player, the campaign is over for me so I've ended it for me. (Actually as a player, the last 2 times I quit a campaign it ended the campaign for everyone, but that's another story).




Semantics.  Is the campaign still running after you quit?  Yes?  Then the campaign has not ended.  That you are no longer playing does not end the campaign.  Otherwise, someone like me  has probably ended a bajillion campaigns as I've had players come and go from my table with an unfortunately regular frequency.  ((The dreaded 5th player seat.  There are 5 of us that have been together now for over a year with three of us gaming together for almost six.  Every time we add a 6th player, they invariably quit after some time, sometimes because they don't like the game, but most often due to real life issues.))

Heck, my World's Largest Dungeon Campaign ran for almost two years.  In that time, four of the players were there for almost the entire campaign.  Overall, IIRC, we had twenty some people at the table.  Does that mean my campaign ended twenty times?

While it is true that another DM might step up to run a campaign, it's pretty rare IME.  It does happen, but not too often.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> All personal interactions boil down to power.  It's unavoidable.  It's not positive or negative, it's just there.
> ...
> Power relationships have nothing to do with defining the other side as an enemy.
> ...
> ...



It isn't obvious to anyone who has no conception of power.  You are choosing to believe in it, but it has no empirical reality except in your brain.  

Perhaps you missed the early years of this decade when DMs were castigated as evil tyrants imposing their will over the player victims in D&D, but the belief was well vocalized at the time.  The belief hasn't gone away, but it is not socially popular either, so it is not voiced in quite the same manner.  Instead we get story authority, authorship rights in games, rather than understanding through game rule deciphering.  It's a point of view and not an absolute truth, though it is often abused against anyone who disagrees as such.

There is no power relationship at the table or authority. It's simply a lens you've chosen to see the relationship through.



> How?  How did the player improvise that cult member.  He asked the DM if there was a cult member in the group.  There wasn't until he suggested it and the DM added it.  "It is added" by the DM, not by the player.  And, there is no obligation for the DM to add that element.  At least no rules obligation.
> 
> That's entirely improvised by the DM.  It did not exist in the game world until such time as the DM added it.  The DM added it on the suggestion of the player.  In this case, the DM still retains all the authority over the game.  It could easily have gone the other way.  The player makes the secret sign and no one reacts.
> 
> At what point does the player improvise anything?  At what point can the player have any effect on the game world, or the "code" as you call it, beyond making a funny hand gesture?



The player improvised the cult member when they thought about one being there.  When they made the attempt to contact a member by secret hand signal to me I responded with an "Irrelevant, so yes" answer. I say yes by including the NPC signaled in the secret society.  Now there is a cult member as I am obligated to do under the rules.  The rest of what you say is more on power and authority.  Who gets to add what to the story.  This isn't storytelling, it's code deciphering: a game.  Find the underlying pattern expressed either in the rules or in a code behind a screen. Role playing is about an analytic perspective shift. Change your view to attempting to understand rather than express in D&D and there is no concept of authority existent there.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 9, 2010)

Nagol said:


> If I quit a campaign as a player, the campaign is over for me so I've ended it *for me*. (Actually as a player, the last 2 times I quit a campaign it ended the campaign for everyone, but that's another story).



Your own experience notwithstanding, in most cases a campaign can and will survive the loss of a single player.



> If a DM decides to stop running a campaign, the campaign will end *unless the players determine it will continue under new management*.



In a case where the setting and game are generic (e.g. a 3e game set in Forgotten Realms), perhaps so.  But if the campaign is set in the original DM's own world and-or uses a rule system unique to that DM, not a chance.


> If a DM decides to restart a previously failed campaign with new players, it restarts *for him*.  For the players, it is simply the start of their campaign.  There is no power shift there just context for the parties involved.



Context, however, is everything.  If a campaign truly stops and then restarts with new players, those new players still have to deal with whatever history the original players and-or their PCs left behind; as well as develop their own new stories.

Lanefan


----------



## Nagol (Dec 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> Semantics.  Is the campaign still running after you quit?  Yes?  Then the campaign has not ended.  That you are no longer playing does not end the campaign.  Otherwise, someone like me  has probably ended a bajillion campaigns as I've had players come and go from my table with an unfortunately regular frequency.  ((The dreaded 5th player seat.  There are 5 of us that have been together now for over a year with three of us gaming together for almost six.  Every time we add a 6th player, they invariably quit after some time, sometimes because they don't like the game, but most often due to real life issues.))
> ...




If I'm no longer involved because I withdrew, it is completely immaterial that the campaign exists for others because it is ended for me.  The only reason it matters if the campaign continues is I know a group of people I may want to interact with are busy during a defined period of time. 

Although it is uncommon for a player group to continue a campaign rather than start something new (or return to something older) when a campaign ends, it is within the power of the group to make that decision -- not any one member no matter his position in the failed game.

A DM does not have the power to end anything other than his involvement -- the same as any other player.  The group decides how the group will continue to use its time.  The group may decide to break up and go separate ways, start a new shared activity, return to a previous shared activity, or continue the current activity with a new DM.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 9, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Your own experience notwithstanding, in most cases a campaign can and will survive the loss of a single player.
> 
> In a case where the setting and game are generic (e.g. a 3e game set in Forgotten Realms), perhaps so.  But if the campaign is set in the original DM's own world and-or uses a rule system unique to that DM, not a chance.
> Context, however, is everything.  If a campaign truly stops and then restarts with new players, those new players still have to deal with whatever history the original players and-or their PCs left behind; as well as develop their own new stories.
> ...




I agree a campaign will usually survive the loss of a player.  That's because a portion of the group is invested in continuing.  If a single player is invested enough to stay with the DM then the DM can say his is continuing the campaign even if he replaces any amount of others.

I've seen homebrew worlds taken other by new DMs -- with and without the original DM's permission -- is it the same campaign?  Certainly not from the perspective of the old DM, but obviously close enough for the continuing players.  I've also seen groups get transported between settings (and sometimes game systems) when the DM reins were transferred.  If the setting is different, but the PCs are the same is it the same campaign or not?  I say it is the same campaign so long as the player group thinks it is.

The context of previous play only matters to those who experienced it.  All (normal) worlds (should) come with history previous to the PCs and events and plotlines should appear in media res.  A DM saying "I had fun with this before; let's have fun with it again" is really the same to the group as "Lets have fun with this" with the added comfort that a member of the group has enjoyed it previously.  The previous investment made by the DM in the campaign trimmings may add to the play experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 9, 2010)

pemerton said:


> My response (not in the sense of rebuttal, but in the sense of what I think is another factor that can be brought to bear to head of the danger that you are pointing to) is to emphasise improvisation - the readiness of the GM to follow the lead of the players, and to construct situations that allow the players to find their own path through them (and, if it comes to it, out of them).
> 
> I'm not sure what best suits a novice GM.




I would agree that flexibility is a good quality in a GM, and that it helps to allow players to make meaningful choices.  I don't know that I would call it another factor, per se, but rather a tangential that allows the earlier factors (1) and (2) to be brought into gameplay during gameplay...and thus, allowing the players and GM to rebalance (1) and (2) as required or desired over the course of a game session.

And I would certainly recommend that to a novice GM!



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 9, 2010)

Nagol said:


> A DM does not have the power to end anything other than his involvement -- the same as any other player.  The group decides how the group will continue to use its time.  The group may decide to break up and go separate ways, start a new shared activity, return to a previous shared activity, or continue the current activity with a new DM.





Agreed.

When I moved from California to Toronto, one of my players took over the current campaign (then focused around the Dungeon of Thale).  I wasn't aware of it at the time, and only discovered it when the magic of the InterWeb allowed contact years later....same players, same characters, same setting, all still running.

It is not the campaign as I would have run it, I feel sure.  The areas that had not been explored were devised by the new GM.  Still, there was continuity for the players, and I am sure my friend did the setting justice.  After all, many years later, still running.


RC


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is not the campaign as I would have run it, I feel sure.  The areas that had not been explored were devised by the new GM.  Still, there was continuity for the players, and I am sure my friend did the setting justice.  After all, many years later, still running.
> 
> 
> RC




That's cool! I wish my players would do something like that, but I know that if I were to leave my campaign or someone else take over, it'd be 1st level characters start all over and do something else. Oh well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 9, 2010)

kitsune9 said:


> That's cool! I wish my players would do something like that, but I know that if I were to leave my campaign or someone else take over, it'd be 1st level characters start all over and do something else. Oh well.




The coolest thing was that it was over two years after I moved that I even found out that the setting was still active in Los Angeles!

There are all sorts of people who are eager to tell you how little power you have.  My player decided that he had the power to make a fun game continue, and he was right.

Jesse, this Guiness is for you!*


RC



* The player in question, and the Beer of Kings.  Well, Crowkings.  You can drink whatever you like.  

And, of course, it really helps to have players who are used to being proactive.  No one used to being led by the nose would have taken that power upon himself!


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How? How did the player improvise that cult member. He asked the DM if there was a cult member in the group. There wasn't until he suggested it and the DM added it. "It is added" by the DM, not by the player. And, there is no obligation for the DM to add that element. At least no rules obligation.
> 
> .





...just curious about your views on something.

In the game I run, I am using an optional rule which allows players to spend Character Points to add plausible elements to the scene.  What is 'plausible' depends on the general consensus of the group.If this scenario where being run, the cult member could possibly be an element the player could add.

Would you feel that would be a case of a player having power at the table?

(Admittedly, the player is limited in this by points whereas the GM is not, but I'm curious of your views on playing this way.)


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2010)

H&W said:
			
		

> There is no power relationship at the table or authority. It's simply a lens you've chosen to see the relationship through.




Well, at the risk of being guilty of a logical fallacy here, there's about a couple of thousand years of political thinkers that would disagree with you.

You insist that any power relationship must be negative and that's entirely on you.

Look, break it down.

A DM, at any point in time, may declare any element in the game to be true.  If he decides that there is a dragon behind that door, then there's a dragon behind that door.  If he decides that the party is attacked by assassins while they're resting at the inn, then they get attacked.  If he decides that the mayor wants to be helpful, then the mayor is helpful.

A player may not at any point in time declare any element in the game, beyond his own character, to be true.  

YOU add the cult member.  Not the player.  The player suggests it, but, you are under no obligation to do so.  The authority rests solely behind the DM's screen.  That authority is placed there by the fact that only the DM may, to use your language, change the code in the game.

The players cannot take any action, beyond simply self contained ones, without the tacit approval of the DM.




Nagol said:


> If I'm no longer involved because I withdrew, it is completely immaterial that the campaign exists for others because it is ended for me.  The only reason it matters if the campaign continues is I know a group of people I may want to interact with are busy during a defined period of time.
> 
> Although it is uncommon for a player group to continue a campaign rather than start something new (or return to something older) when a campaign ends, it is within the power of the group to make that decision -- not any one member no matter his position in the failed game.
> 
> A DM does not have the power to end anything other than his involvement -- the same as any other player.  The group decides how the group will continue to use its time.  The group may decide to break up and go separate ways, start a new shared activity, return to a previous shared activity, or continue the current activity with a new DM.




You assume that the DM leaves.

That's often not the case.  The DM can simply say, "I don't want to run this campaign anymore, I'm not liking it, I want to run this other campaign now."  And, that's what happens.

Whether you as a player no longer participate in the campaign or not has no bearing on whether the campaign continues.  While it is possible for a campaign to switch DM's, it's pretty rare.

I'm still rather bewildered by all this sudden defense of players though.  This is just bizarre.  Normally, I'm the one talking about restricting DM powers, yet, suddenly, everyone is coming out of the woodwork to tell me that DM's are just another player at the table, with no more authority or power than anyone else at the table.

This is weird.

Heck, not that long ago, I argued in favor of the idea that if a DM's only criteria for disallowing a player choice during chargen was that he didn't like the idea, not that there was any other reason, but that he simply didn't like the idea, that he should let the player have his way.  I was resoundly dogpiled for that.  How DARE I suggest that a DM doesn't have absolute authority over his campaign?!?!  Yet, now, apparently, every time a player leaves the table, my campaigns end.  



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> ...just curious about your views on something.
> 
> In the game I run, I am using an optional rule which allows players to spend Character Points to add plausible elements to the scene. What is 'plausible' depends on the general consensus of the group.If this scenario where being run, the cult member could possibly be an element the player could add.
> 
> ...




Love the idea.  I love giving the players more authorial control at the table.  It engages the players to a degree that I find simple reaction doesn't.  

The old James Bond 007 game let you burn something similar to Action Points to add elements to scenes so long as they fit within the general idea of a Bond movie.  So, during a chase scene, a player could have a little old lady walk out into the street to delay the pursuit, or something like that.  

I like these ideas.  I wish D&D allowed more of them as a baseline.  But then, everyone would bitch how D&D is becoming a story game.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> You assume that the DM leaves.
> ...




I am making no assuption as to whether the current DM remains a member of the play group or not.  That is immaterial.  What the DM offers is not tied to what the player group decides to do.  Any person in the group can offer to start something new.  The group decides whether or not to change from current to the new offering.  Typically, in my long-term group, multiple people put forward proposals that the group chooses between when campaigns fold or even prior to the campaign ending and the group decides to pursue those proposals that catch its fancy.

I'l use my long-term group's current situation as an example.

I've been running a D&D campaign for about 6 years.  I took over from a different GM who was running d20 Modern game.  My campaign started as a "fill-in" when the whole group couldn't get together or the DM wasn't prepared to run his game.  Within 6 months, it was the main campaign and the d20 campaign shut down.  The former DM is at the table still.

My campaign is getting a bit stale.  Over the summer, another player suggested running a fill-in Hero-games Traveler-esque campaign to give me a break.  That ran for about 5 months and we picked up the D&D game again.  The group discussed where to go with the D&D campaign and we agreed to the campaign would run at least as far as the completion of the current adventure.  The group expressed interest in wrapping up an overarching "save/damn the world" plotline that could take another 2-3 months.  

At the conclusion of that plotline or earlier, depending on PC success, the campiagn will be reviewed.  I'm expect to present 4 proposals: 

Continue the campaign, but with a different social contract as to PC interaction.
Press the reset button and start D&D 3.5 at first level.  First order of business would be to discuss what optional rules / house rules are in play.
Start a AD&D 1e game for nostalgia's sake.
Play a modern supernatural investigative campaign I've been working on for a few months.

I expect at least one other in the play group will present a different proposal of what the group will do next.  If that proposal is to take over the current D&D campaign and the group accepted, I'd be happy to hand over what notes I have and roll up a character to play in it!

Do I believe I can dictate what the group does? No.  Could I produce a group that played whatever I offered?  Certainly -- but it wouldn't be this group.  Could I dictate what that group did?  Not if I changed the parameters of the initial game offering.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Well, at the risk of being guilty of a logical fallacy here, there's about a couple of thousand years of political thinkers that would disagree with you.
> 
> You insist that any power relationship must be negative and that's entirely on you.



Holding unequal power relationships as negative state of affairs has been one of the reasons for removing DMs from the game.  I agree with you it doesn't have to be so, but it is often used to justify game design rationales for such such purposes.  

And not all political thinkers think in terms of power.  Even thousands of years of historical reasoning can be inaccurate.



> Look, break it down.
> 
> A DM, at any point in time, may declare any element in the game to be true.  If he decides that there is a dragon behind that door, then there's a dragon behind that door.  If he decides that the party is attacked by assassins while they're resting at the inn, then they get attacked.  If he decides that the mayor wants to be helpful, then the mayor is helpful.
> 
> ...



Before play begins a DM sets the code, after that point there is no alteration of it on his or her part.  So any element cannot be added at any time.  A player is the only who can add to that code, not change it. No one is allowed to do that.  

As a referee I am setting the initial configuration as it expands outwards, but it must continue to be a repetition of the code.  No new elements of my own are included beyond this basic, in the known rules, agreement.  The player added the cult member.  I don't believe you are saying I thought it up, but I am under obligation by the rules to include it as it wasn't in the code itself.  I can neither deny it nor ignore it. It must be included.

If you insist in thinking in terms of authority, then the DM only has the authority to respond to player actions with the consequences of those actions according to the code.  The player may attempt any action desired, the results of that action are what the referee responds with. 

It is just as in the game Mastermind, but with a far larger code and complexity.  The player says what order the pegs are on his first turn and and the referee responds with black and white peg answers.  Turns then continue. The referee may not change the code behind the screen.  That is against the rules.  Players can even go back to past actions, in either game, and see the how each turn followed with honest responses once the code is revealed at game end.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This is weird.
> 
> Heck, not that long ago, I argued in favor of the idea that if a DM's only criteria for disallowing a player choice during chargen was that he didn't like the idea, not that there was any other reason, but that he simply didn't like the idea, that he should let the player have his way.  I was resoundly dogpiled for that.  How DARE I suggest that a DM doesn't have absolute authority over his campaign?!?!  Yet, now, apparently, every time a player leaves the table, my campaigns end.



I remember that thread, and share your confusion.



Hussar said:


> I like these ideas.  I wish D&D allowed more of them as a baseline.  But then, everyone would bitch how D&D is becoming a story game.



I'm in two minds (and wasn't the one who posted on them - it was Johnny 3D3D). I like it, but I worry a little bit about rationing it - or at least, I think I prefer that the rationing be siloed from other player resources.

An alternative that I like and that 4e supports is that successful skill checks, especially in a skill challenge, allow the players to explain the success not just by reference to their PC's abilities but by specifying something new about the gameworld that facilitated their success. Or even allow the players to specify something about the gameworld that makes a check with a given skill viable in the circumstances. This still falls on the "GM power" side of the picture you're painting. But I think a distinction can be drawn between de jure authority and de facto authority. Even if the GM has de jure authority, at a given table there can be an understanding about when the GM is, in practice, obliged to accede to player requests/suggestions/stipulations.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 11, 2010)

Nagol said:


> If I'm no longer involved because I withdrew, it is completely immaterial that the campaign exists for others because it is ended for me.  The only reason it matters if the campaign continues is I know a group of people I may want to interact with are busy during a defined period of time.



But the campaign does continue.  From the viewpoint of the game, that's what matters.

Example: I was in a 3e campaign from its founding in 2001 until I dropped out sometime in 2007.  That campaign most certainly did not end at that point and in fact will hit its ten-year anniversary in a few months...and it's still relevant to me as well; though I don't play in it I hear the "media coverage" of what happens from those who do, that campaign is included in our annual awards, and so on.

[MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION] - that business with your LA campaign continuing after you left is just amazing!

Lanefan


----------



## Nagol (Dec 11, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> But the campaign does continue.  From the viewpoint of the game, that's what matters.
> 
> Example: I was in a 3e campaign from its founding in 2001 until I dropped out sometime in 2007.  That campaign most certainly did not end at that point and in fact will hit its ten-year anniversary in a few months...and it's still relevant to me as well; though I don't play in it I hear the "media coverage" of what happens from those who do, that campaign is included in our annual awards, and so on.
> 
> ...




Sure, others may continue playing in the campaign, but it is over and complete so far as those who left.  Sort of a relative viewpoint thing.

Let's assume RC decided to continue his campaign once he reached his new city.  Two years later he hears that his old group continued the campaign.  But that can't be right can it?  The campaigns almost certainly went in different directions with different DMs, different notes, and different players.  How could both claim to be continuing the same campaign?  Relative viewpoint.

RC can claim to continue the campaign because he was involved and is running the same setting with the same history with new PCs.

The old group can claim to continue because they were involved and are running a similar setting with the same known history with original PCs.

If I have a favourite character that I run in campaign A and then I leave campaign, the fate of the character after I leave is not meaningful to me.  If campaign B picks up and allows me to bring in my character, I'll bring it in as it was when I last played it regardless of what may have happened in campaign A.  To me, the campaign existed only so long as my involvement.  It may have existed prior and it may exist after for others, but it didn't impinge my life save for when I was involved.

The DM have no authority other than to direct his own time and accept/limit the involvement of others with that time.  If he offers to run a particular campaign, that's nice and all, but the group and the individual players must decide if to participate.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 11, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I remember that thread, and share your confusion.




I thinlk part of the confusion comes from assigning authority to the DM rather than the group.  

The prospective DM issues a proposal for a game to the group.  That proposal can be as restrictive as suits his fancy.  A group of players forms that wants to participate in activity described by the proposal.

If a member wants something outside the proposal, the DM is certainly in the right to refuse that request as that's not what the gorup agreed to accept.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 12, 2010)

H&"W said:
			
		

> Before play begins a DM sets the code, after that point there is no alteration of it on his or her part. So any element cannot be added at any time. A player is the only who can add to that code, not change it. No one is allowed to do that.




Ok, this is where we part company I think.

For one, the DM in D&D is specifically empowered to change any element of the game he sees fit.  That's the basic definition of Rule 0.  Rule 0 states that all rules are subject to the DM.  So, in this specific case, you are actually factually wrong.  The DM is empowered by the ruleset to have the ability to change the ruleset at any point in time.

Ok, in the attempt to wrap up my involvement in this thread, which is pretty much turning into semantics, I present:

*Hussar's Ten Examples of Where DM's have More Power at the Table than Players*

1.  The Dm creates the world and controls all details within that world other than what the player's characters themselves.

2.  The DM may, at any point in time, lie to the players and give them incorrect information.  In other words, the DM may present red herrings.

3.  If the DM stands up from the table to go to the bathroom, play stops.  Players may go to the bathroom at any time.

4.  A DM is under no obligation to follow the rules when creating scenarios and is actually encouraged to break rules (particularly character generation rules) when creating scenarios.

5.  A DM is under no obligation to show his die rolls.  30 years of DM screen sales proves that.

6.  The DM is specifically empowered by the ruleset to change any die roll result he sees fit.  ((see the AD&D treasure generation rules for example)).

7.  The DM is typically granted the authority to eject any player from the table.

8.  The DM may change and/or ignore rules at any point in time.

9.  A DM may veto any player chargen choice.  Players may not veto DM choices during scenario creation.

10.  Any element which is added to the game during play can only be added with the DM's explicit approval.

11.  (See, I have the power, I can break my own rules  )  No player action may be taken without the DM's permission, beyond purely mental actions I suppose which have no impact on the game world.  A player can't even open a door without the DM's tacit permission.

So, this is my list of how DM's have more power and/or authority at the gaming table.  I would strongly resist any notion of removing the DM from an RPG.  I have zero problem with the DM having this authority, and, I tried to present my list in such a way as to not give any opinion as to whether these powers are a good idea or not.

But, AFAIC, every one of the above is true.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, this is where we part company I think.



Okay. I don't see any point in discussing any further either. I don't agree with a lot of your post, but that's as it is.  Rule 0 is 3.0, but plenty of bad advice was in 2E and some in 1E.  I just game differently. Those aren't my rules and I wouldn't care to game under them myself.  But to each their own.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 12, 2010)

Hang on H&W.  Rule 0 isn't just 3e.  It's in every version of D&D except 4e.  And, I do believe it exists in spirit in the rules in 4e as well.  After all, 4e is pretty fast and loose with letting the DM define pretty much everything about the game.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 1. The Dm creates the world and controls all details within that world other than what the player's characters themselves.
> 
> 3.  If the DM stands up from the table to go to the bathroom, play stops.  Players may go to the bathroom at any time.
> 
> ...



At my table :

(3) does not apply fully, as the players may discuss things among themselves, their PCs may make plans, swap items etc. But action resolution involving NPCs and other gameworld elements that are not under PC control can't happen when I'm not there.

(4) does not apply fully - I take it that I am obliged to follow the 4e encounter-building guidelines. This is the implicity guarantee my players have that the challenges presented are ones that they can meet via their PCs. That said, when it comes to terrain effects and hazards 4e is pretty liberal. So these constraints are mostly relevant to overall encounter levels and the specification of the combat stats and DCs of individual elements that make up encounters.

(6) does not apply - I don't change die rolls for action resolution.

(7) does not apply. New members come into the group via group consensus. I don't remember ever having evicted anyone, but I think that also would have to be via consensus.

(8) does not apply fully - there can be minor house ruling, and as GM I have the greater say and tend to initiate such things more often, but player input counts and there can be (and from time to time has been) negotiation.

(9) does not apply.

(11) does not apply fully. GM permission is required to take actions outside the given mechanical framework of one of each sort of action per turn (subject to conditions like dazed). But as GM I am obliged to follow the guidelines given on p42 of the DMG and its descendants (like the improvisation notes in the RC). And the players know this, and declare actions for their PCs in light of it. The actual DCs and effects of non-standard actions tend to be negotiated between me and the players.​
So the GM has more power, but not (I think) total power. And there is also the distinction between de jure and de facto authority I mentioned above, which is relevant to (1) and (10) in your list.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 13, 2010)

But note Pemerton.  I didn't say that the DM always has to do these things.  I said that a DM COULD do any or all of these things.  For example, in 6, you say you don't change die rolls.  And that's totally your prerogative. 

But you could.  The rules specifically empower you to do so.  Heck, in 1e, the rules actually encouraged you to do so if you rolled wonky stuff on the treasure generation tables.

Whether or not you specifically take advantage of these things is irrelavent.  You are empowered to do so by the rules of the game.  Heck, it's because you are empowered by the rules, that you can choose NOT to do these things.  However, at no point in time can a player do ANY of those things.  The rules do not grant the player the choice of applying these elements or not.  

But, I do COMPLETELY agree with your final statement.  I never said that the DM has total power.  Just the lion's share of it.  Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make all the way along.  This all got started because BOTE talked about the idea that players have equivalent power/authority at the game table.  HowandWhy has also argued that power/authority is equal.

I've agreed that it's not a case where the DM is dictating everything to the players.  That would suck.  But, it is a case where the DM holds pretty much most of the power at the table.  At least, IMO.

Let's put it in the most basic way I can.  At your table, can the following interaction occur:

DM:  There is a door in front of you.
Player:  I open the door and inside there is a 15 by 20 foot room with a chest and a bed against one wall.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Hang on H&W.  Rule 0 isn't just 3e.  It's in every version of D&D except 4e.  And, I do believe it exists in spirit in the rules in 4e as well.  After all, 4e is pretty fast and loose with letting the DM define pretty much everything about the game.



As I said, I disagree.  I don't agree with some of the advice in 1E, almost all in 2E and in 3.0 Rule Zero becomes blatant.  But the original game was written as role playing was understood during those years.  Which is why it was written with a vast amount of "rules" and designed as a pattern finding game.  Rule zero doesn't apply here, though I'll admit it was not clearly indicated.  

One thing I think we can both agree on is the need for good technical writing for most of the hobby's publishing history.



Hussar said:


> HowandWhy has also argued that power/authority is equal.



This may be why we are not communicating clearly with each other.  My point of view is power is a mindset, a construction within our brains.  A code breaking game isn't about power over who can add what, but revealing an underlying order through honest repetition.  Power doesn't come into it.

At my table the players do not play omnipotent gods, but finite sentient beings more or less within the scope of human ability.  So saying what is beyond the door is their option, but that isn't necessarily what will be there.  Unless you believe we always create our world rather than receive it through our senses?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2010)

Hussar, answer to your last question: no, unless the room is the player's PC's house/hide-out/whatever, which the player has introduced into the game via PC backstory.

That is, in my game the GM has overwhelming (although not total) backstory authority. This goes to item (1) in your list.

The 4e rules on fudging dice (item (6) on your list) are a bit vaguely worded (pp 18, 113 of DM's book in the Essentials kit, pp 15, 31 of the DMG) but do suggest the GM enjoys a prerogative to suspend the action resolution rules for monsters/NPCs in the players' favour in extreme circumstances.

But there is no suggestion that the GM should suspend the rules to hurt the players - rather, the encounter can be altered (ie made tougher) on the fly, either by adjusting the monster's/NPC's stats or adding new monsters/NPCs to the encounter (DM's book p 113, DMG p 31). This falls under your item (4) - like I said, 4e has pretty flexible encounter design guidelines, so sticking do them doesn't place a lot of limits on the GM (but it does place some - if you make a monster tougher, for example, or introduce new foes, then you may be changing the level of the enemy/encounter and therefore changing the XP reward to which the players are entitled).

I agree with your items (2) and (5). They are intrinsic to D&D, as a pretty traditional RPG.

I think (7) and (8) are probably the most controversial on your list. Item (7) isn't stated in any 4e rulebook that I can think of, and isn't something that's ever been true of my gaming table. As to (8), Essentials doesn't seem to discuss it. The DMG does, though, on page 189:

Think carefully about the reason for changing or adding a rule. Are you reacting to a persistent problem in your campaign, or to one specific incident? Isolated problems might be better handled in other ways. More important, do the other players agree to the need for a change? You have the authority to do whatever you want with the game, but your efforts won’t help if you have no group.​
There's no denying that that runs your way!


----------



## Hussar (Dec 13, 2010)

HowandWhy - essentially we're saying the same thing.  The players at your table can only engage your game world through their character.  At no point can they engage your game world as a player directly.

However, the DM, at any and all points in time, engages the game world directly.  He is the omnipotent player in the game world.  He declares all elements beyond about 2 inches from each character.  The players may engage those elements as they see fit.  

But, your Mastermind analogy breaks down.  In Mastermind, the Mastermind may not change the code once it is set.  Once he places the pegs in the holes, he may not change anything and he must tell the truth to the player.  A DM, OTOH, can move the pegs at any point in time, can substitute different colors, even those beyond the original four colors and can lie to the players.

The rules of an RPG specifically allow this.  

I think it's absolutely laughable that you're trying to pin this on a 3e mindset that rule 0 wasn't codified or obvious in earlier editions.  Heck, even Basic D&D specifically tells you that there are no rules, only guidelines.  And that's a point that's repeated in the AD&D DMG as well.

Heck, most people argue that 3e takes power away from the DM.  That the DM in earlier editions had even more power over the game than he does in 3e.

You can deny that there is any balance of power at a gaming table all you like H&W, but that doesn't make it true.  The DM can do everything a player can do and more.  The reverse is not true.  There are things the DM has the authority to do that the player does not.

Pemerton - the list I made was half tongue in cheek, but it does make the point rather strongly.  Don't get too wrapped up in the individual examples, but, rather look at it as a whole.  The DM controls most of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Sure, others may continue playing in the campaign, but it is over and complete so far as those who left.  Sort of a relative viewpoint thing.
> 
> Let's assume RC decided to continue his campaign once he reached his new city.  Two years later he hears that his old group continued the campaign.  But that can't be right can it?




Sure it can.  Identity doesn't follow conservation laws.



Hussar said:


> But note Pemerton.  I didn't say that the DM always has to do these things.  I said that a DM COULD do any or all of these things.




And, yet, nothing you have written yet has answered the objections I raised.

The ruleset codifies the expected table rules; the table rules are where the GM actually gains power.  All of the powers the GM gains are explicitly there to allow the GM to empower the players.

End of story.


RC


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> HowandWhy - essentially we're saying the same thing.  The players at your table can only engage your game world through their character.  At no point can they engage your game world as a player directly.



Um, how is that? Because they are players they engage within the scope of a character.  How is this not engaging as a player directly? That's all it is.



> However, the DM, at any and all points in time, engages the game world directly.  He is the omnipotent player in the game world.  He declares all elements beyond about 2 inches from each character.  The players may engage those elements as they see fit.



A referee is not a player, but the one making judgments of the players actions. He doesn't engage in the game world at all. He relates it.



> But, your Mastermind analogy breaks down.  In Mastermind, the Mastermind may not change the code once it is set.  Once he places the pegs in the holes, he may not change anything and he must tell the truth to the player.  A DM, OTOH, can move the pegs at any point in time, can substitute different colors, even those beyond the original four colors and can lie to the players.
> 
> The rules of an RPG specifically allow this.



A DM may change things, but a referee never would.  Only modern day RPGs specifically allow this.  You're reading things into past documents which aren't there.



> I think it's absolutely laughable that you're trying to pin this on a 3e mindset that rule 0 wasn't codified or obvious in earlier editions.  Heck, even Basic D&D specifically tells you that there are no rules, only guidelines.  And that's a point that's repeated in the AD&D DMG as well.



AD&D had some bad advice, as did BD&D.  That was a mistake on the designers part.  But the rules aren't rules, they are guidelines for creating your own code.  The guidelines as published are not mandatory (though AD&D tried to make them so with "real D&D" and all).



> Heck, most people argue that 3e takes power away from the DM.  That the DM in earlier editions had even more power over the game than he does in 3e.



Clearly I don't agree with these most people.  3.0 has rule zero where the others did not.  That's hardly taking power away.  In fact, I'd say it is questionably even a game with such a rule.



> You can deny that there is any balance of power at a gaming table all you like H&W, but that doesn't make it true.  The DM can do everything a player can do and more.  The reverse is not true.  There are things the DM has the authority to do that the player does not.



Please refrain from demanding any one else accept your absolute truths. Religion is banned on these boards. 

The referee never plays a character or the game, only the players do that.  The guy behind the screen sets the code prior to play and judges the player's actions, clarifying when necessary.  The players are the only ones who take actions in the game. The ref simply relays results. He cannot do what the players do. Imagine playing Mastermind against yourself, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2010)

So, in your mind, the DM or referee, is simply a computer passively reacting to whatever input the players put forward?

But, this:



			
				H&W said:
			
		

> A DM may change things, but a referee never would. Only modern day RPGs specifically allow this. You're reading things into past documents which aren't there.




and this:



			
				H&W said:
			
		

> AD&D had some bad advice, as did BD&D. That was a mistake on the designers part. But the rules aren't rules, they are guidelines for creating your own code. The guidelines as published are not mandatory (though AD&D tried to make them so with "real D&D" and all).




are specifically at odds with eachother.  Rule 0 most certainly DID exist in every edition of D&D.  It's in the first few pages of every single DMG save possibly the 4e one, which, while it doesn't specifically say that there are no rules, only guidelines, still allows a great deal of flex for what the DM can do.

Rule 0 simply states that all rules are guidelines.  That's what Rule 0 IS.  Since you admit that all rules are guidelines is an element of all versions of D&D, therefore, all versions of D&D have Rule 0.

The eleven elements I listed above are not edition dependent.  A DM is granted that authority in EVERY edition.

Ok, we're not going to agree on this.  You have a definition of role playing game that is at odds with pretty much any accepted definition and now you're trying to argue based on a definition that only you hold.  This is not going to go anywhere.  Let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 14, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Sure, others may continue playing in the campaign, but it is over and complete so far as those who left.  Sort of a relative viewpoint thing.



I don't care about the viewpoint of someone - let's say me - who has left.  The only viewpoint that matters as to whether the campaign still exists is that of the campaign itself.  Is the campaign still going?  Yes?  Then it's still going.

Whether I'm still in it or not.



> Let's assume RC decided to continue his campaign once he reached his new city.  Two years later he hears that his old group continued the campaign.  But that can't be right can it?  The campaigns almost certainly went in different directions with different DMs, different notes, and different players.  How could both claim to be continuing the same campaign?  Relative viewpoint.
> 
> RC can claim to continue the campaign because he was involved and is running the same setting with the same history with new PCs.
> 
> The old group can claim to continue because they were involved and are running a similar setting with the same known history with original PCs.



It'd be a recordkeeper's nightmare and the headache to end all headaches for both DMs involved, but the split campaigns *could* be considered to be one, with actions and events from one potentially affecting the other.


> If I have a favourite character that I run in campaign A and then I leave campaign, the fate of the character after I leave is not meaningful to me.  If campaign B picks up and allows me to bring in my character, I'll bring it in as it was when I last played it regardless of what may have happened in campaign A.  To me, the campaign existed only so long as my involvement.  It may have existed prior and it may exist after for others, but it didn't impinge my life save for when I was involved.



How can I explain that a campaign is more than just you-as-player?

While you're out the campaign might not exist *for you*, but from a broader viewpoint (i.e. that of the campaign itself) it does still exist as long as others remain to play and-or DM it.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 14, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> A referee is not a player, but the one making judgments of the players actions. He doesn't engage in the game world at all. He relates it.
> 
> A DM may change things, but a referee never would.  Only modern day RPGs specifically allow this.  You're reading things into past documents which aren't there.



To put this in programming terms, if I'm reading you right you're saying a DM writes the code and then a referee processes it.

Yet when I sit behind the screen I'm both at once.



> AD&D had some bad advice, as did BD&D.  That was a mistake on the designers part.  But the rules aren't rules, they are guidelines for creating your own code.  The guidelines as published are not mandatory (though AD&D tried to make them so with "real D&D" and all).
> 
> Clearly I don't agree with these most people.  3.0 has rule zero where the others did not.  That's hardly taking power away.  In fact, I'd say it is questionably even a game with such a rule.



4e has page 42.

Also, just because a designer wrote something in a book doesn't make it true, or correct, or anything other than one person's idea as to how something should work.  You as DM have the power to change what's written to suit your own sensibilities, and you as referee have the power to process it any old way you like.

And as both you have the power to do either of these things at any time - including on the fly in mid-session - provided you keep in mind that with power comes responsibility, in this case being to make sure your changes are for the betterment of the game you're playing and have been thought through far enough to forsee and correct any potential headaches they may cause. 

In other news, you said this...


> The referee never plays a character or the game, only the players do that.  The guy behind the screen sets the code prior to play and judges the player's actions, clarifying when necessary.  The players are the only ones who take actions in the game. The ref simply relays results. He cannot do what the players do. Imagine playing Mastermind against yourself, it's ridiculous.



...immediately after saying this:







> Please refrain from demanding any one else accept your absolute truths. Religion is banned on these boards.



The irony is not lost on me.

D+D is not Mastermind, and in D+D the "referee" can in many ways take actions; either through non-party NPCs, in-party NPCs, game-world events, or whatever.  In D+D the hidden information *can* change as you go along, sometimes as a direct result of player actions whether intentional or not.  And the players can sometimes change the rules or parameters - to continue the Mastermind analogy, they could force 5 pegs into 4 holes - and the DM has to be able to roll with it.

A computer - which is what your idea of a referee reminds me of - can't do that.

Lanefan


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 14, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> snip....are specifically at odds with eachother.  Rule 0 most certainly DID exist in every edition of D&D.  It's in the first few pages of every single DMG save possibly the 4e one, which, while it doesn't specifically say that there are no rules, only guidelines, still allows a great deal of flex for what the DM can do.
> 
> Rule 0 simply states that all rules are guidelines.  That's what Rule 0 IS.  Since you admit that all rules are guidelines is an element of all versions of D&D, therefore, all versions of D&D have Rule 0.



Not all rules are guidelines, just the vast majority of "rules" ever published and meant to be hidden behind the screen.  ..which makes them not rules at all, social agreements amongst players.  Neither is rule zero in every game of D&D, it is a 3.0 publishing term.  



> The eleven elements I listed above are not edition dependent.  A DM is granted that authority in EVERY edition.
> 
> Ok, we're not going to agree on this.  You have a definition of role playing game that is at odds with pretty much any accepted definition and now you're trying to argue based on a definition that only you hold.  This is not going to go anywhere.  Let's just agree to disagree.



It's the understood definition of role playing for multiple decades up through the early eighties.  Your eleven elements are hardly without dispute and attempting to single out my opinion as abnormal is unappreciated. But I will agree to disagree.



Lanefan said:


> To put this in programming terms, if I'm reading you right you're saying a DM writes the code and then a referee processes it.
> 
> Yet when I sit behind the screen I'm both at once.
> 
> 4e has page 42.



Yes, page 42 is a broken rule in any game.  Think if a referee in football could add 5-10 yards to any play without explanation.  I like one player or team, so they always get +2, not another so they always get -2. This has been pointed out as poor game design since the game was published.

The DM sets the code before play, but not the objective or scope. They then referee as the interpreter of player's responses within that scope once play begins. These are rules known to all players and not not uncommon in D&D play prior to the 90's.  The DMs at the time may not have known why they were running the game as such, but it's why there is a DM shield. 



> Also, just because a designer wrote something in a book doesn't make it true, or correct, or anything other than one person's idea as to how something should work.  You as DM have the power to change what's written to suit your own sensibilities, and you as referee have the power to process it any old way you like.



This isn't about true in the world other than consistent in the brain of the referee.  It's the expression of the repetition of a pattern.  I disagree the DM has the so-called authority to change that code once play begins.



> In other news, you said this...
> ...immediately after saying this:The irony is not lost on me.
> 
> D+D is not Mastermind, and in D+D the "referee" can in many ways take actions; either through non-party NPCs, in-party NPCs, game-world events, or whatever.  In D+D the hidden information *can* change as you go along, sometimes as a direct result of player actions whether intentional or not.  And the players can sometimes change the rules or parameters - to continue the Mastermind analogy, they could force 5 pegs into 4 holes - and the DM has to be able to roll with it.
> ...



A person isn't as simplistic as any computer I've heard of. But a DM can take in information irrelevant to the game and incorporate that into it.  That is the "irrelevant, so yes" rule.  I disagree D&D is not a play on the game Mastermind. That's the type of game it was designed to be.

The irony of defending a disputed opinion as appearing zealous isn't lost on me either. I'm open to other ideas. I hold many opposing ones and am comfortable with it. This isn't a discussion to say "this is THE way", only one option.  I don't think any are necessarily wrong, but I understand others as saying this particular point of view is.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 15, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> Yes, page 42 is a broken rule in any game.  Think if a referee in football could add 5-10 yards to any play without explanation.  I like one player or team, so they always get +2, not another so they always get -2.



Maybe the way I play D&D doesn't count as a game (by your criteria), but in my view page 42 is crucial to making 4e a successful RPG. It gives the GM the tools to create challenges and adjudicate action resolution without worrying about challenges being too hard or too easy to generate interesting play. (It is the functional equivalent, in 4e, to the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest). It makes open-ended scene framing possible, by making improvisaiton of game elements and of action resolution easy.

As for +2/-2 without explanation - at least at my table, the explanation will be given. Sometimes it will be an ingame explanation, sometimes a metagame explanation. The second sort of explanation is, perhaps, at odds with "referee as code applier", but that's not how I approach GMing. (As my posts on this and similar threads have made pretty clear, I hope.)


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 15, 2010)

pemerton said:


> ... in my view page 42 is crucial to making 4e a successful RPG ...



I'll take it a step further:

Page 42's equivalent in any RPG is crucial to making it a successful RPG.

While it may be possible (though utterly impractical) to pre-program a rule or outcome for every conceivable action or combination of actions, it is impossible to pre-program for those actions deemed inconceivable by the designers yet thought of by the players and-or DM in reasonable context.  That's where rules become guidelines, DMs make stuff up on the fly, and the game goes on. 

Lan-"rule structures work better when they can bend before they break"-efan


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 16, 2010)

What is this page 42 you all speak of?
In a nutshell, what exactly is this rule?




pemerton said:


> Maybe the way I play D&D doesn't count as a game (by your criteria), but in my view page 42 is crucial to making 4e a successful RPG. It gives the GM the tools to create challenges and adjudicate action resolution without worrying about challenges being too hard or too easy to generate interesting play. (It is the functional equivalent, in 4e, to the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest). It makes open-ended scene framing possible, by making improvisaiton of game elements and of action resolution easy.
> 
> As for +2/-2 without explanation - at least at my table, the explanation will be given. Sometimes it will be an ingame explanation, sometimes a metagame explanation. The second sort of explanation is, perhaps, at odds with "referee as code applier", but that's not how I approach GMing. (As my posts on this and similar threads have made pretty clear, I hope.)


----------



## steenan (Dec 16, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Page 42's equivalent in any RPG is crucial to making it a successful RPG.




I disagree.
This kind of rule is nearly necessary in each game where the system simulates the setting, because you cannot predict and describe everything what could happen in game and you have to make some simplifications. 

It is not necessary in games with abstract systems. Even more: this kind of fuzziness is actively detrimental in many cases. *Dogs in the Vineyard* and *Polaris *are perfect examples of games that are playable by RAW and have nothing similar to "page 42" or "rule 0".


----------



## Thasmodious (Dec 16, 2010)

Sorrowdusk said:


> What is this page 42 you all speak of?
> In a nutshell, what exactly is this rule?




In the 4e DMG, on page 42, is a table, broken down by level, for coming up with level appropriate DCs and damage amounts for adjudicating situations on the fly.  For example, a PC wants to shoot the rope holding up a chandelier, so said chandelier falls on his enemies head.  The table would give level appropriate DC for the shot and appropriate damage to occur to the enemy if successful.  These expressions are further broken down by difficulty and degree of damage.  It's just a handy chart to keep improvisation level appropriate and to help the DM handle weird situations on the fly rather than trying to find obscure rules for every situation.  Page 42 also includes the "DMs Best Friend" - the +2/-2 circumstance modifier.


----------



## Steelwill (Dec 16, 2010)

I don't think this needs to be so one way or the other as these debates often polarize into.  Railroading is only bad if it is noticeable, which if it is, means that at some point the player's have been made to feel dragged along for the ride or powerless in the process and creation of the story.  However, there are some players who won't have an answer when asked,"What do you want to do?" so having a default plan of action in those instances means the game doesn't shut down while they figure it out.  

The story has to be adaptable enough to tolerate these situations.  The player's and the DM take turns holding the reigns of the story's direction, which IMO is what is great about tabletop RPG's, it is an exercise in story and world co-creation for everyone at the table.  Sometimes it will be more the product of the DM, sometimes more of the player's, ideally equal or close parts of both. My 2 cents.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2010)

steenan said:


> I disagree.
> This kind of rule is nearly necessary in each game where the system simulates the setting, because you cannot predict and describe everything what could happen in game and you have to make some simplifications.
> 
> It is not necessary in games with abstract systems. Even more: this kind of fuzziness is actively detrimental in many cases. *Dogs in the Vineyard* and *Polaris *are perfect examples of games that are playable by RAW and have nothing similar to "page 42" or "rule 0".




I think you could argue that a lot of the less heavily structured games have a "page 42" or a "Rule 0" built right into the rules.  After all, these abstract resolution systems generally require the players and the DM to mold the mechanics to the situation every time a resolution is needed.  

In other words, because the rules are so abstract, they simply adapt to the situation, rather than the other way around.  In a more structured system, elements like Rule 0 or Page 42 have to be specifically called out in order to give enough flexibility into the system to deal with actual play.

There's strengths and weaknesses in both approaches.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 16, 2010)

Steelwill said:


> I don't think this needs to be so one way or the other as these debates often polarize into.  Railroading is only bad if it is noticeable, which if it is, means that at some point the player's have been made to feel dragged along for the ride or powerless in the process and creation of the story.  However, there are some players who won't have an answer when asked,"What do you want to do?" so having a default plan of action in those instances means the game doesn't shut down while they figure it out.
> 
> The story has to be adaptable enough to tolerate these situations.  The player's and the DM take turns holding the reigns of the story's direction, which IMO is what is great about tabletop RPG's, it is an exercise in story and world co-creation for everyone at the table.  Sometimes it will be more the product of the DM, sometimes more of the player's, ideally equal or close parts of both. My 2 cents.




I would argue (again) that a more linear model need not imply a railroad, just as a more sandbox-y model need not imply what Celebrim calls a "rowboat scenario".

Players making the choices the GM hopes they would make:  Not a railroad.

Players making choices, and the GM secretly switching the outcome so that they are the same as if the players made other choices (illusion of choice):  Railroad.  And, if (I would suggest that my experience mandates "When" instead of "If" here) the players find out, there may be (and, again, my experience suggests "Will be") some grievances aired.

Players allowed only to make the choices the GM has foreseen:  Railroad.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think you could argue that a lot of the less heavily structured games have a "page 42" or a "Rule 0" built right into the rules.  After all, these abstract resolution systems generally require the players and the DM to mold the mechanics to the situation every time a resolution is needed.
> 
> In other words, because the rules are so abstract, they simply adapt to the situation, rather than the other way around.  In a more structured system, elements like Rule 0 or Page 42 have to be specifically called out in order to give enough flexibility into the system to deal with actual play.
> 
> There's strengths and weaknesses in both approaches.




I agree.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree.




REPENT!  REPENT!  THE END DAYS ARE HERE!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> REPENT!  REPENT!  THE END DAYS ARE HERE!




Possibly.....  

But, when I think you're right, I certainly don't hesitate to say so.  

Nor, to be honest, do I think you hesitate to do so on those weird occasions when our opinions intersect.  

I mean, how can you _*not*_ point out such an oddity?  


RC


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2010)

steenan said:


> This kind of rule is nearly necessary in each game where the system simulates the setting, because you cannot predict and describe everything what could happen in game and you have to make some simplifications.
> 
> It is not necessary in games with abstract systems. Even more: this kind of fuzziness is actively detrimental in many cases. *Dogs in the Vineyard* and *Polaris *are perfect examples of games that are playable by RAW and have nothing similar to "page 42" or "rule 0".



I don't think page 42 has anything in common with rule 0.

I agree that good games don't have a rule 0 - if the rules work, there is no need to suspend them. (The issue of the GM having permission to include/exclude certain particular game elements, like certain PC races, is mostly orthogonal to this - it becomes more prominent in D&D than other games because of D&D's huge laundry list of possible game elements.)

Page 42, on the other hand, is _not_ a permission to the GM to suspend the rules of the game. Rather, it is precisely a version of the sort of abstract action resolution system that one has in modern games. Also, particular features of it - like DCs for different difficulties, and a range of damage expressions that may be chosen from - are 4e's version of the pass/fail cycle from HeroQuest.

So far from _distinguishing_ 4e from modern games, page 42 makes 4e an example, or close to, of such a game. (The most obvious thing that's missing is a version of Burning Wheel's "Let it Ride" rule - which means that in 4e it's always a bit ambiguous how much "check mongering" by players or GMs is permitted. I treat skill challenges as the canonical alternative to check mongering, but the rules could be better on this.)


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2010)

Pemerton - I go the other way on this.  The whole point of Rule 0 (although it has been used for other things) is to allow flexibility into the system.  At it's most basic, it says that what you and your group decides is probably best for you and there's no way a game designer can cover every possible eventuality.

4e's page 42 is a more codified Rule 0 based on experience with the system.  After all, most of the time in earlier editions, "Cast the Action as a Check" (4e DMG p42) is pretty much exactly what happened.  No rules for jumping?  Ok, roll a save vs paralyzation.  The DC is low enough that it's about right for this kind of jump.

Page 42 simply codifies those checks into a reasonable range that most groups would probably stumble across on their own through trial and error.  It's revolutionary in that it's an actual codification, but, it's not really that new because experienced groups have been doing this for some time.

For a new group though, particularly new players to RPG's, this saves all that messy trial and error (and a LOT of ridiculous arguments if you sat at my table ).


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2010)

Hussar, I think the difference between page 42 and earlier versions of "rule 0" or "just make stuff up" is that page 42 sets a DC and a damage number such that, _if_ the player makes the roll, _then_ the damage is dealt - and the damage is a meaningful amount for an attack action at the level in question. So it no longer leaves the effectiveness of the player's improvised action to the hostage of the GM's mechanical whims (in the sort of fashion that you've talked about in other posts).

Now generalising page 42 beyond combat actions to other sorts of actions, where resolution is not damage but some other less quantified change in the game state, is non-trivial. This is what skill challenges are for, and I'm one of those who thinks that the rules for these continue to be undeveloped compared to other games like HeroQuest or The Dying Earth. But even with skill challenges as written, there's the idea that _all the player has to do_ to achieve a certain result in the gameworld is achieve a certain number of successful skill checks.

The GM can of course still stuff it up by GMing the challenge badly, or (even worse) by ignoring the result of the challenge once the encounter is over (eg the NPC betrays the PCs even though the players won the negotiation skill challenge). Still, by D&D standards I think this is pretty revolutionary stuff, given the extent to which it codifies the capacity of the players to affect the gameworld via improvised actions. It leaves the GM still with the responsibility to actually narrate the gameworld in response to what the players have their PCs do, but takes the actual mechanical resolution out of the realm of GM whim (and, hence, GM thwarting/railroading).

Rule zero has never done anything like this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Pemerton - I go the other way on this.  The whole point of Rule 0 (although it has been used for other things) is to allow flexibility into the system.  At it's most basic, it says that what you and your group decides is probably best for you and there's no way a game designer can cover every possible eventuality.




Agreed.  This is, IMHO, absolutely correct.



pemerton said:


> Hussar, I think the difference between page 42 and earlier versions of "rule 0" or "just make stuff up" is that page 42 sets a DC and a damage number such that, _if_ the player makes the roll, _then_ the damage is dealt - and the damage is a meaningful amount for an attack action at the level in question. So it no longer leaves the effectiveness of the player's improvised action to the hostage of the GM's mechanical whims (in the sort of fashion that you've talked about in other posts).




Which makes Page 42 more useful in a particular set of circumstances, but less useful overall than the implied Rule 0 (or the actual Rule 0 in games with that sort of construction).


RC


----------



## Hussar (Dec 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Agreed.  This is, IMHO, absolutely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, yes and no.  Personally, I think the strength far outweighs the weakness in this case.  IMO, the place where DM's are most likely to start bringing up Rule 0 (or its equivalent) is either in combat or in some sort of physical or mental test.  A skill check by any other name.

Yes, there will be times when Rule 0 gets invoked that don't involve some sort of mechanical resolution, but, I think that those will be in a small minority.

The strength of Page 42 is that the DM now has a fairly transparent window into the guts of the system and can make a much more educated decision about how difficult something should be.  I think to a large degree, this is just going to skip over the growing pains that a new DM will likely suffer before finding the range (easy to difficult) on his own.

And, why not?  After this much time, we should have a pretty good handle on how difficult something should be and still be fun.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 19, 2010)

I think page 42 is a good thing.  However, I don't feel that it is the end-all be-all of DMing like some people seem to feel it is.  It's an ok guideline, but there have been a few times when I was first learning D&D 4E that I felt it created more problems than it fixed.  (In particular, there were some improvised actions which turned out to be better than using powers.)

I'm drifting though...  I suppose my point is that I feel page 42 is a good idea, but I am not entirely convinced of the quality of the implementation of that idea nor do I necessarily feel that the idea fits together with the rest of the system in a manner which is satisfactory to me.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 19, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Which makes Page 42 more useful in a particular set of circumstances, but less useful overall than the implied Rule 0 (or the actual Rule 0 in games with that sort of construction).



The point of rule 0 is: we can't possibly cover every contingency nearly as well as a good DM can.

The point of page 42 is: Sure we can, heck we don't even need more than one page to do it.


People love it and people hate it.  The thing is, they are both right.  And the only time there is a problem is when someone who hates page 42 tries to play a game built around the philosophy that page 42 is founded upon.  (Or someone who exclusively loves page 42 tries to play a game that denies that philosophy)


----------



## BryonD (Dec 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The strength of Page 42 is that the DM now has a fairly transparent window into the guts of the system and can make a much more educated decision about how difficult something should be.  I think to a large degree, this is just going to skip over the growing pains that a new DM will likely suffer before finding the range (easy to difficult) on his own.
> 
> And, why not?  After this much time, we should have a pretty good handle on how difficult something should be and still be fun.



I agree with this.  
It is great for new DMs and when they are ready to move on, then the option to do that is ready.

I'm quite certain that history proves you can come up through the growing pains and end up no longer a "new DM".   But there is more than one path to a destination, and finding better ways to get there is a good thing.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2010)

BryonD said:


> The point of rule 0 is: we can't possibly cover every contingency nearly as well as a good DM can.
> 
> The point of page 42 is: Sure we can, heck we don't even need more than one page to do it.



I agree with this, except for the implication that page 42 is a substitute for, as opposed to a contributor to, good GMing. The number of problematic skill challenge threads posted on this website is enough to persuade me that poor or middling GMs don't do page 42 particularly better than they do any other parts of the game.



BryonD said:


> It is great for new DMs and when they are ready to move on, then the option to do that is ready.



And obviously I disagree with this "move on" thing.

Page 42 is aimed at a very different sort of play experience from rule zero. Like I've posted upthread, it is 4e's analogue to HeroQuest's pass/fail cycle. But the idea that 4e or HeroQuest are inferior games from which one eventually "moves on" (to 3E? Classic Traveller? Runequest? Rolemaster? I've got a pretty good handle on these games, and don't feel any great pressure to move onto them - I personally feel more like I've moved on from them) isn't one to which I subscribe.

The sort of game I want to run these days is not an exploration game, but a game in which the action resolution mechanics, both combat and non-combat, are _simply via their application_ pretty much guaranteed to yield a non-predetermined but nevertheless engaging story experience. Page 42, by giveing the numbers that generate challenges at the right level of difficulty and complexity, is a crucial part of this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2010)

BryonD said:


> The point of rule 0 is: we can't possibly cover every contingency nearly as well as a good DM can.
> 
> The point of page 42 is: Sure we can, heck we don't even need more than one page to do it.




Perhaps, but if so, the evidence isn't there.  Page 42 cannot cover every contingency nearly as well as a good GM can.



Hussar said:


> IMO, the place where DM's are most likely to start bringing up Rule 0 (or its equivalent) is either in combat or in some sort of physical or mental test.  A skill check by any other name.




My experience varies.

I agree with you that it is nice to have "a fairly transparent window into the guts of the system" to "make a much more educated decision about how difficult something should be."

I disagree that this somehow means Rule 0 isn't a necessity.  Yes, Page 42 is designed to make GM rulings easier; No, Page 42 is not the be-all-and-end-all of doing so, nor does it make GM rulings go away.



pemerton said:


> I agree with this, except for the implication that page 42 is a substitute for, as opposed to a contributor to, good GMing. The number of problematic skill challenge threads posted on this website is enough to persuade me that poor or middling GMs don't do page 42 particularly better than they do any other parts of the game.




Agree.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Dec 20, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> I disagree that this somehow means Rule 0 isn't a necessity. Yes, Page 42 is designed to make GM rulings easier; No, Page 42 is not the be-all-and-end-all of doing so, nor does it make GM rulings go away.




Oh, totally.  And it shouldn't.

What it should do is stop (or at least give DM's pause) DM's from making really egregious errors when making rulings.  In either direction really - either too far in favour of the players (thus making things too easy or (probably more likely IME) too restrictive and thus making it so that players never try anything creative because they know that anything creative they try will almost always be less effective than just doing the rules stuff.

Like Pemerton, I also disagree that this is some sort of "training wheels" that good DM's will outgrow.  I think this is just good game design.  Leaving it for DM's to discover has led to far, far more bad gaming than any Page 42 will.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2010)

Hussar, why are you making posts I agree with?  Is this really the End of Days?


----------

